The Military Industrial Complex’s Scheme to Control the Internet

By Tom Burghardt

The training of thousands of qualified airmen, will form the nucleus of an elite corps of cyberwarfare operatives.

Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz once famously wrote that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” Acentury later, radical French philosopher Michel Foucault turned Clausewitz on his head and declared that “politics is the continuation of war by other means.”

In our topsy-turvy world where truth and lies coexist equally and sociopathic business elites reign supreme, it would hardly be a stretch to theorize that cyber war is the continuation of parapolitical crime by other means.

Through the Wormhole

In Speed and Politics, cultural theorist Paul Virilio argued that “history progresses at the speed of its weapons systems.” With electronic communications now blanketing the globe, it was only a matter of time before our political masters, (temporarily) outflanked by the subversive uses to which new media lend themselves, would deploy what Virilio called the “integral accident” (9/11 being one of many examples) and gin-up entirely new categories of threats, “Cyber Pearl Harbor” comes to mind, from which of course, they would “save us.”

That the revolving door connecting the military and the corporations who service war making is a highly-profitable redoubt for those involved, has been analyzed here at great length. With new moves to tighten the screws on the immediate horizon, and as “Change” reveals itself for what it always was, an Orwellian exercise in public diplomacy, hitting the “kill switch” serves as an apt descriptor for the new, repressive growth sector that links technophilic fantasies of “net-centric” warfare to the burgeoning “homeland security” market.

Back in March, Wired investigative journalist Ryan Singel wrote that the “biggest threat to the open internet” isn’t “Chinese hackers” or “greedy ISPs” but corporatist warriors like former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell.

Having retreated to his old haunt as a senior vice president with the ultra-spooky firm Booz Allen Hamilton (a post he held for a decade before joining the Bush administration), McConnell stands to make millions as Booz Allen’s parent company, the secretive private equity powerhouse, The Carlyle Group, plans to take the firm public and sell some $300 million worth of shares, The Wall Street Journal reported last week.

“With its deep ties to the defense establishment” the Journal notes, “Booz Allen has become embedded in a range of military operations such as planning war games and intelligence initiatives.” That Carlyle Group investors have made out like proverbial bandits during the endless “War on Terror” goes without saying. With “relatively low debt levels for a leveraged buyout,” the investment “has been a successful one for Carlyle, which has benefited from the U.S. government’s increasing reliance on outsourcing in defense.”

And with 15,000 employees in the Washington area, most with coveted top secret and above security clearances, Booz Allen’s clients include a panoply of secret state agencies such as the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, NSA and the U.S. Air Force. With tentacles enlacing virtually all facets of the secretive world of outsourced intelligence, the firm has emerged as one of the major players in the cybersecurity niche market.

While McConnell and his minions may not know much about “SQL injection hacks,” Singel points out that what makes this spook’s spook dangerous (after all, he was NSA Director under Clinton) “is that he knows about social engineering. … And now he says we need to re-engineer the internet.”

Accordingly, Washington Technology reported in April, that under McConnell’s watchful eye, the firm landed a $14.4 million contract to build a new bunker for U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM). Chump change by Pentagon standards perhaps, but the spigot is open and salad days are surely ahead.

Now that CYBERCOM has come on-line as a “subordinate unified command” of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), it’s dual-hatted Director, Air Force General Keith B. Alexander confirmed by the Senate and with a fourth, gleaming star firmly affixed on his epaulettes, the real fun can begin.

A denizen of the shadows with a résumé to match, Alexander is also Director of the National Security Agency (hence the appellation “dual-hatted”), the Pentagon satrapy responsible for everything from battlefield signals- and electronic intelligence (SIGINT and ELINT), commercial and industrial espionage (ECHELON) to illegal driftnet spying programs targeting U.S. citizens.

Spooky résumé aside, what should concern us here is what Alexander will actually do at the Pentagon’s new cyberwar shop.

Fact Sheet posted by STRATCOM informs us that CYBERCOM “plans, coordinates, integrates, synchronizes, and conducts activities to: direct the operations and defense of specified Department of Defense information networks and; prepare to, and when directed, conduct full-spectrum military cyberspace operations in order to enable actions in all domains, ensure US/Allied freedom of action in cyberspace and deny the same to our adversaries.”

As Antifascist Calling previously reported, CYBERCOM’s offensive nature is underlined by the role it will play as STRATCOM’s operational cyber wing. The training of thousands of qualified airmen, as The Register revealed last month, will form the nucleus of an “elite corps of cyberwarfare operatives,” underscoring the command’s signal importance to the secret state and the corporations they so lovingly serve.

Cybersecurity: The New Corporatist “Sweet Spot”

Fueling administration moves to “beef up,” i.e. tighten state controls over the free flow of information is cash, lots of it. The Washington Post reported June 22 that “Cybersecurity, fast becoming Washington’s growth industry of choice, appears to be in line for a multibillion-dollar injection of federal research dollars, according to a senior intelligence official.”

“Delivering the keynote address at a recent cybersecurity summit sponsored by Defense Daily,” veteran Post reporter and CIA media asset, Walter Pincus, informs us that “Dawn Meyerriecks, deputy director of national intelligence for acquisition and technology, said that along with the White House Office of Science and Technology, her office is going to sponsor major research ‘where the government’s about to spend multiple billions of dollars’.”


According to a Defense Daily profile, before her appointment by Obama’s recently fired Director of National Intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, Meyerriecks was the chief technology officer with the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), described on DISA’s web site as a “combat support agency” that “engineers and provides command and control capabilities and enterprise infrastructure to continuously operate and assure a global net-centric enterprise in direct support to joint warfighters, National level leaders, and other mission and coalition partners across the full spectrum of operations.”

During Defense Daily’s June 11 confab at the Marriott Hotel in Washington (generously sponsored by Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics and The Analysis Group), Meyerriecks emphasized although “tons of products” have been commercially developed promising enhanced security, “there’s not an answer Band-Aid that is going to come with this.”

