Monthly Archives: August 2015

Still another China “chemical factory” explodes. Non-stop explosions and flaming objects from space.

Still another China “chemical factory” explodes. Non-stop explosions and flaming objects from space.

Chinese “factories” and “warehouses” suddenly have a contagion of explosions. There have been quite a lot and now another one just went up.

China cannot seem to get a handle on the sudden and ‘accidental” non-stop huge explosions of it’s “factories” and “warehouses”.

Japan-based U.S. military warehouses are now exploding. This thing is worse than the flu. It has nothing to do with the coincidence of the political internet control center for Google getting “accidently” hit by “lightning” and having its data wiped out.

All the while an interesting coindidence of flaming objects from space have caused many to state that there is no reason to think that foreign nations are secretly shooting down each others satellites. All those funny new YouTube videos of the international space station spotting funny things flying near it? Those are not rival satellite killer drones. No sir! don’t you get your shorts in a tizzy.

It is all just a coincidence that this is all happening at the same time that China got caught hacking the whole U.S. Government and then taking out the U.S. stock market just to show that it can.

The discussions on Reddit, Voat, Infowars, and the rest, about these things being tied to a big ruckus are just probably “hot-heads” reading too much into things.

Stay calm. Pay no attention to these distractions. Go about your day.

Voters Believe Washington DC has been HIJACKED

Voters Believe Washington DC has been HIJACKED

On Sept. 11, terrorists took over a United States passenger jet, in an attempt to fly it into a famous building.

The passengers of that jet said, “Like hell” and, instead of sitting and waiting for the inevitable, rose from their seats, and with the famous cry of:

“Let’s Roll!”

They took the whole plane down for the greater good.

This is what is now happening to Washington Politics.

Tunnel-visioned, tone-deaf campaign managers are in utter shock that Hillary is crashing, Trump is rising, and the public are attending the alternative, and third party candidate, rallies in twice the numbers of the candidates spending big money to even get any turnout.

The public has had it. The public is now fully aware of how revolving doors, stock market kickbacks, nepotism, rigged hard-wired grants, and other crimes of policy occur, at their expense.

The middle class, i.e.: 300 million of the potential voters have watched their jobs, home financing, public services and quality of life, evaporate. The glorious “economic recovery” was only for the 1%.

Poll after poll, survey after survey, and town hall after town hall, has proven that the public has not been able to discover a single thing that Washington politicians have done for them. Every single action, now taking place in Washington, is designed to get Goldman Sachs their skim, put another $100K of bribes in some Senator’s Swiss bank account and fund private kick-back projects for Doerr, Soros, Guistra, Musk, and the other campaign billionaires. NOTHING, in Washington, is done with the public in mind anymore.

The 9/11 passengers took the plane down in order to save the American dream.

Voters are now rising up to take the off-course flight of Washington DC down.

Nobody thought, at first, that wild independents like Trump, Sanders, and the rest were anything more than distractions and sideshows. However, the public is so fed up with Washington DC operating as an unmitigated theft party, that THE VOTERS have decided to tear it down and start anew.

The public sentiment is that of enraged patrons at a traveling circus, who found out they were gypped, and let all of the monkey’s loose in revenge.

The Buzzfeeds and VOX’s of the new digital news landscape have informed the public, daily, about the most intimate details of the crimes against the public. The hackers, leakers and whistle-blowers, every day, reveal hard new evidence of their criminal political abuses of the voters.

The public has stepped up.

In one voice…

With one intent…

The voters have stood up and said:

LET’S ROLL!

 

 

 

 

Clinton Campaign Wants “Hillary For Prison” signs “Pulled Up”

Clinton Campaign Wants “Hillary For Prison” signs “Pulled Up”

Opposition candidates are crunching down on Hillary’s campaign with references to Whitewater, The Clinton Foundation cash connections, Goldman Sach’s dirty Wall Street games, and abuse-of-position illegal email server charges.

Nothing has hit home harder than the many versions of the “HILLARY FOR PRISON” campaign signs, that are popping up nationwide.

As fast as Clinton supporters can rip them out, new one’s pop up.

It is far early for the usual campaign signage wars. “Usually” those don’t start for a few months.
2016 is already proving, though, to be an unusual election cycle.

HILLARY FOR PRISON; HILLARY FOR PRISON-DENT, MONICA LEWINKSY’S BOYFRIEND’S WIFE FOR PRESIDENT; are all the rage in anti-Hillary regions. One can only wonder what the Hillary Team will hit back with?

 

Horrific Armies Of Chainsaw Wielding French Terrorist Gypsies Hack Limbs Off In Europe

Horrific Armies Of Chainsaw Wielding French Terrorist Gypsies Hack Limbs Off In Europe

Horrific Armies Of Chainsaw Wielding French Terrorist Gypsies Hack Limbs Off In Europe

In one of the most gruesome scenes of epic clickbait in modern history, France recoils with disgust and the world mourns the loss of print media

 

 

Did Hillary Clinton inherit Obama’s Google campaign rigging system and is that why other candidates are saying she is “rigging the system?”

Did Hillary Clinton inherit Obama’s Google campaign rigging system and is that why other candidates are saying she is “rigging the system?”

Hillary people say “the majority of Democrats want Hillary” but O’Malley, Sanders, Trump, et al , call “BS” on that claim

Stats do appear to be “rigged”.

Did Google rig Obama’s election so that Obama could kick-back hundreds of billions of dollars to Google’s investors in the Cleantech Funding scandal?

 

 

POLITICO Magazine

 

A picture taken on October 17, 2017 in Lille, shows a figue in front of the Google internet homepage.   AFP PHOTO / PHILIPPE HUGUEN        (Photo credit should read PHILIPPE HUGUEN/AFP/Getty Images)

2016

How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election

Google has the ability to drive millions of votes to a candidate with no one the wiser.

Getty.

America’s next president could be eased into office not just by TV ads or speeches, but by Google’s secret decisions, and no one—except for me and perhaps a few other obscure researchers—would know how this was accomplished.

Research I have been directing in recent years suggests that Google, Inc., has amassed far more power to control elections—indeed, to control a wide variety of opinions and beliefs—than any company in history has ever had. Google’s search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more—up to 80 percent in some demographic groups—with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated, according to experiments I conducted recently with Ronald E. Robertson.

Given that many elections are won by small margins, this gives Google the power, right now, to flip upwards of 25 percent of the national elections worldwide. In the United States, half of our presidential elections have been won by margins under 7.6 percent, and the 2012 election was won by a margin of only 3.9 percent—well within Google’s control.

There are at least three very real scenarios whereby Google—perhaps even without its leaders’ knowledge—could shape or even decide the election next year. Whether or not Google executives see it this way, the employees who constantly adjust the search giant’s algorithms are manipulating people every minute of every day. The adjustments they make increasingly influence our thinking—including, it turns out, our voting preferences.

What we call in our research the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) turns out to be one of the largest behavioral effects ever discovered. Our comprehensive new study, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), includes the results of five experiments we conducted with more than 4,500 participants in two countries. Because SEME is virtually invisible as a form of social influence, because the effect is so large and because there are currently no specific regulations anywhere in the world that would prevent Google from using and abusing this technique, we believe SEME is a serious threat to the democratic system of government.

According to Google Trends, at this writing Donald Trump is currently trouncing all other candidates in search activity in 47 of 50 states. Could this activity push him higher in search rankings, and could higher rankings in turn bring him more support? Most definitely—depending, that is, on how Google employees choose to adjust numeric weightings in the search algorithm. Google acknowledges adjusting the algorithm 600 times a year, but the process is secret, so what effect Mr. Trump’s success will have on how he shows up in Google searches is presumably out of his hands.

***

Our new research leaves little doubt about whether Google has the ability to control voters. In laboratory and online experiments conducted in the United States, we were able to boost the proportion of people who favored any candidate by between 37 and 63 percent after just one search session. The impact of viewing biased rankings repeatedly over a period of weeks or months would undoubtedly be larger.

In our basic experiment, participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups in which search rankings favored either Candidate A, Candidate B or neither candidate. Participants were given brief descriptions of each candidate and then asked how much they liked and trusted each candidate and whom they would vote for. Then they were allowed up to 15 minutes to conduct online research on the candidates using a Google-like search engine we created called Kadoodle.

Each group had access to the same 30 search results—all real search results linking to real web pages from a past election. Only the ordering of the results differed in the three groups. People could click freely on any result or shift between any of five different results pages, just as one can on Google’s search engine.

When our participants were done searching, we asked them those questions again, and, voilà: On all measures, opinions shifted in the direction of the candidate who was favored in the rankings. Trust, liking and voting preferences all shifted predictably.

More alarmingly, we also demonstrated this shift with real voters during an actual electoral campaign—in an experiment conducted with more than 2,000 eligible, undecided voters throughout India during the 2014 Lok Sabha election there—the largest democratic election in history, with more than 800 million eligible voters and 480 million votes ultimately cast. Even here, with real voters who were highly familiar with the candidates and who were being bombarded with campaign rhetoric every day, we showed that search rankings could boost the proportion of people favoring any candidate by more than 20 percent—more than 60 percent in some demographic groups.

http://images.politico.com/global/2015/08/19/epstein_indian.png

Given how powerful this effect is, it’s possible that Google decided the winner of the Indian election.  Google’s own daily data on election-related search activity (subsequently removed from the Internet, but not before my colleagues and I downloaded the pages) showed that Narendra Modi, the ultimate winner, outscored his rivals in search activity by more than 25 percent for sixty-one consecutive days before the final votes were cast. That high volume of search activity could easily have been generated by higher search rankings for Modi.

Google’s official comment on SEME research is always the same: “Providing relevant answers has been the cornerstone of Google’s approach to search from the very beginning. It would undermine the people’s trust in our results and company if we were to change course.”

Could any comment be more meaningless? How does providing “relevant answers” to election-related questions rule out the possibility of favoring one candidate over another in search rankings? Google’s statement seems far short of a blanket denial that it ever puts its finger on the scales.

There are three credible scenarios under which Google could easily be flipping elections worldwide as you read this:

First, there is the Western Union Scenario: Google’s executives decide which candidate is best for us—and for the company, of course—and they fiddle with search rankings accordingly. There is precedent in the United States for this kind of backroom king-making. Rutherford B. Hayes, the 19th president of the United States, was put into office in part because of strong support by Western Union. In the late 1800s, Western Union had a monopoly on communications in America, and just before to the election of 1876, the company did its best to assure that only positive news stories about Hayes appeared in newspapers nationwide. It also shared all the telegrams sent by his opponent’s campaign staff with Hayes’s staff. Perhaps the most effective way to wield political influence in today’s high-tech world is to donate money to a candidate and then to use technology to make sure he or she wins. The technology guarantees the win, and the donation guarantees allegiance, which Google has certainly tapped in recent years with the Obama administration.

Given Google’s strong ties to Democrats, there is reason to suspect that if Google or its employees intervene to favor their candidates, it will be to adjust the search algorithm to favor Hillary Clinton. In 2012, Google and its top executives donated more than $800,000 to Obama but only $37,000 to Romney. At least six top tech officials in the Obama administration, including Megan Smith, the country’s chief technology officer, are former Google employees. According to a recent report by the Wall Street Journal, since Obama took office, Google representatives have visited the White House ten times as frequently as representatives from comparable companies—once a week, on average.

Hillary Clinton clearly has Google’s support and is well aware of Google’s value in elections. In April of this year, she hired a top Google executive, Stephanie Hannon, to serve as her chief technology officer. I don’t have any reason to suspect Hannon would use her old connections to aid her candidate, but the fact that she—or any other individual with sufficient clout at Google—has the power to decide elections threatens to undermine the legitimacy of our electoral system, particularly in close elections.

This is, in any case, the most implausible scenario. What company would risk the public outrage and corporate punishment that would follow from being caught manipulating an election?

Second, there is the Marius Milner Scenario: A rogue employee at Google who has sufficient password authority or hacking skills makes a few tweaks in the rankings (perhaps after receiving a text message from some old friend who now works on a campaign), and the deed is done. In 2010, when Google got caught sweeping up personal information from unprotected Wi-Fi networks in more than 30 countries using its Street View vehicles, the entire operation was blamed on one Google employee: software engineer Marius Milner. So they fired him, right? Nope. He’s still there, and on LinkedIn he currently identifies his profession as “hacker.” If, somehow, you have gotten the impression that at least a few of Google’s 37,000 employees are every bit as smart as Milner and possess a certain mischievousness—well, you are probably right, which is why the rogue employee scenario isn’t as far-fetched as it might seem.

And third—and this is the scariest possibility—there is the Algorithm Scenario: Under this scenario, all of Google’s employees are innocent little lambs, but the software is evil. Google’s search algorithm is pushing one candidate to the top of rankings because of what the company coyly dismisses as “organic” search activity by users; it’s harmless, you see, because it’s all natural. Under this scenario, a computer program is picking our elected officials.

To put this another way, our research suggests that no matter how innocent or disinterested Google’s employees may be, Google’s search algorithm, propelled by user activity, has been determining the outcomes of close elections worldwide for years, with increasing impact every year because of increasing Internet penetration.

SEME is powerful precisely because Google is so good at what it does; its search results are generally superb. Having learned that fact over time, we have come to trust those results to a high degree. We have also learned that higher rankings mean better material, which is why 50 percent of our clicks go to the first two items, with more than 90 percent of all clicks going to that precious first search page. Unfortunately, when it comes to elections, that extreme trust we have developed makes us vulnerable to manipulation.

In the final days of a campaign, fortunes are spent on media blitzes directed at a handful of counties where swing voters will determine the winners in the all-important swing states. What a waste of resources! The right person at Google could influence those key voters more than any stump speech could; there is no cheaper, more efficient or subtler way to turn swing voters than SEME. SEME also has one eerie advantage over billboards: when people are unaware of a source of influence, they believe they weren’t being influenced at all; they believe they made up their own minds.

Republicans, take note: A manipulation on Hillary Clinton’s behalf would be particularly easy for Google to carry out, because of all the demographic groups we have looked at so far, no group has been more vulnerable to SEME—in other words, so blindly trusting of search rankings—than moderate Republicans. In a national experiment we conducted in the United States, we were able to shift a whopping 80 percent of moderate Republicans in any direction we chose just by varying search rankings.

There are many ways to influence voters—more ways than ever these days, thanks to cable television, mobile devices and the Internet. Why be so afraid of Google’s search engine? If rankings are so influential, won’t all the candidates be using the latest SEO techniques to make sure they rank high?

SEO is competitive, as are billboards and TV commercials. No problem there. The problem is that for all practical purposes, there is just one search engine. More than 75 percent of online search in the United States is conducted on Google, and in most other countries that proportion is 90 percent. That means that if Google’s CEO, a rogue employee or even just the search algorithm itself favors one candidate, there is no way to counteract that influence. It would be as if Fox News were the only television channel in the country. As Internet penetration grows and more people get their information about candidates online, SEME will become an increasingly powerful form of influence, which means that the programmers and executives who control search engines will also become more powerful.

Worse still, our research shows that even when people do notice they are seeing biased search rankings, their voting preferences still shift in the desired directions—even more than the preferences of people who are oblivious to the bias. In our national study in the United States, 36 percent of people who were unaware of the rankings bias shifted toward the candidate we chose for them, but 45 percent of those who were aware of the bias also shifted. It’s as if the bias was serving as a form of social proof; the search engine clearly prefers one candidate, so that candidate must be the best. (Search results are supposed to be biased, after all; they’re supposed to show us what’s best, second best, and so on.)

Biased rankings are hard for individuals to detect, but what about regulators or election watchdogs? Unfortunately, SEME is easy to hide. The best way to wield this type of influence is to do what Google is becoming better at doing every day: send out customized search results. If search results favoring one candidate were sent only to vulnerable individuals, regulators and watchdogs would be especially hard pressed to find them.

For the record, by the way, our experiments meet the gold standards of research in the behavioral sciences: They are randomized (which means people are randomly assigned to different groups), controlled (which means they include groups in which interventions are either present or absent), counterbalanced (which means critical details, such as names, are presented to half the participants in one order and to half in the opposite order) and double-blind (which means that neither the subjects nor anyone who interacts with them has any idea what the hypotheses are or what groups people are assigned to). Our subject pools are diverse, matched as closely as possible to characteristics of a country’s electorate. Finally, our recent report in PNAS included four replications; in other words, we showed repeatedly—under different conditions and with different groups—that SEME is real.

Our newest research on SEME, conducted with nearly 4,000 people just before the national elections in the UK this past spring, is looking at ways we might be able to protect people from the manipulation. We found the monster; now we’re trying to figure out how to kill it. What we have learned so far is that the only way to protect people from biased search rankings is to break the trust Google has worked so hard to build. When we deliberately mix rankings up, or when we display various kinds of alerts that identify bias, we can suppress SEME to some extent.

It’s hard to imagine Google ever degrading its product and undermining its credibility in such ways, however. To protect the free and fair election, that might leave only one option, as unpalatable at it might seem: government regulation.

Robert Epstein is senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today. Follow him on Twitter @DrREpstein.

 

 

Proving That Google Manipulates The Internet For Elon Musk and His Political Elections And Stock Market Results For Investors: How It Was Done

          Technical testing arrays were built, by numerous groups, which spent long periods testing the internet

          Results prove that “mood manipulation” technology is intentionally used and operated by Google management

          Google accused of running “NAZI-LIKE” mind experiments on the public without their knowledge

 

Internet search engines may be influencing elections

By 

David Shultz 

 “What we’re talking about here is a means of mind control on a massive scale that there is no precedent for in human history.” That may sound hyperbolic, but Robert Epstein says it’s not an exaggeration. Epstein, a research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research in Vista, California, has found that the higher a politician ranks on a page of Internet search results, the more likely you are to vote for them.

“I have a lot of faith in the methods they’ve used, and I think it’s a very rigorously conducted study,” says Nicholas Diakopoulos, a computer scientist at the University of Maryland, College Park, who was not involved in the research. “I don’t think that they’ve overstated their claims.”

In their first experiment, Epstein and colleagues recruited three groups of 102 volunteers in San Diego, California, who were generally representative of the U.S. voting population in terms of age, race, political affiliation, and other traits. The researchers wanted to know if they could influence who the Californians would have voted for in the 2010 election … for prime minister of Australia.

So they built a fake search engine called Kadoodle that returned a list of 30 websites for the finalist candidates, 15 for Tony Abbott and 15 for Julia Gillard. Most of the Californians knew little about either candidate before the test began, so the experiment was their only real exposure to Australian politics. What they didn’t know was that the search engine had been rigged to display the results in an order biased toward one candidate or the other. For example, in the most extreme scenario, a subject would see 15 webpages with information about Gillard’s platform and objectives followed by 15 similar results for Abbott.

As predicted, subjects spent far more time reading Web pages near the top of the list. But what surprised researchers was the difference those rankings made: Biased search results increased the number of undecided voters choosing the favored candidate by 48% compared with a control group that saw an equal mix of both candidates throughout the list. Very few subjects noticed they were being manipulated, but those who did were actuallymore likely to vote in line with the biased results. “We expect the search engine to be making wise choices,” Epstein says. “What they’re saying is, ‘Well yes, I see the bias and that’s telling me … the search engine is doing its job.’” 

In a second experiment, the scientists repeated the first test on 2100 participants recruited online through Amazon’s labor crowdsourcing site Mechanical Turk. The subjects were also chosen to be representative of the U.S. voting population. The large sample size—and additional details provided by users—allowed the researchers to pinpoint which demographics were most vulnerable to search engine manipulation: Divorcees, Republicans, and subjects who reported low familiarity with the candidates were among the easiest groups to influence, whereas participants who were better informed, married, or reported an annual household income between $40,000 and $50,000 were harder to sway. Moderate Republicans were the most susceptible of any group: The manipulated search results increased the number of undecided voters who said they would choose the favored candidate by 80%.

“In a two-person race, a candidate can only count on getting half of the uncommitted votes, which is worthless. With the help of biased search rankings, a candidate might be able to get 90% of the uncommitted votes [in select demographics],” Epstein explains.

In a third experiment, the team tested its hypothesis in a real, ongoing election: the 2014 general election in India. After recruiting a sample of 2150 undecided Indian voters, the researchers repeated the original experiment, replacing the Australian candidates with the three Indian politicians who were actually running at the time. The results of the real world trial were slightly less dramatic—an outcome that researchers attribute to voters’ higher familiarity with the candidates. But merely changing which candidate appeared higher in the results still increased the number of undecided Indian voters who would vote for that candidate by 12% or more compared with controls. And once again, awareness of the manipulation enhanced the effect.

A few percentage points here and there may seem meager, but the authors point out that elections are often won by margins smaller than 1%. If 80% of eligible voters have Internet access and 10% of them are undecided, the search engine effect could convince an additional 25% of those undecided to vote for a target candidate, the team reports online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. That type of swing would determine the election outcome, as long as the expected win margin was 2% or less. “This is a huge effect,” Epstein says. “It’s so big that it’s quite dangerous.”

But perhaps the most concerning aspect of the findings is that a search engine doesn’t even have to intentionally manipulate the order of results for this effect to manifest. Organic search algorithms already in place naturally put one candidate’s name higher on the list than others. This is based on factors like “relevance” and “credibility” (terms that are closely guarded by developers at Google and other major search engines). So the public is already being influenced by the search engine manipulation effect, Epstein says. “Without any intervention by anyone working at Google, it means that Google’s algorithm has been determining the outcome of close elections around the world.”

Presumably Google isn’t intentionally tweaking its algorithms to favor certain presidential candidates, but Epstein says it would extremely difficult to tell if it were. He also points out that the Internet mogul will benefit more from certain election outcomes than others.

And according to Epstein, Google is very aware both of the power it wields, as well as the research his team is doing: When the team recruited volunteers from the Internet in the second experiment, two of the IP addresses came from Google’s head office, he says.

“It’s easy to point the finger at the algorithm because it’s this supposedly inert thing, but there are a lot of people behind the algorithm,” Diakopoulos says. “I think that it does pose a threat to the legitimacy of the democracy that we have. We desperately need to have a public conversation about the role of these systems in the democratic processes.”

Posted in Brain & Behavior, Technology

       PSYCHOLOGIST’S WORK FOR GCHQ DECEPTION UNIT INFLAMES DEBATE AMONG PEERS

          https://prod01-cdn06.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2014/12/andrew-fishman-350x350.jpg

          Andrew Fishman

         
Aug. 7 2015, 6:18 p.m.

         A British psychologist is receiving sharp criticism from some professional peers for providing expert advice to help the U.K. surveillance agency GCHQ manipulate people online.

         The debate brings into focus the question of how or whether psychologists should offer their expertise to spy agencies engaged in deception and propaganda.

          Dr. Mandeep K. Dhami, in a 2011 paper, provided the controversial GCHQ spy unit JTRIG with advice, research pointers, training recommendations, and thoughts on psychological issues, with the goal of improving the unit’s performance and effectiveness. JTRIG’s operations have been referred to as “dirty tricks,” and Dhami’s paper notes that the unit’s own staff characterize their work using “terms such as ‘discredit,’ promote ‘distrust,’ ‘dissuade,’ ‘deceive,’ ‘disrupt,’ ‘delay,’ ‘deny,’ ‘denigrate/degrade,’ and ‘deter.’” The unit’s targets go beyond terrorists and foreign militaries and include groups considered “domestic extremist[s],” criminals, online “hacktivists,” and even “entire countries.”

          After publishing Dhami’s paper for the first time in June, The Interceptreached out to several of her fellow psychologists, including some whose work was referenced in the paper, about the document’s ethical implications.

         One of the psychologists cited in the report criticized the paper and GCHQ’s ethics. Another psychologist condemned Dhami’s recommendations as “grossly unethical” and another called them an “egregious violation” of psychological ethics. But two other psychologists cited in the report did not express concern when contacted for reaction, and another psychologist, along with Dhami’s current employer, defended her work and her ethical standards.

         A British law firm hired to represent Dhami maintained that any allegations of unethical conduct are “grossly defamatory and totally untrue.”

