Archive for December 2015

Remembering the Holodomor and other hidden atrocities

When Ukraine resisted Soviet attempts at collectivization in the 1920s and ’30s, the Soviet Union under Stalin used labor camps, executions, and starvation (Holodomor) to kill millions of Ukrainians.
In 1933, the recently elected administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt granted official U.S. recognition to the Soviet Union for the first time. Especially repugnant was that this recognition was granted even though Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin had just concluded a campaign of genocide against Ukraine that left over 10 million dead. This atrocity was known to the Roosevelt administration, but not to the American people at large, thanks to suppression of the story by the Western press — as we shall show.
Ukraine’s Untold Tragedy
The Ukrainian genocide remains largely unknown. After 76 years, the blood of the victims still cries for truth, and the guilt of the perpetrators for exposure.
Many Americans are barely acquainted with Ukraine, even though it is Europe’s second largest country after Russia, and has been a distinct land and people for centuries. One reason for this unfamiliarity is that Ukraine has rarely known political independence; it was under Russia’s heel throughout much of its existence — under Soviet domination prior to 1991, and under Czarist Russia before that. Many American students heard little or nothing of Ukraine in their history classes because the nation had been relegated to the status of a Russian “province.”
Stalin accomplished genocide against Ukraine by two means. One was massive executions and deportations to labor camps. But his second tool of murder was more unique: an artificial famine created by confiscation of all food. Ukrainians call this the Holodomor, translated by one modern Ukrainian dictionary as “artificial hunger, organized on a vast scale by the criminal regime against the country’s population,” but often simply translated as “murder by hunger.”
Ukraine was the last place one would have expected famine, for it had been known for centuries as the “breadbasket of Europe.” French diplomat Blaise de Vigenère wrote in 1573: “Ukraine is overflowing with honey and wax…. The soil of this country is so good and fertile that when you leave a plow in the field, it becomes overgrown with grass after two or three days. It will be difficult to find.” The 18th-century British traveler Joseph Marshall wrote: “The Ukraine is the richest province of the Russian empire…. The soil is a black loam…. I think I have never seen such deep plowing as these peasants give their ground.”
In the aftermath of the 1917 Russian Revolution, Ukraine became part of a bloody battlefield of fighting between the Bolsheviks (the group that eventually became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union), Czarist Whites, and Ukrainian nationalists. Ultimately, of course, the Bolsheviks prevailed, but Lenin shrewdly recognized that concessions would be necessary to gain Ukraine’s cooperation as a member of the unstable young USSR. To exploit Ukrainians’ long-standing resentment of Czarist domination, he permitted them to retain much of their national culture. Ukrainians experienced a relatively high degree of freedom extending into the mid-1920s. The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church and non-communist Ukrainian Academy of Sciences were allowed to operate independently. However, as the Soviet Union consolidated its power, and Joseph Stalin ascended to the party’s top, these freedoms became expendable, and Ukrainian nationalism, at first exploited, now became viewed as a liability.
Coerced Collectivization
Despite a communist push for collectivization, Ukraine’s farms had mostly remained private — the foundation of their success. But in 1929, the Central Committee of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party decided to embark on a program of total collectivization. Private farms were to be completely replaced by collectives — in Ukraine known as kolkhozes. This was, of course, consistent with Marxist ideology: the Communist Manifesto had called for abolition of private property.
Intense pressure was placed upon Ukrainian peasants to join the kolkhozes. Twenty-five thousand fanatical young communists from the USSR’s cities were sent to Ukraine to compel the transition. These became known as the Twenty-Five Thousanders; each was assigned a particular locality, and was accompanied by a weapons-bearing communist entourage, including members of the GPU (secret police, forerunner of the KGB). A communist commission was established in each village.
Holodomor survivor Miron Dolot, in his book Execution by Hunger, describes what happened soon after a commission was started in his village by its Twenty-Five Thousander, Comrade Zeitlin:
We did not have to wait too long for Comrade Zeitlin’s strategy to reveal itself. The first incident occurred very early on a cold January morning in 1930 while people in our village were still asleep. Fifteen villagers were arrested, and someone said that the Checkists [GPU] had arrived in the village at midnight….
The most prominent villagers were among those arrested…. This was frightening. Our official leadership had been taken away in one night. The farmers, mostly illiterate and ignorant, were thereby left much more defenseless.
The leaders of Dolot’s village were never seen again.