All the more reason then, to shower billions of taxpayer dollars on impoverished defense and security corps, while preaching “fiscal austerity” to “greedy” workers and homeowners facing a new wave of foreclosures at the hands of cash strapped banks.

“We’re starting to question whether or not the fundamental precepts are right,” Meyerriecks said, “and that’s really what, at least initially, this [new research] will be aimed at.”

Presumably, the billions about to feed the “new security paradigm,” all in the interest of “keeping us safe” of course, means “we need to be really innovative, because I think we’re going to run out of runway on our current approach,” she said.

Washington Technology reported Meyerriecks as saying “We don’t have any fixed ideas about what the answers are.” Therefore, “we’re looking for traditional and nontraditional partnering in sourcing.”

Amongst the “innovative research” fields which the ODNI, the Department of Homeland Security and one can assume, NSA/CYBERCOM, will soon be exploring are what Washington Technology describe as: “Multiple security levels for government and non-government organizations. Security systems that change constantly to create ‘moving targets’ for hackers,” and more ominously for privacy rights, coercive “methods to motivate individuals to improve their cybersecurity practices.”

The Secret State’s Internet Control Bill

Since major policy moves by administration flacks always come in waves, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy June 18, that in order to fight “homegrown terrorism” the monitoring of internet communications “is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security,” the Associated Press reported.

While the Obama regime has stepped-up attacks on policy critics who have disclosed vital information concealed from the American people, prosecuting whistleblowers such as Thomas Drake, who spilled the beans on corrupt NSA shenanigans with grifting defense and security corps, and wages a low-level war against WikiLeaksCryptomePublic Intelligence and other secret spilling web sites, it continues to shield those who oversaw high crimes and misdemeanors during the previous and current regimes.

In this light, Napolitano’s statement that “we can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances,” is a rank mendacity.

With enough airspace to fly a drone through, the Home Sec boss told the gathering “at the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable.” What those “situations” are or what “trade-offs” were being contemplated by the administration was not specified by Napolitano; arch neocon Joe Lieberman however, graciously obliged.

As “Cyber War” joins the (failed) “War on Drugs” and the equally murderous “War on Terror” as America’s latest bête noire and panic all rolled into one reeking mass of disinformation, Senators Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Tom Carper (D-DE) introduced the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 in the Senate.

The bill empowers the Director of a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC), to be housed in the Department of Homeland Security, to develop a “process” whereby owners and operators of “critical infrastructure” will develop “response plans” for what the legislation calls “a national cybersecurity emergency.”

This particularly pernicious piece of legislative flotsam would hand the President the power to declare a “national cyber-emergency” at his discretion and would force private companies, internet service providers and search engines to “comply with the new risk-based security requirements.” Accordingly, “in coordination with the private sector … the President [can] authorize emergency measures to protect the nation’s most critical infrastructure if a cyber vulnerability is being exploited or is about to be exploited.”

Under terms of the bill, such “emergency measures” can force ISPs to “take action” if so directed by the President, to limit, or even to sever their connections to the internet for up to 30 days.

While the administration, so far, has not explicitly endorsed Lieberman’s bill, DHS Deputy Undersecretary Philip Reitinger told reporters that he “agreed” with the thrust of the legislation and that the Executive Branch “may need to take extraordinary measures” in the event of a “crisis.”

Under the 1934 Communications Act, the World Socialist Web Site points out, “the president may, under ‘threat of war,’ seize control of any ‘facilities or stations for wire communications’.”

“Though dated,” socialist critic Mike Ingram avers, “that definition would clearly apply to broadband providers or Web sites. Anyone disobeying a presidential order can be imprisoned for one year. In addition to making explicit the inclusion of Internet providers, a central component of the Lieberman bill is a promise of immunity from financial claims for any private company which carries through an order from the federal government.”

Under terms of the legislation, the president requires no advance notification to Congress in order to hit the internet “kill switch,” and his authority to reign supreme over the free speech rights of Americans can be extended for up to six months after the “state of war” has expired.

While the bill’s supporters, which include the secret state lobby shop, the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) claim the Lieberman-Collins-Carper legislation is intended to create a “shield” to defend the U.S. and its largest corporate benefactors from the “looming threat” of a “Cyber 9/11,” one cannot discount the billions of dollars in plum government contracts that will fall into the laps of the largest defense and security corps, the primary beneficiaries of this legislation; thus the bill’s immunity provisions.

Indeed, current INSA Chairwoman, Frances Fragos Townsend, the former Bushist Homeland Security Adviser, was appointed in 2007 as National Continuity Coordinator under the auspices of National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51) and was assigned responsibility for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity of government (COG) policies. As readers of Antifascist Calling are aware, plans include contingencies for a declaration of martial law in the event of a “catastrophic emergency.” Whether or not a “national cybersecurity emergency” would fall under the penumbral cone of silence envisaged by NSPD-51 to “maintain order” is anyone’s guess.

However, in a June 23 letter to Lieberman-Collins-Carper, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and 23 other privacy and civil liberties groups, insisted that “changes are needed to ensure that cybersecurity measures do not unnecessarily infringe on free speech, privacy, and other civil liberties interests.”

CDT states that while “the bill makes it clear that it does not authorize electronic surveillance beyond that authorized in current law, we are concerned that the emergency actions that could be compelled could include shutting down or limiting Internet communications that might be carried over covered critical infrastructure systems.”

Additionally, CDT avers that the bill “requires CCI owners to share cybersecurity ‘incident’ information with DHS, which will share some of that information with law enforcement and intelligence personnel.” While Lieberman-Collins-Carper claim that “incident reporting” doesn’t authorize “any federal entity” to compel disclosure “or conduct surveillance,” the bill does not indicate what might be included in an ‘incident report’ and we are concerned that personally-identifiable information will be included.” Count on it!

In a press release, INSA’s chairwoman declared that the legislation is important in “establishing a public-private partnership to promote national cyber security priorities, strengthen and clarify authorities regarding the protection of federal civilian systems, and improve national cyber security defenses.”