          The divergent views on the paper highlight how the profession of psychology has yet to resolve key ethical concerns around consulting for government intelligence agencies. These issues take on added resonance in the context of the uproar currently roiling the American Psychological Association over the key role it played in the CIA torture program during the Bush administration. The APA’s Council of Representatives voted Friday to bar psychologists from taking part in national security interrogations or to advise on confinement conditions. Dhami’s consultation with JTRIG and the APA’s role in support of the CIA torture program are disparate — there is no suggestion that Dhami advised on interrogations involving torture nor that her paper was part of an ongoing relationship with JTRIG — but Dhami’s GCHQ work, like the APA scandal, provokes heated disagreement and criticism.

      Psychologists respond strongly to ethical issues

         Some peers are outspoken against Dhami’s paper. They do not believe it is possible to engage ethically with the deceitful activities of a unit like JTRIG at any level. Arguments in defense of assisting psychological operations, meanwhile, include the notion that doing so helps ensure they are conducted in a responsible fashion and can help obviate the need for operations that are violent.

          D32YEY Dr. Stephen Soldz,director of Center for Research Evaluation and Program Development at Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis

          Dr. Stephen Soldz, Director of Center for Research Evaluation and Program Development at Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis

           

          Photo: Alamy

          Dr. Stephen Soldz, co-founder of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology and co-author of two reports from Physicians for Human Rights on health professionals’ role in the CIA torture program, told The Intercept that the recommendations in Dhami’s report highlight the moral hazard of “operational psychology,” in which psychological expertise is used to further military and intelligence operations.

         Soldz condemned the “deeply disturbing and grossly unethical recommendations” in Dhami’s JTRIG report. He added that “the psychology profession and the public must grapple with developing proper ethical constraints on the activities of operational psychologists.”

          For Dr. Bradley Olson, who is past president of APA Division 48, which studies peace, conflict, and violence, using one’s training to assist in a mission like JTRIG’s, which involves the deception and manipulation of unsuspecting targets, is inherently problematic. Using one’s “expertise, research, or consultation to guide deceptive statements, even the statements of others, when the deceptive intentions are clearly documented … that is against psychological ethics,” according to Olson, who has collaborated with Soldz, including as a co-founder of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology. “This is a terrible, terrible violation of psychological ethics” and a violation of the APA’s ethical standards, he added.

          Dhami is not currently a member of the APA, but was a member of an APA Division at the time the report was written. According to APA bylaws, “Divisions must comply with all APA Bylaws, Association Rules and current policies.” Her online profile at Middlesex University, where Dhami is a professor, currently lists her as a member of APA Division 41 and a fellow ofDivision 9. A representative of APA Division 9, the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, said that Dhami stopped paying dues in 2013 and is therefore no longer a member. The APA and an officer of Division 41, the American Psychology-Law Society, acknowledged receiving but did not respond to questions from The Intercept.

         Dr. Christian Crandall, a professor in the University of Kansas’ social psychology program, disagrees with Dhami’s critics. “In my perusal, it seemed that she was writing a brief that would lead to research opportunities, consulting opportunities, and the like,” he said. “Because this brief was commissioned and written prior to the Snowden revelations … we might give Prof. Dhami the benefit of the doubt, that she might not [have] know[n] or anticipate[d] the extent of misconduct in the intelligence agencies.”

         Crandall is also a council member at SPSSI, the APA division that honored Dhami as a fellow in 2007, and, emailing in that capacity, said he sees nothing unethical about Dhami’s report for JTRIG. After a “fairly quick look at the document,” he said the report did not merit an investigation. “What should SPSSI do? Nothing. Nothing at all, until evidence of actual unethical conduct appears. And we have not seen it.”

         “It is certainly possible that JTRIG acts badly, spies on domestic (or American) targets, or even breaks international law. It is a stretch to hold Prof. Dhami responsible for this,” Crandall wrote. “[The report is] quite a bit like what the U.S. Army teaches their strategic communication officers. It’s less offensive than the behaviors of Karl Rove. It’s not benign. But Dhami specifies two relevant ethical codes … and two relevant UK laws … and recommends that JTRIG follow the relevant laws.”

       “I do not think that JTRIG requires a set of ethical guidelines that is different from those that are relevant to the rest of humanity.”

          Dhami was contacted for this article and responded to questions from The Intercept through Schillings, a British law firm, and Culhane Meadows, a U.S. firm. A letter from Schillings said that Dhami had “upheld the highest ethical standards” throughout her academic career and had never sought to hide her association with GCHQ. “The work undertaken by our client has been focused on helping GCHQ to accurately understand and responsibly apply psychological science,” the letter stated. “In working with the government our client typically provides advice on how to improve specific aspects of their work” and is “not therefore actively engaged in the day-to-day business of these departments, but rather an independent observer/commentator” with a “strong track record of publishing critiques of existing Government policies.”

          Schillings also said Dhami was “legally restricted in terms of the responses that she is able to give” to The Intercept’s questions “by virtue of the government agency involved,” adding that no “adverse inferences” should be drawn from this. Asked about Dhami’s report, GCHQ said in a statement that the agency is “aware of the responsibility that comes with the nature of its work and in addition to the legal accountability we also take the ethical considerations surrounding our mission seriously.”

         Middlesex University defended Dhami’s work, writing: “Middlesex University has robust ethical procedures and is committed to operating in an ethical way to ensure the highest possible standards of decision-making and accountability. Professor Dhami’s work for Middlesex University is carried out in strict accordance with the ethical codes of the organisation, which in turn conform to the standards laid down by the British Psychological Society.”

      Psychological advice for covert propaganda unit

          Dhami appears to have been a senior lecturer in criminology at Cambridge University when she wrote the report, as well as a social psychologist with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, an agency sponsored by the U.K. Ministry of Defence. During this period, she was temporarily transferred, or “seconded” to GCHQ, according to a version of Dhami’s CVposted online.

         The top-secret document, titled “Behavioural Science Support for JTRIG’s (Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group’s) Effects and Online HUMINT Operations,” appears to have been written during this stint at the spy agency. (The term “HUMINT” commonly refers to human intelligence.) It was based on interviews with 22 JTRIG staffers and seven support staff from GCHQ. In it, Dhami provides advice on how JTRIG can improve its approach and attain desired outcomes, for example, by applying theories and research around persuasive communication, compliance, obedience, conformity, and the creation of trust and distrust.

         “Compliance can be achieved through various techniques,” reads the “obedience” section of Dhami’s report, “including: Engaging the norm of reciprocity; engendering liking (e.g., via ingratiation or attractiveness); stressing the importance of social validation (e.g., via highlighting that others have also complied); instilling a sense of scarcity or secrecy; getting the ‘foot-in-the-door’ (i.e., getting compliance to a small request/issue first); and applying the ‘door-in-the-face’ or ‘low-ball’ tactics (i.e., asking for compliance on a large request/issue first and having hidden aspects to a request/issue that someone has already complied with, respectively).”

         In other cases, Dhami presents a menu of possible effective approaches grounded in specific psychological research that is formally cited throughout the body of the paper, in a “recommended reading list,” and in a “list of training requirements for JTRIG staff.”

         “Propaganda techniques include,” Dhami writes, “Using stereotypes; substituting names/labels for neutral ones; censorship or systematic selection of information; repetition; assertions without arguments; and presenting a message for and against a subject.”

          Dhami’s 42-page report came nearly three years before the world became aware of JTRIG and of its methods of deception, dissemination of online propaganda, and acquisition of human intelligence. The unit’s existence was first revealed through leaked documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and published by NBC News and The Intercept. JTRIG’s tactics include seeding propaganda on social media, impersonating people online, and creating false blog posts to discredit targets.

         Dhami recommends that staff be trained on the various specific techniques she outlines, that a social influence research program be developed, that the possibility of compiling psychological profiles for exploitation in intelligence operations be explored, that a catalog of online crime prevention techniques be developed, that processes for assessment of risk and effectiveness be established, and that JTRIG develop guidelines for operational best practices.

      ‘JTRIG has now acquired this material’

          Some of the psychology research texts Dhami recommends are marked with an asterisk indicating “JTRIG has now acquired this material.” The Interceptattempted to contact the authors of materials that had been “acquired” by JTRIG.

         One of those authors, Peter Smith, emeritus professor of psychology at University of Sussex near Brighton, England, raised questions about Dhami’s paper.

         “Some of the reported actions of JTRIG are clearly contrary to the ethical guidelines of the British Psychological Society,” Smith wrote in an email. “The descriptions that [s]he provides of the social psychology of influence are broadly accurate, but the use of this knowledge to deceive people or distort the information that they receive is not advocated in any of the sources that [s]he cites.” He added: “I am certainly not comfortable with the ways in which Dr. Dhami has used [her] knowledge of social psychology.”

         Dhami’s profile at Middlesex University does not list the British Psychological Society among her current professional affiliations.

          Other psychologists cited by Dhami did not criticize her paper but rather disclaimed any control over her use of their material. Susan Fiske, a Princeton psychologist and fellow of six APA divisions, also had her work acquired by JTRIG. She told The Intercept by email, “Anyone can buy my book. When you write a textbook, it’s in the public domain, and anyone can use it. I have no control over what happens after it is published.”

         Joseph Forgas, a psychology professor at the University of New South Wales in Australia, had his work on the list as well. He responded: “This is published research that is in the public sphere and is openly available to anyone. So, I have no further control over its use, and I see [no] problem at all with anyone using it. If there are indeed any ethical issues here, it is the responsibility of democratic governments to supervise such activity. I am not aware of any abuse, and on the whole, I don’t see any real issues here.”

          Eleven other psychologists whose work was cited by Dhami did not respond to emails from The Intercept.

      A ‘bespoke’ code of ethics

         Dhami does directly address ethical concerns in part of her report. But her treatment of ethics is brief. JTRIG, she writes, operates under “no specific guidelines on ethical practice.” She notes that professional codes of conduct exist, such as those of the British Society of Criminology and the British Psychological Society, but determines that “clearly, not all of the aspects of the above codes will be relevant or applicable to JTRIG’s operations” and the codes “do not identify best practice in all of the types of online interactions that JTRIG staff might be involved in.” “Thus,” she concludes, “JTRIG may need to develop a bespoke code” that complies with the U.K. legislation governing intelligence agencies.

         Smith, the University of Sussex psychologist whose work was acquired by JTRIG, views the issue differently. “Dr. Dhami neither condemns nor directly endorses the reported actions of JTRIG, but suggests that their actions may need to be guided by a ‘different’ ethical code,” he wrote. “I do not think that JTRIG requires a set of ethical guidelines that is different from those that are relevant to the rest of humanity.”

         The very idea of a “bespoke code” that “complies” with the law but merely considers established ethics codes “that may be pertinent,” without being bound by them, is controversial, but not novel. It’s far from clear that there is an ethically correct way to engage in acts to discredit, deceive, denigrate, and degrade unsuspecting targets, and it’s decidedly possible that developing guidelines that purport to do so will only lend legitimacy to unsavory behavior.

          A change to the APA’s Ethics Code, adopted in August 2002, allowed psychologists, for the first time, to “adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal authority” in cases where those regulations could not be squared with ethical standards.

          That same month, the Bush Justice Department issued one of the key, then-secret “torture memos,” which suggested that interrogators could avoid prosecution for torture if they believed in “good faith” their actions would not result in “prolonged mental harm”; demonstration of such “good faith” included “consulting with experts.”

          Three years later, after images of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal had shocked the world, the APA Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security affirmed the organization’s support for psychologists’ participation in government interrogations. “The Task Force believes that a central role for psychologists working in the area of national security-related investigations is to assist in ensuring that processes are safe, legal, and ethical for all participants,” it stipulated.

         This institutional posture gave psychologists the ethical cover to participate in interrogations, which in turn provided interrogators with the legal cover, in accordance with the DoJ memos, to engage in “enhanced interrogation tactics.”

          In 2010, the APA removed the clause added to the Ethics Code in 2002, which could open the door to the so-called “Nuremberg Defense.” The 2005 PENS report was retracted in 2013.

      ‘Propaganda for democracy’

         Social scientists and medical professionals have long struggled with the moral and ethical dilemmas inherent in operational work on behalf of militaries and intelligence agencies. Proponents of such work posit that so-called psychological operations can limit conflict and save lives — particularly when used tactically, for limited applications within a battlefield, as opposed to strategically around the world.

         Critics maintain that because the potential for abuse is inherent, scholars have an obligation to combat, rather than enable, psychological operations.

          Dr. Sara B. King, chair of the psychology department at Saint Francis University in Pennsylvania, summarizes the argument in her study of military social influence. Some propaganda critics, she writes, “have argued that ‘propaganda for democracy’ is simply a contradiction in terms, because pervasive propaganda inevitably shapes totalitarian, rather than democratic, psychological process.” In describing strategic psychological operations “planned and executed at the national level,” King explains: “These broad-based military perception management initiatives, argue some, have the potential to endanger both science and democracy.”

         According to King, this debate was most fervent in the period between the two world wars, was largely quashed during the anti-Communist McCarthy era, and became a relative whisper in the post-9/11 era, when the APA changed its ethical posture to enable psychologists to participate in interrogations.

          In a published response to King, Dhami argued in March 2011, the same month the JTRIG report was issued, that military use of psychology is inevitable, and therefore civilian psychologists have a responsibility to monitor its application in order to prevent misuse.

         “The integrity of our psychological science is threatened by the great potential for its misinterpretation and misapplication in military social influence campaigns,” Dhami wrote. “The harm that may be caused by remaining detached from such campaigns, perhaps because of the element of deception and invasion of privacy involved, may far outweigh the benefits of striving for the welfare and rights of the campaign targets.”

         Even in the wake of today’s APA vote, the debate over Dhami’s paper shows the profession of psychology is still grappling with questions over the ethical limits of involvement in government intelligence programs.

          “Psychologists should use their unique insights into human behavior to promote human welfare and dignity, not undermine or harm individuals,” Sarah Dougherty, a lawyer and senior fellow of the U.S. Anti-Torture Program at Physicians for Human Rights, told The Intercept. “The JTRIG allegations merit further investigation.”

      CONTACT THE AUTHOR:

          https://prod01-cdn06.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2014/12/andrew-fishman-350x350.jpg

          Andrew Fishmanfishman@​theintercept.comt@AndrewDFish

 

 

Psychologists Approve Ban on Role in National Security Interrogations

By JAMES RISEN

Photo

https://archive.today/bCsry/22226695f27fc17fb422d60bba087764cda48c6c.jpg

The Washington headquarters of the American Psychological Association, the nation’s largest association of psychologists. CreditStephen Crowley/The New York Times

 

TORONTO — The American Psychological Association on Friday overwhelmingly approved a new ban on any involvement by psychologists in national security interrogations conducted by the United States government, even noncoercive interrogations now conducted by the Obama administration.

The council of representatives of the organization, the nation’s largest professional association of psychologists, voted to impose the ban at its annual meeting here.

The vote followed an emotional debate in which several members said the ban was needed to restore the organization’s reputation after a scathing independent investigation ordered by the association’s board.

·        

The C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va. The American Psychological Association will vote on an ethics policy that would bar its members from participating in national security interrogations.

U.S. Psychologists Urged to Curb Questioning Terror SuspectsJULY 30, 2015

 

·        

The headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Va. A new report examines the collaboration between psychologists and officials at the C.I.A. and the Pentagon.

Outside Psychologists Shielded U.S. Torture Program, Report FindsJULY 10, 2015

 

That investigation, conducted by David Hoffman, a Chicago lawyer, found that some officers of the association and other prominent psychologists colluded with government officials during the Bush administration to make sure that association policies did not prevent psychologists from involvement in the harsh interrogation programs conducted by the C.I.A. and the Pentagon.

 

Nadine Kaslow, an association board member and head of a special committee established by the board to oversee the investigation into the organization’s role in interrogations, said she was pleased by the overwhelming vote in favor of the measure. “This is a very resounding ‘yes,’ ” Ms. Kaslow said. The ban was approved by the association’s council by a vote of 156 to 1. Seven council members abstained, while one was recused.

“I think this was a tremendous step in the right direction,” said Susan McDaniel, the association’s president-elect, who was the chairwoman of Friday’s meeting. She expressed hopes that Friday’s vote would persuade psychologists who quit the organization because of its involvement with Bush-era interrogations to rejoin the group.

Many A.P.A. leaders and members said they were stunned by the lopsided vote in favor of the ban, and its backers said that as late as Thursday night they were not certain it would pass. Just before Friday’s vote, the measure’s supporters agreed to change some of the ban’s language, which may have won over some wavering council members. Two of the ban’s advocates on the council, psychologists Scott Churchill and Steven Reisner, insisted that the changes did not weaken the ban. “This was a momentous day,” said Mr. Churchill.

The ban passed on Friday says that “psychologists shall not conduct, supervise, be in the presence of, or otherwise assist any national security interrogations for any military or intelligence entities, including private contractors working on their behalf, nor advise on conditions of confinement insofar as these might facilitate such an interrogation.” The measure’s backers added language on Friday that stated that psychologists may consult with the government on broad interrogation policy, but may not get involved in any specific interrogation or consult on the specific detention conditions for detainees.

The final vote was met by a standing ovation by many of the council members, as well as the large crowd of observers, which included anti-torture activists and psychology graduate students who had come to the meeting to support the ban. Some wore T-shirts proclaiming “First, Do No Harm,” a reference to the physicians’ Hippocratic oath.

 “I’m really happy they didn’t vote no,” said Deb Kory, a clinical psychologist from Berkeley, Calif. “I think that would have been the death knell for the A.P.A.”

Some psychologists did speak out in opposition to the ban, or at least expressed reservations about it during the debate before the vote on Friday morning, arguing that it went too far. “I’m concerned about unintended consequences,” said Larry James, who represents the A.P.A.’s division of military psychology on the council.

The ban would only prohibit involvement in what the association defines as national security interrogations, which are those conducted by the American military or intelligence agencies, or by contractors or foreign governments outside traditional domestic criminal law enforcement inside the United States.

It would not prohibit psychologists from working with the police or prisons in criminal law enforcement interrogations.

President Obama signed an executive order in 2009 banning the use of the harsh interrogation techniques employed against terrorism suspects during the Bush administration. But there are still some psychologists involved in the interrogation programs now used in terrorism cases by the Obama administration.

Most interrogations of important terrorism suspects now are conducted by the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, an interagency unit led by the F.B.I. that includes C.I.A. and Pentagon personnel. The group also includes psychologists, who both conduct research and consult on effective means of interrogating terrorism suspects.

Pentagon officials have said that psychologists are also still assigned at the American military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where they oversee voluntary interrogations of detainees.

 

A.P.A. officials said that psychologists could be subject to ethics complaints if they continued to be involved in national security interrogations after a new association ethics code was in place to reflect Friday’s ban.

Ms. McDaniel said that she did not know how many A.P.A. members were now involved in national security interrogations. But the measure passed Friday calls for the A.P.A. to send a letter to Mr. Obama and other top government officials informing them of the new policy, and requesting that psychologists be removed from Guantánamo Bay and other sites where national security interrogations are conducted, so that they do not violate the new ethics policy.

Psychologists played crucial roles in the post-9/11 harsh interrogation programs created by the C.I.A. and Pentagon, and their involvement helped the Bush administration claim that the abusive interrogation techniques were legal. The involvement of psychologists in the interrogations enabled the Justice Department to issue secret legal opinions arguing that the interrogations were safe because they were being monitored by health professionals, and thus did not constitute torture.

Even before Friday’s vote, the Hoffman report and its unsparing findings of collusion during the Bush administration had already had a dramatic impact on the A.P.A. Four top association officials, including its chief executive and his deputy, have left the organization since the report was released in July.

Friday’s vote in favor of the ban prompted an immediate reaction among military psychologists who are members of the A.P.A.

After the vote, about 50 members of the A.P.A.’s military psychology division, including several who were in uniform, held a separate meeting in another conference room in the hotel that hosted the annual meeting. They expressed frustration and anger.

Tom Williams, the president of the A.P.A.’s military psychology division, said that he thought the language of the ban was overly broad.

“I think the wording could have a large effect on any psychologist in a national security setting,” said Mr. Williams, a retired Army psychologist. He said that the group may consider splitting off from the A.P.A.

“We are keeping our options on the table,” Mr. Williams said.

Correction: August 7, 2015 

An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of a psychologist who supported a ban on involvement by psychologists in national security interrogations. He is Steven Reisner, not Reissner.

 

Did Kleiner Perkin’s and Vinohd Khosla Test Google’s Election Rigging System With India’s Elections

Obama connection to Silicon Valley now examined for darker purposes

Was Google taken over by a rogue CIA operation called In-Q-Tel in order to rig the Obama Election? In-Q-Tel money proven to be in Google. Eric Schmidt Connection to White House, New America Foundation and In-Q-Tel proven. Corbett Report says dirty deeds were afoot.

 

“GOOGLE WAS BUILT TO STEAL ELECTIONS” SAY EXPERTS AND TIPSTERS!

 

http://www.morenewznow.com/wp-content/uploads/SILICON-VALLEY-MADMEN1.png

 

“GOOGLE WAS BUILT TO STEAL ELECTIONS” SAY EXPERTS AND TIPSTERS!

  •  –          Charge Democrats used In-Q-Tel to conduit cash and CIA technology to take over Google Search to control elections
  •           Say “Rabid Silicon Valley Billionaires” use “Mood manipulation” to steer all perceptions to Obama or Hillary
  •           “Abuse of Freedom of Speech When You Trick Public” cry pundits
  •           Senators want laws requiring bi-partisan peer review of all Google search settings because Google is “Monopoly”

 

http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/GettyImages-555175279-1024x683.jpg

Slide: 1 / of 1 .

Caption: Getty Images

Skip Article Header. Skip to: Start of Article.

  • Author: Adam Rogers. Adam Rogers Science
  • Date of Publication: 08.06.15. 08.06.15
  • Time of Publication: 1:24 pm. 1:24 pm

Google’s Search Algorithm Could Steal the Presidency

GettyImages-555175279Getty Images

Imagine an election—a close one. You’re undecided. So you type the name of one of the candidates into your search engine of choice. (Actually, let’s not be coy here. In most of the world, one search engine dominates; in Europe and North America, it’s Google.) And Google coughs up, in fractions of a second, articles and facts about that candidate. Great! Now you are an informed voter, right? But a study published this week says that the order of those results, the ranking of positive or negative stories on the screen, can have an enormous influence on the way you vote. And if the election is close enough, the effect could be profound enough to change the outcome.

In other words: Google’s ranking algorithm for search results could accidentally steal the presidency. “We estimate, based on win margins in national elections around the world,” says Robert Epstein, a psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and one of the study’s authors, “that Google could determine the outcome of upwards of 25 percent of all national elections.”

Epstein’s paper combines a few years’ worth of experiments in which Epstein and his colleague Ronald Robertson gave people access to information about the race for prime minister in Australia in 2010, two years prior, and then let the mock-voters learn about the candidates via a simulated search engine that displayed real articles.

One group saw positive articles about one candidate first; the other saw positive articles about the other candidate. (A control group saw a random assortment.) The result: Whichever side people saw the positive results for, they were more likely to vote for—by more than 48 percent. The team calls that number the “vote manipulation power,” or VMP. The effect held—strengthened, even—when the researchers swapped in a single negative story into the number-four and number-three spots. Apparently it made the results seem even more neutral and therefore more trustworthy.

But of course that was all artificial—in the lab. So the researchers packed up and went to India in advance of the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, a national campaign with 800 million eligible voters. (Eventually 430 million people voted over the weeks of the actual election.) “I thought this time we’d be lucky if we got 2 or 3 percent, and my gut said we’re gonna get nothing,” Epstein says, “because this is an intense, intense election environment.” Voters get exposed, heavily, to lots of other information besides a mock search engine result.

The team 2,150 found undecided voters and performed a version of the same experiment. And again, VMP was off the charts. Even taking into account some sloppiness in the data-gathering and a tougher time assessing articles for their positive or negative valence, they got an overall VMP of 24 percent. “In some demographic groups in India we had as high as about 72 percent.”

The effect doesn’t have to be enormous to have an enormous effect.

