Last week three suspected Ebola infections were detected in a remote region of the Congo. Since then, World Health Organization officials have been scrambling to contain the virus.
Their efforts appear to have failed.
The contagion continues to spread, and though it’s nowhere near the 11,000 people who were infected during the outbreak in 2014, the infection rate has spiked over 800% in just the last seven days, with at least nine new cases reported in the last 24 hours:
The number of suspected cases of Ebola has risen to 29 from nine in less than a week in an isolated part of Democratic Republic of Congo, where three people have died from the disease since April 22, the World Health Organization said on Thursday.
…
The risk from the outbreak is “high at the national level,” the W.H.O. said, because the disease was so severe and was spreading in a remote area in northeastern Congo with “suboptimal surveillance” and limited access to health care.
“Risk at the regional level is moderate due to the proximity of international borders and the recent influx of refugees from Central African Republic,” the organization said, but it nonetheless described the global risk as low because the area is so remote. (NY Times)
The 2014 outbreak likewise started in a remote region of Africa, but containment efforts were ineffective and the virus eventually spread to the United States and Europe.
***
According to W.H.O., about 400 people have come into contact with the 29 people infected and officials are attempting to track them down for monitoring.
Protective gear has been dispatched to health workers and a mobile lab is being constructed and then deployed to the area. Immediate repairs to air strips and telecommunications are also being carried out. The first six months of the operation are expected to cost $10 million…
…
With the help of the UN, the first search teams, led by the DRC’s Ministry of Health, flew into Likati yesterday. Their immediate priority is to follow the 400 plus contacts of the suspected Ebola cases. (U.N. News Centre)
With international travel via airports, trains and cars available throughout the region, a single infected individual on an airplane could infect scores of others, who in turn could infect scores more.
The following Ebola model from Yaneer Bar-Yam, who has successfully simulated and predicted such events as the rise of the Arab Spring, shows how an Ebola contagion may look.
The above model is based on Ebola’s current infection rates and doesn’t take into account its possible evolution as it spreads from human-to-human.
According to scientists, the 2014 strain began hyper-evolving, to the point that had it not been contained and continued to spread through human contact, it could have gone airborne, making it as easy to catch as a common cold.
In response to this unprecedented threat, US government officials began preparing for mass casualties, reportedly going so far as to develop plans for Community Care Centers where infected individuals, or those suspected of infections, would be detained indefinitely.
The concern, of course, was that a virus with a 90% fatality rate after infection would make its way to local American communities. As Tess Pennington notes in her Pandemic Preparedness Guide, once it’s within 50 miles of where you live, it’s time to worry and take immediate steps to isolate your family from the threat, because most people won’t realize how serious of a situation they are in:
Looking back at the Black Plague, those living in high populated areas were hit hardest by this pandemic. The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30–60 percent of Europe’s population. Given our vast array of transportation systems, modern society causes infectious disease to spread far more rapidly compared to any other time in recorded history; and because pandemics are fast moving, vaccinations would be useless. Further, in regards to the world’s transportation system, the morbidity rate in a future pandemic could result in millions seeking medical care at the same time thus overwhelming hospitals and emergency departments.
…
When an outbreak occurs, many will remain in a state of denial about any approaching epidemics. Simply put, most people believe themselves to be invincible to negative situations and do not like the idea change of any kind. They will remain in this state until they realize they are unable to deny it to themselves any longer. Being prepared before the mass come out of their daze will ensure that you are better prepared before the hoards run to the store to stock up.
Perhaps containment procedures being implemented in the Congo by W.H.O. will be more effective this time around than they were in 2014.
But what if they’re not? What if the virus mutates and goes airborne?
Why did “private” prison stocks soar the day after Trump got elected?
It is almost like people in the industry knew something that the public didn’t. The former Attorney General Yates said that private prisons would be phased out. So before any cabinet members had been announced, why were stockholders betting that private prisons would not be phased out after all?
It could just be Trump’s tough on crime stance in general. But something else happened days earlier that suggests Washington insiders already knew what was going to happen.
…just before the election, two of Sessions’ former Senate aides, David Stewart and Ryan Robichaux, became lobbyists for GEO Group, one of the two largest private prison companies, and that the two were specifically engaged to lobby on government contracting.
Sessions was chosen for Attorney General on November 18, and in February 2017 announced that private prisons would not be phased out because that would have “impaired the Bureau’s ability to meet the future needs of the federal correctional system.”
And now we are starting to understand what those future needs are. Sessions wrote in a memo that law enforcement should charge defendants with the most serious crimes possible, especially when they carry mandatory minimum sentences.
It is a core principle that prosecutors should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense…
By definition, the most serious offenses are those that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences.
Of course, many mandatory minimum sentences apply to drug crimes, which means the Justice Department will be wasting more tax dollars keeping people in cages for non-violent victimless crimes.
The drug war has been so successful already, why not double down, spend more money, and ruin more lives? This is what investors sought to capitalize on when they heard the news of Trump’s election.
But the evidence suggests Sessions doesn’t really care about crime or law and order. He has connections to the private prison industry and will be able to steer contracts in their direction as America’s top cop.
Back the Blue
But just to make sure America doesn’t lose the superlative for highest prison population per capita on earth, a new bill is making its way through Congress. Called “Back the Blue,” the bill adds mandatory minimum sentences for killing or attempting to kill police officers.
The legislation also creates new mandatory minimums for assaulting a law enforcement officer based on the extent of the injury and the use of a dangerous weapon.
Fleeing from justice to avoid prosecution for committing one of these crimes, meanwhile, would carry a mandatory minimum of 10 years.
This conjures up the line from Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Last time I checked murder and assault were already illegal. Why should crimes carry different sentences depending on who the victim is? Do police lives matter more than other lives?
Furthermore, this bill assumes it is never appropriate to fight back against a police officer. Police are capable of committing crimes too, and this ensures a strong disincentive to protect yourself against anyone in a uniform or claiming to be a cop, regardless of the truth behind their costume/ statement.
Anyone who has watched youtube in the last decade has also seen police violently throwing people to the ground while shouting, “stop resisting”. The police shout “stop resisting” in order to make a case for later charging people with resisting arrest. But when resisting arrest is the only charge, it means someone was literally arrested because there was no reason to arrest them, and they expressed that in their actions.
So this bill would threaten those pesky supporters of the First and Fourth amendments with a 10-year prison sentence if they don’t accept the aggressive and unconstitutional actions of officers.