Amongst the heavy-hitters who will profit financially from developing a “public-private partnership to promote national cyber security priorities,” include INSA “Founding Members” BAE Systems, Booz Allen Hamilton, CSC, General Dynamics, HP, Lockheed Martin, ManTech International, Microsoft, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).

Talk about one hand washing the other! A casual glance at Washington Technology’s 2010 list of the Top 100 Federal Government Contractors provides a telling definition of the term “stakeholder”!

Blanket Surveillance Made Easy: Einstein 3′s Roll-Out

During a recent Cyberspace Symposium staged by the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association (AFCEA), an industry lobby group chock-a-block with defense and security corps, a series of video presentations set the tone, and the agenda, for CYBERCOM and the secret state’s new push for heimatcybersecurity.

During a question and answer session “with a small group of reporters” in sync with the alarmist twaddle peddled by AFCEA and STRATCOM, Defense Systems’Amber Corrin informed us that “one possibility” floated by Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynne III to “keep us safe,” is the deployment of the privacy-killing Einstein 2 and Einstein 3 intrusion detection and prevention systems on civilian networks.

“To support such a move” Defense Systems reported, “a task force comprising industry and government information technology and defense interests … has been forged to examine issues surrounding critical infrastructure network security.”

As Antifascist Calling reported last July, Einstein 3 is based on technology developed by NSA under its Tutelage program, a subordinate project of NSA’s larger and more pervasive privacy-killing Stellar Wind surveillance operation.

Einstein 3′s deep-packet inspection technology can read the content of email messages and other private electronic communications. Those deemed “threats” to national security networks can then be forwarded to analysts and “attack signatures” (or suspect political messages) are then stored in a massive NSA-controlled database for future reference.

Federal Computer Week disclosed in March that the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) “plans to partner with a commercial Internet Service Provider and another government agency to pilot technology developed by the National Security Agency to automate the process of detecting cyber intrusions into civilian agencies’ systems.”

“The exercise,” according to reporter Ben Bain “aims to demonstrate the ability of an ISP to select and redirect Internet traffic from a participating government agency using the new technology. The exercise would also be used demonstrate the ability for U.S. CERT to apply intrusion detection and prevention to that traffic and to generate automated alerts about selected cyber threats.”

That testing is currently underway and has been undertaken under authority of National Security Presidential Directive 54, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008 in the waning days of his administration. While the vast majority of NSPD-54 is classified top secret, hints of its privacy-killing capabilities were revealed in the sanitized version of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) released by the Obama White House in March.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has filed suit against the government in federal court after their Freedom of Information Act request to the National Security Agency was rejected by securocrats. The agency refused to release NSPD-54, since incorporated into Obama’s CNCI, stating that they “have been withheld in their entirety” because they are “exempt from release” on grounds of “national security.”

In a follow-up piece earlier this month, Federal Computer Week disclosed that the exercise “will also allow the Homeland Security Department, which runs the Einstein program, to share monitored information with the National Security Agency, though that data is not supposed to include message content.”

“The recent combination of those three elements–reading e-mail messages, asking companies to participate in the monitoring program, and getting the NSA in the loop–has set off alarm bells about future uses of Einstein 3,” FCW’s John Zyskowski disclosed.

Those bells have been ringing for decades, tolling the death of our democratic republic. As military-style command and control systems proliferate, supporting everything from “zero-tolerance” policing and urban surveillance, the deployment of packet-sniffing technologies will soon join CCTV cameras, license plate readers and “watchlists,” thus setting the stage for the next phase of the secret state’s securitization of daily life.

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, his articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, and the whistleblowing website Wikileaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military “Civil Disturbance” Planning, distributed by AK Press.

G-20: Bancos deben reservar su dinero para la Crisis que viene

El Sindicato del Crimen Internacional, mejor conocido como el G-20, determinó en su última reunión que la etapa final del colapso y consolidación de la economía global comenzará en 2012 y terminará en 2016 con la liquidación de todos los países que estén en deuda con el FMI y el Banco Mundial.

Por Luis Miranda
The Real Agenda
junio 30, 2010

Los banqueros y los miembros del G20 tienen formas directas e indirectas a hablar con el público. Al final de la última reunión del

De derecha a izquierda: Stephen Harper, Primer Ministro Canadiense; David Cameron, Primer Ministro del Reino Unido y Barack Hussein Obama, Presidente de Estados Unidos.

G20 en Toronto, ambos grupos han hablado claramente acerca de lo que tienen en mente para el futuro. En primer lugar, que sólo están interesados en contribuir al proceso de consolidación global. En segundo lugar, se ampliará la actual depresión poco a poco con el corte el dinero disponible para préstamos. En tercer lugar, continuarán sus programas de austeridad en los países para matar lentamente sus economías y consolidar cada uno de ellos. En cuarto lugar, ahora que se robaron los impuestos de los pueblos mediante sus paquetes de rescate, planean robar a los accionistas mediante un nuevo paquete de rescate que deberá ser pagado por los inversionistas. En quinto lugar, hipócrita e irresponsablemente, piensan que el ahorro de 130 mil millones de libras creará una garantía para la economía, ya que sólo la deuda del régimen de derivativos llega al cuatrillón de dólares. Y, por último, quieren consolidar la implosión final, que de acuerdo con su declaración, puede comenzar a partir de 2012.

Si todo esto le parece confuso, por favor déjeme explicar.

Empecemos por recordar que el G-20, y en especial el G-8 comandados por los baqueros, fueron los que provocaron la actual crisis financiera. Lo hicieron a través de sus empresas de fachada, por ejemplo, los bancos que han implementado una serie de mecanismos de corrupción y la quiebra de las economías de países enteros, a través de riesgo de inversión y, a veces, productos financieros inexistentes. Estos planes se llevaron a cabo después de dos décadas, donde la mayoría de las normas establecidas para prevenir el fraude financiero se eliminaron como una excusa para mejorar el libre mercado. La desregulación ha permitido la creación de planes de inversión falsos que los bancos más tarde ofrecieron a los países, estados y municipios, a menudo a través de los gobiernos y que les permitió adquirir la totalidad de su infraestructura y dinero mediante la emisión de deuda falsa inversión.