The fact that media, including whatever search and social deliver, can affect decision-making isn’t exactly news. The “Fox News Effect” says that towns that got the conservative-leaning cable channel tended to become more conservative in their voting in the 2000 election. A well-known effect called recency means that people make decisions based on the last thing they heard. Placement on a list also has a known effect. And all that stuff might be too transient to make it all the way to a voting booth, or get swamped by exposure to other media. So in real life VMP is probably much less pronounced.

But the effect doesn’t have to be enormous to have an enormous effect. The Australian election that Epstein and Robertson used in their experiments came down to a margin of less than 1 percent. Half the presidential elections in US history came down to a margin of less than 8 percent. And presidential elections are really 50 separate state-by-state knife fights, with the focus of campaigns not on poll-tested winners or losers but purple “swing states” with razor-thin margins.

So even at an order of magnitude smaller than the experimental effect, VMP could have serious consequences. “Four to 8 percent would get any campaign manager excited,” says Brian Keegan, a computational social scientist at Harvard Business School. “At the end of the day, the fact is that in a lot of races it only takes a swing of 3 or 4 percent. If the search engine is one or two percent, that’s still really persuasive.”

The Rise of the Machines

It’d be easy to go all 1970s-political-thriller on this research, to assume that presidential campaigns, with their ever-increasing level of technological sophistication, might be able to search-engine-optimize their way to victory. But that’s probably not true. “It would cost a lot of money,” says David Shor, a data scientist at Civis Analytics, a Chicago-based consultancy that grew out of the first Obama campaign’s technology group. “Trying to get the media to present something that is favorable to you is a more favorable strategy.”

That’s called, in the parlance of political hackery, “free media,” and, yes, voters like it. “I think that generally people don’t trust campaigns because they tend to have a low opinion of politicians,” Shor says. “They are more receptive to information from institutions for which they have more respect.” Plus, in the presidential campaign high season, whoever the Republican and Democratic nominees are will already have high page ranks because they’ll have a huge number of inbound links, one of Google’s key metrics.

Search and social media companies can certainly have a new kind of influence, though. During the 2010 US congressional elections, researchers at Facebook exposed 61 million users to a message exhorting them to vote—it didn’t matter for whom—and found they were able to generate 340,000 extra votes across the board.

But what if—as Harvard Law professor Jonathan Zittrain has proposed—Facebook didn’t push the “vote” message to a random 61 million users? Instead, using the extensive information the social network maintains on all its subscribers, it could hypothetically push specific messaging to supporters or foes of specific legislation or candidates. Facebook could flip an election; Zittrain calls this “digital gerrymandering.” And if you think that companies like the social media giants would never do such a thing, consider the way that Google mobilized its users against the Secure Online Privacy Act and PROTECT IP Act, or “SOPA-PIPA.”

In their paper, Epstein and Robertson equate digital gerrymandering to what a political operative might call GOTV—Get Out the Vote, the mobilization of activated supporters. It’s a standard campaign move when your base agrees with your positions but isn’t highly motivated—because they feel disenfranchised, let’s say, or have problems getting to polling places. What they call the “search engine manipulation effect,” though, works on undecided voters, swing voters. It’s a method of persuasion.

If executives at Google had decided to study the things we’re studying, they could easily have been flipping elections to their liking with no one having any idea. Robert Epstein

Again, though, it doesn’t require a conspiracy. It’s possible that, as Epstein says, “if executives at Google had decided to study the things we’re studying, they could easily have been flipping elections to their liking with no one having any idea.” But simultaneously more likely and more science-fiction-y is the possibility that this—oh, let’s call it “googlemandering,” why don’t we?—is happening without any human intervention at all. “These numbers are so large that Google executives are irrelevant to the issue,” Epstein says. “If Google’s search algorithm, just through what they call ‘organic processes,’ ends up favoring one candidate over another, that’s enough. In a country like India, that could send millions of votes to one candidate.”

As you’d expect, Google doesn’t think it’s likely their algorithm is stealing elections. “Providing relevant answers has been the cornerstone of Google’s approach to search from the very beginning. It would undermine people’s trust in our results and company if we were to change course,” says a Google spokesperson, who would only comment on condition of anonymity. In short, the algorithms Google uses to rank search results are complicated, ever-changing, and bigger than any one person. A regulatory action that, let’s say, forced Google to change the first search result in a list on a given candidate would break the very thing that makes Google great: giving right answers very quickly all the time. (Plus, it might violate the First Amendment.)

The thing is, though, even though it’s tempting to think of algorithms as the very definition of objective, they’re not. “It’s not really possible to have a completely neutral algorithm,” says Jonathan Bright, a research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute who studies elections. “I don’t think there’s anyone in Google or Facebook or anywhere else who’s trying to tweak an election. But it’s something these organizations have always struggled with.” Algorithms reflect the values and worldview of the programmers. That’s what an algorithm is, fundamentally. “Do they want to make a good effort to make sure they influence evenly across Democrats and Republicans? Or do they just let the algorithm take its course?” Bright asks.

That course might be scary, if Epstein is right. Add the possibility of search rank influence to the individualization Google can already do based on your gmail, google docs, and every other way you’ve let the company hook into you…combine that with the feedback loop of popular things getting more inbound links and so getting higher search ranking…and the impact stretches way beyond politics. “You can push knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and behavior among people who are vulnerable any way you want using search rankings,” Epstein says. “Now that we’ve discovered this big effect, how do you kill it?”

Go Back to Top. Skip To: Start of Article.

How to Rig an Election: Confessions 

How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative…

https://duckduckgo.com/assets/icons/favicons/amazon.pngamazon.com/How-Rig-Election-Confessions-Republican/d…

How Google results could rig an election – The Week

Rick Santorum has a Santorum problem, in that the top Google results when you search his name are not about the man himself, but rather about a dirty sexual neologism.

https://icons.duckduckgo.com/ip2/theweek.com.icotheweek.com/speedreads/453430/how-google-results-coul…

More results

 

How to Rig an Election | Harper’s Magazine

Election rigging, Long might have … Secret skullduggery is not even necessary these days such is the boldness of the attempts by the GOP to “rig elections“.

https://icons.duckduckgo.com/ip2/harpers.org.icoharpers.org/archive/2012/11/how-to-rig-an-election/

More results

APC planning to rig election in North – Musiliu Obanikoro ..

APC planning to rig election in North … Have you forgotten so soon that elections can only be rigged for a … Your Nigerian Online News Source: Nigerianeye.com …

https://icons.duckduckgo.com/ip2/www.nigerianeye.com.iconigerianeye.com/2015/01/apc-planning-to-rig-election-in-n…

More results

FOCUS | How to Rig an Election – Reader Supported News

How to Rig an Election. By Victoria Collier, Harper’s Magazine. 26 October 12 t was a hot summer in 1932 when Louisiana senator Huey “Kingfish” Long arranged to rig

https://icons.duckduckgo.com/ip2/readersupportednews.org.icoreadersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/14198-focus-how-to-rig-an…

More results

Electoral fraud – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electoral fraud can occur at any stage in the democratic process, but most commonly it occurs during election campaigns, voter registration or during vote-counting.

https://duckduckgo.com/assets/icons/favicons/wikipedia.pngen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud

More results

How I Hacked An Electronic Voting Machine | Popular Science

What do you need to rig an election? A basic knowledge of electronics and $30 worth of RadioShack gear, professional hacker Roger Johnston reveals.

popsci.com/gadgets/article/2012-11/how-i-hacked-elec…

More results

Rodger A. Payne’s Blog: Could Google Rig an Election?

I’m interested in international relations, American foreign policy, climate change, US presidential elections, public debate, Kansas Jayhawks basketball …

rpayne.blogspot.com/2013/05/could-google-rig-election.html

More results

How Republicans Plan to Rig Elections in 2016

How Republicans Plan to Rig Elections in 2016. By Ian Millhiser, Josh Israel, ThinkProgress. 12 November 12 . ast year, Pennsylvania’s Republican Gov. Tom Corbett …

readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/14492-how-republican…

More results

How to Rig an Election | Harper’s Magazine – Part 4

Secret skullduggery is not even necessary these days such is the boldness of the attempts by the GOP to “rig elections“.

harpers.org/archive/2012/11/how-to-rig-an-election/4/

More results

Proven voting fraud! Gov’t programmer testifies voting ..

Rep. Tom Feeney (Fmr. Speaker of The House in Florida) employed this man from Oviedo, FL to rig elections and flip them 51% to 49%. Exit polling data was …

youtube.com/watch?v=t4aKOhbbK9E

More results

Rigged USA Elections Exposed – YouTube

Computer Programmer testifies that Tom Feeney (Speaker of the Houe of Florida at the time, currently US Representative representing MY district ) tried to …

youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs

More results

How To Rig An Election In The United States

How To Rig An Election In The United … But the second table can be hacked and altered to produce fake election totals without affecting spot check reports derived …

whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/rigvote.html

More results

An Inside Look at How Democrats Rig the Election Game

An Inside Look at How Democrats Rig the Election Game … An interesting email received this week offers a window into how Democrats used to rig the voter …

aim.org/aim-column/an-inside-look-at-how-democrat…

More results

 

 

 

 

NEW MOBILE DEVICE APP HELPS YOU END CORRUPTION AND GET READY FOR THE 2016 ELECTIONS

NEW MOBILE DEVICE APP HELPS YOU END CORRUPTION AND GET READY FOR THE 2016 ELECTIONS

 A new app lets you help end corruption with a swipe of your finger.

Check out CORRUPTION DISRUPTION at this link on your mobile device:

http://apps.appmachine.com/9382CA

The App is a handy tool to help end corruption. Get the latest news, links, videos, on-line classes and tips to help you improve your life and improve the world around you. You can help support anti-corruption programs with this App. The authors are very strict about protecting your privacy and do not sell, or authorize, any third party use of your data.

Each individual deserves the same rights and protections as any other individual. By understanding how your public policy feedback process works, you can improve the quality of your life, and the world around you. This App will help you with that.

Get your copy of Corruption Disruption TM

 

Things to try:

– Check out the LINKS button for action items and information you can use right now.

– Try the UPDATES button to call an updated recording detailing what is happening in Congress right now

– See the DATES button to see the current schedule for Congress and see what bills you might need to add input on

– At the FAQ button, you will find the latest, and most often asked, current user questions with their answers

– Try the VIDEO button to see videos on hot public policy topics

– Visit the TWEETS button(s) to see some of the most popular updates

– For an often strange and amusing look at the latest public policy memes in online news and blogs check out the MEMES button

– Never get all of your news from just one source. Try NEWS1, NEWS2, NEWS3… etc.. for breaking policy news

– To get even more hands-on, go to anti-corruption school, on-line, via the SCHOOL button

Use this QR CODE or click this link

The Horrible Thing That Silicon Valley Is Secretly Doing To You, and Your Family

The Horrible Thing That Silicon Valley Is Secretly Doing To You, and Your Family

John Doerr, the head of Kleiner Perkins Investment Company, had some friends at the CIA.

They told Doerr, and the Kleiner Team, about the psychological warfare process whereby mental buttons could be pushed that you did not even know you had. Your mental mood buttons can be pushed, by website technology, in a way that you will never even know you were manipulated.

It was described as: “like stroking a woman’s clitoris, to get her to have sex you, without her knowing you are doing it”

The Kleiner collaborates, almost all male, kind of liked the concept. It was like legalized mental date rape without the victim knowing that it had happened. It was like “Roofies” for marketing and political manipulation.

Using money from a CIA knock-off group called In-Q-Tel; Facebook, Google, Linkedin, Twitter and the core of the Silicon Valley data-harvesting empire took off.

The companies agreed to put their login buttons on each other’s websites so you could sign up with the other one’s login so that your activity was sucked into a common surveillance file. They co-promoted each other as if they were the only solution and they shared everything, with each other, ad agencies, the NSA, CIA and political strategists; all without your knowledge.

Their biggest secret was that “sharing” something on the internet actually meant that you were spying on yourself on behalf of somewhat sinister third parties.

Subliminal advertising and mood-manipulation tricks your brain into doing things that you would not normally do if you were not being manipulated. It is impossible for you to see that it is happening to you. Some of the brain tricks are designed to take months to take effect so that the microscopic changes in content, adjacent text positioning and emphasis can never be noticed by you.

It is mental rape. It is the control of your thoughts and the theft of your privacy without your knowledge. Google says that “they fully inform you” that they are doing this in their massively legal huge Terms of Service agreement that no living human can possibly understand.

When you use the Silicon Valley Company’s websites, remember Ashley Madison. See how much info Ashley Madison had on each person and the destruction it has caused in the wrong hands?

Now, realize this: THE SILICON VALLEY COMPANIES HAVE FORTY TIMES MORE PRIVATE INFORMATION ON YOU!

THE “DONALD TRUMP SECRETLY WORKS FOR THE DEMOCRATS” THEORY

THE “DONALD TRUMP SECRETLY WORKS FOR THE DEMOCRATS” THEORY

 

It is no secret that Google manipulates its control over global media and news in order to control elections. Europe has just filed charges against Google based on technical proof that Google is rigging the internet.

As many new research studies are published, weekly, it is quite clear that “Google could rig the 2016 Elections” and may have, indeed rigged the 2008 Elections. Hard technical evidence and data has now been published, validating this.

This brings an interesting theory, to mind, that would explain Donald Trump’s unfathomable jump in poll numbers.

The biggest talk in professional political strategy circles is “How did he do it? All of the normal math says it is impossible”

It is not impossible, though, in “Google Math”.

Google pitches the marketing hype that it has “secret software algorithms (formulas) that make it find the ‘best’ stuff on the internet automatically”. It turns out; there is nothing automatic about it.

Google senior staff have something even more secret: “Inflection tables”. These are text type files that change who comes up on top in Google products. These manually entered, human created, tables are one of the key ways that Google rigs its results.

If, in an election the name “Barack Obama” gets a high number entered on the tables and, say, a name like “Mitt Romney” gets a very, very low number; then Romney disappears from Google experience and the “perception” that the public gets is that everybody is only interested in talking about Obama. It is not just about what number you are on the Google pages, it is about what all of the other stuff says, above and below that, that psychologically manipulates the public’s perceptions with something called “mood manipulation” , a psychological warfare trick.

So, for the sake of argument, let us just say that that Google is doing all of this evil manipulation of the public consciousness. Let us say that the big creepy honchos get together and say, “Hmmm…how do we want to rig the 2016 elections this time around”

What if they said…? “Let’s push a candidate that we know we can make into the GOP lead but we know our candidate can beat!”

What if Trump’s “impossible” media rise is a manipulation by Google to make Trump think things are working and then pull the rug out from under him at the last minute? Another option would be to make him stay on top until the last three debates, knowing that you have counterpoints that he can never come back at, in a live debate, then crash his polls with Google trickery.

While it is unlikely, that Debbie Wasserman Schultz made some secret late night deal with Trump to get him to stage a Presidential election run. It is, according to evidence, not that unlikely that Google could be playing Trump, on behalf of the DNC. It would easily explain the shocker poll numbers and sudden turbo web presence.

This will make for some interesting developments. Since it is now possible for IT experts to track Google’s manipulations, could Trump get out ahead of them and keep the server metrics going after Google kicks them off. This would allow Trump to use the DNC’s own super tricky weapon against them.

Another missing piece of this bizarre theory would be the Russians and the Chinese. They are watching the election developments in great detail.

Once they decide whom they want to win, and not win, they have their own Troll Farms, Google emulators, Great Walls, DDOS engines and other internet gear. The interesting thing is, there are ten times bigger than Googles.

If they get into the game, then things become really whack.

Google has been proven to rig the web. The state of Kansas just got caught rigging state election ballots. Hackers be hackin’

Weirder things have happened.

 

How The DNC might go bankrupt before the 2016 Elections!

How The DNC might go bankrupt before the 2016 Elections!

The news, this week, reveals that the Democrats are in dire financial trouble. How did that happen?

Let us take a look.

The GOP has always gotten their money from the same places for a very, very long time. It has usually been oil, steel and chemical company owners. They pass the campaign funding system on, from family to family, as one generation dies and moves the whole deal over to the kids. The campaign finance machine for the GOP is a stable, traditional, carefully tuned solution created over a hundred years of practice.

For a long time, the Democrats always got their money from the unions. They had a system that they had crafted over a long period of time, too.

Then, in 2007, something happened that might have led to the situation which could, literally, bankrupt the DNC.

The DNC made a deal with Silicon Valley billionaires to fund their campaigns via TARP and CleanTech kickbacks. When they did that, they never thought the GOP would not catch on until it was too late. They were wrong. They never thought that Snowden’s and Guccifer’s would show up. They never thought the hackers would start finding all (there are more) secret email servers.

Now, nobody wants to give the DNC any money.

Consumers realize that even the $5.00 ask gets them tracked, privacy abused, data-harvested, mood manipulated, NSA spied on, archived forever and targeted, as we now learn from all of the Greenwald and Snowden disclosures.

The millionaires and billionaires don’t want to give money because now all of their hookers, PACS, Goldman Sachs manipulations, Flash Boy stock market rigging, secret HSBC bank accounts and emails go on public record thanks to the Sunshine people, Center for Investigative Reporting, ProPublica, etc. disclosures. “Give money to DNC: get outed” is not a concept they can live with.

So… it’s back to the unions for the DNC. Unions don’t have any billionaires left, though.

The GOP always derides the “big Hollywood Jews” that fund the DNC. The Sony leaks named them by name and revealed their process. Some of the Hollywood studios have just gone belly up. The Hollywood part of the stock market just crashed. They cannot count on much cash from Hollywood this time around.

The little stock market crash that China created the other day, hit the NASDAQ, as well as the other stocks. NASDAQ equals Silicon Valley tech companies. It put the fear of god into the Silicon Valley billionaires and now they are thinking…”hmmm. I better hang on to my cash.. This stock market crash business could wipe me out.”

On top of that, the disclosure that most of Silicon Valley makes its money off of privacy abuse and data harvesting made much of the world stop using Silicon Valley’s hardware and software. The Age of Transparency has cut off Silicon Valley’s cash flow and killed their brand. They are hurting for money and it is about the worst time ever to go knocking on their door.

The DNC had this trick of giving tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to Silicon Valley guys like John Doerr, Eric Schmidt, and Elon Musk so they could turn around and “donate” it right back to the DNC. It was a kickback scheme. A brilliant one, but a crime using tax payer money none-the-less. That plan has been found out. The GOP has a ton of booby traps that they have now laid, in the path of the parts of that that still exist, and any new attempts to try it in a different flavor.

So, with all of this cluster-puck in the DNC scheme of things. How are they going to pull the cash challenge off?

According to polls, the public does not like, or trust Hillary, so asking the public to, essentially crowd fund her, might not fly.

What is the DNC going to do?

 

 

 

 

Huma Abedin is now the most “self-pleasured” photo subject in porn

Huma Abedin is now the most “self-pleasured” photo subject in porn

 

More people are getting their “personal release” from photos of Huma Abedin, or Huma lookalikes, than any other political figure in world politics.

Most of them are guys but, thanks to GOP political media allusions of a secret lesbian tryst, women, too, are using Huma as a fantasy whack object.

PornHub metrics and user requests, Bing images searches and 4Chan discussions reveal that there is just something about the severe, dark stare and the screaming vermillion lips that few can resist.

Many have described her, online, as “the perfect Dominitrix”.  Her hyper accentuated features and her unsmiling deep gaze just drive viewer’s nuts.

Some theorists feel that her ultra-sexuality may have “intimidated her husband, the notorious Anthony Weiner into posting his penis all over the internet in hopes of releasing his frustrations over his inability to service her.”

A number of new young porn stars are capitalizing on their Middle Eastern appearance, and adopting Huma like make-up and hair.

One live sex phone service offers: “THE HUMA HUM-JOB” for a premium price, that includes a live video of a woman pretending to be in the Oval office and looking a lot like Mr. Weiners wife.

While this is not the affect Hillary was probably going for, more disturbing to the Clinton Campaign is that Huma gets more searches, and certainly more image searches, some days, than even Hillary does.

The blonde cheerleader fantasies have passed on. Guys, now on the internet, are not attracted to that look any more. The dark haired, deep-eyed, slightly non-American, Huma Abedin and Kim Kardashian look is what puts lead in the public’s pencil.

Matt Drudge is determined to feature Huma in every edition of his newspaper. For a gay guy, he loves this gal.

Could this tendency, particularly in America be due to the large number of foreign immigrants who have come to America? Possibly. Blondes are not big overseas.

By opening the borders, did Obama create a whole new generation of whack-a-roles?

While the world can only image what Huma’s real sex life is all about, her Penis waving husband, her curious relationship with her boss and the tales of White House sex by her bosses husband, certainly do liven up the 2016 election.

What do campaign directors say to Super Delegates in order to bribe them to pick them?

What do campaign directors say to Super Delegates in order to bribe them to pick them?

 

You can buy a Presidential election if you bribe Super Delegates. It used to cost about $37,000.00 per delegate to bribe yourself one. Times have changed, though, with everything being hacked, the risks are greater. Super Delegates now demand at least $50,000.00 apiece.

Opposing parties can bribe them too. If Hillary says she has all of the North Dakota Delegates, at $52K a pop, Donald Trump’s people could come in, right behind her, and offer them $65K each to switch to supporting Deez Nuts.

 

Here are the typical bribes:

 

Pitch One: “Do it for the Party” (Or we will black list you)

 

Pitch Two: “We will give you a consulting gig on our foundation” or, “One of our campaign backers will give you a consulting gig on one of his foundations”

 

Pitch Three: “Goldman Sachs will give you some Google stock”

 

Pitch Four: “One of our venture capitalists will let you buy some stock warrants on the cheap”

 

Pitch Five: “We will hire your daughter when we get elected”

 

Pitch Five: “We will announce some fake Department of Energy or Department of Interior ‘funding program’ which, coincidentally, only you will qualify for (wink wink)”

 

Pitch Six: “We will make you ambassador of Flunkistan”

 

Pitch Seven: “We will get you lots of hot front desk interns (ie: Hookers) for your Washington office”

 

Pitch Eight: “Our VC’s own 2/3 of the domestic media coverage. We will push your dumb tech product in their news coverage, and have them not cover your competitors”

 

Pitch Nine: “Put your hand under the table. Take this envelope full of cash”

 

Pitch ten: “Put your hand under the table and grab this…”

 

Pitch Eleven: “We will tell everybody you are secretly gay if you don’t do it.”

 

Pitch Twelve: “Our secret family trust will sell you their tech stock, which we got insider deals on, for pennies on the dollar and then, when we are elected, we will control the Federal Reserve and we will have them rig the stock market for your stock and you will make billions.”

There are many more options. All dirty.

Campaign directors, and their associates, are dispatched across America to have little meetings with delegates and their ”agents”.

The conversations, which might be recorded by the FBI, O’Keefe, or news outlets ,use innuendo and drug-dealer type talk to imply things and never be specific. There is actually quite a bit of winking involved.

Most dirty deals happen on golf courses because Golf Courses are the hardest to bug. FYI: Find the politician who spends the most time on golf courses and you will have found your most corrupt elected official.

“Super Delegates” are one of the greatest corruptions of the political system. As 2016 approaches, keep an eye out for shenanigans.

Why Did Obama Give Billionaires Elon Musk and John Doerr so many billion dollars of your tax money that it could have paid for all of the schools in America?

Why Did Obama Give Billionaires Elon Musk and John Doerr so many billion dollars of your tax money that it could have paid for all of the schools in America?

White Paper – By the Observation Group
Dated 8.28.15

 

Did Elon Musk and John Doerr provide cash, marketing, Google rigging, stock market rewards and other things to Obama people in exchange for billions of dollars in kickbacks?

To answer this question with certainty, you have to break it down.

The first part of the analysis would have to be whether, or not, the White House gave Elon Musk anything.

The press has confirmed and documented that Elon Musk received over six billion dollars from the White House. He was the only person in the world who got this much cash from this source. That is a fact. He was the only person, from among a huge number of his competitors that got this cash and all of the competitors, to Musk and Doerr, who applied for the same money, were sabotaged, denied and manipulated by people who are paid by, or run by The White House. That is a fact.