End of quote.

I find it interesting that the real mass executions such as the Holodomor in Ukraine which saw 10M Ukrainians killed – or today’s slaughter of the Palestinians and the current widespread executions in Ukraine – are suppressed whereas the mythical slaughter of 6M Jews by Hitler’s National Socialists during WWII is glorified and the exposure of which is illegal in many countries. This fact alone tells you who runs our world. And in good satanic tradition, the truth is inverted, the perpetrators being painted as the victims, generating gentile guilt.

I am not arguing that there have not been cases of so-called pogroms, which saw Jews killed in Europe, which I do not condone; however, we need to be careful, as with the above examples, to not take the reports in the press to convey an accurate picture. For example, Henry Ford documented one such pogrom in Poland (see The International Jew, article of 5 February, 1921):

It seems a far cry from the Jewish Question in the United States to the same question in Poland, but inasmuch as the Jews of the United States are constantly referring to Poland for propaganda purposes, inasmuch as there are 250,000 Polish Jews arriving in the United States on a schedule made by their brethren here, and inasmuch as the people of Poland have had their own illuminating experience with the World Program, it would seem that Poland has something to teach the United States in this respect.

Especially is this true since it is impossible to pick up an American newspaper without finding traces of Jewish anti-Polish propaganda — a propaganda which is designed to take our eyes away from the thing that is transpiring at the Port of New York. If a reader of these articles should say, “Let us not think about Poland, let us think about the United States,” the answer is that he is already thinking about Poland the way the Jews of the United States want him to think, and the fact that he is thinking according to Jewish wishes in this respect incapacitates him up to a certain point to understand the entire Jewish Question in this country.

Three chapters back in this series we presented part of a hearing before the United States Senate committee on the census question as it affected the Jew. The immigration question appeared as part of that inquiry. Then followed an article which showed that Jewish authorities adopt principles exactly opposite to those which had been defended before the United States Senators. A third article followed showing how Jewish leaders resent the influence of the modern State upon Judaism. All these subjects are essential to a well-rounded understanding of the Jewish Question as a whole in its relation to the United States.

Today we go back to the home of that quarter of a million people who are rapidly being landed on our shores to see what they did there, and to find the basis for Jewish propaganda statements that these people are fleeing from “persecution.”

We have five official witnesses whose observations have been printed under the seals of the United States and the British governments. The American document is a “Message from the President of the United States, transmitting pursuant to a State Resolution of October 28, 1919, a communication from the Secretary of State submitting a report by the Honorable Henry Morgenthau on the work of The Mission of the United States to Poland.” It is Senate Document No. 177.

This document includes also a supplementary report signed by Brigadier-General Edgar Jadwin, United States Army.

There is a certain mystery about this document. Though an edition was printed for public circulation, it soon became extremely rare. It seemed to disappear almost overnight. The copy from which this present examination is made was secured with the utmost difficulty. The head of that American Mission, which remained in Poland from July 13 to September 13, 1919, was Henry Morgenthau, an American Jew, who had been United States Minister to Turkey, a man of excellent public and private reputation.

It is commonly said that the Jews did not like his report, hence its scarcity. This much appears: The Jewish press has never made much of it; it is not cited in Jewish propaganda; it has not had the endorsement of American Jewry. The reason appears to be this — that it told the calm truth about the situation of the Jews in Poland and made very fair observations.

But it is indirectly that the American Jews show the opinion which they hold of the Morgenthau report, and it comes about in this way: When the American Mission left Poland, the British Mission arrived, and remained until December. The chief member of the British Mission was an English Jew, Sir Stuart Samuel, whose brother Herbert is now High Commissioner of Palestine. He was accompanied by a British military officer, Captain P. Wright, who also submitted a supplementary report. The two reports were submitted with an introductory report by Sir H. Rumbold, British representative at Warsaw.

Now, of all five reports, the Morganthau, Samuel, Jadwin, Wright and Rumbold reports, the Jews of the United States have circulated only one — The Samuel report. It has been printed in full in newspapers at advertising rates; it has been circulated broadcast as an American Jewish Congress Bulletin. Any number of Samuel reports may be obtained, but none of the report which a member of the American diplomatic service made and which the President of the United States transmitted as a Message to the Senate.

Why? Because four reports examined the situation all around and reported it without bias, and if they were printed in the United States and spread broadcast before the people, it would throw an entirely different light on the Jewish propaganda in favor of Polish immigration in enormous numbers.