Se hizo evidente que el G8 y los banqueros no están interesados en mejorar las condiciones económicas actuales. Ellos sólo quieren extender la crisis, ya que la necesitan a fin de ejecutar su plan para llevat a cabo la implosión mundial. Esto es lo que surge de la idea de recortar el dinero de los préstamos y que los bancos acumulen el dinero para causar la próxima crisis, según lo dice el comunicado del G-20. A pesar de que £ 130 billones es una miseria en comparación con la deuda que los países del G8 tienen, la acción de mantener dinero en reserva es un ejemplo claro de lo que los “líderes” tiene en mente. Lo que quieren es una lenta y dolorosa destrucción de la economía con el fin de causar tanto daño como sea posible. Esta política les garantiza la consolidación de más recursos antes de que se de el golpe final a la economía mundial.

Una de las herramientas más importantes que los banqueros utilizaron en los últimos 100 años ha sido crear una burbuja artificial de plenitud de dinero, dinero falso, con el fin de ganar la confianza de los países y el público. Esto es lo que muchos describen como las burbujas económicas . Pero dado el hecho que la economía mundial se basa en la deuda y la reserva fraccionaria, el único objetivo que tienen las burbujas es engañar el mayor número de consumidores con la deuda y luego retirar el dinero del mercado masivamente. De este modo, los banqueros aceleran su proceso de consolidación. Junto con la reducción de los préstamos, los países del G8 acordaron continuar los planes de austeridad en cada país. La austeridad se desplegará sobre la clase obrera mediante la reducción de los servicios básicos como seguridad, hospitales, el financiamiento de las escuelas y los programas sociales. Esto, a su vez, provocará el descontento social, que es lo que los banqueros quieren para establecer oficialmente su red de control militar y tecnologico. Una vista previa de esta red sería lo que fue visto en las calles de Toronto durante la reunión del G-20 del fin de semana pasado. También se apreció durante el colapso de Argentina en 2001.

Los paquetes de rescate infames glorificados por el FMI y el Banco Mundial como la mejor manera de evitar un colapso total de la economía mundial -que fue causada por los banqueros- fueron la mayor transferencia de dinero y recursos en la historia del mundo. Sólo los Estados Unidos dieron a los banqueros alrededor de 25 trillones de dólares de dinero de los contribuyentes para que Goldman Sachs, Banco Iberia, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America y otros pudieran pagar a sus accionistas su participación en el sistema.Consulte la lista completa de los bancos que recibieron dinero del rescate aquí. Pero sólo 25 billones de dólares no es suficiente, por supuesto. Alemania, por ejemplo, votó para darle el 66% de sus ingresos anuales a los bancos. Si nos guiamos por el comunicado del G-20, es evidente que están planeando otro gran colapso, posiblemente el último. También está claro que tienen que robar a alguien diferente esta vez. Y esto es lo que los banqueros y los “líderes”, dijeron. Crearán otro paquete de rescate en la que los accionistas de los bancos tendrán que pagar la cuenta. Así que si usted tiene inversiones en cualquier banco, es aconsejable salvarse a sí mismo y tomar el dinero de las cuentas bancarias antes de que el nuevo paquete de rescate se apruebe. Descaradamente, dicen que obligarán a los bancos a mantener miles de millones para ablandar los efectos de la próxima crisis y así no se sobrecargará a los contribuyentes. Ellos piensan que no sabemos que esos billones de dólares son el mismo dinero que se robó de los contribuyentes en 2009. Ahora que han consolidado y estabilizado su sistema financiero fraudulento, no importa si otros bancos van a la quiebra.

La idea de que 130 billones de libras es suficiente para tener una red de seguridad para una futura crisis o recesión doble, como les gusta llamarla, es absurdo. La deuda producida por los derivativos está, dependiendo a quién se le pregunte, entre 600 trillones y 1 cuatrillón de dólares dijo Robert Chapman, del “la compra de derivativos no es una forma de inversión. Es un juego de los seguros y las apuestas. Los derivativos no crean nada”. Según el Banco de Pagos Internacionales(International Bank of Settlements), la burbuja de los derivativos ha crecido de manera exponencial hasta un punto que los montos transados hace mucho tiempo superaron el PIB mundial. “Operaciones de derivativos han crecido de manera exponencial, hasta ahora, son más grande que toda la economía mundial.”  El credit default swaps (CDS) son la forma más común de derivativos. CDS son apuestas entre dos partes sobre si una empresa puede o no puede devolver las inversiones en sus acciones. De hecho, son seguros ilegales sin la posesión de un activo. CDS se usan para aumentar los beneficios en los cambios de mercado.

La telaraña de deuda en la que la economía actual se construyó en los últimos 100 años ha sido un instrumento en un proceso para revertir todo lo que los seres humanos han logrado. No fue accidental, sin embargo, porque este mecanismo fue ideado por los banqueros y los globalistas desde el comienzo. Cada vez que el mundo experimentó una crisis financiera como en 1929-1933, la consolidación y el control de los banqueros se hizo cada vez más grande. Medidas para evitar un colapso total, como nos dijeron, no fueron suficientes ni tenían esto como objetivo real. Eran simplemente la manera de posponer el colapso inminente. Las medidas aplicadas por los banqueros no se puede utilizar por siempre. Algo iba a fracasar tarde o temprano. “Este sistema guiado paso a paso, es un enfoque no integral de los bancos centrales y los departamentos de hacienda para la gestión de crisis, pero ha sido un fracaso ….rellenar un hoyo temporalmente es inútil cuando el sistema entero está próximo al colapso en medio de una tormenta financiera perfecta. Un enfoque mucho más radical, global y sistémico a la gestión de crisis es necesario ahora “, dice el profesor Nouriel, fundador de Roubini Global Economics.