So, it is proven, then, that the White did give Elon Musk taxpayer cash. It is also a documented fact that the White House gave Musk free or low cost real estate, tax waivers, tax credits, government contracts, space ports, private jet fuel and stock valuation increases. This adds an additional many tens of billions of dollars to what Elon Musk received. This is a documented fact on public record.

John Doerr runs Kleiner Perkins. This is a fact. Kleiner Perkins is a business associate of Elon Musk and helped create Google. These are documented facts in stock filings, public securities documents and leaked emails. John Doerr and Kleiner Perkins related ownerships received more money from the Obama Administration than almost any other company in the world. This is a documented fact.

John Doerr, Elon Musk and the heads of Google work together. This is proven by their mutual quotes in the press, glorifying each other, their stock ownerships, the over-seas bank holdings and their surveilled communications. This is also proven by the fact that, after ten years of internet search results analysis, Google was proven to have rigged search results in order to glorify Musk while deleting any negative news stories about Musk in such an overt way that it is obvious by the historical metrics. No other search engine on Earth, even came within a small fraction of promoting Musk in such an obvious set-up. The EU, the Epstein Group and numerous universities have also conducted conclusive research proving that Google rigs it’s search engine results to hurt some people and benefit others, per it’s investors ideological beliefs.

The same type of Musk comparative data tests for Google results were also conducted with analyses, from 2007 to today, between Obama’s name and the names of the top 6 opposing candidates, in opposition to Obama, from January 1, 2007 until today. The results are even more shocking. It is very clear that Google embedded itself in all domestic digital media and news distribution and then manipulated what was read, and viewed by Americans, in order to make Obama get almost all of the attention and control the mood of the public around their perception of Obama vs. any opposing candidate. These research studies are available and prove the fact. Additionally, because the internet provides permanent records, and countries like China and Russia, who Google does not control, also have such archives, anybody can replicate the same research to prove that Google operated attack and glorification programs for, and against, people contingent on the whims of Google’s investors ideologies. So the manipulation of Google is now a proven fact. The business, political, financial and ideological relationship between Elon Musk, John Doerr, Google owners and Google results and Barack Obama are documented, provable facts.

Has Elon Musk made cocky statements in the media and acted so narcissistic, as to imply that he felt he was untouchable and had the highest level protections in Washington DC and the Fed? Mitt Romney says so but let’s look deeper. Because “the internet never forgets” all of Musk’s statements, from 2008 to today, are easily documented and can be culled together. Musk is known to have self-purchased many TV segments, ratings reviews and magazine articles about himself, as proven by billing statements and former PR firms employees. Even the most rudimentary analysis of Musk self-promotion vs. all others, during this time and the careful reading of his published words, proves that Musk knew he had White House, NASDAQ, Fed and SEC protections, to prevent his companies from going bankrupt, as “Embarrassment Protection” for The White House.

Additionally, Tesla’s patent filings reveal that Musk Engineers warned that his batteries, and the way he used them, created deadly fire and explosion consequences. Musk staffer Bernard Tse, also filed documents, which prove that Tesla knew that their batteries would explode, as early as 2007, and that Tesla knew that when their batteries exploded, “went thermal”, or started fires, they released deadly chemical fumes that cause cancer, liver damage, lung damage, brain damage and the mutation of un-born babies. These documents exist as fact. Therefore, to also prove that Musk was receiving White House protection, we can look to the archives of the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. Department of Energy receives more money for technology research and validation than almost any other agency for any other country in the world. The U.S. Department of Energy claims to have the most sophisticated technical research data anywhere. Indeed, when you FOIA, and openly examine the Department of Energy records, they beat Tesla to the knowledge that his approach to the batteries was a deadly dangerous option. Their videos, and documents, prove that they knew it nearly a decade earlier. So, even with both the funders of Tesla: The U.S. Department of Energy and Tesla, itself, saying, in writing, that the Tesla battery solution was one of the most disastrous choices, The White House still ordered Tesla to get it’s cash. All of the above are documented facts.

As a sub query, one might ask: “Why would these batteries be so desired if they were so awful?

To answer that question, one simply has to look inside the batteries. Inside the Musk batteries, you will find the key chemical called lithium. Who had acquired control of the Afghan, Bolivian and other key lithium mines? Elon Musk, Kliener Perkins and their partners. Kliener Perkins associates did the same thing with Solyndra, Abound, A123 and other DOE “failure companies”.  Just before the companies failed, Kliener and Sachs had “scrapped” their profits “off-the-top”.  After, the failures, Kleiner and Sachs, even made more money on these failed companies by using them as tax write-offs.  These ownerships, waterfall charts and financial subterfuges are now on public record, in SEC filings, Guccifer leaks, Swiss Leaks and other published documents. There is no longer any question about the relationships and financial flows of the scheme.

Did Google rig public perceptions in order to make Obama the President so that he could give kickbacks to Google’s partners? The finances track back; the benefits track back; the IT data tracks back; the exclusivities track back; The White House logs track back; the lobby disclosures track back; the emails track back; and witnesses conform this as fact so that must be assumed to be true.

Modern stock market tracking has provided the world with massive amounts of software that track stock market activities, ownerships, link-backs and connections on a half second by half-second basis. Day traders use this graphic visualization trackers all day long. Anybody can pull recorded stock market history to see if Elon Musk and John Doerr manipulated stock market valuations by “pumping stock” on a coordinated basis with The Fed, Steven Chu and White House announcements. The data seems to indicate that that is, indeed, what took place. Additionally, Tesla has been sued for fraud and homicide, it has many charges by ex-employees, deaths, explosions and fires. Each time horrible news about Tesla took place, Google would hide the news and push some non-story about Musk, at the same time, data shows that the Tesla stock should have dropped but, as it started to drop, Tesla investors would engage in automated Flash Boy buybacks of their own stock in order to pump the stock back up and falsify the stock market valuation. The data and the documents prove this as fact.

Researchers have found extensive additional evidence verifying that a high level, highly corrupt crime did take place in this scheme. This article would become too lengthy if it were to attempt to detail all of the information now available.

In short, to answer the question:

“Did Elon Musk and John Doerr provide cash, marketing, Google rigging, stock market perks and other things to Obama people in exchange for billions of dollars in kick-backs?”

The answer appears to be: YES, without question!

 

The Justice System No Longer Works In America: A Case In Point

The Justice System No Longer Works In America: A Case In Point

 

We were victims of a crime by famous politicians. Some Senators, White House staff and Silicon Valley billionaires, engaged in organized crime in order to rig the state, and federal, systems in that whole TARP and CleanTech mess a while ago. They, exclusively, got hundreds of billions of tax dollars in kickbacks. We and our peers, got millions and millions of dollars stolen from us and used to make money for them. We got nothing but political hit-jobs put on us, for helping some of the federal investigators. We lost our life savings, got attacked, and had our future income sabotaged because some big shots had a hissy fit. There was not a lot of upside in that little venture.

The worst part was, the U.S. Government had asked us to help them with this project, in the first place, and for our trouble we got hit-jobs put on us.

We are not crying over spilled milk. We are screaming over organized crime in our own government that was documented by the FBI, The GAO, The OSC and reported to huge numbers of law enforcement. Federal investigators have shown us hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence, that they have acquired, that proves that these people did these crimes. We expect the state sponsored hackers from China to pop up, any day, with even more tidbits.  There is no issue about proving that these people did really bad things. The bad guy politicians ordered the law to do nothing, to “stand down” to put it on “slo mo”. How is that fair?

Is that the way it is supposed to work?

We were advised to “sue the bastards”. We did. Multiple times. We never got to speak in court or tell our story. We never got to make our point before a jury. The cases never got to go to trial because the opposition had unlimited money and unlimited pressure resources.

Nothing happened.

No, sorry. That is not quite right.

A few things did happen. We got every source of income electronically sabotaged by a “very large organization”. We got a digital character assassination attack. Because we saw the Washington system from the inside, and saw what was going on, we sadly, got to see thousands of other people go through the same thing because some Silicon Valley campaign billionaire had fingered them as a competitor.

We used to hear these stories about how “the American justice system is slow but it eventually delivers justice”… that turns out to be “Horsesh*t”. It is not a “story” it is a fairytale.

One would think, with the 2016 elections coming up, that the Democrats would want the “ordinary people”, the voters, to not think that they had left America in a justice nightmare.

Our personal experience, Ferguson and all of the other headlines, seem to fly in the face of that concept. Is there any justice left in America any more?

One has to wonder.

We got raped by White House staff who took us in and lied to our face. We got raped by a Senator whose family used to sleep at our house, and who is supposed to represent us. We got raped by “The System”. No Special Prosecutor was allowed to hold public hearings. No trail was allowed. We never got the oft lauded “Day in Court”. The rules are so rigged that you don’t even get to have a hearing about the injustice. The preliminary hearings are all about office clerk technicalities.

How can any American trust their system if no American can get justice for an overt, obvious, massively documented crime against them by their own political representatives?

The politicians have been bought and sold. The justice system has been sold out.

What has this country come to?

 

How to rig the system: Buy the judge! Are some federal judges corrupt?

How to rig the system: Buy the judge! Are some federal judges corrupt?

 

Judges do not have magic powers of morality. Judge Joe Brown is going to jail. Some judges have contracted murders. Cheating Judges are all over the Ashley Madison Hack.

Hundreds of thousands of news stories detail rigged judges and criminal malfeasance on the part of Judges.

If you file a case in federal court or, particularly, the U.S. Court of Claims, you cannot necessarily expect to get justice.

If you are up against something that is near and dear to The White House, or a corrupt Senator, expect the U.S. attorney to get lots of help, and suggestions, from the White House, or Corrupt Senator, about how to blow your case out of the water. Your “Justice” is of no concern to anybody in Washington. How to avoid “political embarrassment” is all that the big shots care about.

From Watergate to the FDR Business Plot, what American’s have learned, repeatedly, is that the rights of the individual taxpayer do not exist if a powerful politician feels like they might get embarrassed.

Your case is one of thousands and thousands of cases that Judge is working on. When it comes down to pissing off you, or The President, or you or Harry Reid, the Judge is going to recall that you do not affect their pension or their future income. The silent pressure of the White House, or the dirty Senator, is always going to be more powerful than any “justice” that you may deserve.

If you get a raw deal – Appeal. Not only to other courts, but also to the media, the voters and the system.

If you know, that a court decision was rigged. Appeal it in every venue and in the media.

If you truly believe in justice, fight for what is right.

The most bribed official is the Senator. The next most bribed official is the judge.

You may, most likely, never even get your day in court. You will get dismissal attempts. Third party hearings may happen, via intermediaries, and you may never even get to explain your case, in your words or in a manner so that you know that the whole story was properly communicated.

If you know, that the court system never heard the whole story, the way it actually happened, write a book, make a website, publish a blog and go on radio talk shows. Do not let justice die.

 

 

Stephen Colbert’s Entire Career Now Lies in The Hands Of Elon Musk

Stephen Colbert’s Entire Career Now Lies in The Hands Of Elon Musk

 

Stephen Colbert is excited about his late show debut and he has booked a variety of big name guests. One guest, though, will determine Colbert’s credibility and moral construct: Elon Musk!

The Musk interview is slated for Sept. 9

Colbert is known for striking hard with innuendo and main stream voters will be watching this episode with Elon Musk, a man charged with sociopathic narcissism and with the mobster-like bribery of the White House.

Will Colbert coddle Musk, on orders from the White House?

Will Colbert take him out with hard hitting questions?

Whether, or not Colbert brings a clean-up, or a cover-up, will determine how the world decides if they trust Colbert him in his new role as keeper of the scared late night slot. Colbert’s whole reputation depends on how he handles Musk.

Musk’s PR company spent vast resources to try to get Musk on this segment, because Musk loves  the self-aggrandization.

These are the questions that Colbert must ask Musk, in order to provide the world with a true testament of his virtue:

Why are all of the Afghanistan Mining Deals, for the your companies, connected to only the exact same people who Steven Chu gave the money too, who also happen to be the exact same people who were campaign backers?

Why were Kliener Perkins, and you, the single largest beneficiaries of the Steven Chu cash and, also, the same people who had Russian business connections to those Afghanistan, and other, mining deals?

Why did Steven Chu hand out so much taxpayer cash, in an American economic crisis, to Russian controlled companies?

Who is Frank Guistra?

How is the arrested, and jailed, Raj Gupta from McKinsey related to Kliener Perkins?

Steven Rattner was indicted for stock market fraud. Why was he working in the White House arranging the cash give-aways to car companies in the Cleantech crash? What is your relationship to him?

Solyndra got raided by the FBI and the entire Solyndra investigation has not, yet, been released. Is Solyndra financing connected, in any way to anybody’s campaign financing and why do Tesla and Silyndra sit on the same piece of land which is run by your friend Senator Dianne Feinstein?

McKinsey Consulting, Kleiner Perkins and Goldman Sachs promoted a number of white papers and articles entitled: “Afghanistan is the Saudi Arabia of Lithium” and “There are trillions of dollars of lithium in Afghanistan”? You are partners with all three and you own one of the biggest lithium supply routes in America, right?

What were Steven Chu-funded Solyndra and Abound needing Afghan indium for?

Steven Chu’s nomination records show that he was nominated by, lobbied for by, and gave almost all of the cash away, under his control, exclusively to your Silicon Valley business partners. Isn’t that a felony?

Eric Holder, who should have arrested Chu, had all of the same business relationships and benefits as Chu. Shouldn’t Holder have been arrested too?

Main stream news media say that the Afghanistan incursion has cost U.S. taxpayers over six trillion dollars. What upside have taxpayers received from that effort? Do you feel responsible for that loss to America?

Senator Dianne Einstein was the lobbyist for Tesla and Solyndra, sabotaged their competitors, and owned their staffing service, leasing company, construction company and supplier stock through her family. Isn’t that a felony?

Gary D. Conley, David Bird, Rajeev Motwani, Doug Bourn, Karl Slym and others, died, mysterious, unexpected deaths and were connected to these investigations. Is that suspicious?

The Section 136 federal law stated that it was to be emergency cash for those companies in need. Why were billionaires like you and John Doerr considered to be “in need”? Why are you the only humans, in the world, to already have billions of dollars and then be given more billions of dollars by the White House? What they delivered vs. how much cash they got, still leaves over 16 billion dollars unaccounted for? Every other company on Earth has been able to deliver massively more product with far less cash. What really happened to that money?

Sandia labs was caught paying kick-backs to Steven Chu. Is that a problem since Steven Chu isyour business part and shareholder via his trust funds?

Every single applicant, for Steven Chu’s Department of Energy money, that was not approved by you and Kleiner Perkins and the White Campaign bosses, was sabotaged and denied. Is that not a felony?

Over 34 U.S. Senators state that the Department of Energy Cleantech investigations have suffered from massive cover-ups, stone-walling and Lois Lerner-like hit jobs against anyone who speaks up? Did you arrange any part of that? Is that legal?

Do any of your investors, who received financial benefits from Steven Chu, have electronic automated computerized stock market manipulation systems known as “Flash Boy Arrays”? Did any of these investors use Steven Chu’s financing announcements to manipulate valuation settings on the public stock market?

Have any of your investors worked with Eric Schmidt to control White House policy and to rig Google’s search engine in order to manipulate stock market results and news coverage?

 

 

 

 

 

Was Donald Trump Staff Caught Photo-shopping Hillary Pictures?

Was Donald Trump Staff Caught Photo-shopping Hillary Pictures?

Take at look at this supposed “candid surprise shot”.

It isn’t real!

It was PHOTOSHOPPED!!!!

Be careful of photos you see on “the internet”!

Notice the bustiness of Hillary in this shot and then look at Hillary in Matt Drudge’s Hillary beach photos in the blue dress. You can tell the difference.

Also, look at the angle of the light on Hillary’s face in her section of the photo and then look at the angle of the light on Huma. IT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT!

Another clue is Huma’s lipstick. One would think her lipstick would be all smeared if this was a real photo.

As Election 2016 approaches, the reader must be wary of photo’s that look too amazing or too interesting. Sometimes THEY ACTUALLY ARE!

Always go back to the people in the photo and ask them: “Is this a real picture?”.

Do not rely on conjecture and glorified media amplification of suggested innuendo.

DRUDGE REPORT UNCOVERS HUMA ABEDIN’S DARKEST SECRET

DRUDGE REPORT UNCOVERS HUMA ABEDIN’S DARKEST SECRET

 

“This could change everything” says Al Sharpton

While GOP media pundits push twisted tales of a sordid lesbian love triangle between Huma, Hillary and Bill the truth has turned out to be far more shocking:

Whistle-Blowers Join Together to file joint law-suit proving U.S. politicians order hit-jobs on members of the public who speak out!!!!!!!

Whistle-Blowers Join Together to file joint law-suit proving U.S. politicians order hit-jobs on members of the public who speak out!!!!!!!

Multiple Former NSA Officials Team Up to Expose Whistle Blower Attacks

By John Vibes


A number of different whistleblowers have recently joined together in a massive lawsuit against multiple government agencies, citing civil rights violations and malicious prosecution.

Thomas Drake, Diane Roark, Ed Loomis, J. Kirk Wiebe and William Binney have filed a lawsuit against the NSA, FBI, and DOJ, claiming that the highest ranking officials of those agencies attempted to silence them through prosecution, media smear tactics and occupational threats.

According to the lawsuit:

“Plaintiffs sue Defendants, as individuals and in their official and unofficial capacities, for violations when Robert S. Mueller was Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) of their constitutional and civil rights, invasion of privacy, and retaliation for their roles as whistleblowers, including illegal searches and seizures, physical invasion of their residences and places of business, illegal detention as temporary false imprisonment, confiscation of property, cancellation of security clearances leading to the loss of their jobs and employment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment and intimidation.”

 

The lawsuit went on to say:

 

“This is a case of the abuse of false and fraudulent claims of national security to target critics and silence criticism of government officials for the benefit of public officials to avoid responsibility and accountability for their actions in government, by abusing false claims of national security to harass and intimidate and harm the Plaintiffs. In retaliation against the Plaintiffs for – confidentially within proper government channels – filing whistleblower complaints with Congress and the Inspector General (“IG”) of the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”), the Defendants knowingly and intentionally fabricated a claim of the Plaintiffs involvement in leaks of national security information to New York Times reporters Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, and used this fabricated claim for retaliation, illegal searches and seizures, physical invasion of their residences and places of business, temporary false imprisonment, the confiscation of their property, cancellation of security clearances leading to the loss of their jobs and employment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment and intimidation.”

 

It has been long known that whistleblowers are not welcomed by the Unites States government, despite the fact that there are laws to protect them, and some politicians claim to support them. It is incredibly rare for a whistleblower to receive any protection or support from the government, and in fact, they many times are threatened with prison time, or the loss of their positions.

In court, the whistleblowers will be represented by attorney Larry Klayman, who specializes in cases against government agencies.

 

 

 

More Whistle-blowers and potential witnesses have been forced into suicide during the Obama Administration than IN ALL OTHER U.S. ADMINISTRATIONS COMBINED!

Obama likes those public citizens, who ‘do the right thing”: dead! He doesn’t negotiate. He doesn’t reward. He doesn’t help. He doesn’t seem to  do anything but wipe them out.

The list of people who reported federal crimes to the Obama people, and then died, before the issue got resolved, is staggering.

It is easy to kill your enemies with psychological tricks, manipulation of their home water supply and medication rigging.

Here are some of the tactics that a pissed off politician might use:

 

America’s Internal Assassination Squad: How Corrupt Politicians & Their Sociopath Billionaires Take You Out

By Dave Emory and Paula White

Micheal T. works in a little known office, in a little known operation in Arlington, Virginia.

He gets up in the morning, brushes his teeth, makes bacon and eggs, reads the Washington Post and then drives 41 miles to work in a plain looking office high-rise.

He turns on his computers, upon arriving at his desk, and he begins killing American taxpayers in cities like Houston, San Francisco and Detroit.

He does not use bullets.

He uses metatags, databases and troll farms. He is a hired character assassin. He works for The President, Senators and their corrupt campaign billionaires.

What you are about to read is based on true incidents. The names have been changed. This actually takes place, on a daily basis, and thousands of domestic Americans are the targets.

Today Micheal has logged in a “Z-Notice” on a man in Houston, Texas. This man worked with Sandia National Laboratories and this man, who we will call Steve, witnessed technicians burying plutonium in a field because their boss had forgotten to add a concrete casing order to his annual budget. The boss didn’t want to get a budget over-run, so he thought he could have his guys fix the cost problem with a shovel and some dirt. When all of the ground squirrels, that usually ran freely around the Sandia campus, suddenly died. People became suspicious.

After Micheal launches the retribution and revenge program on Steve, he will begin the take-down of Susan, a senior nurse at the San Diego VA hospital. She reported that VA officials were putting very ill veterans on a permanent hold, hoping they would die before the VA executives had to go to all of the trouble of treating them. 

His next “Z-Notice” is on Bob who reported that Steven Chu was embezzling tens of billions of federal dollars during is tenure at the Department of Energy.

On and on, the Z-Notices keep on coming.

Traditional logic would presume that most government executives would just say: “Thank you for pointing out those bad actors. Here is your whistle-blower reward”.

In the world of corruption and dirty politicians, it does not work like that. Criminally corrupt politicians exist because they have a little club of other criminally corrupt politicians who operate a quid-pro-quo round-robin kick-back scheme. 

That is how the British famous politician pedophile ring operates. One famous political pedophile passes the abused, and the cover-up media, to the next. Each one cover’s the other ones butt, so to speak.

The only weapon against them is transparency. The corrupt politicians and their billionaires are the most egotistical, narcissistic idiots you could ever meet. They would rather die than become embarrassed. That is their weak link. Their hubris and ego-mania will always get them.

The only weapon, against their foes, is character assassination. It is a dark and grimy path that the corrupt have wandered down.

Steve, in Houston, rated a “high kill order” because be embarrassed both the President and two, highly placed, corrupt Senators. Steve went to the FBI and that created files that will never go away. Congress has so many watchdogs on the FBI, now, that, despite what creepy things they may, or may not do, It is no longer possible for the FBI to have “hard drives go missing.”

Steve had gotten himself a new job as a technical aide at the University in Houston. Micheal had been watching Steve’s payroll 1099 forms, by hacking into the University HR service, and wanted to make sure that Steve had received at least 2 months of pay. At the same time, Micheal had his boys at Gawker Media write a hatchet job article about how someone suspected that technical aides at the University in Houston were raping young girls.

It was then a simple matter for Micheal to use his DNS spoofing computer to send a FAX to the HR Director, at the University, with a copy of the article, with the words: “I THINK THIS MIGHT BE STEVE”,scrawled across one corner of the fax. The Fax ID made it look like the FAX came from the New York Times. Micheal used a voice modifier and a disposable cell phone with a New Jersey spoofed SIM card to call the staff of the University to say that he thought Steve had molested his daughter. Steve was fired, without any reason except “budget cuts”, that afternoon.

Micheal used his special account on Axciom and Oracle’s recruiter database engine to place a flag on Steve’s background checks and online profiles so that every person that might hire Steve, will see the special internal code that is the digital equivalent of a “red flag”. This made certain that Steve would never get employed again.

He followed that up with a double whammy. Micheal went into all 3 of the main credit services and, first, downgraded Steves credit scores and then he pulled all of the data about anybody that Steve owed money to. Micheal sent anonymous notices to all of the lenders and payment suppliers that Steve was obligated to, in order to try to get them to call his loans, refuse his loans or demand payment, In order to force Steve into bankruptcy and get him to live in his car.

Because Steve was exposed to plutonium, Steve got poisoned by it.

When Steve applies for disability insurance through social security, Micheal gets a notice on his Lotus Notes tracker and Micheal then makes sure that, first, Steve’s disability review is delayed for as long as humanly possible and then, when he finally gets a response, it is denied. All of Steve’s requests for hearings are denied too.