Even when the Jews of the United States published the Samuel report, they did not publish the Captain Wright report which accompanied it. In the American Jewish Congress Bulletin, the Wright report was condensed, mutilated, and shorn of its real meaning; while in the Maccabaean, the reports of Rumbold and Wright are treated without courtesy and the Samuel report published in full.

That the reader may form his own conclusions, the testimony of the five official witnesses (or six, if we count Homer H. Johnson, who signed the American report with General Jadwin) will be given on the principal points; the agreements and disagreements will therefore be noticeable.

  1. ON THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF PERSECUTION.

SIR STUART SAMUEL says: “Poles generally are of a generous nature, and if the present incitements of the press were repressed by a strong official hand, Jews would be able to live, as they have done for the past 800 years, on good terms with their fellow citizens in Poland.”

Note how easily Sir Stuart talks about repression of the press. The Polish press has at last obtained freedom of writing. It is exercising a privilege which the Jewish press of Poland always had. But now that it speaks freely of Jews, repress it with a strong hand, says Sir Stuart. He would not dare suggest that in England where the press also is finding its freedom. As to the Yiddish press in Poland, the reader will find some information in Israel Friedlaender’s essay, “The Problem of Polish Jewry.” Friedlaender was a Jew and his book was published by a Jewish house in Cincinnati. He says:

“The Yiddish press sprang up and became a powerful civilizing agency among the Jews of Poland. The extent of its influence may be gathered from the fact, which curiously enough is pointed out reproachfully by the Poles, that the leading Yiddish newspaper of Warsaw commanded but a few years ago a larger circulation than that of all the Polish newspapers combined.”

HENRY MORGENTHAU says (par. 7) — “The soldiers had been inflamed by the charge that the Jews were Bolsheviks, while at Lemberg it was associated with the idea that the Jews were making common cause with the Ukrainians. These excesses were, therefore, political as well as anti-Semitic in character.”

And again (par. 8) — “Just as the Jews would resent being condemned as a race for the action of a few of their co-religionists, so it would be correspondingly unfair to condemn the Polish nation as a whole for the violence committed by uncontrolled troops or local mobs. These excesses were apparently not premeditated, for if they had been part of a preconceived plan, the number of victims would have run into the thousands instead of amounting to about 280. It is believed that these excesses were the result of widespread anti-Semitic prejudice aggravated by the belief that the Jewish inhabitants were politically hostile to the Polish State.”

SIR H. RUMBOLD says: “It is giving the Jews very little real assistance to single out, as is sometimes done, for reprobation and protest the country where they have perhaps suffered least.”

CAPTAIN P. WRIGHT says: “It is an explanation often given of what may be called, according to the point of view, the idiosyncrasies or defects of the Jews that they have been an oppressed and persecuted people. This is an idea so charitable and humane that I should like to think it, not only of the Jews, but of every other people. It has every merit as a theory, except that of being true. When one thinks of what happened to the other ‘racial, religious and linguistic minorities’ of Europe in modern times * * * the Jews appear not as the most persecuted but as the most favored people of Europe.”

BRIGADIER GENERAL JADWIN states clearly that the “persecution” cry may be regarded as propaganda. He says:

“The disorders of November 21 to 23 in Lemberg became, like the excesses in Lithuania, a weapon of foreign anti-Polish propaganda. The press bureau of the Central Powers, in whose interest it lay to discredit the Polish Republic before the world, permitted the publication of articles * * * in which an eye-witness estimated the number of victims between 2,500 and 3,000, although the extreme number furnished by the local Jewish committee was 76.” (p. 15.)

And again: “In common with all free governments of the world, Poland is faced with the danger of the political andinternational propaganda to which the war has given rise. The coloring, the invention, the suppression of news, thesubornation of newspapers by many different methods, and thepoisoning by secret influences of the instruments affecting public opinion, in short, all the methods of malevolent propaganda are a menace from which Poland is a notable sufferer.” (p. 17.)

Of course, all this propaganda has been Jewish. The methods described are typically Jewish.

Speaking about the number killed, Mr. Morgenthau estimates the total at 258; while Sir H. Rumbold says only 18 were killed “in Poland proper,” the others having been killed in the disorders of the war zone. Sir Stuart Samuel estimates the total killed at 348.