Después de convertir la economía mundial en un sistema basado en servicios, donde no se fabrica ningún producto de calidad, llevando a los países en desarrollo a una enorme deuda, mientras se colapsan las economías del mundo occidental, los banqueros están listos para su última juagada: la última crisis. Según el comunicado del G-20, sus miembros deben reducir sus déficit para el año 2013, un proceso que ya ha comenzado. Este proceso deberá concluir en 2016 cuando los países hayan estabilizado sus deficits. La reducción y estabilización de los déficits significa que los países deudores tendrán que encontrar una manera de pagar sus deudas al FMI y el Banco Mundial, de acuerdo con las condiciones impuestas por dichas entidades. Todos los países que no paguen en su totalidad serán liquidados y sus activos serán transferidos automáticamente a los banqueros globalistas. Imagine lo que pasó con Argentina, Grecia e Islandia en la última década, pero en lugar de ser estos países, los deudores serán los Estados Unidos,España, Portugal, Inglaterra y Alemania.

G20: Os bancos devem manter o dinheiro para a crise que virá

O Sindicato do Crime Internacional, melhor conhecido como o G20, determinou na sua última reunião que o colapso e a consolidação da economia global começará por volta de 2012 e terminará em 2016 com a liquidação de todos os países que estejam em dívida com o FMI e o Banco Mundial.

Por Luis Miranda
The Real Agenda
Junho 29, 2010

Banqueiros e membros do G20 têm formas diretas e indiretas para falar com o público. No final da última reunião do G20 em

G10? Dez dos vinte representantes dos países industrializados dão uma caminhada entre reuniões.

Toronto, ambos os grupos falaram muito claramente sobre o que eles têm em mente para o futuro. Primeiro, eles estão interessados somente em ajudar o processo de consolidação global. Em segundo lugar, eles vão estender a depressão atual lentamente cortando o dinheiro disponível para empréstimos. Em terceiro lugar, eles vão continuar seus programas de austeridade nos países para matar lentamente as suas economias e consolidar cada um deles. Em quarto lugar, agora que eles roubaram os impostos do povo através dos seus pacotes de resgate, eles planejam roubar os acionistas, colocando o ónus do próximo resgate nas costas dos investidores. Em quinto lugar, hipócrita e irresponsavelmente, pensam que poupando 130 bilhoes de libras criarão uma garantia para a economia, dado que apenas a dívida do esquema de derivativos se conta nos quatrilhões de dólares. E, por último, eles pretendem cimentar a implosão final que, de acordo com seu comunicado, pode vir a partir de 2012.

Se tudo isto parece confuso, por favor, deixe-me explicar.

Vamos começar por lembrar que os G20 e, principalmente, os G8 foram os que causaram a atual crise financeira. Eles fizeram isso através de suas empresas de fachada, por exemplo, os bancos que implementaram uma série de esquemas de corrupção e falência das economias de países inteiros, através do investimento de risco e, às vezes, de produtos financeiros inexistentes. Estes esquemas foram executados depois de duas décadas onde a maioria das regras postas em prática para impedir fraudes financeiras foram eliminadas como uma desculpa para melhorar o “mercado livre”. O que a desregulamentação permitiu foi a criação de planos de investimento falsos que os bancos ofereceram mais tarde para países, estados e municípios, muitas vezes através dos governos e os usaram para adquirir todas as suas infra-estruturas e dinheiro através da emissão de dívida ou de investimentos.

Tornou-se claro que o G8 e os banqueiros não estão interessados em melhorar as atuais condições económicas. Eles simplesmente querem estender a crise, enquanto eles precisam, a fim de executar seu plano final de implosão global. Isso é o que emerge a partir da idéia de cortar o dinheiro de empréstimos e pedindo que os bancos acumulem o dinheiro para a próxima crise, como o comunicado do G20 diz. Embora 130 bilhoes de libras é uma ninharia em comparação com a dívida dos países do G8, a ação de manter o dinheiro em reserva é uma imagem clara do que os “líderes” têm em mente. O que eles querem é um processo lento e doloroso de destruição da economia a fim de causar a maior quantidade de dano possível. Essa política irá assegurar-lhes a consolidação de mais recursos, antes que seja dado o golpe final para a economia global.

Uma das ferramentas mais importantes que os banqueiros utilizaram ao longo dos últimos 100 anos foi criar uma bolha artificial de abundância de dinheiro -dinheiro sem respaldo- a fim de obter a confiança dos países e do público. Isto é o que muitos descrevem como os booms econômicos. Mas dado o fato de que a economia global é baseada em dívida e reservas fracionárias, o único objetivo que as bolhas têm é ligar a maior quantidade de consumidores com dívida e, em seguida, tirar o dinheiro do mercado. Ao fazer isso, os banqueiros aceleram o seu processo de consolidação. Juntamente com a redução dos empréstimos, os países do G8 concordaram em continuar os planos de austeridade em cada país. A austeridade será implantada sobre a classe trabalhadora através da redução de serviços como polícia, hospitais,financiamento das escolas e programas sociais. Isto, por sua vez, causará agitação civil, que é o que os banqueiros querem a fim de estabelecer oficialmente sua grade de controle militar e tecnológico. Uma prévia do que essa grade seria foi visto nas ruas de Toronto, durante a reunião do G20 do fim de semana passado. Também foi visto durante o colapso da Argentina em 2001.