Furthermore, as public protests heat up, this bill just ensures peaceful protestors have to take all the abuse the police pile on, like pepper-spraying crowds for no reason.
And this highlights another reason this bill is trash. Police can abuse the citizens all they want, and attack them without provocation, but if any citizen resists, they risk a decade behind bars.
Luckily a couple of Senators are fighting back, namely Senator Paul and Senator Leahy, who introduced legislation to give federal judges more discretion in ignoring minimum sentencing guidelines.
But the whole attitude of the government and law enforcement is the ultimate reversal and perversion of a government supposedly made up of the people for the benefit of the people.
The corrupt officials make money and amass power by abusing the citizen and making up excuses to throw them in cages for the most minor offenses.
We are getting to the point where all actions of a private citizen must be approved by the government, while the government officials need no permission–and will face no punishment–for their egregious abuse of the people.
it was supposed to be a relatively quiet weekend, after what may have been the most dramatic, “turmoily” week for political and market news in years. It wasn’t.
As traders start focusing on the coming week, the weekend generated several key geopolitical headlines which will provide buzz – and potentially volatility – on Monday morning. Below, courtesy of Citi, is a recap of this weekend’s major developments, focusing on the ongoing Trump-Russia investigations, the latest North Korea missile launch, the latest political scandal in Brazil and renewed confusion around Brexit.
North Korea
North Korea has fired another ballistic missile, according to various news agencies. South Korea first reported the test and according to BBC, “the White House said the medium-range missile had a shorter range than those used in North Korea’s last three tests.”
Being specific, BBC says this missile flew 560km (350 miles) towards the Sea of Japan versus last week’s range of 700km.
Keep in mind the latter missile test has been a source of concern among major world powers, given that its range represents some technology advancement on North Korea’s behalf and because North Korea has claimed this particular missile can hold a nuclear warhead.
Trump
Former FBI Director James Comey will testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee in a public hearing sometime after Memorial Day. CNN reported this late Friday citing a Senate statement.
CNN also ran a story over the weekend citing an unidentified source that Comey will indicate Trump tried to influence him. This is making top headlines but please do keep in mind that the validity of these claims is unknown.
The source seemingly tries to provide context to last week’s Comey transcript that some took to suggest Comey didn’t feel influences. It claims Comey had reached “no conclusion about the President’s intent before he was fired… But Comey did immediately recognize that the new President was not following normal protocols during their interactions.”
The father of Comey has also weighed in for a CNN interview.
J. Brien Comey believes his son’s firing last week “a Trump deal.” The 86-year old says: “[Comey] didn’t give him 100% loyalty, and he demands that of people who work with him. [Comey] said he would give 100% honesty, but not loyalty.”
On Saturday, the NYT reported that the Intelligence Committee is also seeking another testimony. “Michael Caputo, who served as a communications adviser to the Trump campaign, has been asked by the House committee investigating Russian election meddling to submit to a voluntary interview and to provide any documents he may have that are related to the inquiry.”
Other domestic headlines
ThisWashington Post article details how politics could trip up the new special counsel, Robert Mueller. It is written by Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general, who claims he knows because he wrote the rules.
The weekend brought more news of candidates withdrawing their names for the new FBI Director search. According toThe Hill, the list is down to Senator Joe Lieberman, former Republican Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating and current acting FBI chief Andrew McCabe.
There’s been a lot of talk around Trump’s solid support base – and how this might keep Congressional Republicans from abandoning Trump. However, note the latest update fromThe Hill: “A new Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll, released Friday afternoon, showed the president with a job approval rating of 75% among Republicans. Political professionals generally view it as worrying for any commander-in-chief if his approval ratings with his own party dip below 85% — and downright alarming if they go below 80%.”
National Security Advisor McMaster has come out in defense of the President. When asked what he thought of Friday’s audio recording in which Trump called Comey “a real nut job” and said that he “faced great pressure become of Russia, McMaster responded: “Well, I don’t remember exactly what the president said. And the notes that there apparently have I do not think are a direct transcript… But the gist of the conversation was that the president feels as if he is hamstrung in his ability to work with Russia to find areas of cooperation because this has been obviously so much in the news.”
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also spoke to Washington Post reports from Friday that a “significant person of interest” close to Trump is being looked at amid the investigation. Tillerson says he’s unaware of such. “I do not have any information or knowledge regarding the person of interest that’s been referenced.”
Where’s Vice President Michael Pence? The answer is that he’s not being overly vocal on developments but is a media focal point. A Politico opinion article explains why Pence could be in a “world of pain” if made the new President. The article explores how a Pence Administration might look from leadership to stances on key policies. CNBC did similar.
Other Pence coverage asks what he knows or doesn’t know about the latest developments.
International scene
The AP says Trump will try to forge partnerships in his speech to Islam leaders in Saudi Arabia.
Citing what it believes to be an excerpt from Trump’s upcoming speech, the AP reports that he will try to deliver the message: “We are not here to lecture – to tell other peoples how to live, what to do or who to be. We are here instead to offer partnership in building a better future for us all.”
Reuters says he will add: “Every time a terrorist murders an innocent person, and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith.”
NYT featuresan article, claiming that China may have crippled CIA operations.
Also ahead this week
Trump’s full budget is expected Tuesday, with Washington Post reporting that Republicans are already giving it the “cold shoulder.” The CBO score of the House’s Obamacare Repeal and Replace bill is expected on Wednesday. We also have special House elections ahead in Montana on Thursday.
Given that so much has already been leaked and previewed on the first two events, let’s focus on the latter.
To some, Montana’s special election might serve as somewhat of a “referendum” on Trump’s performance in office and particularly, opinions of how the Obamacare bill is playing out.
The Montana at large election is on May 25 to fill its single House seat. A few points to note:
Trump won Montana by 20% and this race is to replace Tom Zinke, who Trump selected to lead the Interior Department and won this very seat by ~80k votes.
The Republican candidate is Greg Gianforte and Democratic candidate, Rob Quist. Note Gianforte ran for governor of the state in 2016, losing by only 50%–46%.
Political strategists are debating how much fundraising will play a role in the race but at core, it might boil down to who best resonates with rural candidates. Chief industries of the state are agriculture, mining, timber, tourism, oil and gas.
Note that scoring of the Obamacare bill by the Senate will precede this election by a few days. Gianforte has come under pressure following release of leaked recordings, saying that he was “thankful for” the House passing the bill since it could lead to tax reform. Some haven’t taken his remarks as positive, criticizing that he avoided going on public record for his stance.