  1. ON THE GENERAL CAUSE OF JEWISH TROUBLE BEFORE THE WAR.

SIR STUART SAMUEL — “The Jews in Poland and Galicia number about 3,000,000 * * * Public opinion had been aroused against them by the institution of a virulent boycott. This boycott dates from shortly after the by-election for the Duma, which took place in Warsaw in 1912 * * * Business relations between Poland and Russia were very considerable in the past, and were generally in the hands of the Jews, not only in thehandling of the goods exported, but also in their manufacture* * * Initiative in business matters is almost entirely the prerogative of the Jewish population * * * Nearly the whole of the estate agents who act for the Polish nobility are of theJewish race * * * Attention must be paid to the fact that Jews form the middle class almost in its entirety. Above are the aristocracy and below are the peasants. Their relations with the peasants are not unsatisfactory. The young peasants cannot read the newspapers and are therefore but slightly contaminated by anti-Semitism until they enter the army. I was informed that it is not at all unusual for Polish peasants to avail themselves of the arbitrament of the Jewish rabbi’s courts.”

That shows the Jews to have occupied a very favorable position in Poland and is to be remembered in connection with the previous quotation from Sir Stuart in which he says that if the incitements of the press were repressed by a strong official hand, “the Jews would be able to live, as they have done for the past 800 years, on good terms with their fellow citizens in Poland.”

Let us take the points made by Sir Stuart, and observe what the other witnesses say about them: (a) Beginning with the point as to the Jews’ monopoly of business in Poland:

SIR H. RUMBOLD — “Sir Stuart Samuel would appear to be mistaken in his appreciation of the part played by the Jews in the pre-war business relations between Poland and Russia and in the industry of the former country. Whereas it is true that goods exported from Poland were to a large extent handled by the Jews, only a small percentage of those goods were actually manufactured by them.”

CAPTAIN P. WRIGHT — “In Poland until the last generationall business men were Jews: The Poles were peasants or landowners, and left commerce to the Jews; even now certainly much more than half, and perhaps as much as three-quarters, of business men are Jews.”

“For both town and country I think it a true generalization to say that the East Jews are hardly ever producers, but nearly always middlemen.”

“Economically, the Jews appear at the very outset as dealers, not as producers, nor even as artisans, and chiefly dealers in money; in course of time the whole business and commerce of Poland became theirs, and they did nothing else.”

(b) With regard to the “estate agents” mentioned by Sir Stuart Samuel:

CAPTAIN P. WRIGHT — “Poland is an agricultural country, but the East Jews, unlike the West Jews, play a large part in its country life. Every estate and every village has its Jew, who holds a sort of hereditary position in them; he markets the produce of the peasants and makes their purchases for them in town; every Polish landowner or noble had his own Jew, who did all his business for him, managed the commercial part of this estate, and found him money * * * Besides this, nearly all the population of nearly all the small country towns is Jewish, corn and leather dealers, storekeepers and peddlers, and such like.”

(c) Regarding Sir Stuart’s assertion that “Jews form the middle class almost to its entirety,” with the nobles above them and the peasants beneath them (a typical Jewish position — dividing Gentile society and standing between the parts), this illustration may help to make it clear:

CAPTAIN P. WRIGHT — “It is instructive to try and imagine what England would be like under the same conditions. Arriving in London, a stranger would find every second or third person a Jew, almost all the poorer quarters and slums Jewish, and thousands of synagogues. Arriving at Newbury he would find practically the whole town Jewish, and nearly every printed inscription in Hebrew characters. Penetrating into Berkshire, he would find the only storekeeper in most small villages a Jew, and small market towns mostly composed of Jewish hovels. Going on to Birmingham he would find all the factories owned by Jews, and two shops out of three with Jewish names.”

Captain Wright is trying to give the people at home a picture of conditions in order that they may understand how Poland feels. The Jewish press strongly resented this. Sir Stuart Samuel’s report is notable for the number of things he mentioned, and the few he explained.

  1. ON THE GENERAL CAUSE OF TROUBLE ARISING DURING THE WAR.

SIR STUART SAMUEL — “The fact of their language being akin to German often led to their being employed during the German occupation in preference to other Poles. This circumstance caused the Jews to be accused of having had business relations with the Germans * * * The Government publicly declared its disapproval of boycotting, but a certain discrimination seems to have been made in the re-employment of those who served under the German occupation. I find that many Jews who thus served have been relieved of their offices and not reinstated, whereas I can find no evidence of similar procedure in regard to other Poles.”