Os infames pacotes de resgate glorificados pelo FMI e o Banco Mundial como a melhor maneira de evitar um colapso completo da economia global -que foi causado pelos próprios banqueiros- foram a maior transferência de dinheiro e recursos na história do mundo. Somente os Estados Unidos deram aos banqueiros cerca de 25 trilhões de dólares em dinheiro dos contribuintes para que Goldman Sachs, Iberia Bank,JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America e outros pudessem pagar aos seus accionistas a sua parte do esquema. Veja a lista completa dos bancos que receberam o dinheiro do resgate aqui. Mas só 25 trilhões de dólares não são suficientes, é claro. Alemanha, por exemplo, votou para dar 66% de sua receita anual para os bancos. Se nos guiarmos pelo comunicado do G20, é claro que eles estão planejando outro grande colapso, possivelmente, o último. Também é claro que eles terão que roubar alguém diferente desta vez. E é isso o que os banqueiros e os “líderes” disseram. Eles vão criar um outro pacote de resgate no qual os acionistas dos bancos terão que pagar a conta. Então se você tem investimentos em qualquer banco, é aconselhável salvar a si mesmo e tirar o dinheiro das contas antes de o novo pacote bancário chegar.  Descaradamente, eles dizem que vão obrigar os bancos a manter bilhões até a próxima crise chegar e os contribuintes não serão sobrecarregados. Eles acham que não sabemos que os milhares de dólares são os mesmos que roubaram em 2009. Agora que eles consolidaram e estabilizaram o seu sistema financeiro fraudulento, não importa se os outros bancos irão cair fora do seu esquema.

A idéia de que 130 bilhoes de libras é suficiente para ter uma rede de segurança para uma crise futura ou uma recessão dupla como eles gostam de chamá-la, é absurda. A dívida produzida pelos derivativos, dependendo a quem você perguntar, está entre 600 trilhoes e 1 quatrilhão de dólares. Segundo Robert Chapman, do “comprar derivativos não é uma forma de investimento. É um jogo de seguros e apostas. Os derivativos não criam nada.” De acordo com o Bank of International Settlements, a bolha de derivativos tem crescido exponencialmente, até um ponto em que os montantes negociados ao abrigo deste esquema já ultrapassou em muito o PIB do mundo.”Operações de derivativos têm crescido exponencialmente, até agora, são maiores do que toda a economia global.” Os Credit defaultswaps (CDS) são a forma mais comum de derivativos. CDS são apostas entre duas partes, sobre se uma empresa poderá ou não retornar os investimentos nos seus títulos. Na verdade, são seguros ilegais, sem exigência de titularidade de qualquer ativo. Os CDS são usados para aumentar os lucros em jogos de mudanças no mercado.

A rede de dívida em que a economia atual foi construída ao longo dos últimos 100 anos foi uma ferramenta em um processo para reverter tudo o que os seres humanos lograram. Não foi acidental, no entanto, pois este mecanismo foi planejado pelos banqueiros globalistas desde o início. Toda vez que o mundo viveu uma crise financeira como em 1929-1933, a consolidação e o aumento no controle dos banqueiros ficou cada vez maior. As medidas para evitar um colapso total, como nos foi dito, não foram suficientes nem tinham esse como objetivo real. Eles eram simplesmente maneiras de adiar o colapso iminente. As medidas implementadas pelos banqueiros não podem ser usadas para sempre. Alguma coisa ia falhar mais cedo ou mais. “Este esquema levado passo a passo, é uma abordagem não-holística da Fed e do Tesouro para a gestão de crises mas tem sido um fracasso. . . . arrastar e preencher um buraco no [tempo] é inútil quando todo o sistema de impostos está em colapso em meio à tempestade financeira perfeita. Uma abordagem muito mais radical, holística e sistêmica para a gestão de crises é agora necessária “, diz o professor Nouriel Roubini, fundador do Roubini Global Economics.

Depois de tornar a economia global em um sistema baseado em serviços, onde nenhum produto de qualidade é fabricado, dirigindo os países em desenvolvimento a uma dívida enorme, enquanto se colapsam as economias do mundo ocidental, os banqueiros estão prontos para a sua última jogada: a última crise. De acordo com o comunicado do G20, seus membros devem reduzir os seus déficits até 2013, um processo que já começou. Este processo deve terminar em 2016, quando os países devem ter estabilizado os seus déficits. Diminuindo e, em seguida, estabilizando os déficits significa que os países devedores terão que encontrar uma maneira de pagar suas dívidas na íntegra ao FMI e ao Banco Mundial, de acordo com as condições impostas por essas entidades. Cada país que não pagar na íntegra será liquidado e seus recursos serão transferidos automaticamente para os banqueiros globalistas. Imagine o que aconteceu com Argentina, Grécia e Islândia na última década, mas em vez de serem esses países, os devedores serão os Estados Unidos, Espanha, Portugal, Inglaterra e Alemanha.

G20: Banks must hold on to Cash for coming Crisis

The International Crime Syndicate, better known as the G20, determined at its last meeting that the collapse and consolidation of the global economy will begin around 2012 and finish in 2016 with the liquidation of all countries who are in debt with the IMF and the World Bank.

By Luis Miranda
The Real Agenda
June 29, 2010

Bankers and G20 members have direct and indirect ways to speak to the public. At the end of the latest G20 meeting in Toronto, both

From right to left: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, UK Prime Minister David Cameron and U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama.

groups spoke very clearly about what they have in mind for the foreseeable future. First, they are all in the run to help the process of global consolidation. Second, they will extend the current depression by slowly cutting the available cash for lending. Third, they will continue their austerity programs in a country by country basis to slowly kill their economies and consolidate each nation. Fourth, now that they have robbed the people’s taxes through their rescue packages, they plan to rob shareholders by putting the burden of future rescues on them when the next crisis comes. Fifth, they are disingenuous or irresponsible by thinking that putting aside 130 billion pounds will create any security for the economy, given that only the derivative schemed debt ascends into the quadrillion of dollars. And lastly, they intend to seed and water the final implosion, which according to their communique, can come as soon as 2012.

If all these sounds confusing, please let me explain.

Let’s start by remembering that the G20, and mainly the G8 were the ones who caused the current financial crisis. They did it through their front companies e.g. banks, which implemented a series of corrupt schemes to bankrupt economies and whole countries through investment and betting into risky and sometimes nonexistent financial products e.g. derivatives. These schemes were allowed to exist given the fact that for the past two decades most of the regulations put in place to stop financial fraud were eliminated as an excuse to enable “free markets”. What deregulation effectively permitted was the creation of bogus investing plans which the banks later offered to countries, states and municipalities -often times through governments- and used them to acquire all their infrastructure and cash through the issuance of debt or fraudulent investment.