Micheal is delighted. The take-down of Steve is going great. This will teach those damn taxpayers to speak their minds! The Senator will probably give him a big Kill Bonus on this one. Steve can’t get a job, he can’t get disability. He can’t retire and use his other social security because he is not old enough, yet. Micheal, a few days later, gets another Lotus Notes computer notice that Steve has tried to open an online store on Zazzle and Café Press, in a desperate attempt to make money. Micheal sees to that by logging all of Steve’s email addresses as “flagged accounts” and rerouting any payments to Paypal into a black hole. Micheal has the contractors at In-Q-Tel, run a full hack on Steve’s phone. 

Steve is persistent, though, and Steve tries to set up an online T-Shirt business. Damn, thinks Micheal, his shirts might sell. Can’t have Steve getting any cash. He might hire a lawyer.

Micheal logs into the agency account at Tai Systems in Taiwan. Tai Systems is a block, or two, of old warehouses. It looks like nothing is going on at the Tai Building. There are not many cars in the parking lot. Tai only needs a handful of people to do what Tai does. All of the buildings are filled with racks, and racks, of Dell Edge Servers. A few IT guys wander around the building looking for red lights and cooling issues. In one room 12 people sit at long tables with triple LCD screens on each table. They are firing digital machine guns.

Tai does two things well. It runs devastating troll farm blog screeds and it fires off some of the most potent denial of service attacks on websites. Micheal orders up a 3 month, 30,000 fake login attempt per day, attack on every website that Steve creates in order to try to get some money. Steve is wiped out and there is now no possible way for Steve to get any money.

Steve commits suicide 6 months later, with a little help from a modified sleeping pill prescription, that Micheal had wired into Steve’s Walgreen’s account, that changed Steve’s brain chemistry in order to increase his anxiety levels.

Micheal got a big bonus from The Senator for that one. The next target looked fun, some guy named Aaron with some wisenheimer tech start-up called Reddit.


Federal lawyers say that ”if a Politician uses these tactics on taxpaying citizens, they are then giving permission for those citizens to return the favor”


Did you piss off a corrupt White House politician and then have your life go to sh*t? Here is how they did it to you:

 

That corrupt Senator then had their chief of staff call either: In-Q-Tel, Tactical Resources or PsyoContract. These are consulting groups made up of former CIA operatives. Those kinds of services sell “hit-jobs”, using the latest government technology and psychological tactics. Here is what they did to you.

This activity is referred to as “Organized Corporate Stalking” – or “Political Gang Stalking” in the vernacular. Several million of Americans experience this type of activity in the US if they have been deemed a “dissident, activist, domestic threat or domestic terrorist.”

There are dozens of websites and YouTube channels dedicated to these black ops which are perpetrated in every major city of the US (and small towns as well)

Moving objects around in someone’s home is referred to as “gas-lighting” and is done so that the complainant/victim sounds delusional when they call the police for assistance.

After all, who is going to break into a home (usually without leaving a trace) and move a few objects around without stealing anything? It does not sound credible or believable.

Everything is done so there is plausible deniability, should the potential perpetrators ever be identified.

These tactics/techniques were used against American Embassy Staff in Cuba and Russia for years, however US authorities have been quite mum about it since the same techniques are used on a wide scale in the United States against “dissidents, activists” and anyone else who has been extra-judicially deemed a threat to the establishment, the status quo or large companies.

These activities are usually done in conjunction with vehicle vandalism/hacking, computer/e-mail/bank account hacking, mail tampering and untraceable, remotely-initiated damage to electronic devices and their power supplies.

Additionally victims of these covertly-styled assaults are also plagued by people passing by their residences at all hours and blowing their horns or revving their engines (referred to as a noise campaign).

Codes can be remotely stripped/read from computer keyboards, phones and alarm touch-pads since every key generates an electronic signature which can be read/culled from a distance – there are devices built specifically for this purpose.

Furthermore, these black ops are done while the victim’s name is simultaneously being slandered via false accusations of criminal activity, theft, violence, crimes of moral turpitude and prior mental health issues. The “teams” perpetrating these illegal acts will try and destroy every aspect of the target’s life.

You are likely bugged and your vehicle tagged with a GPS, thus moving will not necessarily terminate the issue(s) you are experiencing – although if your experience(s) have been published it may alleviate some of the illegal activities.

These politicos will hire private security groups and criminals to follow their targets around in order to let them know that he/she is now “persona non grata” and being monitored.

Being a single woman – especially with a child makes these activities even more traumatizing.

These tactics were used by Hitler, Mao Tze Tung, the East German Stasi and the KGB.

All of these activities are done so that the perpetrators are hard to identify – and the criminal acts are hard to prove to the police – and in court. (plausible deniability).

You will find you can’t get a job. You will get many phone calls and emails from people with east indian accents asking you to approve submitting a resume for a great job. Each time you will never hear back from them. Your disappointment will increase. That is how they like it. Those were not real recruiters, they were operatives trying to build you up and let you down, over and over, in order to create a sense of self-doubt and a sense of personal failure, so that you will be too emotionally weakened to fight against the politician. 

It is also referred to as “No-Touch Torture” and is used to intimidate the target in addition to making them psychologically more vulnerable. The technique was developed by the Stasi and is calledZersetzung

Zersetzung (German; variously translated as decomposition, corrosion, undermining, biodegradation ordissolution) was a working technique of the East German secret police, the Stasi. The “measures ofZersetzung“, defined in the framework of a directive on police procedures in 1976,[1] were effectively used in the context of so-called “operational procedures” (in German Operative Vorgänge or OV). They replaced the overt terror of the Ulbricht era.

As to the practice of repressive persecution, Zersetzung comprised extensive and secret methods of control and manipulation, even in the personal relations of the target. The Stasi relied for this on its network of unofficial collaborators[2] (in German inoffizielle Mitarbeiter or IM), on the State’s influence on institutions, and on “operational psychology”. By targeted psychological attacks the Stasi tried in this way to deprive the dissident of any possibility of “hostile action”.

Thanks to numerous files of the Stasi made public following “the turning” (Die Wende) of East Germany, the use of measures of Zersetzung is well documented. Estimates of the number of victims of such measures are on the order of a thousand, or even about 10,000,[3] of which 5,000 sustained irreversible damage.[4] Pensions for restitution have been created for the victims.

 [Zersetzung is] an operational method of the Ministry for Security of State for an efficacious struggle against subversive doings, in particular in the treatment of operations. With Zersetzung, across different operational political activities, one gains influence over hostile and negative persons, in particular over that which is hostile and negative in their dispositions and beliefs, in such a way that these would be shaken off and changed little by little, and, if applicable, the contradictions and differences between the hostile and negative forces would be provoked, exploited, and reinforced.

The goal of Zersetzung is the fragmentation, paralysis, disorganization, and isolation of the hostile and negative forces, in order to impede thereby, in a preventive manner, the hostile and negative doings, to limit them in large part, or to totally avert them, and if applicable to prepare grounds for a political and ideological reestablishment.

Zersetzung is equally an immediate constitutive element of “operational procedures” and other preventive activities to impede hostile gatherings. The principal forces to put Zersetzung in practice are the unofficial collaborators. Zersetzung presupposes information and significant proof of hostile activities planned, prepared, and accomplished as well as anchor points corresponding to measures ofZersetzung.

Zersetzung must be produced on the basis of an analysis of the root of facts and the exact establishment of a concrete goal. Zersetzung must be executed in a uniform and supervised manner; its results must be documented.

The political explosivity of Zersetzung poses elevated imperatives in that which concerns the maintenance of secrecy.[5]

Political context

During the first decade of existence of the German Democratic Republic, political opposition was combatted primarily through the penal code, via accusations of incitement to war or boycott.[6] To counteract the isolation of the GDR on the international scene due to the construction of the Berlin wall in 1963, judicial terror was abandoned.[7] Especially since the debut of the Honecker era in 1971, the Stasi intensified its efforts to punish dissident behaviors without using the penal code.[8]Important motives were the desire on the part of the GDR for international recognition andrapprochement with West Germany at the end of the ’60s. In fact the GDR was committed, in adhering to the Charter of the U.N.[9] and the Helsinki accords[10] as well as the fundamental treaty signed with the Federal Republic of Germany,[11] to respect human rights, or at least it announced its intention as such. The regime of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany decided thus to reduce the number of political prisoners, which was compensated for by practices of repression without imprisonment or judicial condemnation.[12][13]

In practice

The Stasi used Zersetzung essentially as a means of psychological oppression and persecution.[14]Findings of Operativen psychologie (psychological operations),[15] formulated into method at the Stasi’s College of Legal Studies (Juristischen Hochschule der Staatssicherheit, or JHS), were applied to political opponents in an effort to undermine their self-confidence and self-esteem. Operations were designed to intimidate and destabilise them through subjection to repeated disappointments, and to socially alienate them through interference in and disruption of their relationships with others. The aim was to then induce personal crises in victims, leaving them too unnerved and psychologically distressed to have the time and energy for anti-government activism.[16] The Stasi intended that their role as mastermind of the operations remain concealed.[17][18] Jürgen Fuchs, a victim of Zersetzung who later wrote about his experience, described the Stasi’s actions as “psychosocial crime”, and “an assault on the human soul”.[16]

Although its techniques had been established as effective by the late 1950s, Zersetzung was not defined in terms of scientific method until the mid-1970s, and only began to be carried out in a significantly systematic way in the 1970s and 1980s.[19] It is difficult to determine the number of people targeted, since source material has been deliberately and considerably redacted; it is known, however, that tatics were varied in scope, and that a number of different departments participated in their implementation. Overall there was a ratio of four or five authorised Zersetzung operators for each targeted group, and three for each individual.[20] Some sources indicate that around 5,000 people were “persistently victimised” by Zersetzung.[21] At the College of Legal Studies, the number of dissertations submitted on the subject of Zersetzung was in double figures.[22] It also had a comprehensive 50-page Zersetzung teaching manual, which included numerous examples of its practice.[23]

Institutions implementing and cooperating with Zersetzung operations

Almost all Stasi departments were involved in Zersetzung operations, although foremost among these in implementing them were the head department of the Stasi’s directorate XX (Hauptabteilung XX) in Berlin, as well as its divisional offices in regional and municipal government. The function of the head and area Abteilung XXs was to maintain surveillance of religious communities; cultural and media establishments; alternative political parties; the GDR’s many political establishment-affiliated mass social organisations; sport; and education and health services – effectively, as such, covering all aspects of civic life and activity.[24] The Stasi made use of the means available to them within, and as a circumstance of, the GDR’s closed social system. An established, politically-motivated collaborative network (politisch-operatives Zusammenwirken, or POZW) provided them with extensive opportunities for interference in such situations as the sanctioning of professionals and students, expulsion from associations and sports clubs, and occasional arrests by the Volkspolizei[17] (the GDR’s quasi-military national police). Refusal of permits for travel to socialist states, or denial of entry at Czechoslovakianand Polish border crossings where no visa requirement existed, were also arranged. The various collaborators (Partnern des operativen Zusammenwirkens) included branches of regional government, university and professional management, housing administrative bodies, the Sparkasse public savings bank, and in some cases head physicians.[25] The Stasi’s Linie III (Observation), Abteilung 26 (Telephone and room surveillance) and M (Postal communications) departments provided essential background information for the designing of Zersetzung techniques, with Abteilung 32 procuring the required technology.[26]

The Stasi also collaborated with the secret services of other Eastern Bloc countries in implementingZersetzung. One such example was the co-operation of the Polish secret services in actions taken against branches of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation in the early 1960s, which would come to be known[27] as “innere Zersetzung[28] (internal subversion).

Against individuals

The Stasi applied Zersetzung before, during, after, or instead of incarcerating the targeted individual. The “operational procedures” did not have as an aim, in general, to gather evidence for charges against the target, or to be able to begin criminal prosecutions. The Stasi considered the “measures ofZersetzung” rather in part as an instrument that was used when judiciary procedures were not convenient, or for political reasons such as the international image of the GDR.[29][30] In certain cases, the Stasi attempted meanwhile to knowingly inculpate an individual, as for example in the case of Wolf Biermann: The Stasi set him up with minors, hoping that he would allow himself to be seduced, and that they could then pursue criminal charges.[31] The crimes that they researched for such accusations were non-political, as for example drug possession, trafficking in customs or currencies, theft, financial fraud, and rape.[32]

…the Stasi often used a method which was really diabolic. It was called Zersetzung, and it’s described in another guideline. The word is difficult to translate because it means originally “biodegradation.” But actually, it’s a quite accurate description. The goal was to destroy secretly the self-confidence of people, for example by damaging their reputation, by organizing failures in their work, and by destroying their personal relationships. Considering this, East Germany was a very modern dictatorship. The Stasi didn’t try to arrest every dissident. It preferred to paralyze them, and it could do so because it had access to so much personal information and to so many institutions.

—Hubertus Knabe, German historian [33]

The proven forms of Zersetzung are described in the directive 1/76:

a systematic degradation of reputation, image, and prestige in a database on one part true, verifiable and degrading, and on the other part false, plausible, irrefutable, and always degrading; a systematic organization of social and professional failures for demolishing the self-confidence of the individual; […] stimulation of doubts with respect to perspectives on the future; stimulation of mistrust or mutual suspicion among groups […]; putting in place spatial and temporal obstacles rendering impossible or at least difficult the reciprocal relations of a group […], for example by […] assigning distant workplaces. —Directive No. 1/76 of January 1976 for the development of “operational procedures”.[34]

Beginning with intelligence obtained by espionage, the Stasi established “sociograms” and “psychograms” which it applied for the psychological forms of Zersetzung. They exploited personal traits, such as homosexuality, as well as supposed character weaknesses of the targeted individual — for example a professional failure, negligence of parental duties, pornographic interests, divorce, alcoholism, dependence on medications, criminal tendencies, passion for a collection or a game, or contacts with circles of the extreme right — or even the veil of shame from the rumors poured out upon one’s circle of acquaintances.[35][36] From the point of view of the Stasi, the measures were the most fruitful when they were applied in connection with a personality; all “schematism” had to be avoided.[35]

For marketing and political manipulation, Google now maintains a sociogram of each user and manipulates each user via Stasi-like mood manipulation.

Moreover, methods of Zersetzung included espionage, overt, hidden, and feigned; opening letters and listening to telephone calls; encroachments on private property; manipulation of vehicles; and even poisoning food and using false medications.[37] Certain collaborators of the Stasi tacitly took into account the suicide of victims of Zersetzung.[38]

It has not been definitely established that the Stasi used x-rays to provoke long-term health problems in its opponents.[39] That said, Rudolf Bahro, Gerulf Pannach, and Jürgen Fuchs, three important dissidents who had been imprisoned at the same time, died of cancer within an interval of two years.[40] A study by the Federal Commissioner for the Records of the State Security Service of the former GDR (Bundesbeauftragte für die Unterlagen des Staatssicherheitsdienstes der ehemaligen Deutschen Demokratischen Republik or BStU) has meanwhile rejected on the basis of extant documents such a fraudulent use of x-rays, and only mentions isolated and unintentional cases of the harmful use of sources of radiation, for example to mark documents.[41]

In the name of the target, the Stasi made little announcements, ordered products, and made emergency calls, to terrrorize him/her.[42][43] To threaten or intimidate or cause psychoses the Stasi assured itself of access to the target’s living quarters and left visible traces of its presence, by adding, removing, and modifying objects.[32]

Against groups and social relations

The Stasi manipulated relations of friendship, love, marriage, and family by anonymous letters, telegrams and telephone calls as well as compromising photos, often altered.[44] In this manner, parents and children were supposed to systematically become strangers to one another.[45] To provoke conflicts and extramarital relations the Stasi put in place targeted seductions by Romeo agents.[31]

For the Zersetzung of groups, it infiltrated them with unofficial collaborators, sometimes minors.[46]The work of opposition groups was hindered by permanent counter-propositions and discord on the part of unofficial collaborators when making decisions.[47] To sow mistrust within the group, the Stasi made believe that certain members were unofficial collaborators; moreover by spreading rumors and manipulated photos,[48] the Stasi feigned indiscretions with unofficial collaborators, or placed members of targeted groups in administrative posts to make believe that this was a reward for the activity of an unofficial collaborator.[31] They even aroused suspicions regarding certain members of the group by assigning privileges, such as housing or a personal car.[31] Moreover the imprisonment of only certain members of the group gave birth to suspicions.[47]

Target groups for measures

The Stasi used Zersetzung tactics on individuals and groups. There was no particular homogeneous target group, as opposition in the GDR came from a number of different sources. Tactical plans were thus separately adapted to each perceived threat.[49] The Stasi nevertheless defined several main target groups:[50]

  • associations of people making collective visa applications for travel abroad
  • artists’ groups critical of the government
  • religious opposition groups
  • youth subculture groups
  • groups supporting the above (human rights and peace organisations, those assisting illegal departure from the GDR, and expatriate and defector movements).

The Stasi also occasionally used Zersetzung on non-political organisations regarded as undesirable, such as the Watchtower Society.[51]

Prominent individuals targeted by Zersetzung operations included Jürgen Fuchs, Gerulf Pannach, Rudolf Bahro, Robert Havemann, Rainer Eppelmann, Reiner Kunze, husband and wife Gerd und Ulrike Poppe, and Wolfgang Templin.

Social and juridicial process

Once aware of his own status as a target, GDR opponent Wolfgang Templin tried, with some success, to bring details of the Stasi’s Zersetzung activities to the attention of western journalists.[52] In 1977Der Spiegel published a five-part article series (“Du sollst zerbrechen!” – “You’re going to crack!”) by the exiled Jürgen Fuchs, in which he describes the Stasi’s “operational psychology”. The Stasi tried todiscredit Fuchs and the contents of similar articles, publishing in turn claims that he had a paranoidview of its function,[53] and intending that Der Spiegel and other media would assume he was suffering from a persecution complex.[54][55] This, however, was refuted by the official Stasi documents examined after Die Wende (the political power shift in the GDR in 1989-90).

Because the scale and nature of Zersetzung were unknown both to the general population of the GDR and to people abroad, revelations of the Stasi’s malicious tactics were met with some degree of disbelief by those affected.[56] Many still nowadays express incomprehension at how the Stasi’s collaborators could have participated in such inhuman actions.[57]

Since Zersetzung as a whole, even after 1990, was not deemed to be illegal because of the principle ofnulla poena sine lege (no penalty without law), actions against involvement in either its planning or implementation were not enforceable by the courts.[58] Because this specific legal definition ofZersetzung as a crime didn’t exist,[59] only individual instances of its tactics could be reported. Acts which even according to GDR law were offences (such as the violation of Briefgeheimnis, the secrecy of correspondence) needed to have been reported to the GDR authorities soon after having been committed in order not to be subject to a statute of limitations clause.[60] Many of the victims experienced the additional complication that the Stasi was not identifiable as the originator in cases of personal injury and misadventure. Official documents in which Zersetzung methods were recorded often had no validity in court, and the Stasi had many files detailing its actual implementation destroyed.[61]

Unless they had been detained for at least 180 days, survivors of Zersetzung operations, in accordance with §17a of a 1990 rehabilitation act (the Strafrechtlichen Rehabilitierungsgesetzes, or StrRehaG), are not eligible for financial compensation. Cases of provable, systematically effected targeting by the Stasi, and resulting in employment-related losses and/or health damage, can be pursued under a law covering settlement of torts (Unrechtsbereinigungsgesetz, or 2. SED-UnBerG) as claims either for occupational rehabilitation or rehabilitation under administrative law. These overturn certain administrative provisions of GDR institutions and affirm their unconstitutionality. This is a condition for the social equalisation payments specified in the Bundesversorgungsgesetz (the war victims relief act of 1950). Equalisation payments of pension damages and for loss of earnings can also be applied for in cases where victimisation continued for at least three years, and where claimants can prove need.[62]The above examples of seeking justice have, however, been hindered by various difficulties victims have experienced, both in providing proof of the Stasi’s encroachment into the areas of health, personal assets, education and employment, and in receiving official acknowledgement that the Stasi was responsible for personal damages (including psychic injury) as a direct result of Zersetzungoperations.[63]

Modern use of techniques

Russia‘s secret police, the FSB, has been reported to use such techniques against foreign diplomats and journalists.[64]

See also

References

1.      Jump up ^ Federal Commissioner for the Records of the State Security Service of the former German Democratic Republic. Directive No. 1/76 on the Development and Revision of Operational Procedures Richtlinie Nr. 1/76 zur Entwicklung und Bearbeitung Operativer Vorgänge (OV)

2.      Jump up ^ Federal Commissioner for the Records of the State Security Service of the former German Democratic Republic: The Unofficial Collaborators (IM) of the MfS

3.      Jump up ^ Süß, Strukturen, p. 217.

4.      Jump up ^ Consider in this regard the written position taken by Michael Beleites, responsible for the files of the Stasi in the Free State of SaxonyPDF, visited 24 August 2010, as well as 3sat : Subtiler Terror – Die Opfer von Stasi-Zersetzungsmethoden, visited 24 August 2010.

5.      Jump up ^ Ministry for Security of State, Dictionary of political and operational work, entryZersetzung: Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Hrsg.): Wörterbuch zur politisch-operativen Arbeit, 2. Auflage (1985), Stichwort: „Zersetzung“, GVS JHS 001-400/81, p. 464.

6.      Jump up ^ Rainer Schröder: Geschichte des DDR-Rechts: Straf- und Verwaltungsrecht, forum historiae iuris, 6 avril 2004.

7.      Jump up ^ Falco WerkentinRecht und Justiz im SED-Staat. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Bonn 1998, 2. durchgesehene Auflage 2000, S. 67.

8.      Jump up ^ Sandra Pingel-Schliemann: Zerstörung von Biografien. Zersetzung als Phänomen der Honecker-Ära. In: Eckart Conze/Katharina Gajdukowa/Sigrid Koch-Baumgarten (Hrsg.): Die demokratische Revolution 1989 in der DDR. Köln 2009, S. 78–91.

9.      Jump up ^ Art. 1 Abs. 3 UN-Charta. Dokumentiert in: 12. Deutscher Bundestag: Materialien der Enquete-Kommission zur Aufarbeitung von Geschichte und Folgen der SED-Diktatur in Deutschland. Band 4, Frankfurt a. M. 1995, S. 547.

10.  Jump up ^ Konferenz über Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa, Schlussakte, Helsinki 1975, S. 11.

11.  Jump up ^ Art. 2 des Vertrages über die Grundlagen der Beziehungen zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik vom 21. Dezember 1972. In: Matthias Judt (Hrsg.): DDR-Geschichte in Dokumenten – Beschlüsse, Berichte, interne Materialien und Alltagszeugnisse. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung Bd. 350, Bonn 1998, S. 517.

12.  Jump up ^ Johannes Raschka: „Staatsverbrechen werden nicht genannt“ – Zur Zahl politischer Häftlinge während der Amtszeit Honeckers. In: Deutschlandarchiv. Band 30, Nummer 1, 1997, S. 196

13.  Jump up ^ Jens Raschka: Einschüchterung, Ausgrenzung, Verfolgung – Zur politischen Repression in der Amtszeit Honeckers. Berichte und Studien, Band 14, Dresden 1998, S. 15.

14.  Jump up ^ Klaus-Dietmar Henke: Zur Nutzung und Auswertung der Stasi-Akten. In: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte. Nummer 4, 1993, S. 586.

15.  Jump up ^ Süß: Strukturen. S. 229.

16.  ^ Jump up to: a b Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen. S. 188.

17.  ^ Jump up to: a b Jens Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 192f.

18.  Jump up ^ Pingel-Schliemann: Formen. S. 235.

19.  Jump up ^ Süß: Strukturen. S. 202-204.

20.  Jump up ^ Süß: Strukturen. S. 217.

21.  Jump up ^ Siehe hierzu die schriftliche Stellungnahme des Sächsischen Landesbeauftragten für die Stasi-Unterlagen Michael Beleites zur Anhörung des Rechtsausschusses des Deutschen Bundestages zu den Gesetzentwürfen und Anträgen zur Verbesserung rehabilitierungsrechtlicher Vorschriften für Opfer politischer Verfolgung in der DDR vom 7. Mai 2007 (PDF, 682 KB), eingesehen am 24. August 2010, sowie 3sat: Subtiler Terror – Die Opfer von Stasi-Zersetzungsmethoden, eingesehen am 24. August 2010.