The second round vote for Georgia’s Senate seat to replace Health Secretary Price is also June 20.
The Republican candidate is Karen Handel, who came out strongly in favor of the Obamacare bill and is on-record, Trump supportive.
The Democrat candidate is Jon Ossoff, who earned 48% of the vote against Handel in the first round. Georgia law requires a majority, explaining why it is moving to second round, and while Ossoff’s lead looks large, it was so because 18 candidates were in the mix. Now, just two.
Of those 18, 11 were Republican. Many analysts therefore conclude that their votes will unify behind Handel but there remains concern that Ossoff will still pull through. There aren’t many polls available but the Gravis Marketing poll, surveying 870 likely voters between May 8-10, shows Ossoff leading 47%-45% with a 3.3% margin of error.
Brazil
“That clandestine recording was manipulated and doctored with [bad] intentions,” Brazilian President Temer has said over the weekend. Therefore, he is asking the Supreme Court to suspend its investigation of him until the recording can be analyzed by experts for authenticity.
Globo News says that the audio has already been analyzed by an expert named Ricardo Caires dos Santos, who found some inadequacies in the audio but ultimately believes that there was no editing done to the part of the tape that is most incriminating to Temer. Read more in the translated version of the Article here.
Brazilian Attorney General Rodrigo Janot has sent a letter to the Supreme Court asking for it to continue its investigation “since the investigation exists precisely for the investigation of the facts and for the production of evidence, among them technical expertise.” Essentially, Janot is saying his office has already had experts review the audio. Readmore here.
Federal Supreme Court (STF) minister Luiz Edson Fachin is the justice that is carrying Temer’s petition forward. The Supreme Court will hold a session on Temer’s petition this Wednesday, May 24. This is according toFolha.
In addition to following the particulars of the Temer investigations, the Brazilian news focuses on the potential economic implications. Globo reports that the latest news may threaten more than USD60.5bn in infrastructure plans for 2017.
Temer’s claims were on the same day that he lost a major ally: the Brazilian Socialist Party, known as PSB. “Today’s decision, first of all, is to suggest to the president that, to help find a solution for our country, he should quit as fast as possible,” said the party’s leader of the decision.
As reported by Folha, the Federal Council of the OAB (Brazilian Bar Association) also decided Sunday to support the impeachment of Temer and make a request to be filed in the Chamber of Deputies.
Leaders of the PSDB Social Democrats – a Temer alliance – will hold a meeting on Sunday at about 19:00 BST/14:00 EDT on Sunday. According to local papers, its spokeswoman would not confirm what is on the agenda.
Brexit
Bloomberg reports: “The UK will quit talks on leaving the European Union unless the bloc drops its demands for a divorce payment as high as EUR100bn (USD112bn), Brexit Secretary David Davis said.”
“We don’t need to just look like we can walk away, we need to be able to walk away,” Davis said. “Under the circumstances, if that was necessary, we would be in a position to do it.”
Remember, it was reported on Friday that Brexit negotiations between the UK and EU will likely formally begin on June 19.
Waldo’s a trader who loves a good risk/reward setup almost as much as he loves a good peanut butter and tomato sandwich (don’t scoff until you’ve tried it).
Which country is Waldo trading these days and how?
Hint 1
The last time something like this happened, a woman who looks disturbingly like a chunky version of Marge Simpson was the centre of the hooplah! Same country.
The chart above is representative of the equity market of this particular country, and the red arrow pinpoints the time when “Marge” got into the dwang.
Hint 2
Now we’re at it again, and the market is judge, jury, and executioner. Someone is in the dwang again, and it’s not Marge.
Now, I don’t want spoil the game and give away Waldo’s location too easily so need to be careful.
I also don’t want to be the one pointing fingers here because a jury of peers should straighten these sorts of things out and as such – in order to preserve the integrity and anonymity of the accused – I decided to put my admittedly new but super handy Photoshop skills to work and completely hide his identity. My daughter thinks I’m isht at photoshop but what does she know? She’s 11.
This gentleman… the anonymous one, is under fire with certain rumours circling. Two, as far as I can tell.
One is that he got being a politician, and the other, I understand, is that he has been told not to smile.
Why?
Because when he tries to it looks like he’s had an embarrassing accident in his suit pants. The former problem is what’s causing all sorts of fun in the stock and bond markets.
Hint 3
In any event, this country… the one that the anonymous politician comes from, is world famous for (of all things) football stars. Why, with women like this, I cannot fathom. Another of the world’s unsolved mysteries.
Forgive me for saying so, and I know I’ll upset sensitive folk, but this looks like a half retarded nation.
They pick the stupidest leaders, are completely mad about sweaty men kicking bloated pig skin around, and seem completely oblivious to the fact they’re entirely surrounded by some of the most beautiful creatures on earth.
Still, it could be worse they could all be supporters of Chavez and thank God they don’t appear that far gone. This is a positive for the stock and bond markets.
How
For the rest of you who want to know how we’re trading this particular setup… this morning I sent out a trading alert to Insider members with what we believe is an above average odds to make 190% return on this little gift from the markets.
I invite you to subscribe here, and if you don’t like it, we offer a 100% money back guarantee, but don’t try and arbitrage that 🙂
– Chris
“The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word ‘crisis.’ One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger — but recognize the opportunity.” ? John F. Kennedy
After last week’s brief FBI “memogate” inspired volatility spike, some have asked if the resulting market decline (down a “whopping” -0.4% on the week) has made stocks more attractive. Here is the quick answer according to Bank of America: based on the 20 most widely used valuation metrics, the S&P remains significantly overvalued on 18 of 20 valuation metrics, the only exceptions being free cash flow, helped by depressed capex), and relative to bonds, whole yields are depressed thanks to $18 trillion in global central bank purchases.
And a bonus chart: why is the market so overvalued? Because 2017 has continued the trend seen in 2016, when the market “shrugged off one event after another.”
One wonders what happens when all the “event gaps” start getting filled…
In today’s most watched political event, Donald Trump, who earlier this year sought to impose a travel ban targeting mostly-Muslim nations, will deliver a speech on Islamic tolerance and confronting extremism in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest importer of weapons, biggest sponsor – if not exporter – of global terrorism (See “Hillary Confirms Saudi Arabia, Qatar Fund ISIS In Leaked Email“) and biggest violator of human rights (see “Saudi Arabia Executes 153 In 2016“).