It has become clear that the G8 and the bankers are not interested in improving current economic conditions. They simply want to extend the crisis as long as they need to, in order to execute their final plan of global implosion. That is what emerges from the idea of cutting lending money and asking banks to hoard the cash for the next crisis, as the G20 communique says. Although 130 billion pounds is peanuts in comparison with the debt most G8 countries hold today, the action of keeping the cash in reserve paints a clear picture of what the ‘leaders’ have in mind. What they want is a slowly and painfully grind down the economies in order to cause the greatest damage. Such policy will assure them the consolidation of more resources before the final blow to the global economy is given.

One of the most important tools the bankers have used along the last 100 years is to create an artificial bubble of money abundance -Fiat money- in order to get the countries and the public to trust them. This is what many describe as economic booms. But given the fact that the global economy is based on debt and fractional reserve banking, the only goal the money bubbles had was to hook up the greatest amount of debt on consumers to then pull the cash off the markets. By doing this, the bankers accelerate their consolidation process. Along with the reduction in lending, G8 nations agreed to continue the austerity plans in each individual country. Austerity will be implanted on the working class by cutting services such as police, hospitals, school funding, and social programs. This will in turn cause civil unrest, which is what the bankers want in order to officially freely unleash their military and technological control grid. A preview of what this grid would look like was seen on the streets of Toronto during the last G20 meeting. It was also seen during Argentina’s collapse in 2001.

The infamous rescue packages glorified by the IMF and the World Bank as the best way to avoid a complete collapse of the global economy -which as explained before was caused by the bankers themselves- were the biggest transfer of money and resources in the history of the world. Only the United States gave the bankers around $25 trillion in tax payer money so Goldman Sachs, Iberia Bank, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and others could pay their shareholders their chunk of the loot. See a complete list of what banks got the cash here. But those $25 trillion were not enough, of course. Germany for example, voted to give 66% of its annual revenue to the banks. Going by the G20′s communique it is clear they are planning another big collapse, possibly the last one. It is also clear they will have to rob someone else this time and that is what the bankers and the ‘leaders’ have said. They will stick the next rescue package to the banks’ shareholders -not to the big ones, though-. So if you have investments in any bank, it is advised to rescue yourself out of it before the new banking package comes along. Shamelessly, they will obligate the banks to hold billions so when the next crisis comes, taxpayers will not be burdened as if we don’t know those billions are the same they stole last 2009. Now that they consolidated and stabilized their fraudulent financial system, it won’t matter if other banks fail, because they are all covered.

The idea that 130 billion pounds is a safety net for a future crisis, or double dip recession as they like to call it, is preposterous. Derivative-produced debt is, depending who you ask, between $600 trillion and $1 quadrillion. According to Robert Chapman, from the, buying derivatives is not investing.  It is gambling, insurance and high stakes bookmaking.  Derivatives create nothing.” According to the Bank of International Settlements, the derivative bubble has grown exponentially to a point where the amounts negotiated under this scheme has long surpassed the world’s GDP. “Derivative trades have grown exponentially, until now they are larger than the entire global economy.”Credit default swaps (CDS) is the most common form of derivatives. CDS are bets between two parties on whether or not a company will default on its bonds. They are indeed illegal insurance policies, with no requirement to hold any asset. CDS are used to increase profits by gambling on market changes.

The WEB of DEBT in which the current economy was built throughout the past 100 years was the tool used in a process to reverse everything humans achieved. It was not unintended however, as this was the mechanism the globalist bankers planned on using from the beginning. Every time the world experienced a financial crisis like in 1929-1933, the grip of control tightened more and more. The measures to avoid a total collapse, as we were told, were not such. They were simply ways to postpone the imminent collapse.  But the measures the bankers implemented cannot be used forever. Sooner rather than later something will give in. The step by step, ad hoc and non-holistic approach of Fed and Treasury to crisis management has been a failure. . . . [P]lugging and filling one hole at [a] time is useless when the entire system of levies is collapsing in the perfect financial storm of the century. A much more radical, holistic and systemic approach to crisis management is now necessary,” says professor Nouriel Roubini. founder of Roubini Global Economics.

After turning the global economy into a service-based system, where no quality products are manufactured; after driving developing countries into massive debt while collapsing the economies of the western world, the bankers are ready for their last move: a one last crisis. According to the G20 communique, its members must cut their deficits by 2013, a process that already started. This process is supposed to end in 2016, when the nations should have stabilized their deficits. Cutting and then stabilizing deficits means that debtor countries will have to find a way to pay their debts in full to the IMF and World Bank according to the conditions imposed by those entities. Every country that does not pay in full will be liquidated and their resources will be automatically transferred to the globalist bankers. Imagine what happened to Argentina, Greece and Iceland in the last decade, but instead of being those countries, the debtors will be the United States, Spain, Portugal, England and Germany.

Agenda 21, Biodiversity and Land Theft

Cassandra Anderson

The true facts of life are that the globalist control freaks have caused environmental disasters in order to implement their

solutions, which are even worse. And they get public support through lies, government regulations and our tax dollars. UN Agenda 21 Sustainable Development is the overarching blueprint for depopulation and control using the environment as the excuse.  See the complete globalist chart by clicking here.