SIR H. RUMBOLD — “The fact of Yiddish being akin to German may have been the reason why the Germans employed a large number of Jews during their occupation of Poland, although a great many of the Poles with good knowledge of German could have been found. There is this difference, however, that the Poles only served the Germans by compulsion, as they considered them to be their enemies.”

BRIGADIER GENERAL JADWIN — “During the German occupation of Poland, the Germanic character of the Yiddish vernacular and the readiness of certain Jewish elements to enter into

relations with the winning side, induced the enemy to employ Jews as agents for various purposes and to grant the Jewish population not only exceptional protection, but also the promise of autonomy. It is alleged that the Jews were active inspeculation in foodstuffs, which was encouraged by the armies of occupation with a view to facilitating export to Germany and Austria.” That is, the Jews were the means by which Poland was to be drained of its food supply.

CAPTAIN P. WRIGHT — “But the high day and triumph of the Jews was during the German occupation. The Jews in Poland are deeply Germanized, and German carries you over Poland because Jews are everywhere. So the Germans found everywhere people who knew their language and could work for them. It was with Jews that the Germans set up their organization to squeeze and drain Poland — Poles and Jews included — of everything it had; it was in concert with Jewsthat German officials and officers toward the end carried on business all over the country. In every department and region they were the instruments of the Germans, and poor Jews grew rich and lordly as the servants of the masters. But though Germanized, the accusation of the Poles that the Jews are devoted to Germany is unfounded * * * They have no more loyalty to Germany — the home of anti-Semitism — than to Poland. The East Jews are Jews and only Jews.

“It has seemed certain that one of two, the German or the Russian Empire, must win, and that the Jews, who had their money on both, were safe; but the despised Poland came in first. Even now the Jews can hardly believe in its resurrection, and one of them told me it still seemed to him a dream.”

Mr. Morgenthau does not touch this matter in his report.
4. WITH REFERENCE TO THE BOYCOTT, THE METHOD BY WHICH THE POLES SOUGHT TO LIBERATE THEMSELVES FROM THE JEWISH STRANGLEHOLD.

SIR STUART SAMUEL — “This boycott dates from shortly after the by-election for the Duma, which took place in Warsaw in 1912 * * * During the war, owing to the scarcity of almost everything, the boycott diminished, but with the armistice it revived with much of its original intensity * * * A severe private, social and commercial boycott of Jews, however, exists among the people generally, largely fostered by the Polish press. In Lemburg I found there was a so-called social court presided over by M. Przyluski, a former Austrian vice-president of the Court of Appeals, which goes so far as to summon persons having trade relations with Jews to give an explanation of their conduct. Below will be found a typical cutting from a Polish newspaper giving the name of a Polish countess who sold property to Jews. This was surrounded by a mourning border such as is usual in Poland in making announcements of death.

(translation)

“Countess Anna Jablonowska, resident in Galicia, has sold her two houses, Stryjska street, Nos. 18 and 20, to the Jews, Dogilewski, Hubner and Erbsen. The attorney of the countess was Dr. Dziedzic; her administrator, M. Naszkowski. Will the Polish public forever remain indifferent and passive in such cases?”

This illustration of Sir Stuart brings to mind a practice common in England. It is related on page 123 of “The Conquering Jew” by John Foster Fraser, published by Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 1916: “The housing question in the Whitechapel district has reached such a pitch that there are large blocks of buildings where ‘No English Need Apply’ is a common legend. Whole streets are being bought up by Hebrew syndicates, whose first act is to serve notice on all Gentile tenants.”

It is also worth stating in this connection, that some of the feeling which has recently led to race riots in American cities has been engendered by the practice of small Jewish real estate syndicates purchasing a house in the middle of a desirable block, ousting the tenants and installing a Negro family, thereby using race prejudice to depreciate the property in the entire block and render it purchasable by the Jews at a low price. Thereafter, the property is lost to Gentile ownership or use.

It may be that in Poland a similar condition exists which makes the sale of property into Jewish hands a kind of disloyalty to the people generally. Apparently the Poles think so. “Racial prejudice” is not a sufficient explanation of such beliefs: there is always something pretty tangible beneath them.