The speech, which was written by Stephen Miller, the same man who wrote Trump’s travel ban, will likely be a study in irony if not outright hypocrisy, and will have a binary outcome according to Beacon Policy Advisors: it will offer the “potential for a reset in relations with chances to appear more presidential”, while also presenting opportunities to “spread Trump’s turmoil onto the global stage.” In short, both the speech, and the Muslim world’s reactions, will have significant consequences for geopolitics and markets.
In his weekly address released Friday, the president said that he will deliver the speech to leaders of more than 50 Muslim nations. “I will represent the views of the American people frankly and clearly,” Mr. Trump said. “Many of these leaders have expressed growing concern about terrorism, the spread of radicalization, and Iran’s role in funding both. Now it appears Muslim leaders are ready to take more responsibility and a much bigger role in fighting terrorism in their region. It’s about time we do it, we’ll do it together, but it has to be done.”
As reported last night, based on a leaked draft of his speech, Trump will say that the fight against extremism “is not a battle between different faiths” but “a battle between good and evil.” Trump’s speech will attempt to strike a collaborative tone to bolster support for the fight against ISIS militants. Trump is expected to say: “Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: barbarism will deliver you no glory – piety to evil will bring you no dignity. “If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and your soul will be condemned.”
“We are adopting a principled realism … Our friends will never question our support, and our enemies will never doubt our determination. … [W]herever possible, we will seek gradual reforms – not sudden intervention.”
“Our goal is a coalition of nations who share the aim of stamping out extremism and providing our children a hopeful future that does honor to God.”
“We are not here to lecture — we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership.”
“Every time a terrorist murders an innocent person, and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith.”
“But we can only overcome this evil if the forces of good are united and strong — and if everyone in this room does their fair share and fulfills their part of the burden.”
“Terrorism has spread across the world. But the path to peace begins right here, on this ancient soil, in this sacred land.”
“America is prepared to stand with you … But the nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them.”
“This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it.This is a battle between good and evil.”
“That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires. And it means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.”
“Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: Barbarism will deliver you no glory — piety to evil will bring you no dignity. If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and your soul will be condemned.”
The excerpts indicate a softer tone from Mr Trump, and do not include the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism”. During the presidenial campaign, Trump often criticised his predecessor, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton for not employing these terms.
National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster said the president will be “inspiring but direct” and address “the need to confront radical ideology.” The speech, on Sunday afternoon, is also intended to “unite the broader Muslim world.”
Echoing the assessment of Beacon, BBC notes that Trump’s keynote speech to more than 40 leaders of Muslim nations “takes him into risky territory. White House briefers say it will be uplifting, inspirational and unifying, but also blunt. He is expected to tell governments they need to do more to stamp out religious intolerance and extremism.”
This could go one of two ways. If he sticks to the script and presents his administration as being supportive and collegiate, avoiding the sort of inflammatory language he has used in the past, it should pass without incident. But if he uses terms like “radical Islamic terrorism”, which he has in the past, or adopts a hectoring, authoritarian tone, then that is likely to cause considerable offence.
There is huge significance and sensitivity in the location here. Saudi Arabia is both the birthplace of Islam and home to the two most sacred pilgrimage sites for the millions who make the journey every year. Donald Trump’s speech is likely to be watched with a critical eye.
The speech takes place a day after the president arrived in Saudi Arabia. On Saturday, where he received a “welcome fit for a king” and signed the biggest arms deal in US history, amounting to $350 billion over 10 years.
Bad things tend to happen in the world when the U.S. administration is distracted and looks weakened by political scandal. And, believe us, there is a legion of bad things out there just waiting to happen, all of which are stock market negative. – Global Macro Monitor
We just found this tidbit of history from Politico of how during the Watergate scandal the Nixon administration was melting down and the President retreated to self-medication,
The Nixon administration began disintegrating—the president unable to play his role as the leader of the nation and the free world—at 7:55 p.m. on October 11, 1973.
The newly appointed secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, picked up his telephone. His trusted aide at the National Security Council, Brent Scowcroft, was on the line from the White House. The Arab-Israeli war of 1973 was in its fifth day, escalating toward a global crisis and a potential nuclear conflict.
SCOWCROFT: The switchboard just got a call from 10 Downing Street to inquire whether the president would be available for a call within 30 minutes from the prime minister. The subject would be the Middle East.
KISSINGER: Can we tell them no? When I talked to the president he was loaded.
President Richard Nixon—ravaged by more than four years of war in Vietnam, 15 months of Watergate investigations and countless nights of intense insomnia—was incapacitated. – Politico
Wow! POTUS was hammered as the world spiraled toward nuclear conflict and incapable of taking “the call.”
This further confirms our suspicions that domestic political scandals, such as Watergate, distorts and weakens the global perception — and maybe not just perception — of U.S. leadership in the world. And contributed, at least, partially, to the 1973 Yom Kippur War and subsequent economic crisis caused by the related OPEC embargo.
It was only nine days later after the above account by Politico the Saturday Night Massacre took place.
If past is prologue, as Trumpgate thickens we suspect the world may become more unstable. As an example, the behavior of, say, North Korea may become more nefarious as they perceive the U.S. administration weakened and distracted. This already seems to be the case, no?
Thank goodness President Trump doesn’t drink, but he does seem to find release — i.e., self-medicate — through his Twitter account. And recent history shows that one “bad” tweet can do more damage and be more self-destructive to a Presidency than, say, five martinis. Gulp!
North Korea successfully launched a ballistic missile Sunday afternoon which flew more than 500 kilometers, only one week after it launched its previously ballistic missile last Sunday, South Korea’s military announced. The missile was launched at 0759 GMT from a location near Pukchang, 60 km northeast of the capital Pyongyang, an area where North Korea attempted to test-launch another missile last month but failed, South Korea’s Office of Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement quoted by Yonhap.
The missile flew about 310 miles, a spokesman for Seoul’s defense ministry said, adding that authorities were analyzing the details of the test launch. Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said the missile landed outside Japan’s exclusive economic zone and no damage to ships or airplanes was reported.
North Korea test-fired a new mid-to-long-range rocket, which it calls the Hwasong-12, on May 14, 2017
The launch was the 11th missile Pyongyang has fired this year according to the WSJ. North Korea last test-launched a missile from the Pukchang airfield late last month. In that case, the missile blew up minutes after launch in an apparent failed test. U.S. authorities said at the time that the missile didn’t leave North Korean territory. In contrast, Sunday’s successful test launch was further evidence of a pickup in momentum for North Korea’s missile program, coming on the heels of the testing of the country’s most advanced missile yet a week earlier that surprised many North Korea missile watchers.