22.  Jump up ^ Günter Förster: Die Dissertationen an der „Juristischen Hochschule“ des MfS. Eine annotierte Bibliographie. BStU, Berlin 1997, Online-Quelle (Memento vom 13. Juli 2009 im Internet Archive).

23.  Jump up ^ Anforderungen und Wege für eine konzentrierte, offensive, rationelle und gesellschaftlich wirksame Vorgangsbearbeitung. Juristische Hochschule Potsdam 1977, BStU, ZA, JHS 24 503.

24.  Jump up ^ Jens Gieseke: Das Ministerium für Staatssicherheit 1950–1989/90 – Ein kurzer historischer Abriss. In: BF informiert. Nr. 21, Berlin 1998, S. 35.

25.  Jump up ^ Hubertus Knabe: Zersetzungsmaßnahmen. In: Karsten Dümmel, Christian Schmitz (Hrsg.): Was war die Stasi? KAS, Zukunftsforum Politik Nr. 43, Sankt Augustin 2002, S. 31, PDF, 646 KB.

26.  Jump up ^ Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen, S. 141–151.

27.  Jump up ^ Waldemar Hirch: Zusammenarbeit zwischen dem ostdeutschen und dem polnischen Geheimdienst zum Zweck der „Zersetzung“ der Zeugen Jehovas. In: Waldemar Hirch, Martin Jahn, Johannes Wrobel (Hrsg.): Zersetzung einer Religionsgemeinschaft: die geheimdienstliche Bearbeitung der Zeugen Jehovas in der DDR und in Polen. Niedersteinbach 2001, S. 84–95.

28.  Jump up ^ Aus einem Protokoll vom 16. Mai 1963, zit. n. Sebastian Koch: Die Zeugen Jehovas in Ostmittel-, Südost- und Südeuropa: Zum Schicksal einer Religionsgemeinschaft. Berlin 2007, S. 72.

29.  Jump up ^ Richtlinie 1/76 zur Entwicklung und Bearbeitung Operativer Vorgänge vom 1. Januar 1976. Dokumentiert in: David Gill, Ulrich Schröter: Das Ministerium für Staatssicherheit. Anatomie des Mielke-Imperiums. S. 390

30.  Jump up ^ Lehrmaterial der Hochschule des MfS: Anforderungen und Wege für eine konzentrierte, rationelle und gesellschaftlich wirksame Vorgangsbearbeitung. Kapitel 11: Die Anwendung von Maßnahmen der Zersetzung in der Bearbeitung Operativer Vorgänge vom Dezember 1977, BStU, ZA, JHS 24 503, S. 11.

31.  ^ Jump up to: a b c d Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 195f.

32.  ^ Jump up to: a b Pingel-Schliemann: Phänomen. S. 82f.

33.  Jump up ^ Hubertus Knabe: The dark secrets of a surveillance state, TED Salon, Berlin, 2014

34.  Jump up ^ Roger Engelmann, Frank Joestel: Grundsatzdokumente des MfS. In: Klaus-Dietmar Henke, Siegfried Suckut, Thomas Großbölting (Hrsg.): Anatomie der Staatssicherheit: Geschichte, Struktur und Methoden. MfS-Handbuch. Teil V/5, Berlin 2004, S. 287.

35.  ^ Jump up to: a b Knabe: Zersetzungsmaßnahmen. S. 27–29

36.  Jump up ^ Arbeit der Juristischen Hochschule der Staatssicherheit in Potsdam aus dem Jahr 1978, MDA, MfS, JHS GVS 001-11/78. In: Pingel-Schliemann: Formen. S. 237.

37.  Jump up ^ Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen. S. 266–278.

38.  Jump up ^ Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen. S. 277.

39.  Jump up ^ Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen, S. 280f.

40.  Jump up ^ Der Spiegel 20/1999: In Kopfhöhe ausgerichtet (PDF, 697 KB), S. 42–44.

41.  Jump up ^ Kurzdarstellung des Berichtes der Projektgruppe „Strahlen“ beim BStU zum Thema: „Einsatz von Röntgenstrahlen und radioaktiven Stoffen durch das MfS gegen Oppositionelle – Fiktion oder Realität?“, Berlin 2000.

42.  Jump up ^ Udo ScheerJürgen Fuchs – Ein literarischer Weg in die Opposition. Berlin 2007, S. 344f.

43.  Jump up ^ Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 196f.

44.  Jump up ^ Gisela Schütte: Die unsichtbaren Wunden der Stasi-Opfer. In: Die Welt. 2. August 2010, eingesehen am 8. August 2010

45.  Jump up ^ Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen, S. 254–257.

46.  Jump up ^ Axel Kintzinger: „Ich kann keinen mehr umarmen“. In: Die Zeit. Nummer 41, 1998.

47.  ^ Jump up to: a b Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen, S. 358f.

48.  Jump up ^ Stefan WolleDie heile Welt der Diktatur. Alltag und Herrschaft in der DDR 1971–1989. Bonn 1999, S. 159.

49.  Jump up ^ Kollektivdissertation der Juristischen Hochschule der Staatssicherheit in Potsdam. In: Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen. S. 119.

50.  Jump up ^ Jens Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 192f.

51.  Jump up ^ Mike Dennis: Surviving the Stasi: Jehovah’s Witnesses in Communist East Germany, 1965 to 1989. In: Religion, State and Society. Band 34, Nummer 2, 2006, S. 145-168

52.  Jump up ^ Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 196f.

53.  Jump up ^ Scheer: Fuchs. S. 347.

54.  Jump up ^ Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 196f.

55.  Jump up ^ Treffbericht des IMB „J. Herold“ mit Oberleutnant Walther vom 25. März 1986 über ein Gespräch mit dem „abgeschöpften“ SPIEGEL-Redakteur Ulrich Schwarz. Dok. in Jürgen Fuchs: Magdalena. MfS, Memphisblues, Stasi, Die Firma, VEB Horch & Gauck – Ein Roman. Berlin 1998, S. 145.

56.  Jump up ^ Vgl. Interviews mit Sandra Pingel-Schliemann (PDF; 114 kB) und Gisela Freimarck (PDF; 80 kB).

57.  Jump up ^ Vgl. Interviews mit Sandra Pingel-Schliemann (PDF; 114 kB) und Gisela Freimarck (PDF; 80 kB).

58.  Jump up ^ Interview mit der Bundesbeauftragten für die Stasi-Unterlagen Marianne Birthler im Deutschlandradio Kultur vom 25. April 2006: Birthler: Ex-Stasi-Offiziere wollen Tatsachen verdrehen, eingesehen am 7. August 2010.

59.  Jump up ^ Renate Oschlies: Die Straftat „Zersetzung“ kennen die Richter nicht. In: Berliner Zeitung. 8. August 1996.

60.  Jump up ^ Hubertus Knabe: Die Täter sind unter uns – Über das Schönreden der SED-Diktatur. Berlin 2007, S. 100.

61.  Jump up ^ Ilko-Sascha Kowalczuk: Stasi konkret – Überwachung und Repression in der DDR, München 2013, S. 211, 302f.

62.  Jump up ^ Stasiopfer.de: Was können zur Zeit sogenannte „Zersetzungsopfer“ beantragen?, PDF, 53 KB, eingesehen am 24. August 2010.

63.  Jump up ^ Jörg Siegmund: Die Verbesserung rehabilitierungsrechtlicher Vorschriften – Handlungsbedarf, Lösungskonzepte, Realisierungschancen, Bundesstiftung Aufarbeitung, Symposium zur Verbesserung der Unterstützung der Opfer der SED-Diktatur vom 10. Mai 2006, PDF (Memento vom 28. November 2010 im Internet Archive), 105 KB, S. 3, eingesehen am 24. August 2010.

64.  Jump up ^ Russian spy agency targeting western diplomats, The Guardian, 2011-7-23

How Do You Fight Back When Large Corrupt Entities Attack You: Your adversaries will hire private investigators known as “Opposition Researchers”. Regular people call them“hit-men”From the famously vindictive SidneyBlumenthal, to the notorious Richard Berman, to unknown college kid junior “hit-men” in training; whenthey come for you it will be harsh, massively financed and driven by the madness of power-hungry campaign technology billionaires.

Your saving grace, though, will always be this: The “bad guys” are forced to  operate in darkness and stealth, once exposed to the light, they will wither and crawl away. In this new Age of Transparency, the ability to shed light 
on bad guys is more potent than ever! Look to major journalists, social networks and carbon-copy every law enforcement agency, so everyone knows what is going on, and so that no single entity can “stone-wall” or cover-up. 

Tips for Tech Companies Under Attack – 1. Cooperate with every law enforcement agency request. Every law enforcement agency will have an interest in terminating felony-grade law-breaking.

2. When they seek to destroy your reputation. Prove them wrong in public. In our case, the volume of greatreferences and broadcast news acclaim, posted on this site, counters any credibility attacks. They will try to spin the phrase “scam” or “not credible” into their attacks. Prove them wrong with the facts. Offer to meet them in any federal court or live TV debate to prove the facts. If the “bad guys” are involved in crime, be sure to show those facts in your public debate, so that people consider the source of the attacks. It isn’t possible to take a considered read of our references and proven deliverable documentation and not realize that any “scam” attack media/blog clips are fabricated by the attackers. In our case, we have seen law enforcement records and investigator documents proving severe felony-level crimes were engaged in by the people suspected of attacking our Team. We are extremely confident about who will be looking bad when everything is all-said-and-done. In today’s total information world, you can hire thousands of services that can track the off-shore tax evasion accounts, escort services, political bribes and illegal PAC groups, kick-backs, insider trading and other criminal actions that any criminal billionaire, that is attacking you is involved in. If you find such information, help the law enforcement people by delivering it to all of them. The level of felony crimes, these kinds of people get involved in, are “felony-grade embezzlement and racketeering matters”, according to the FBI. They are going to get in pretty big trouble. In the cases where they used taxpayer money to stage their crimes, they are going to get in Super Big trouble.

3. Sue them. There are now contingency law firms who will cover the costs of going after big bad guys in exchange for a percentage of the judgement. For example: Many people, and countries, have now proven that Google rigs it’s search engines to harm it’s adversaries. If Google did that to you, the technical proof now exists and you can win in court and get compensated for the damages they caused you.

4. Watch out for “moles”. Crazy rich people have private eye’s and ex-employees that they pay to get a job at your company. They pretend that they are helping you, then they sabotage your effort. Consider past jobs that future employees had with your attackers.

5. Watch the news coverage for exposes about crimes that your attackers are suspected of being involved in and contact others that were harmed by the attackers. Form a support coalition with others that were damaged by the attackers.

6. Read about who does hired character assassinations, and how they do it, at THIS LINK   and watch for the early signs of the attacks.

7. To understand the process, watch some of the movies about how the bad guys sabotage: Francis Coppola’s:Tucker, A Man and His Dream; Greg Kinear’s: Flash of Genius, and read some of the history of the “tech take-downs” at THIS LINK    http://wp.me/P1EyVm-xH

8. Stay on the “side of the Angels”. Good eventually wins over evil. In this new “Age of Transparency”, evil is losing faster than ever.

9. As punishment against you, rich political campaign backers will try to have their federal lackey’s change the law to hurt you. If you are a tech group, for example, the “bad guys”, might organize to suddenly try to change the patent laws so that your business is destroyed. When billionaires put bribes in the right pockets, they accomplish sweeping policy change. Don’t let that happen. Expose the “who” and the “why” in such tactics.

10. Consider Quid-Pro-Quo. In many countries the rule is: “if they do it to you, you have every right to do it back to them”

11. Watch out for “honey traps” in your activities and in on-line sites. Read the Snowden/Greenwald reports on what “Honey Traps” are.

12. The Bad Guys are usually very involved in politics because they like to control things. In order to control politics they own many stealth tabloid publications where they can order attack stories written about you. Some of these kinds of people own famous online media tabloids (ie: Gawker Media Group) and stock tip publications which are really just shill operations for their agendas and attacks. Identify these publications and partner with every person, or company, who they have coordinated attacks on in the past. Read about their attacks on inventor Mike Cheiky, Gary D. Conley, Aaron Swartz, Stan Meyer, Preston Tucker and hundreds of other innovators  (   http://wp.me/P1EyVm-xH  ) that they wanted “out of the way”.

13. Certain “special interests” own, and control, the content on Google, Reddit, Hearst Publications, Motley Fool and other “publication outlets”. You will only see glowing reports about the “bad guys” on those. You will see no negative reports about the “bad guys”, allowed on those sites, and every bad report about you will be manually up-ranked and locked into the top slot on their page in order to damage you. The down-side for the bad guys, though, is that the internet remembers everything. You can now prove, in court, showing technical and historical metric data, that they intentionally locked and damaged you and you can get compensated for the damages.

14. Every single troll blog comment, every pseudo attack article about you, everything is already tracked back to the actual author. The NSA have done it, that is well known. NO amount of TOR, or VPN on top of VPN or stealthing software can hide a troll attacker any more. What is only now becoming known is that the official, and also the independent hacker, Chinese and Russian spies have got almost all of that information too. Hackers have broken into Sony, The White House, All of Target, All of the Federal Employee Records, everything. In a court case you can now, legally, subpoena NSA records to sue the attackers. Others, hearing of your filed case, may just show up and give you the information. Attackers cannot hide behind anonymity any more. Those who were blogging that you “sleep with goats” and “eat unborn children” can now be found out and delt with.

15. Do you have on-line stores and paypal or credit card accounts that take payments at those stores? Trying to make a little cash on the side? Confused about why you never get any orders? The attackers have DNS-re-routed your stores and payment certificates, spoofed your sites and turned off all of your income potential from those on-line options in order to damage your economic potential. Illegal? Yes. Happening to people every day? Yes. Get professional IT services to document the spoofs, and re-routes, and sue the operators of those tactics that are attacking your revenue stream.

16. It costs $50,000.00 to bribe a Senator. Some of these tech billionaires earn that much in 3 minutes. Beware of your Senator. Senators take stock options in tech companies as bribes, watch for linkages. See the 60 Minutes Episode called: Congress Trading On Insider Information.

17. Want a job? Forget about it! The bad guys went into Axciom, Oracle, SAP, and all of the Human Resources and Recruiter databases, and put “red flag notices” on your profile. You will get some great first interviews, but when they run your back-ground check, you will never hear back from that interviewer again. You got “HR Black-listed”, in retribution, for accidentally bothering a campaign billionaire. Hire an HR service to look and print out your false “red flag” HR data-base inserts and use those as evidence in your lawsuit.

18. (This one, submitted by a Washington Post reporter): They will anonymously put all of your email addresses on blacklists, and watch-lists, so that you can’t use services like craigslist, cafe press, zazzle or other on-line services to make money. If you try to open any accounts on those services, you either won’t be able to create an account or, you will get an account, but all of your orders will get “spoofed” into oblivion so you can’t make any money. The attackers believe that by causing you as much economic hard-ship as possible, they can get retribution for what-ever they have perceived that you have done to offend them. Again, use an IT forensic services group to get the data to show this is happening, trace it, and sue the perpetrators.

19. Their actions provide the proof. When you look out on the internet and add up the pronouncements of “scam”, “sleeping with goats”, etc. The volume of attack items proves that no mere mortal, or company, could have acquired that much media unless it was placed there by very wealthy parties. Everyone now knows that the web is controlled. The volume of attacks can often prove that those attacks are fabricated. Additionally, IP Trace Routing and digital tracking now can prove the attackers manipulation of your data, email and website traffic. One of your best sets of evidence will come from the attackers, themselves. The bad guys always leave a digital trail of bread-crumbs leading right back to themselves. You can hire an IT company to build a “tracking array” comprised of hundreds of websites which are bait to catch them in the act. Regarding: Paranoia vs. documented evidence. If you, and others have experienced the tactics, and the police have recorded the tactics being used against you, it isn’t paranoia to be cautious.

 

HERE ARE SOME OF THE ACTUAL PAGES FROM THE ATTACK INSTRUCTION MANUALS AS REVEALED BY THE GUCCIFER AND SNOWDEN LEAKS:

Picture

Picture

Picture

Picture

 

 

 

More Whistle-blowers and potential witnesses have been forced into suicide during the Obama Administration than IN ALL OTHER U.S. ADMINISTRATIONS COMBINED!

More Whistle-blowers and potential witnesses have been forced into suicide during the Obama Administration than IN ALL OTHER U.S. ADMINISTRATIONS COMBINED!

Obama likes those public citizens, who ‘do the right thing”: dead! He doesn’t negotiate. He doesn’t reward. He doesn’t help. He doesn’t seem to  do anything but wipe them out.

The list of people who reported federal crimes to the Obama people, and then died, before the issue got resolved, is staggering.

It is easy to kill your enemies with psychological tricks, manipulation of their home water supply and medication rigging.

Here are some of the tactics that a pissed off politician might use:

America’s Internal Assassination Squad: How Corrupt Politicians & Their Sociopath Billionaires Take You Out

By Dave Emory and Paula White

Micheal T. works in a little known office, in a little known operation in Arlington, Virginia.

He gets up in the morning, brushes his teeth, makes bacon and eggs, reads the Washington Post and then drives 41 miles to work in a plain looking office high-rise.

He turns on his computers, upon arriving at his desk, and he begins killing American taxpayers in cities like Houston, San Francisco and Detroit.

He does not use bullets.

He uses metatags, databases and troll farms. He is a hired character assassin. He works for The President, Senators and their corrupt campaign billionaires.

What you are about to read is based on true incidents. The names have been changed. This actually takes place, on a daily basis, and thousands of domestic Americans are the targets.

Today Micheal has logged in a “Z-Notice” on a man in Houston, Texas. This man worked with Sandia National Laboratories and this man, who we will call Steve, witnessed technicians burying plutonium in a field because their boss had forgotten to add a concrete casing order to his annual budget. The boss didn’t want to get a budget over-run, so he thought he could have his guys fix the cost problem with a shovel and some dirt. When all of the ground squirrels, that usually ran freely around the Sandia campus, suddenly died. People became suspicious.

After Micheal launches the retribution and revenge program on Steve, he will begin the take-down of Susan, a senior nurse at the San Diego VA hospital. She reported that VA officials were putting very ill veterans on a permanent hold, hoping they would die before the VA executives had to go to all of the trouble of treating them. 

His next “Z-Notice” is on Bob who reported that Steven Chu was embezzling tens of billions of federal dollars during is tenure at the Department of Energy.

On and on, the Z-Notices keep on coming.

Traditional logic would presume that most government executives would just say: “Thank you for pointing out those bad actors. Here is your whistle-blower reward”.

In the world of corruption and dirty politicians, it does not work like that. Criminally corrupt politicians exist because they have a little club of other criminally corrupt politicians who operate a quid-pro-quo round-robin kick-back scheme. 

That is how the British famous politician pedophile ring operates. One famous political pedophile passes the abused, and the cover-up media, to the next. Each one cover’s the other ones butt, so to speak.

The only weapon against them is transparency. The corrupt politicians and their billionaires are the most egotistical, narcissistic idiots you could ever meet. They would rather die than become embarrassed. That is their weak link. Their hubris and ego-mania will always get them.

The only weapon, against their foes, is character assassination. It is a dark and grimy path that the corrupt have wandered down.

Steve, in Houston, rated a “high kill order” because be embarrassed both the President and two, highly placed, corrupt Senators. Steve went to the FBI and that created files that will never go away. Congress has so many watchdogs on the FBI, now, that, despite what creepy things they may, or may not do, It is no longer possible for the FBI to have “hard drives go missing.”

Steve had gotten himself a new job as a technical aide at the University in Houston. Micheal had been watching Steve’s payroll 1099 forms, by hacking into the University HR service, and wanted to make sure that Steve had received at least 2 months of pay. At the same time, Micheal had his boys at Gawker Media write a hatchet job article about how someone suspected that technical aides at the University in Houston were raping young girls.

It was then a simple matter for Micheal to use his DNS spoofing computer to send a FAX to the HR Director, at the University, with a copy of the article, with the words: “I THINK THIS MIGHT BE STEVE”,scrawled across one corner of the fax. The Fax ID made it look like the FAX came from the New York Times. Micheal used a voice modifier and a disposable cell phone with a New Jersey spoofed SIM card to call the staff of the University to say that he thought Steve had molested his daughter. Steve was fired, without any reason except “budget cuts”, that afternoon.

Micheal used his special account on Axciom and Oracle’s recruiter database engine to place a flag on Steve’s background checks and online profiles so that every person that might hire Steve, will see the special internal code that is the digital equivalent of a “red flag”. This made certain that Steve would never get employed again.

He followed that up with a double whammy. Micheal went into all 3 of the main credit services and, first, downgraded Steves credit scores and then he pulled all of the data about anybody that Steve owed money to. Micheal sent anonymous notices to all of the lenders and payment suppliers that Steve was obligated to, in order to try to get them to call his loans, refuse his loans or demand payment, In order to force Steve into bankruptcy and get him to live in his car.

Because Steve was exposed to plutonium, Steve got poisoned by it.

When Steve applies for disability insurance through social security, Micheal gets a notice on his Lotus Notes tracker and Micheal then makes sure that, first, Steve’s disability review is delayed for as long as humanly possible and then, when he finally gets a response, it is denied. All of Steve’s requests for hearings are denied too.

Micheal is delighted. The take-down of Steve is going great. This will teach those damn taxpayers to speak their minds! The Senator will probably give him a big Kill Bonus on this one. Steve can’t get a job, he can’t get disability. He can’t retire and use his other social security because he is not old enough, yet. Micheal, a few days later, gets another Lotus Notes computer notice that Steve has tried to open an online store on Zazzle and Café Press, in a desperate attempt to make money. Micheal sees to that by logging all of Steve’s email addresses as “flagged accounts” and rerouting any payments to Paypal into a black hole. Micheal has the contractors at In-Q-Tel, run a full hack on Steve’s phone. 

Steve is persistent, though, and Steve tries to set up an online T-Shirt business. Damn, thinks Micheal, his shirts might sell. Can’t have Steve getting any cash. He might hire a lawyer.

Micheal logs into the agency account at Tai Systems in Taiwan. Tai Systems is a block, or two, of old warehouses. It looks like nothing is going on at the Tai Building. There are not many cars in the parking lot. Tai only needs a handful of people to do what Tai does. All of the buildings are filled with racks, and racks, of Dell Edge Servers. A few IT guys wander around the building looking for red lights and cooling issues. In one room 12 people sit at long tables with triple LCD screens on each table. They are firing digital machine guns.

Tai does two things well. It runs devastating troll farm blog screeds and it fires off some of the most potent denial of service attacks on websites. Micheal orders up a 3 month, 30,000 fake login attempt per day, attack on every website that Steve creates in order to try to get some money. Steve is wiped out and there is now no possible way for Steve to get any money.

Steve commits suicide 6 months later, with a little help from a modified sleeping pill prescription, that Micheal had wired into Steve’s Walgreen’s account, that changed Steve’s brain chemistry in order to increase his anxiety levels.

Micheal got a big bonus from The Senator for that one. The next target looked fun, some guy named Aaron with some wisenheimer tech start-up called Reddit.


Federal lawyers say that ”if a Politician uses these tactics on taxpaying citizens, they are then giving permission for those citizens to return the favor”

Did you piss off a corrupt White House politician and then have your life go to sh*t? Here is how they did it to you:

 

That corrupt Senator then had their chief of staff call either: In-Q-Tel, Tactical Resources or PsyoContract. These are consulting groups made up of former CIA operatives. Those kinds of services sell “hit-jobs”, using the latest government technology and psychological tactics. Here is what they did to you.

This activity is referred to as “Organized Corporate Stalking” – or “Political Gang Stalking” in the vernacular. Several million of Americans experience this type of activity in the US if they have been deemed a “dissident, activist, domestic threat or domestic terrorist.”

There are dozens of websites and YouTube channels dedicated to these black ops which are perpetrated in every major city of the US (and small towns as well)

Moving objects around in someone’s home is referred to as “gas-lighting” and is done so that the complainant/victim sounds delusional when they call the police for assistance.