The “boycott” was merely this: — an agreement among Poles to trade with Poles. The Jews were numerous, well-to-do, and in control of all the channels of business. They own practically all the real estate in Warsaw. The Jews claimed that the so-called boycott (the Polish name for it is “the co-operatives”) was “persecution.”

SIR H. RUMBOLD — “It must be further remembered that under the influence of economic changes and owing to the fact that since 1832 the Poles have not been allowed to hold posts in the government, they were gradually obliged to take to trade, and competition between the Jewish population and the Poles commenced. This competition became stronger when the Russian Government allowed co-operative and agricultural societies to be started in Poland. The cooperative movement is becoming very strong and will undoubtedly form an important factor in the development of economic relations in Poland, so that indirectly it will be bound to affect the position of the small Jewish trader.

“In so far as the Polish Government are able to do so by legislation or proclamations, the boycotting of the Jews should be prohibited. But I would point out that it is beyond the power of any government to force its subjects to deal with persons with whom they do not wish to deal.”

HENRY MORGENTHAU, however, takes a more reasonable view than his British co-religionist, Sir Stuart Samuel. Mr. Morgenthau says:

“Furthermore, the establishment of co-operative stores is claimed by many Jewish traders to be a form of discrimination. It would seem, however, that this movement is a legitimate effort to restrict the activities and therefore the profits of the middleman. Unfortunately, when these stores were introduced into Poland, they were advertised as a means of eliminating the Jewish trader. The Jews have, therefore, been caused to feel that the establishment of co-operatives is an attack upon themselves. While the establishment and the maintenance of co-operatives may have been influenced by anti-Semitic sentiment, this is a form of economic activity which any community is perfectly entitled to pursue.”

It is not difficult, therefore, to see through the eyes and minds of these five men the situation that prevailed in Poland. Eight hundred years ago, Poland opened her gates to the persecuted Jews in all Europe. They flocked there and enjoyed complete freedom; they were even allowed to form a “state within a state,” governing themselves in all Jewish matters and doing business with the Polish Government only through their own chosen spokesmen and representatives. The Polish people were their friends, evincing neither religious nor racial antipathy to them. Then Europe fell upon Poland, divided her asunder, until in the roster of the nations there was no more Poland, except in the hearts of the Polish people. During this period of Poland’s humiliation, the Jews grew to be a mighty power, ruling the Poles, regulating their very lives. The Great War came with its promise of liberation and the restoration of a Polish free government. The Jews were not favorable to that restoration. They were not Poland’s friends. The Poles resented this and at the signing of the armistice when they were free to express their resentment, they did so. Many regrettable things occurred, but they were not unintelligible. They had explanatory backgrounds. Even the armistice was not the end. The Bolsheviks from Russia came down upon Poland, and once more, so the Poles strongly declare, the Jews were against the land that had sheltered them for 800 years.

These are a few of the facts. Another article will be required to complete the story. In the meantime enough has been said to show the utter wrong which Jewish propaganda in the United States has done to Poland. But the purpose was not altogether to injure Poland; it was also to blind the American people and cause them to view with equanimity the great influx of those same Jews into this country. (My emphasis).

End of quote.

It is said that truth is the first casualty of war, but I don’t think that truth “gets a guernsey” even in times of peace. The public has no clue of the scale and the lengths to which propaganda and the burial of the truth has been taken. Perhaps one of my favourites is the sinking of the Titanic, which was actually an insurance scam to claim against the Titanic’s uninsurable sister ship, the Olympic, a scam that went horribly wrong because the passengers were not meant to die. But the truth is so buried in folklore and hype that this truth seems unimaginable.

Closely followed by the 9/11 scam using Osama bin Laden, a CIA asset who died at the end of 2001 due to complications from Marfan Syndrome.

Welcome to how our world works.

Sesame Credit: China’s Creepy New Social Engineering Experiment

Text from the YouTube page:

Coming soon to a New World Order near you: social credit! Earn points by behaving like the government wants you to behave! Get penalized if you don’t act like a doubleplusgood citizen! What could be more fun? Join me for today’s Thought For The Day as we discuss China’s new Sesame Credit system and the gamification of your enslavement.

End of quote.

Another great insight from James Corbett.

Last-Minute Budget Bill Allows New Privacy-Invading Surveillance in the Name of Cybersecurity

The legislation the House passed on Friday morning is a thinly disguised surveillance bill that would give companies pathways they don’t need to share user data related to cyberthreats with the government — while allowing the government to use that information for any purpose, with almost no privacy protections.