The latest two successful launches demonstrate the rapid progress North Korea is making as part of a drive to be able to threaten the continental U.S. with a nuclear-tipped missile.
In last Sunday’s test, North Korea launched a new intermediate-range ballistic missile that it claimed was capable of carrying a large nuclear warhead. It called the missile the Hwasong-12. Independent analysts have said that, based on their calculations, the Hwasong-12 could reach the U.S. military base in Guam, more than 2,000 miles from Pyongyang. As noted previously, Victor Cha, Korea chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said after the Hwasong-12 test that the successful launch “demonstrates that we have once again underestimated North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities.” He said the Hwasong-12 “represents a leap in ballistic missile technology.”
Sunday’s missile test was also the second since South Korea’s new President Moon Jae-in took office this month, a further test for the country’s first liberal president in nearly a decade. Moon has called for closer ties with North Korea, primarily through economic engagement. Needless to say, he was not happy and on Sunday president Moon Jae-in convened a National Security Council meeting to discuss the provocation. “North Korea fired an unidentified ballistic missile in the eastern direction at around 4:59 p.m. from the vicinity of Pukchang in Pyeongannam-do (South Pyeongan Province),” the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) said in a statement.
A spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Command said it tracked the missile until it splashed down in the waters between Korea and Japan.
An official traveling with U.S. President Donald Trump in Saudi Arabia said the White House was aware that North Korea had launched what it described as a medium-range ballistic missile and noted that the missile had a shorter range than the three previous tested by North Korea.
As the WSJ adds, just hours before Sunday’s launch, North Korea warned through its state media that it would follow up the Hwasong-12 launch with more missile tests. “Many more ‘Juche weapons’ capable of striking the U.S. will be launched from this land,” North Korea’s Minju Joson newspaper said in a commentary Sunday, according to Pyongyang’s Korean Central News Agency. Juche, or self-reliance, is a reference to North Korea’s state ideology. The commentary also appeared to directly rebuke Trump’s prior vows to prevent the North from further developing its nuclear and missile capabilities.
“This is the DPRK’s answer to the Trump administration,” the Minju Joson commentary added. “The U.S. has no force to check the vigorous advance of Juche Korea.”
In Tokyo, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe denounced the missile launch and called it a “challenge to the world.” Mr. Abe said he wanted to make North Korea a principal issue at the Group of Seven summit in Italy later this week. “I would like to send a clear message.” China had no immediate comment.
There was a lot of pomp and circumstance upon Trump’s arrival in Saudi Arabia. It’s important to note, after 8 years of Iranian friendly Obama, the Saudis have strong motives to curry the favor of the new American President.
The visit to Saudi Arabia is historic. It marks the first time in American history a President had chosen to make Saudi Arabia his first international visit. Upon landing in the oil rich gulf state, the President signed a massive arms deal — which could swell to more than $350b over the next decade. The deal includes blackhawk helicopters, a modified version of the Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ship, thousands of precision guided weaponry, cargo helicopters, transport helicopters, 115 M1A2s tanks, anti-ballistic missile systems (THAAD), and ‘maritime assets.’
The theory behind arming Saudi Arabia is that it would permit them to handle Iran in the Persian Gulf, granting us license to throw a few logs on the fire and doze off a bit while they do all the work for a change. All that sounds well and good, especially since the money will be spent with our weapons manufacturers, who employ thousands of Americans. But what about all of the stuff Trump said about Saudi Arabia during the campaign? Does that count for anything, or was it just election time shit talking?
Here’s Trump chastising Clinton for accepting Saudi money, a country that ‘kills women’ and ‘treat women horribly.’
Or what about the time Trump told The Morning Shill that Saudi Arabia was arming ISIS?
This is the “if, then” logic I want to put on the table for you to think about. If Saudi Arabia funds radical Islam and ISIS, like Trump said, then should we be selling them advanced weaponry?
One minor detail that is vexing me today. All of the conservatards are out in force, praising Melania Trump for not wearing a headscarf, which she’s 100% right for doing.
But Michelle Obama didn’t wear one either. I don’t know why people are saying she did wear one.
As a matter of fact, President Trump actually had the stones to criticize Michelle for doing so back then, calling it an insult.
Many people are saying it was wonderful that Mrs. Obama refused to wear a scarf in Saudi Arabia, but they were insulted.We have enuf enemies
Generally speaking, conspiracy theories form where there is a vacuum of verifiable facts associated with a controversial, usually tragic event. The concept has evolved over the years and is a part of our popular culture. There are legions of conspiracy theorists and “truthers” who have devoted their lives to certain theories, and there are legions of skeptics who have devoted their lives to debunking those theories. All the while, conspiracy theories of every stripe and variety festoon the footnotes of history. Even the origin of the phrase itself is subject to conspiracy theory, as some researchers have argued that the CIA invented and promulgated the term in order to marginalize fringe thinkers and neutralize investigations.
The internet has obviously had a profound effect on conspiracy theories, simultaneously helping and hurting the cause. While a world of information is at people’s fingertips, so too are alternate worlds of manufactured propaganda. While the Internet may appear to be a democratized, unfiltered path toward facts and truth, it is easily manipulated. Powerful corporations pay a lot of money to have their dirty laundry buried in the search results underneath contrived puff pieces.
With nearly the entire mainstream media apparatus at their disposal, the government is a maestro at this practice. As we learned from so-called Operation Mockingbird — a conspiracy theory fact discussed in my first post on the subject, “Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True,” — hundreds, if not thousands of news organizations have been conscripted into working with the CIA to support pro-government narratives. That was in the 1960s. One can only imagine how vast the network is now. Not to mention the fact that a single proprietary algorithm owned by Google dictates the vast majority of the population’s exposure to a subject.
In Part 1, I noted that the list had been meticulously whittled down to focus only on conspiracies that have been irrefutably proven to be fact. There are hundreds of conspiracy theories I think are likely to be true that are not on this list because there simply isn’t enough hard evidence yet to confirm it 100%. I also aimed for a good mixture of old conspiracies and new conspiracies. With groups like Wikileaks and Anonymous out there, the last decade has witnessed a dam burst of new data and documents. Thanks to intrepid journalists, whistleblowers, hacktivists, and leakers, the human race continues to tear down the wall of lies erected by the corporatocracy.
Without further ado, let’s get to it….ten more conspiracy theories we can start calling conspiracy facts.