After all, who is going to break into a home (usually without leaving a trace) and move a few objects around without stealing anything? It does not sound credible or believable.

Everything is done so there is plausible deniability, should the potential perpetrators ever be identified.

These tactics/techniques were used against American Embassy Staff in Cuba and Russia for years, however US authorities have been quite mum about it since the same techniques are used on a wide scale in the United States against “dissidents, activists” and anyone else who has been extra-judicially deemed a threat to the establishment, the status quo or large companies.

These activities are usually done in conjunction with vehicle vandalism/hacking, computer/e-mail/bank account hacking, mail tampering and untraceable, remotely-initiated damage to electronic devices and their power supplies.

Additionally victims of these covertly-styled assaults are also plagued by people passing by their residences at all hours and blowing their horns or revving their engines (referred to as a noise campaign).

Codes can be remotely stripped/read from computer keyboards, phones and alarm touch-pads since every key generates an electronic signature which can be read/culled from a distance – there are devices built specifically for this purpose.

Furthermore, these black ops are done while the victim’s name is simultaneously being slandered via false accusations of criminal activity, theft, violence, crimes of moral turpitude and prior mental health issues. The “teams” perpetrating these illegal acts will try and destroy every aspect of the target’s life.

You are likely bugged and your vehicle tagged with a GPS, thus moving will not necessarily terminate the issue(s) you are experiencing – although if your experience(s) have been published it may alleviate some of the illegal activities.

These politicos will hire private security groups and criminals to follow their targets around in order to let them know that he/she is now “persona non grata” and being monitored.

Being a single woman – especially with a child makes these activities even more traumatizing.

These tactics were used by Hitler, Mao Tze Tung, the East German Stasi and the KGB.

All of these activities are done so that the perpetrators are hard to identify – and the criminal acts are hard to prove to the police – and in court. (plausible deniability).

You will find you can’t get a job. You will get many phone calls and emails from people with east indian accents asking you to approve submitting a resume for a great job. Each time you will never hear back from them. Your disappointment will increase. That is how they like it. Those were not real recruiters, they were operatives trying to build you up and let you down, over and over, in order to create a sense of self-doubt and a sense of personal failure, so that you will be too emotionally weakened to fight against the politician. 

It is also referred to as “No-Touch Torture” and is used to intimidate the target in addition to making them psychologically more vulnerable. The technique was developed by the Stasi and is calledZersetzung

Zersetzung (German; variously translated as decomposition, corrosion, undermining, biodegradation ordissolution) was a working technique of the East German secret police, the Stasi. The “measures ofZersetzung“, defined in the framework of a directive on police procedures in 1976,[1] were effectively used in the context of so-called “operational procedures” (in German Operative Vorgänge or OV). They replaced the overt terror of the Ulbricht era.

As to the practice of repressive persecution, Zersetzung comprised extensive and secret methods of control and manipulation, even in the personal relations of the target. The Stasi relied for this on its network of unofficial collaborators[2] (in German inoffizielle Mitarbeiter or IM), on the State’s influence on institutions, and on “operational psychology”. By targeted psychological attacks the Stasi tried in this way to deprive the dissident of any possibility of “hostile action”.

Thanks to numerous files of the Stasi made public following “the turning” (Die Wende) of East Germany, the use of measures of Zersetzung is well documented. Estimates of the number of victims of such measures are on the order of a thousand, or even about 10,000,[3] of which 5,000 sustained irreversible damage.[4] Pensions for restitution have been created for the victims.

 [Zersetzung is] an operational method of the Ministry for Security of State for an efficacious struggle against subversive doings, in particular in the treatment of operations. With Zersetzung, across different operational political activities, one gains influence over hostile and negative persons, in particular over that which is hostile and negative in their dispositions and beliefs, in such a way that these would be shaken off and changed little by little, and, if applicable, the contradictions and differences between the hostile and negative forces would be provoked, exploited, and reinforced.

The goal of Zersetzung is the fragmentation, paralysis, disorganization, and isolation of the hostile and negative forces, in order to impede thereby, in a preventive manner, the hostile and negative doings, to limit them in large part, or to totally avert them, and if applicable to prepare grounds for a political and ideological reestablishment.

Zersetzung is equally an immediate constitutive element of “operational procedures” and other preventive activities to impede hostile gatherings. The principal forces to put Zersetzung in practice are the unofficial collaborators. Zersetzung presupposes information and significant proof of hostile activities planned, prepared, and accomplished as well as anchor points corresponding to measures ofZersetzung.

Zersetzung must be produced on the basis of an analysis of the root of facts and the exact establishment of a concrete goal. Zersetzung must be executed in a uniform and supervised manner; its results must be documented.

The political explosivity of Zersetzung poses elevated imperatives in that which concerns the maintenance of secrecy.[5]

Political context

During the first decade of existence of the German Democratic Republic, political opposition was combatted primarily through the penal code, via accusations of incitement to war or boycott.[6] To counteract the isolation of the GDR on the international scene due to the construction of the Berlin wall in 1963, judicial terror was abandoned.[7] Especially since the debut of the Honecker era in 1971, the Stasi intensified its efforts to punish dissident behaviors without using the penal code.[8]Important motives were the desire on the part of the GDR for international recognition andrapprochement with West Germany at the end of the ’60s. In fact the GDR was committed, in adhering to the Charter of the U.N.[9] and the Helsinki accords[10] as well as the fundamental treaty signed with the Federal Republic of Germany,[11] to respect human rights, or at least it announced its intention as such. The regime of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany decided thus to reduce the number of political prisoners, which was compensated for by practices of repression without imprisonment or judicial condemnation.[12][13]

In practice

The Stasi used Zersetzung essentially as a means of psychological oppression and persecution.[14]Findings of Operativen psychologie (psychological operations),[15] formulated into method at the Stasi’s College of Legal Studies (Juristischen Hochschule der Staatssicherheit, or JHS), were applied to political opponents in an effort to undermine their self-confidence and self-esteem. Operations were designed to intimidate and destabilise them through subjection to repeated disappointments, and to socially alienate them through interference in and disruption of their relationships with others. The aim was to then induce personal crises in victims, leaving them too unnerved and psychologically distressed to have the time and energy for anti-government activism.[16] The Stasi intended that their role as mastermind of the operations remain concealed.[17][18] Jürgen Fuchs, a victim of Zersetzung who later wrote about his experience, described the Stasi’s actions as “psychosocial crime”, and “an assault on the human soul”.[16]

Although its techniques had been established as effective by the late 1950s, Zersetzung was not defined in terms of scientific method until the mid-1970s, and only began to be carried out in a significantly systematic way in the 1970s and 1980s.[19] It is difficult to determine the number of people targeted, since source material has been deliberately and considerably redacted; it is known, however, that tatics were varied in scope, and that a number of different departments participated in their implementation. Overall there was a ratio of four or five authorised Zersetzung operators for each targeted group, and three for each individual.[20] Some sources indicate that around 5,000 people were “persistently victimised” by Zersetzung.[21] At the College of Legal Studies, the number of dissertations submitted on the subject of Zersetzung was in double figures.[22] It also had a comprehensive 50-page Zersetzung teaching manual, which included numerous examples of its practice.[23]

Institutions implementing and cooperating with Zersetzung operations

Almost all Stasi departments were involved in Zersetzung operations, although foremost among these in implementing them were the head department of the Stasi’s directorate XX (Hauptabteilung XX) in Berlin, as well as its divisional offices in regional and municipal government. The function of the head and area Abteilung XXs was to maintain surveillance of religious communities; cultural and media establishments; alternative political parties; the GDR’s many political establishment-affiliated mass social organisations; sport; and education and health services – effectively, as such, covering all aspects of civic life and activity.[24] The Stasi made use of the means available to them within, and as a circumstance of, the GDR’s closed social system. An established, politically-motivated collaborative network (politisch-operatives Zusammenwirken, or POZW) provided them with extensive opportunities for interference in such situations as the sanctioning of professionals and students, expulsion from associations and sports clubs, and occasional arrests by the Volkspolizei[17] (the GDR’s quasi-military national police). Refusal of permits for travel to socialist states, or denial of entry at Czechoslovakianand Polish border crossings where no visa requirement existed, were also arranged. The various collaborators (Partnern des operativen Zusammenwirkens) included branches of regional government, university and professional management, housing administrative bodies, the Sparkasse public savings bank, and in some cases head physicians.[25] The Stasi’s Linie III (Observation), Abteilung 26 (Telephone and room surveillance) and M (Postal communications) departments provided essential background information for the designing of Zersetzung techniques, with Abteilung 32 procuring the required technology.[26]

The Stasi also collaborated with the secret services of other Eastern Bloc countries in implementingZersetzung. One such example was the co-operation of the Polish secret services in actions taken against branches of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation in the early 1960s, which would come to be known[27] as “innere Zersetzung[28] (internal subversion).

Against individuals

The Stasi applied Zersetzung before, during, after, or instead of incarcerating the targeted individual. The “operational procedures” did not have as an aim, in general, to gather evidence for charges against the target, or to be able to begin criminal prosecutions. The Stasi considered the “measures ofZersetzung” rather in part as an instrument that was used when judiciary procedures were not convenient, or for political reasons such as the international image of the GDR.[29][30] In certain cases, the Stasi attempted meanwhile to knowingly inculpate an individual, as for example in the case of Wolf Biermann: The Stasi set him up with minors, hoping that he would allow himself to be seduced, and that they could then pursue criminal charges.[31] The crimes that they researched for such accusations were non-political, as for example drug possession, trafficking in customs or currencies, theft, financial fraud, and rape.[32]

…the Stasi often used a method which was really diabolic. It was called Zersetzung, and it’s described in another guideline. The word is difficult to translate because it means originally “biodegradation.” But actually, it’s a quite accurate description. The goal was to destroy secretly the self-confidence of people, for example by damaging their reputation, by organizing failures in their work, and by destroying their personal relationships. Considering this, East Germany was a very modern dictatorship. The Stasi didn’t try to arrest every dissident. It preferred to paralyze them, and it could do so because it had access to so much personal information and to so many institutions.

—Hubertus Knabe, German historian [33]

The proven forms of Zersetzung are described in the directive 1/76:

a systematic degradation of reputation, image, and prestige in a database on one part true, verifiable and degrading, and on the other part false, plausible, irrefutable, and always degrading; a systematic organization of social and professional failures for demolishing the self-confidence of the individual; […] stimulation of doubts with respect to perspectives on the future; stimulation of mistrust or mutual suspicion among groups […]; putting in place spatial and temporal obstacles rendering impossible or at least difficult the reciprocal relations of a group […], for example by […] assigning distant workplaces. —Directive No. 1/76 of January 1976 for the development of “operational procedures”.[34]

Beginning with intelligence obtained by espionage, the Stasi established “sociograms” and “psychograms” which it applied for the psychological forms of Zersetzung. They exploited personal traits, such as homosexuality, as well as supposed character weaknesses of the targeted individual — for example a professional failure, negligence of parental duties, pornographic interests, divorce, alcoholism, dependence on medications, criminal tendencies, passion for a collection or a game, or contacts with circles of the extreme right — or even the veil of shame from the rumors poured out upon one’s circle of acquaintances.[35][36] From the point of view of the Stasi, the measures were the most fruitful when they were applied in connection with a personality; all “schematism” had to be avoided.[35]

For marketing and political manipulation, Google now maintains a sociogram of each user and manipulates each user via Stasi-like mood manipulation.

Moreover, methods of Zersetzung included espionage, overt, hidden, and feigned; opening letters and listening to telephone calls; encroachments on private property; manipulation of vehicles; and even poisoning food and using false medications.[37] Certain collaborators of the Stasi tacitly took into account the suicide of victims of Zersetzung.[38]

It has not been definitely established that the Stasi used x-rays to provoke long-term health problems in its opponents.[39] That said, Rudolf Bahro, Gerulf Pannach, and Jürgen Fuchs, three important dissidents who had been imprisoned at the same time, died of cancer within an interval of two years.[40] A study by the Federal Commissioner for the Records of the State Security Service of the former GDR (Bundesbeauftragte für die Unterlagen des Staatssicherheitsdienstes der ehemaligen Deutschen Demokratischen Republik or BStU) has meanwhile rejected on the basis of extant documents such a fraudulent use of x-rays, and only mentions isolated and unintentional cases of the harmful use of sources of radiation, for example to mark documents.[41]

In the name of the target, the Stasi made little announcements, ordered products, and made emergency calls, to terrrorize him/her.[42][43] To threaten or intimidate or cause psychoses the Stasi assured itself of access to the target’s living quarters and left visible traces of its presence, by adding, removing, and modifying objects.[32]

Against groups and social relations

The Stasi manipulated relations of friendship, love, marriage, and family by anonymous letters, telegrams and telephone calls as well as compromising photos, often altered.[44] In this manner, parents and children were supposed to systematically become strangers to one another.[45] To provoke conflicts and extramarital relations the Stasi put in place targeted seductions by Romeo agents.[31]

For the Zersetzung of groups, it infiltrated them with unofficial collaborators, sometimes minors.[46]The work of opposition groups was hindered by permanent counter-propositions and discord on the part of unofficial collaborators when making decisions.[47] To sow mistrust within the group, the Stasi made believe that certain members were unofficial collaborators; moreover by spreading rumors and manipulated photos,[48] the Stasi feigned indiscretions with unofficial collaborators, or placed members of targeted groups in administrative posts to make believe that this was a reward for the activity of an unofficial collaborator.[31] They even aroused suspicions regarding certain members of the group by assigning privileges, such as housing or a personal car.[31] Moreover the imprisonment of only certain members of the group gave birth to suspicions.[47]

Target groups for measures

The Stasi used Zersetzung tactics on individuals and groups. There was no particular homogeneous target group, as opposition in the GDR came from a number of different sources. Tactical plans were thus separately adapted to each perceived threat.[49] The Stasi nevertheless defined several main target groups:[50]

  • associations of people making collective visa applications for travel abroad
  • artists’ groups critical of the government
  • religious opposition groups
  • youth subculture groups
  • groups supporting the above (human rights and peace organisations, those assisting illegal departure from the GDR, and expatriate and defector movements).

The Stasi also occasionally used Zersetzung on non-political organisations regarded as undesirable, such as the Watchtower Society.[51]

Prominent individuals targeted by Zersetzung operations included Jürgen Fuchs, Gerulf Pannach, Rudolf Bahro, Robert Havemann, Rainer Eppelmann, Reiner Kunze, husband and wife Gerd und Ulrike Poppe, and Wolfgang Templin.

Social and juridicial process

Once aware of his own status as a target, GDR opponent Wolfgang Templin tried, with some success, to bring details of the Stasi’s Zersetzung activities to the attention of western journalists.[52] In 1977Der Spiegel published a five-part article series (“Du sollst zerbrechen!” – “You’re going to crack!”) by the exiled Jürgen Fuchs, in which he describes the Stasi’s “operational psychology”. The Stasi tried todiscredit Fuchs and the contents of similar articles, publishing in turn claims that he had a paranoidview of its function,[53] and intending that Der Spiegel and other media would assume he was suffering from a persecution complex.[54][55] This, however, was refuted by the official Stasi documents examined after Die Wende (the political power shift in the GDR in 1989-90).

Because the scale and nature of Zersetzung were unknown both to the general population of the GDR and to people abroad, revelations of the Stasi’s malicious tactics were met with some degree of disbelief by those affected.[56] Many still nowadays express incomprehension at how the Stasi’s collaborators could have participated in such inhuman actions.[57]

Since Zersetzung as a whole, even after 1990, was not deemed to be illegal because of the principle ofnulla poena sine lege (no penalty without law), actions against involvement in either its planning or implementation were not enforceable by the courts.[58] Because this specific legal definition ofZersetzung as a crime didn’t exist,[59] only individual instances of its tactics could be reported. Acts which even according to GDR law were offences (such as the violation of Briefgeheimnis, the secrecy of correspondence) needed to have been reported to the GDR authorities soon after having been committed in order not to be subject to a statute of limitations clause.[60] Many of the victims experienced the additional complication that the Stasi was not identifiable as the originator in cases of personal injury and misadventure. Official documents in which Zersetzung methods were recorded often had no validity in court, and the Stasi had many files detailing its actual implementation destroyed.[61]

Unless they had been detained for at least 180 days, survivors of Zersetzung operations, in accordance with §17a of a 1990 rehabilitation act (the Strafrechtlichen Rehabilitierungsgesetzes, or StrRehaG), are not eligible for financial compensation. Cases of provable, systematically effected targeting by the Stasi, and resulting in employment-related losses and/or health damage, can be pursued under a law covering settlement of torts (Unrechtsbereinigungsgesetz, or 2. SED-UnBerG) as claims either for occupational rehabilitation or rehabilitation under administrative law. These overturn certain administrative provisions of GDR institutions and affirm their unconstitutionality. This is a condition for the social equalisation payments specified in the Bundesversorgungsgesetz (the war victims relief act of 1950). Equalisation payments of pension damages and for loss of earnings can also be applied for in cases where victimisation continued for at least three years, and where claimants can prove need.[62]The above examples of seeking justice have, however, been hindered by various difficulties victims have experienced, both in providing proof of the Stasi’s encroachment into the areas of health, personal assets, education and employment, and in receiving official acknowledgement that the Stasi was responsible for personal damages (including psychic injury) as a direct result of Zersetzungoperations.[63]

Modern use of techniques

Russia‘s secret police, the FSB, has been reported to use such techniques against foreign diplomats and journalists.[64]

See also

References

1.      Jump up ^ Federal Commissioner for the Records of the State Security Service of the former German Democratic Republic. Directive No. 1/76 on the Development and Revision of Operational Procedures Richtlinie Nr. 1/76 zur Entwicklung und Bearbeitung Operativer Vorgänge (OV)

2.      Jump up ^ Federal Commissioner for the Records of the State Security Service of the former German Democratic Republic: The Unofficial Collaborators (IM) of the MfS

3.      Jump up ^ Süß, Strukturen, p. 217.

4.      Jump up ^ Consider in this regard the written position taken by Michael Beleites, responsible for the files of the Stasi in the Free State of Saxony: PDF, visited 24 August 2010, as well as 3sat : Subtiler Terror – Die Opfer von Stasi-Zersetzungsmethoden, visited 24 August 2010.

5.      Jump up ^ Ministry for Security of State, Dictionary of political and operational work, entryZersetzung: Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Hrsg.): Wörterbuch zur politisch-operativen Arbeit, 2. Auflage (1985), Stichwort: „Zersetzung“, GVS JHS 001-400/81, p. 464.

6.      Jump up ^ Rainer Schröder: Geschichte des DDR-Rechts: Straf- und Verwaltungsrecht, forum historiae iuris, 6 avril 2004.

7.      Jump up ^ Falco Werkentin: Recht und Justiz im SED-Staat. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Bonn 1998, 2. durchgesehene Auflage 2000, S. 67.

8.      Jump up ^ Sandra Pingel-Schliemann: Zerstörung von Biografien. Zersetzung als Phänomen der Honecker-Ära. In: Eckart Conze/Katharina Gajdukowa/Sigrid Koch-Baumgarten (Hrsg.): Die demokratische Revolution 1989 in der DDR. Köln 2009, S. 78–91.

9.      Jump up ^ Art. 1 Abs. 3 UN-Charta. Dokumentiert in: 12. Deutscher Bundestag: Materialien der Enquete-Kommission zur Aufarbeitung von Geschichte und Folgen der SED-Diktatur in Deutschland. Band 4, Frankfurt a. M. 1995, S. 547.

10.  Jump up ^ Konferenz über Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa, Schlussakte, Helsinki 1975, S. 11.

11.  Jump up ^ Art. 2 des Vertrages über die Grundlagen der Beziehungen zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik vom 21. Dezember 1972. In: Matthias Judt (Hrsg.): DDR-Geschichte in Dokumenten – Beschlüsse, Berichte, interne Materialien und Alltagszeugnisse. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung Bd. 350, Bonn 1998, S. 517.

12.  Jump up ^ Johannes Raschka: „Staatsverbrechen werden nicht genannt“ – Zur Zahl politischer Häftlinge während der Amtszeit Honeckers. In: Deutschlandarchiv. Band 30, Nummer 1, 1997, S. 196

13.  Jump up ^ Jens Raschka: Einschüchterung, Ausgrenzung, Verfolgung – Zur politischen Repression in der Amtszeit Honeckers. Berichte und Studien, Band 14, Dresden 1998, S. 15.

14.  Jump up ^ Klaus-Dietmar Henke: Zur Nutzung und Auswertung der Stasi-Akten. In: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte. Nummer 4, 1993, S. 586.

15.  Jump up ^ Süß: Strukturen. S. 229.

16.  ^ Jump up to: a b Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen. S. 188.

17.  ^ Jump up to: a b Jens Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 192f.

18.  Jump up ^ Pingel-Schliemann: Formen. S. 235.

19.  Jump up ^ Süß: Strukturen. S. 202-204.

20.  Jump up ^ Süß: Strukturen. S. 217.

21.  Jump up ^ Siehe hierzu die schriftliche Stellungnahme des Sächsischen Landesbeauftragten für die Stasi-Unterlagen Michael Beleites zur Anhörung des Rechtsausschusses des Deutschen Bundestages zu den Gesetzentwürfen und Anträgen zur Verbesserung rehabilitierungsrechtlicher Vorschriften für Opfer politischer Verfolgung in der DDR vom 7. Mai 2007 (PDF, 682 KB), eingesehen am 24. August 2010, sowie 3sat: Subtiler Terror – Die Opfer von Stasi-Zersetzungsmethoden, eingesehen am 24. August 2010.

22.  Jump up ^ Günter Förster: Die Dissertationen an der „Juristischen Hochschule“ des MfS. Eine annotierte Bibliographie. BStU, Berlin 1997, Online-Quelle (Memento vom 13. Juli 2009 im Internet Archive).

23.  Jump up ^ Anforderungen und Wege für eine konzentrierte, offensive, rationelle und gesellschaftlich wirksame Vorgangsbearbeitung. Juristische Hochschule Potsdam 1977, BStU, ZA, JHS 24 503.

24.  Jump up ^ Jens Gieseke: Das Ministerium für Staatssicherheit 1950–1989/90 – Ein kurzer historischer Abriss. In: BF informiert. Nr. 21, Berlin 1998, S. 35.

25.  Jump up ^ Hubertus Knabe: Zersetzungsmaßnahmen. In: Karsten Dümmel, Christian Schmitz (Hrsg.): Was war die Stasi? KAS, Zukunftsforum Politik Nr. 43, Sankt Augustin 2002, S. 31, PDF, 646 KB.

26.  Jump up ^ Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen, S. 141–151.

27.  Jump up ^ Waldemar Hirch: Zusammenarbeit zwischen dem ostdeutschen und dem polnischen Geheimdienst zum Zweck der „Zersetzung“ der Zeugen Jehovas. In: Waldemar Hirch, Martin Jahn, Johannes Wrobel (Hrsg.): Zersetzung einer Religionsgemeinschaft: die geheimdienstliche Bearbeitung der Zeugen Jehovas in der DDR und in Polen. Niedersteinbach 2001, S. 84–95.

28.  Jump up ^ Aus einem Protokoll vom 16. Mai 1963, zit. n. Sebastian Koch: Die Zeugen Jehovas in Ostmittel-, Südost- und Südeuropa: Zum Schicksal einer Religionsgemeinschaft. Berlin 2007, S. 72.

29.  Jump up ^ Richtlinie 1/76 zur Entwicklung und Bearbeitung Operativer Vorgänge vom 1. Januar 1976. Dokumentiert in: David Gill, Ulrich Schröter: Das Ministerium für Staatssicherheit. Anatomie des Mielke-Imperiums. S. 390

30.  Jump up ^ Lehrmaterial der Hochschule des MfS: Anforderungen und Wege für eine konzentrierte, rationelle und gesellschaftlich wirksame Vorgangsbearbeitung. Kapitel 11: Die Anwendung von Maßnahmen der Zersetzung in der Bearbeitung Operativer Vorgänge vom Dezember 1977, BStU, ZA, JHS 24 503, S. 11.