Last month the UN announced that they were shifting their focus from global warming (which has been thoroughly discredited) to biodiversity, which is really a way to steal land by way of the Endangered Species Act. In fact, a new UN agency has been created to monitor biodiversity (Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services or IPBES), and is based on the UN’s fraudulent IPCC. The new fear that is being created is the destruction of habitats and species resulting from human activity.(1)

These videos by Dr. Michael Coffman explain the impact of the Endangered Species Act:

The Birds

Have you wondered why BP Oil used Corexit in the Gulf? There is evidence that the motive was to kill as many birds and sea creatures as possible to usher in the expansion of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in addition to the $40 million in profits for NALCO (Corexit manufacturer) and the motive of submerging the oil from public view. There are numerous non-toxic alternatives to Corexit, which are still ignored by the EPA. The ESA will be used as a weapon to prevent further drilling and America’s energy independence. It is falsely being sold as the way to avoid future catastrophes and because most people love animals, they will be easily fooled.(2)

Have you noticed that environmental groups are far less concerned with taking effective action in pressuring BP Oil, Obama and Congress to stop and the spill, and are instead filing lawsuits to stop drilling and promote inefficient solar and wind energy? The environmental groups’ lack of action against BP Oil and the EPA is glaring. Instead, they are pursuing the expansion of governmental regulations by way of the ESA. Most environmental groups, and certainly the big ones like WWF, Greenpeace, NRDC and the Sierra Club, are controlled opposition. They are funded by your tax dollars, oil companies, the UN and foundations like the Rockefeller and Ford foundation.(3)

The attention to migratory birds is important because they do cross state lines, so the federal Department of Commerce then sticks its beak where it doesn’t belong. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal oversight of wildlife.

The ESA was passed into law through 5 international treaties, the first one was the Migratory Bird Act. When this treaty was challenged in the Supreme Court (Missouri v. Holland), the ruling was against the 10th Amendment state sovereignty. The Supremacy Clause was weakened when the Migratory Bird Act treaty was decided to supersede the Constitution, thereby opening the door for treaties to be superior to the Constitution, in complete opposition to the Founding Fathers intentions. Many have tried to get the Supreme Court to clarify the Supremacy Clause and for Congress to limit the distorted interpretation, but have failed. ANd now we have thousands of treaties with foreign governments through the UN.

The Bees

American bee populations are dwindling and most evidence points to pesticides as the primary culprit; remember that GMO crops were made to withstand large amounts of pesticides and herbicides. It only makes sense that harmful pesticides should be taken off of the market. The most direct route to accomplish this is to sue the manufacturers and the EPA for approving numerous harmful pesticides. However, there are only a handful of lawsuits compared to the numerous pesticide products that are available. Instead, environmental groups seek to expand regulations that prevent economic development via the ESA.(4)

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation filed a petition to put Franklin bumble bees on the Endangered Species List. The problem with this is that when a species is considered ‘endangered’ their habitat, which is most often private property (farms, ranches, businesses and homes), has severe restrictions placed on it by the federal government. If these bees are found to be ‘endangered’, it opens the door to placing other bees on the Endangered Species list. Imagine the scope of habitat for bees. If environmental disasters are planned, and there is evidence for this (the lack of action and oversight regarding dangerous chemicals and the cozy relationship between government and industry), then using bees, whose habitat is everywhere, is truly diabolical.

Because environmental groups are funded by globalists, corporations and governments whose goal is to lock down and restrict land use as well as expanding government control, the environmental groups do the bidding of these entities, under the banner of saving the planet. The Xerces Society is funded by many federal government agencies including the EPA, the Department of Interior (they have jurisdiction over Endangered Species) and the USDA as well as other environmental UN NGOs (non governmental organizations) and the Turner Foundation. It obvious that these environmental agencies are loyal to the parties that finance them.(5)

The Endangered Species Act

Perhaps the biggest example of globalist control through ESA is the Congress caused drought in the Central Valley of California that is the breadbasket of America. Because the Delta smelt and salmon populations were declining, the irrigation water to farms was cut. This was a poor solution because the fish populations continued to decline for 3 years despite the water restrictions. It was later revealed that pollution in the Delta was the cause of the fish decline, caused by up to one billion gallons of partially treated sewage being flushed into the Delta daily. Of course, the principled scientist who went public with this information was maligned because she exposed the bad science that is commonly practiced when a political policy is involved.

Top 5 reasons the ESA is bad:

1. It doesn’t work! Severe restrictions on landowners do not result in increased population. Of the 60 species that have been de-listed, NONE of them were removed because of the imposed controls.(6)

2. Bad and fraudulent science is used because the ESA is really just a vehicle for control through public policy. In fact, some federal and state agents were actually found to have planted Canadian Lynx fur outside of a range, in order to increase the habitat range. And their power.(7)

3. The 5th Amendment is violated, as there is no “due process’ or compensations to landowners for extremely harsh restrictions.

4. The ESA chips away at State sovereignty- there is no provision in the Constitution that gives the federal government power over wildlife it is the states’ jurisdiction. The federal government uses the ESA to usurp ower.

5. Bill Clinton’s ‘Gap Analysis’ (a study that detailed how much of American land is privately owned) is targeted at private property owners for takeover.


• When junk science is discredited, the lies unravel. This is the most effective method to get rid of bad policies, like the water restrictions in California and fallout from Climategate. When the people don’t respect the authorities, they lose power. It is necessary for the masses to become extremely skeptical of science that is associated in any way with policymaking. Phony environmentalism must be exposed.

• States can assert their 10th Amendment powers and tell the federal government to buzz off.

• Local governments have a tremendous amount of power regarding the ESA, through building permits and law enforcement.

For example, in Iron County, Utah, the federal government claims that prairie dogs are ‘endangered’. It is not true. This is a ploy to limit farming and other economic development. Every time a prairie dog is killed by a tractor on a farm, the sheriff is expected to investigate; there is only a limited number of prairie dog deaths allowed, or the farm can be shut down. Further, if someone owns property and wants to build, they will be refused a building permit if prairie dogs are found on the property. Building permits are issued through the county, so it is under the jurisdiction of the County Commissioners or Supervisors.

It is imperative that state and county governments learn about the abuse of power by the federal government because the economy and our freedom are at stake.

To learn more about how the federal government plans to steal your land, watch the excellent flash presentation by Dr. Michael Coffman, “Taking Liberty”.(8)

Dr. Michael Coffman’s Environmental Perspectives website address is

Please visit Cassandra Anderson’s website at










Related Links:









Partner Links