1. Operation Ajax, the CIA’s Iranian Coup
In Iran it was called 28 Mordad coup; the United Kingdom contributed under the name Operation Boot. However you refer to it, Operation Ajax was an Iranian coup that in 1953 deposed the democratically elected Muhammad Mossadeq and reinstalled the monarchical power of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. The primary cause of the coup was Mossadeq’s attempt to nationalize the Iran’s oil fields, which threatened the oil profits of Britain’s Anglo-Persian Oil Company (AIOC). The U.S. — in addition to protecting its ally’s petroleum monopoly — viewed Mossadeq’s move as communist aggression and therefore helped plan the return to power of one the world’s more insidious dictators, the shah. Operation Ajax resulted almost directly in 1979 Iranian revolution that created an anti-West Islamic republic led by the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Though it was long considered an open secret, the U.S. government kept the truth behind Operation Ajax concealed from the American people until very recently. The CIA declassified various documents on the 60th anniversary of the coup.
Because of the recent declassification, much information relevant to this CIA-sponsored coup is now available in the CIA’s archives.
In describing Operation Ajax, the CIA itself has become rather oddly self-reflective:
“The world has paid a heavy price for the lack of democracy in most of the Middle East. Operation Ajax taught tyrants and aspiring tyrants that the world’s most powerful governments were willing to tolerate limitless oppression as long as oppressive regimes were friendly to the West and to Western oil companies. That helped tilt the political balance in a vast region away from freedom and toward dictatorship.”
In a recent interview on Democracy Now, Bernie Sanders remarked to Amy Goodman that this seminal chapter in the history of U.S./Middle East relations is almost entirely ignored by mainstream media. “Have you seen many shows about that on NBC?” he asked the crowd.
2. “Nayirah,” the False Pretext for the first Gulf War
It’s now commonly believed that the second Iraq War was sold to the American people — and their congressional representatives — based on an elaborate web of lies and manipulated intelligence. What is less commonly known is that the first Iraq War came about in a very similar fashion. While, surprisingly, there is broad agreement that “Operation Desert Storm” was a worthwhile war, many people overlook the role of a fifteen-year-old girl named “Nayirah,” whose 1990 testimony to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus is credited with cementing the idea of Iraqi war crimes in the American popular consciousness. Nayirah testified to having witnessed Iraqi troops tearing babies from their incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals and leaving them to die on the floor. It’s a profoundly disturbing image….and one that was entirely fictitious.
After a lengthy investigation, Amnesty International and other independent watchdog groups discovered that the situation described by Nayirah was fabricated by a PR firm named Hill & Knowlton (the largest in the world at this time), which was hired by the group Citizens for a Free Kuwait in order to create propaganda that would galvanize pro-war sentiment. The man overseeing the campaign was Bush political confidante Craig Fuller. This was a massive project utilizing 119 H&K executives in 12 offices across the United States and even involved casting Nayirah, who turned out to be Nayirah al-Sabah, daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. The Justice Department, which could have investigated the entire effort under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, turned a blind eye, allowing the Bush administration to pull off a massive “Wag the Dog”-style ideological false flag. Others call it “atrocity propaganda,” a form of psyop (psychological operation).
The “Nayirah” story is just another example of the government falsifying a narrative in order to manipulate the public into supporting war. This kind of psychological propaganda continued all through the second Iraq War and the War on Terror. Just recently, it was revealed that the Pentagon paid PR firm Bell Pottinger $540 million to create fake terrorist videos in Iraq.
3. Operation Paperclip
Originally called Operation Overcast, Operation Paperclip was the codename of the secret American plan to conscript Nazi scientists into U.S. intelligence services at the end of World War II. This ushered in and shielded about 1,500 Germans, including some engineers and technicians. Ostensibly, the purpose of this redeployment by the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) was to prevent Nazi scientific intelligence from helping reconstitute a new German government; it was also a tactic meant to ensure the Soviet Union didn’t acquire any new technology.
Whatever strategic mindset might have lived inside Operation Paperclip, at its core, the project gave American identities to some of the most ruthless war criminals the world has ever seen.
According to Ynet, the new Nazi CIA scientists helped develop chemical weapons for the U.S. and worked alongside American scientists to develop LSD, which the CIA viewed as a ‘truth serum.’
4. Operation Gladio: Anti-Communist False Flags in Italy
Operation Gladio was the post-World War II love-child of a CIA/NATO/M16 plot to battle communism in Italy. The operation lasted two decades and used CIA-created “stay behind” networks as part of a “Strategy of Tension” that coordinated multiple terrorist attacks from the late 1960s to the early 1980s. Authorities blamed these attacks on Marxists and other left-wing political opponents in order to stigmatize and condemn communism. The operation involved multiple bombings that killed hundreds of innocent people, including children. The most notable attack was the August 2, 1980, bombing of the Bologna train station, which killed 85 people.
In an Anti-Media piece written about five confirmed false flag operations (which includes Operation Gladio, I wrote:
“How do we know about Operation Gladio in spite of its incredibly clandestine nature? There are two principle sources. One, the investigations of Italian judge Felice Casson, whose presentation was so compelling it forced Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti to confirm Gladio’s existence. The second source is testimony from an actual Gladio operative, Vincenzo Vinciguerra, who is serving a life sentence for murder. In a 1990 interview with the Guardian, Vincenzo stated that Gladio was designed to psychologically coerce the Italian public to rely on the state for security.”
Operation Gladio is a textbook modern “false flag.” It used terror and violence to discredit an ideology (communism). And to think, this came at a time before the internet when the CIA didn’t have a fully entrenched mainstream media to trumpet, echo, and build consensus around every little nuance (though they were working on it with COINTELPRO and Operation Mockingbird). Nowadays, the CIA has multinational propaganda machines — the news networks — to make sure all terrorist attacks fit into the carefully scripted narrative that manufactures consent around our wars for oil, natural gas, and other resources.
5. Government uses insect and rodent drones to spy
It’s somewhat of a cliche to jokingly refer to a surrounding insect or bird as a clandestine spy deployed by the government to watch you. While we lack certain specifics on the ubiquity of the technology, we know definitively that the government has the technology to surveil citizens using insects and other small animals, and they use this technology in military applications.