Because Speaker of the House Paul Ryan slipped the provision into the massive government omnibus spending bill that had to pass — or else the entire government would have shut down — it was doomed to become law. (This post has been updated to reflect the vote, which was 316 to 113.)

The text of the bill — now known as the Cybersecurity Act of 2015, formerly known as CISA — wasn’t released until shortly after midnight Wednesday morning, giving members of Congress essentially no time to do anything about it.

The bill removes a restriction on direct information sharing with the National Security Agency and the Pentagon; eliminates a restriction on the government’s use of that information for surveillance activities; allows law enforcement to use the information to prosecute any and all crimes; and leaves it up to the individual agencies to scrub personally identifying information when they feel like it.

And this article – CISA Is Now The Law: How Congress Quietly Passed The Second Patriot Act:

Back in 2014, civil liberties and privacy advocates were up in arms when the government tried to quietly push through the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, or CISA, a law which would allow federal agencies – including the NSA – to share cybersecurity, and really any information with private corporations “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” The most vocal complaint involved CISA’s information-sharing channel, which was ostensibly created for responding quickly to hacks and breaches, and which provided a loophole in privacy laws that enabled intelligence and law enforcement surveillance without a warrant.

Ironically, in its earlier version, CISA had drawn the opposition of tech firms including Apple, Twitter, Reddit, as well as the Business Software Alliance, the Computer and Communications Industry Association and many others including countless politicians and, most amusingly, the White House itself.

In April, a coalition of 55 civil liberties groups and security experts signed onto an open letter opposing it. In July, the Department of Homeland Security itself warned that the bill could overwhelm the agency with data of “dubious value” at the same time as it “sweep[s] away privacy protections.” Most notably, the biggest aggregator of online private content, Facebook, vehemently opposed the legislation however a month ago it was “surprisingly” revealed that Zuckerberg had been quietly on the side of the NSA all along as we reported in “Facebook Caught Secretly Lobbying For Privacy-Destroying “Cyber-Security” Bill.” 

Even Snowden chimed in:

Shameful: @Facebook secretly backing Senate’s zombie #CISA surveillance bill while publicly pretending to oppose it. https://t.co/du7RK7V1WJ

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) October 25, 2015

Following the blitz response, the push to pass CISA was tabled following a White House threat to veto similar legislation. Then, quietly, CISA reemerged after the same White House mysteriously flip-flopped, expressed its support for precisely the same bill in August.

And then the masks fell off, when it became obvious that not only are corporations eager to pass CISA despite their previous outcry, but that they have both the White House and Congress in their pocket.

As Wired reminds us, when the Senate passed the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act by a vote of 74 to 21 in October, privacy advocates were again “aghast” that the key portions of the law were left intact which they said make it more amenable to surveillance than actual security, claiming that Congress has quietly stripped out “even more of its remaining privacy protections.”

“They took a bad bill, and they made it worse,” says Robyn Greene, policy counsel for the Open Technology Institute.

But while Congress was preparing a second assault on privacy, it needed a Trojan Horse with which to enact the proposed legislation into law without the public having the ability to reject it.

It found just that by attaching it to the Omnibus $1.1 trillion Spending Bill, which passed the House early this morning, passed the Senate moments ago and will be signed into law by the president in the coming hours.

This is how it happened, again courtesy of Wired:

In a late-night session of Congress, House Speaker Paul Ryan announced a new version of the “omnibus” bill, a massive piece of legislation that deals with much of the federal government’s funding. It now includes a version of CISA as well. Lumping CISA in with the omnibus bill further reduces any chance for debate over its surveillance-friendly provisions, or a White House veto. And the latest version actually chips away even further at the remaining personal information protections that privacy advocates had fought for in the version of the bill that passed the Senate.

It gets: it appears that while CISA was on hiatus, US lawmakers – working under the direction of corporations and the NSA – were seeking to weaponize the revised legislation, and as Wired says, the latest version of the bill appended to the omnibus legislation seems to exacerbate the problem of personal information protections.

End of quote.

It’s how major change is swept under the carpet. It happened as far back as 1913 with the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act slipped through on the last day of sitting before Christmas. And it was probably a well-oiled machine by then.

By the time I write this, it will almost certainly have been signed into law.

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Follow Me
Get every new post delivered to your inbox
Join lots of other followers
Powered By WPFruits.com