There is some evidence to suggest that insect drones are used domestically to spy on citizens. In 2007, this theory conspiracy theory took shape when anti-war protesters reported strange buzzing insects. Written off as tin foil material, officials dismissed the suggestion that the government used insect drones to spy. Multiple witnesses reported erratic dragonfly-type objects hovering in the sky. The very next year, the U.S. Air Force announced their intended use of insect-sized spies ‘as tiny as bumblebees’ to infiltrate buildings in order to ‘photograph, record, and even attack insurgents and terrorists.‘ The government has come clean about its use of drones to spy on American citizens, so it’s difficult to believe they wouldn’t have at least tried insect drones.
While we can’t say with 100% certainty that there are insect drones spying on American citizens, though it’s exceedingly likely, what is irrefutable is the use of micro air vehicles (MAVs) and “spy animals” as war-time tools. DARPA launched its Stealthy Insect Sensor Project in 1999 as an effort to deputize bees as bomb locators in war zones. This was just the first phase in an ongoing project. In her book The Pentagon’s Brain: An Uncensored History of DARPA, America’s Top Secret Military Research Agency, journalist Annie Jacobsen revealed that the agency’s near-future trajectory is to introduce “biohybrids” — part animal, part machine cyborgs — into the United States’ military arsenal.
“DARPA has already succeeded in creating a rat that will be steered by remote control by implanting an electrode in its brain.
“And it’s done the same thing with a moth which is really remarkable because the scientists implanted the electrodes in the pupa stage of the moth when it was still a worm! And then it transformed into having wings, and those tiny little micro-sensors transformed with the moth and the DARPA scientists were able to steer that moth.”
6. CIA assassinations and coups in foreign countries
When operatives for the Democratic Party claim the 2016 United States presidential election was tampered with by a foreign entity, it’s hard not to cringe at the irony. Firstly, they’ve presented no evidence, except to claim that government intelligence agencies believe it to be true. Sorry, that’s not actually evidence. That’s like the police saying they have DNA evidence but never actually scientifically presenting it in court. It’s kind of unnerving that we even have to point that out. Secondly, our own government and intelligence agencies, namely the CIA, have actively and aggressively subverted countless foreign elections over the last century and, in some cases, have outright funded the assassinations of candidates.
This subject could easily fill a multi-volume book, and countless authors have worked over the years to uncover the role of the CIA in foreign coups. Using every tool in their arsenal — including white, grey, and black psychological operations, counterinsurgencies, and brutal coups aimed at repressing and destroying radically democratic candidates — the CIA has subverted the “will of the people” across the world.
The most commonly noted instances of the CIA meddling in foreign elections and governments include the following: South Korea (late-1940s); Italy (1948-mid-1970s); Guatemala (1954); Congo (1960), Dominican Republic (1961), South Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964); Uruguay (1969); Bolivia (1971); Chile (1970-1973); Argentina (1976); Australia (1975); El Salvador (1980); Iran (late-1970s); Grenada (1983) Haiti (1986); Panama (1990) Nicaragua (1990); Czechoslovakia (1990); Peru (1990-2000) Yugoslavia (2000). This is but a small sampling of countries where even mainstream news outlets and, in many cases, the CIA itself, admits calamitous U.S. involvement. There are literally dozens more and, of course, this is restricting the conversation to soft coups — otherwise, we could certainly include the complete military decimation of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Middle Eastern countries during the War on Terror, as well as the myriad imperial wars against perceived communist threats.
‘A foreign government hacked and subverted our election!’
The irony is thick with this one. Payback’s a bitch…..which, of course, isn’t giving our intelligence agencies, who have proven themselves to be pathological liars, the benefit of the doubt regarding their claims of Russian collusion during the 2016 presidential election. It’s just to kind of say…..you reap the harvest you have sown. When you look at the track record of the United States government, it’s a wonder the average citizen is safe traveling abroad.
7. Mainstream media is the propaganda branch of the State Department
People have long accused the media of being a proxy branch of the State Department, a highly sophisticated and well-produced form of manufactured consensus and controlled opposition all rolled into one. In ostensibly democratic nations, a free and independent press is of paramount importance. But in the U.S., we find a cohesion of the state and corporate news networks that do not constitute ‘state-run media’ in the traditional sense — but it’s close.
Our first solid documentation that the media is an echo chamber for the government came with the disclosure of what has come to be called Operation Mockingbird. This nefarious and far-reaching conspiracy was documented in Part 1 and involved the CIA essentially conscripting journalists, American news agencies, and major broadcasters to become domestic propagandists and spies. Eventually, this CIA/media symbiosis included journalists from all the top news organizations. Literally, thousands of people were involved.
This infiltration of the American media and press took place during the 1950s, at the start of the Cold War, and was carried out under the auspices of fighting communism. The CIA began to restrict its use of journalists in the Operation Mockingbird program in 1976, but many people believe it has since transmogrified into something far more powerful, nefarious, and ubiquitous today. We’re still in the early stages of proving to the masses that mainstream media is little more than a mouthpiece and propaganda machine for the government and its various agencies, but the evidence is accumulating.
During the 2016 presidential election, Wikileaks exposed a number of disturbing revelations showing collusion between the media and political operatives. This included collusion between the media, the Democratic National Committee, and the Hillary Clinton campaign. But it wasn’t just about swaying the election. New revelations showed that the government actively infiltrates powerful media corporations in order to shape their content and narratives. One of the best examples of this was the State Department’s role in affecting a CBS 60 Minutes interview with Julian Assange.
A more comprehensive list of examples of the Orwellian symbiotic relationship between the press and the government can be found here.
Perhaps the most disturbing recent addition to this chapter was the “Countering Disinformation Act” that President Obama slipped into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on Christmas Eve of last year. In the context of the still-festering narrative of foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election, the act’s putative goal was to fight “fake news,” which many believe is actually a campaign to silence and dismantle alternative media on the Internet.
In order to accomplish this, the government is establishing a Global Engagement Center for managing disinformation and propaganda. Since we already know our government routinely performs psychological operations (psyops, or as they’ve been recently rebranded, Military Information Support Operations [MISO]), it should come as no surprise that manipulating the civilian population is a permanent goal. In fact, in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, the government formally legalized the use of psyops on U.S. citizens. So how does this Global Engagement Center factor in?
The new law states:
“The Center is authorized to provide grants or contracts of financial support to civil society groups, media content providers, nongovernmental organizations, federally funded research and development centers, private companies, or academic institutions for the following purposes:
To support local independent media who are best placed to refute foreign disinformation and manipulation in their own communities.
To collect and store examples in print, online, and social media, disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda directed at the United States and its allies and partners.
To analyze and report on tactics, techniques, and procedures of foreign information warfare with respect to disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda.
To support efforts by the Center to counter efforts by foreign entities to use disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda to influence the policies and social and political stability of the United States and United States allies and partner nations.”
While it may not immediately strike one as sinister, this codification of repressing journalists and voices the government deems to be disinformation while creating an even more centralized infrastructure to control “fact-based narratives” in the media should be highly alarming to anyone who cares about a free press. It would seem that while the State already has a steel grip on corporate news networks, they are struggling to control the influence of online independent media. This new law may be the start of this century’s Operation Mockingbird — a new full-scale infiltration of the local news and a war against anti-establishment narratives on the Internet. This is already taking the form of algorithmic censorship through Facebook and Google, as well as a weaponization of the “fake news” narrative.
8. The Deep State (or the conspiracy theory formerly known as The New World Order)
“For decades, extreme ideologies on both the left and the right have clashed over the conspiratorial concept of a shadowy secret government often called the New World Order pulling the strings on the world’s heads of state and captains of industry.
“The phrase New World Order is largely derided as a sophomoric conspiracy theory entertained by minds that lack the sophistication necessary to understand the nuances of geopolitics. But it turns out the core idea — one of deep and overarching collusion between Wall Street and government with a globalist agenda — is operational in what a number of insiders call the “Deep State.”
In the wake of the 2016 election, the concept of the Deep State has grown into somewhat of a common phrase in the lexicon of alternative media theorists, crossing political boundaries and resonating across the ideological spectrum. Everyone from alt-left socialists to alt-righters now agrees there is an unelected cabal of elite neo-conservative corporatists and crony lawmakers running the geopolitical show.
Because it’s such a complex subject and permeates so many different academic, economic, and state apparatuses, it’s virtually impossible to issue a single, simple definition of the Deep State. If I were to hazard one, I would call it “the nexus of Wall Street and the national security state — a relationship where elected and unelected figures join forces to consolidate power and serve vested interests.” But even that is vague. We could also call it “the failure of our visible constitutional government and the cross-fertilization of corporatism with the globalist war on terror.”
Former Republican congressional aide Mike Lofgren gets more specific with who is involved:
“It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street.”
In his writing, Lofgren emphasized the role of FISA international surveillance courts. This was confirmed in a very interesting way when President Donald Trump accused former President Obama of tapping his phones, a charge Obama aides deflected by saying that if such a warrant had been issued, it would have been done through a FISA court. This shows how presidents are able to skirt the constitution by outsourcing surveillance requests. It also shows the interconnectedness of these agencies.
However you want to describe it, it’s the natural conclusion of Operation Mockingbird and most certainly a reality that the elites would have rather kept under the radar. Fortunately for the people of the Earth, revelations from Wikileaks and other whistleblowers have, over the last couple decades, made it abundantly clear that the Deep State (the New World Order) not only exists, but also that it’s far more sinister and powerful than early conspiracy theorists could have ever imagined.
9. CIA used psychics to infiltrate the Soviet Union during Cold War
It’s a plot in a science fiction movie or TV show we’ve all seen: a psychic being leveraged by a law enforcement agency to track down a criminal. The concept of a government psychic program was popularized by the film The Men Who Stare at Goats, which lampooned the mythical STARGATE program supposedly run by the CIA. Most people scoffed at the reality of this and considered it a wacky conspiracy theory, but a recently declassified trove of hundreds of thousands of CIA files finally confirmed not only that psychics are regularly used by police and other law enforcement agencies, but also that the government actually weaponized psychics during the Cold War to try to infiltrate the Soviet Union and gain information.
The documents, made publicly available thanks to the activist group Muckrock, confirm there were top-secret CIA and Defense Department programs to use remote viewing to infiltrate Soviet military installments. There were also programs developing ways to engage in “psychic warfare,” including the development of a “psychic shield” to block Soviet psychics.
10. CIA monitors U.S. citizens via their smart devices
Early in 2017, the organization Wikileaks began releasing their first post-2016 election cables with a series of explosive data dumps regarding the CIA’s cyber hacking abilities and exploits. It is called Vault 7. Updated serially in “Year Zero,” “Dark Matter,” “Marble,” “Grasshopper,” “HIVE,” “Weeping Angel,” and “Scribbles,” the documents show the unprecedented collection of cyber vulnerabilities, exploits, and hacking abilities consolidated within the agency that many believe constitute wide-ranging breaches of civil liberties.
Chief among these breaches is domestic surveillance and extrajudicial cyberhacking, which the Wikileaks documents confirm are taking place in an abundance of forms. The Vault 7 documents confirm that: The CIA can break into Android and iPhone handsets and all kinds of computers; the agency has the ability to hack into Apple iPhones and Android smartphones and actually assume full remote control of the device; the CIA can access consumer smart TVs to listen in on surrounding conversations; the agency looked into ways to hack into cars and crash them, allowing ‘nearly undetectable assassinations’ (an assertion that may be relevant to the Michael Hastings case); the CIA concealed vulnerabilities that could be exploited by hackers from other countries or governments.
This is just the beginning. Early in the release, Julian Assange said the documents released represented only a tiny fraction of the total data that was forthcoming. Wikileaks’ episodic data dumps on the CIA’s cyber hacking programs are nothing less than stunning. The establishment’s reaction to the ongoing releases verifies how big of a deal they are. One congressman went so far as to refer to Julian Assange and his whistleblowing outfit as a “foreign terrorist organization.” This isn’t new or unexpected, as the group’s slow but inexorable drips of revelations about government malfeasance continue to confound and disturb private citizens, consumer rights activists, tech companies, and international leaders alike.
Conclusion
Of course, not all conspiracy theories are true. In fact, there are hundreds, even thousands, that have been roundly debunked. Unfortunately, there are those who seek to lie and invent fictions for monetary gain and fame. Disinformation, propaganda, and dishonesty exist at all levels of society.
However, sometimes conspiracy theories turn out to be true. Therefore, it’s worth assessing them, even if their claims appear wholly outlandish. Especially if their claims appear wholly outlandish.
The conspiracy theory is a tool in a larger tool kit used by those who wish to decode the grossly imperfect and fluid narrative describing our world. When investigated responsibly, conspiracy theories function as part of a conceptual spectrum of analysis with which we can investigate government and corporate abuses of power and the manufacturing of ‘consensus reality.’ In the 21st century, when the very transmission of information can be considered criminal, being a responsible conspiracy theorist just means you practice due diligence and hunger for the truth.