31.  ^ Jump up to: a b c d Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 195f.

32.  ^ Jump up to: a b Pingel-Schliemann: Phänomen. S. 82f.

33.  Jump up ^ Hubertus Knabe: The dark secrets of a surveillance state, TED Salon, Berlin, 2014

34.  Jump up ^ Roger Engelmann, Frank Joestel: Grundsatzdokumente des MfS. In: Klaus-Dietmar Henke, Siegfried Suckut, Thomas Großbölting (Hrsg.): Anatomie der Staatssicherheit: Geschichte, Struktur und Methoden. MfS-Handbuch. Teil V/5, Berlin 2004, S. 287.

35.  ^ Jump up to: a b Knabe: Zersetzungsmaßnahmen. S. 27–29

36.  Jump up ^ Arbeit der Juristischen Hochschule der Staatssicherheit in Potsdam aus dem Jahr 1978, MDA, MfS, JHS GVS 001-11/78. In: Pingel-Schliemann: Formen. S. 237.

37.  Jump up ^ Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen. S. 266–278.

38.  Jump up ^ Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen. S. 277.

39.  Jump up ^ Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen, S. 280f.

40.  Jump up ^ Der Spiegel 20/1999: In Kopfhöhe ausgerichtet (PDF, 697 KB), S. 42–44.

41.  Jump up ^ Kurzdarstellung des Berichtes der Projektgruppe „Strahlen“ beim BStU zum Thema: „Einsatz von Röntgenstrahlen und radioaktiven Stoffen durch das MfS gegen Oppositionelle – Fiktion oder Realität?“, Berlin 2000.

42.  Jump up ^ Udo Scheer: Jürgen Fuchs – Ein literarischer Weg in die Opposition. Berlin 2007, S. 344f.

43.  Jump up ^ Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 196f.

44.  Jump up ^ Gisela Schütte: Die unsichtbaren Wunden der Stasi-Opfer. In: Die Welt. 2. August 2010, eingesehen am 8. August 2010

45.  Jump up ^ Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen, S. 254–257.

46.  Jump up ^ Axel Kintzinger: „Ich kann keinen mehr umarmen“. In: Die Zeit. Nummer 41, 1998.

47.  ^ Jump up to: a b Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen, S. 358f.

48.  Jump up ^ Stefan Wolle: Die heile Welt der Diktatur. Alltag und Herrschaft in der DDR 1971–1989. Bonn 1999, S. 159.

49.  Jump up ^ Kollektivdissertation der Juristischen Hochschule der Staatssicherheit in Potsdam. In: Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen. S. 119.

50.  Jump up ^ Jens Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 192f.

51.  Jump up ^ Mike Dennis: Surviving the Stasi: Jehovah’s Witnesses in Communist East Germany, 1965 to 1989. In: Religion, State and Society. Band 34, Nummer 2, 2006, S. 145-168

52.  Jump up ^ Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 196f.

53.  Jump up ^ Scheer: Fuchs. S. 347.

54.  Jump up ^ Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 196f.

55.  Jump up ^ Treffbericht des IMB „J. Herold“ mit Oberleutnant Walther vom 25. März 1986 über ein Gespräch mit dem „abgeschöpften“ SPIEGEL-Redakteur Ulrich Schwarz. Dok. in Jürgen Fuchs: Magdalena. MfS, Memphisblues, Stasi, Die Firma, VEB Horch & Gauck – Ein Roman. Berlin 1998, S. 145.

56.  Jump up ^ Vgl. Interviews mit Sandra Pingel-Schliemann (PDF; 114 kB) und Gisela Freimarck (PDF; 80 kB).

57.  Jump up ^ Vgl. Interviews mit Sandra Pingel-Schliemann (PDF; 114 kB) und Gisela Freimarck (PDF; 80 kB).

58.  Jump up ^ Interview mit der Bundesbeauftragten für die Stasi-Unterlagen Marianne Birthler im Deutschlandradio Kultur vom 25. April 2006: Birthler: Ex-Stasi-Offiziere wollen Tatsachen verdrehen, eingesehen am 7. August 2010.

59.  Jump up ^ Renate Oschlies: Die Straftat „Zersetzung“ kennen die Richter nicht. In: Berliner Zeitung. 8. August 1996.

60.  Jump up ^ Hubertus Knabe: Die Täter sind unter uns – Über das Schönreden der SED-Diktatur. Berlin 2007, S. 100.

61.  Jump up ^ Ilko-Sascha Kowalczuk: Stasi konkret – Überwachung und Repression in der DDR, München 2013, S. 211, 302f.

62.  Jump up ^ Stasiopfer.de: Was können zur Zeit sogenannte „Zersetzungsopfer“ beantragen?, PDF, 53 KB, eingesehen am 24. August 2010.

63.  Jump up ^ Jörg Siegmund: Die Verbesserung rehabilitierungsrechtlicher Vorschriften – Handlungsbedarf, Lösungskonzepte, Realisierungschancen, Bundesstiftung Aufarbeitung, Symposium zur Verbesserung der Unterstützung der Opfer der SED-Diktatur vom 10. Mai 2006, PDF (Memento vom 28. November 2010 im Internet Archive), 105 KB, S. 3, eingesehen am 24. August 2010.

64.  Jump up ^ Russian spy agency targeting western diplomats, The Guardian, 2011-7-23

How Do You Fight Back When Large Corrupt Entities Attack You: Your adversaries will hire private investigators known as “Opposition Researchers”. Regular people call them“hit-men”From the famously vindictive SidneyBlumenthal, to the notorious Richard Berman, to unknown college kid junior “hit-men” in training;Picture

Picture
Picture
Picture

 

 

The newest human rights web technology: Ghost Seeds !

The newest human rights web technology: Ghost Seeds !

 

Imagine, if you will, the nightmare that Walter Tamosaitis was subject to as he was emotionally and economically tortured, by government officials and those who pay bribes to government officials. His Crime: Going to the authorities about public corruption he witnessed . When Walter Tamosaitis warned in 2011 that the Energy Department’s plans for a waste treatment plant at the former Hanford nuclear weapons complex were unsafe, he was demoted and put in a basement room with cardboard boxes and plywood for office furniture.

Tamosaitis had been leading a team of 100 scientists and engineers in designing a way to immobilize millions of gallons of highly toxic nuclear sludge as thick as peanut butter. The sludge, which could deliver a lethal dose of radiation to a nearby person within minutes, is stored in leaking underground tanks near the Columbia River in Washington state.

photo-store

Search photos available for purchase: Photo Store →

Two years later, Tamosaitis was fired after 44 years with San Francisco-based engineering firm URS, which was later acquired by Los Angeles-based AECOM. He filed a wrongful termination suit but encountered some initial legal setbacks, and it looked as if he had been blackballed from the industry.

 “It was something I lived with every minute of every day over the last five years,” Tamosaitis, 68, said in an interview. “Hopefully, I have sent a message to young engineers to keep their honesty, integrity and courage intact.”

AECOM spokesman Ed Mayer said the company reached its resolution with Tamosaitis “in order to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation relating to events that occurred over five years ago. The company strongly disagrees that it retaliated against him in any manner.”

Tamosaitis led the research into transforming the toxic and radioactive sludge into solid glass that could theoretically be buried safely for thousands of years. Over time, Tamosaitis said he began to worry that the technology for chemically mixing the sludge was flawed, potentially allowing explosive gas to build up inside large tanks and clumps of plutonium to form that could start a spontaneous nuclear reaction.

 

Gary D. Conley was found dead. He had a bullet in his head. He, also, was emotionally and economically tortured, by government officials and those who pay bribes to government officials. e was found behind Beale Air Force Base in Northern California. His Crime: Going to the authorities about public corruption he witnessed.

Both paid the price for doing what every red-blooded American is raised to do: The Right Thing!

They are not alone;

Rajeev Motwani was in perfect health. He was found floating face-down in his Silicon Valley Swimming Pool. His Crime: Going to the authorities about public corruption he witnessed .

Edward Snowden is said to have 12 death warrants issued on his head. His Crime: Going to the authorities about public corruption he witnessed .

Yesterday a shooting took place involving another whistle-blower who had fought against attacks on him for 16 years, after he reported corruption.

Body, after body is piling up.

Destroyed life, after destroyed life, devastated by elected officials, and their campaign billionaires, are stacking the pile, ever higher.

One reads, with horror of Brazilian and Korean secret police squads that pull people out of their homes, at night, and haul them off the fields to be tortured and killed. The treatment of American’s, who report crimes, is no different. It is just slower and more subtle.

How can the average citizen trust a government where the President, Attorney General and Senior White House staff order hit-jobs on them? Is it any wonder that public approval of the Washington, DC has dropped to the lowest level in Recorded History?

What can these people do to protect themselves when exposing horrible corruption? What can Syrian refugees do to tell their tales?

A new kind of technology can help. It uses the torrent system to create a “drawstring” which, like the draw-string on your laundry bag, pulls all of the information together on cue.

It is based on leaving encrypted file sets, sitting out on the internet, that look like they are another kind of file altogether.

Bad guys can’t see the files getting distributed because a slight modification of common torrent software makes the files turn into chameleons.

Let’s say you have some documents that prove that the head of the Federal Reserve Bank has been taking orders from a Silicon Valley billionaire and rigging the Fed on behalf of that billionaire. Pretty heavy, right?

You look on-line, via Utorrent or some Vuze-Like software app, for a legal copy of some song or educational video, you download that video. You click one new button, though. This time, and when you start seeding that video back to the network, something has been added to the seed segments, your file.

Spies have a process to hide one thing inside of another thing called steganography. With steganography, an ordinary looking picture can have a document hidden right in the visual elements of the picture. Ghost Seeds are a little bit like that.

In one process, a witness group may have a public hearing that they are afraid they might get “knocked off” for. They have received threats. They take their document files, process them, download a public domain video of a silent film and seed that file back, all over the web, all over the world, hidden inside.

The release and unpacking date is set for Christmas Eve. The release will happen automatically, unless the witness group does a stop order every month.

Even if someone did shot all of the witnesses, the word still gets out.

Few things on the internet are actually, what they seem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With all of the online websites busted; hookers have moved to the gyms, spas and Match.com

With all of the online websites busted; hookers have moved to the gyms, spas and Match.com

RentBoy, Redbook, Ashley Madison, Craigslst ads: Gone, Gone, Gone.

Every major source of sex for hire has been shut down. Where are the hookers at now?

They are now in the gyms, spas and on Match.com

Federal cops, and local vice squads, are hiring hot girls. They are looking for super-fit, sexy cops to work match.com and hang out in the gyms to catch “John’s, the men that buy sex.

When you go into a gym and see a girl who looks too look-at-me and too much like she is selling something, you may be right. In some cases, though, she might be selling you a ticket to jail.

On Match.com and OK Cupid, they use “codewords” to discuss the sexual transaction. The code words include: “nice things”, “discrete”, “Want to grab some cappuccino?”, “looking for a man who appreciates a girl like me”, “I like a man who knows how to shop”, ‘I need a new dress”, and similar allusions from “the lists” . The lists are key phrase menu’s that the men trade online on torrent sites. These key phrase menu’s are the decryption keys for the sex-speak that the hookers and Johns use in the gym’s, spa’s and on Match.com. The John’s call themselves “Hobbyists”.

Ashley Madison’s owner, who said he “never cheats” was just caught by Buzzfeed, hiring hookers as a “hobbyist”. Buzzfeed outed his sexual arrangements emails.

A favorite line for gym and E-hookers is “What are your hobbies?” or anything phrase using the word “hobby”.

It is illegal to buy people for sex. If you fly them in, as Silicon Valley executives do every day, it is legally called “sex trafficking”. You can get arrested on felony charges.

If you are looking for free rent, 4 square meals a day, free medical coverage and great sports team’s then federal prison might be just your thing. Otherwise, you probably should not fly ladies to SFO for a roll in the hay at the Rosewood Hotel on Sandhill Road.

A growing hooker danger also include getting killed by your hooker. Google and Tesla investment executives were, famously, killed by their hookers. Hookers are not always the nicest of people.

In high net-worth Silicon Valley, San Francisco and New York; gyms have been found to contain quite a large number of sex workers. Guys, beware: if you solicit a women in a gym your gym membership may end up costing you tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to try to keep yourself out of prison. But again, if you really want sex, try prison, there are many fine gentlemen there who will make certain that experience quite a lot of it.

With the glut of high paid, young, naïve men in San Francisco, from the tech rush, international hookers are descending on the gyms and spa’s of the city by the Bay, seeking fresh meat.

Going into a gym and mentioning that you work at Google, or wearing your Google T-shirt to the gym will certainly get the bad girls to approach you. They know that you are overpaid and not fully mature. You are what they call: “an easy mark”. Don’t fall for it. You will often only be buying sadness, Chlamydia and legal troubles. When Google finds out you were arrested for hiring prostitutes, they will be forced to fire you.  Worse, as with Google’s top engineer, you could get killed by your prostitute. A half hour of pleasure is not worth risks like that.

Public Rights Activists Call Google A “Lying Pig” regarding it’s response to EU that “it does not rig the internet”

Public Rights Activists Call Google A “Lying Pig” regarding it’s response to EU that “it does not rig the internet”

 

Public rights activists caught Google rigging the internet many years ago. They realized that Google controls White House policy and has bribed a large number of Senators, per public disclosure filings, FOIA’s and investigate reports from The Guardian, Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange and citizens groups.

Said Tom Avery: “Google gets tens of billions of dollars of kick-backs from the Obama Administration in exchange for rigging internet election news and stock news. This has now been proven. We, and others, have for years, had thousands of testing websites, on the internet, running metrics to prove that Google rigs the web for it’s personal political interests. We will share this proof with any court that needs it.”

While Google executives are, now, blogging that the EU investigation result “… is all just a misunderstanding… We don’t rig elections and public policy perceptions…” Few are buying Google’s cover-your-ass moves as anything but bold, outright, lies. China and Russia have called Google “a sham”.

Google threatens law firms that might help those members of the public, individuals and small companies that Google has attacked, with intimidation if they try to help the victims sue Google for defamation. In spite of this, more and more people are winning lawsuits, against Google, for Google’s malicious, and intentional ,search engine and mood manipulation rigging.

Tests have shown that Google rigs their search engine to make their business and political partner: Elon Musk look grand and to hide stories about Elon Musk’s competitors.

Other’s have conducted similar tests. Robert Epstein, and his group, have recently published proof about how it was done.

Did Google rig Obama’s election so that Obama could kick-back hundreds of billions of dollars to Google’s investors in the Cleantech Funding scandal?

 

 

POLITICO Magazine

 

A picture taken on October 17, 2017 in Lille, shows a figue in front of the Google internet homepage.   AFP PHOTO / PHILIPPE HUGUEN        (Photo credit should read PHILIPPE HUGUEN/AFP/Getty Images)

2016

How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election

Google has the ability to drive millions of votes to a candidate with no one the wiser.

Getty.

America’s next president could be eased into office not just by TV ads or speeches, but by Google’s secret decisions, and no one—except for me and perhaps a few other obscure researchers—would know how this was accomplished.

Research I have been directing in recent years suggests that Google, Inc., has amassed far more power to control elections—indeed, to control a wide variety of opinions and beliefs—than any company in history has ever had. Google’s search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more—up to 80 percent in some demographic groups—with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated, according to experiments I conducted recently with Ronald E. Robertson.

Given that many elections are won by small margins, this gives Google the power, right now, to flip upwards of 25 percent of the national elections worldwide. In the United States, half of our presidential elections have been won by margins under 7.6 percent, and the 2012 election was won by a margin of only 3.9 percent—well within Google’s control.

There are at least three very real scenarios whereby Google—perhaps even without its leaders’ knowledge—could shape or even decide the election next year. Whether or not Google executives see it this way, the employees who constantly adjust the search giant’s algorithms are manipulating people every minute of every day. The adjustments they make increasingly influence our thinking—including, it turns out, our voting preferences.

What we call in our research the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) turns out to be one of the largest behavioral effects ever discovered. Our comprehensive new study, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), includes the results of five experiments we conducted with more than 4,500 participants in two countries. Because SEME is virtually invisible as a form of social influence, because the effect is so large and because there are currently no specific regulations anywhere in the world that would prevent Google from using and abusing this technique, we believe SEME is a serious threat to the democratic system of government.

According to Google Trends, at this writing Donald Trump is currently trouncing all other candidates in search activity in 47 of 50 states. Could this activity push him higher in search rankings, and could higher rankings in turn bring him more support? Most definitely—depending, that is, on how Google employees choose to adjust numeric weightings in the search algorithm. Google acknowledges adjusting the algorithm 600 times a year, but the process is secret, so what effect Mr. Trump’s success will have on how he shows up in Google searches is presumably out of his hands.

***

Our new research leaves little doubt about whether Google has the ability to control voters. In laboratory and online experiments conducted in the United States, we were able to boost the proportion of people who favored any candidate by between 37 and 63 percent after just one search session. The impact of viewing biased rankings repeatedly over a period of weeks or months would undoubtedly be larger.

In our basic experiment, participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups in which search rankings favored either Candidate A, Candidate B or neither candidate. Participants were given brief descriptions of each candidate and then asked how much they liked and trusted each candidate and whom they would vote for. Then they were allowed up to 15 minutes to conduct online research on the candidates using a Google-like search engine we created called Kadoodle.

Each group had access to the same 30 search results—all real search results linking to real web pages from a past election. Only the ordering of the results differed in the three groups. People could click freely on any result or shift between any of five different results pages, just as one can on Google’s search engine.

When our participants were done searching, we asked them those questions again, and, voilà: On all measures, opinions shifted in the direction of the candidate who was favored in the rankings. Trust, liking and voting preferences all shifted predictably.

More alarmingly, we also demonstrated this shift with real voters during an actual electoral campaign—in an experiment conducted with more than 2,000 eligible, undecided voters throughout India during the 2014 Lok Sabha election there—the largest democratic election in history, with more than 800 million eligible voters and 480 million votes ultimately cast. Even here, with real voters who were highly familiar with the candidates and who were being bombarded with campaign rhetoric every day, we showed that search rankings could boost the proportion of people favoring any candidate by more than 20 percent—more than 60 percent in some demographic groups.

http://images.politico.com/global/2015/08/19/epstein_indian.png

Given how powerful this effect is, it’s possible that Google decided the winner of the Indian election.  Google’s own daily data on election-related search activity (subsequently removed from the Internet, but not before my colleagues and I downloaded the pages) showed that Narendra Modi, the ultimate winner, outscored his rivals in search activity by more than 25 percent for sixty-one consecutive days before the final votes were cast. That high volume of search activity could easily have been generated by higher search rankings for Modi.

Google’s official comment on SEME research is always the same: “Providing relevant answers has been the cornerstone of Google’s approach to search from the very beginning. It would undermine the people’s trust in our results and company if we were to change course.”

Could any comment be more meaningless? How does providing “relevant answers” to election-related questions rule out the possibility of favoring one candidate over another in search rankings? Google’s statement seems far short of a blanket denial that it ever puts its finger on the scales.

There are three credible scenarios under which Google could easily be flipping elections worldwide as you read this:

First, there is the Western Union Scenario: Google’s executives decide which candidate is best for us—and for the company, of course—and they fiddle with search rankings accordingly. There is precedent in the United States for this kind of backroom king-making. Rutherford B. Hayes, the 19th president of the United States, was put into office in part because of strong support by Western Union. In the late 1800s, Western Union had a monopoly on communications in America, and just before to the election of 1876, the company did its best to assure that only positive news stories about Hayes appeared in newspapers nationwide. It also shared all the telegrams sent by his opponent’s campaign staff with Hayes’s staff. Perhaps the most effective way to wield political influence in today’s high-tech world is to donate money to a candidate and then to use technology to make sure he or she wins. The technology guarantees the win, and the donation guarantees allegiance, which Google has certainly tapped in recent years with the Obama administration.

Given Google’s strong ties to Democrats, there is reason to suspect that if Google or its employees intervene to favor their candidates, it will be to adjust the search algorithm to favor Hillary Clinton. In 2012, Google and its top executives donated more than $800,000 to Obama but only $37,000 to Romney. At least six top tech officials in the Obama administration, including Megan Smith, the country’s chief technology officer, are former Google employees. According to a recent report by the Wall Street Journal, since Obama took office, Google representatives have visited the White House ten times as frequently as representatives from comparable companies—once a week, on average.

Hillary Clinton clearly has Google’s support and is well aware of Google’s value in elections. In April of this year, she hired a top Google executive, Stephanie Hannon, to serve as her chief technology officer. I don’t have any reason to suspect Hannon would use her old connections to aid her candidate, but the fact that she—or any other individual with sufficient clout at Google—has the power to decide elections threatens to undermine the legitimacy of our electoral system, particularly in close elections.

This is, in any case, the most implausible scenario. What company would risk the public outrage and corporate punishment that would follow from being caught manipulating an election?

Second, there is the Marius Milner Scenario: A rogue employee at Google who has sufficient password authority or hacking skills makes a few tweaks in the rankings (perhaps after receiving a text message from some old friend who now works on a campaign), and the deed is done. In 2010, when Google got caught sweeping up personal information from unprotected Wi-Fi networks in more than 30 countries using its Street View vehicles, the entire operation was blamed on one Google employee: software engineer Marius Milner. So they fired him, right? Nope. He’s still there, and on LinkedIn he currently identifies his profession as “hacker.” If, somehow, you have gotten the impression that at least a few of Google’s 37,000 employees are every bit as smart as Milner and possess a certain mischievousness—well, you are probably right, which is why the rogue employee scenario isn’t as far-fetched as it might seem.

And third—and this is the scariest possibility—there is the Algorithm Scenario: Under this scenario, all of Google’s employees are innocent little lambs, but the software is evil. Google’s search algorithm is pushing one candidate to the top of rankings because of what the company coyly dismisses as “organic” search activity by users; it’s harmless, you see, because it’s all natural. Under this scenario, a computer program is picking our elected officials.

To put this another way, our research suggests that no matter how innocent or disinterested Google’s employees may be, Google’s search algorithm, propelled by user activity, has been determining the outcomes of close elections worldwide for years, with increasing impact every year because of increasing Internet penetration.

SEME is powerful precisely because Google is so good at what it does; its search results are generally superb. Having learned that fact over time, we have come to trust those results to a high degree. We have also learned that higher rankings mean better material, which is why 50 percent of our clicks go to the first two items, with more than 90 percent of all clicks going to that precious first search page. Unfortunately, when it comes to elections, that extreme trust we have developed makes us vulnerable to manipulation.

In the final days of a campaign, fortunes are spent on media blitzes directed at a handful of counties where swing voters will determine the winners in the all-important swing states. What a waste of resources! The right person at Google could influence those key voters more than any stump speech could; there is no cheaper, more efficient or subtler way to turn swing voters than SEME. SEME also has one eerie advantage over billboards: when people are unaware of a source of influence, they believe they weren’t being influenced at all; they believe they made up their own minds.

Republicans, take note: A manipulation on Hillary Clinton’s behalf would be particularly easy for Google to carry out, because of all the demographic groups we have looked at so far, no group has been more vulnerable to SEME—in other words, so blindly trusting of search rankings—than moderate Republicans. In a national experiment we conducted in the United States, we were able to shift a whopping 80 percent of moderate Republicans in any direction we chose just by varying search rankings.

There are many ways to influence voters—more ways than ever these days, thanks to cable television, mobile devices and the Internet. Why be so afraid of Google’s search engine? If rankings are so influential, won’t all the candidates be using the latest SEO techniques to make sure they rank high?

SEO is competitive, as are billboards and TV commercials. No problem there. The problem is that for all practical purposes, there is just one search engine. More than 75 percent of online search in the United States is conducted on Google, and in most other countries that proportion is 90 percent. That means that if Google’s CEO, a rogue employee or even just the search algorithm itself favors one candidate, there is no way to counteract that influence. It would be as if Fox News were the only television channel in the country. As Internet penetration grows and more people get their information about candidates online, SEME will become an increasingly powerful form of influence, which means that the programmers and executives who control search engines will also become more powerful.

Worse still, our research shows that even when people do notice they are seeing biased search rankings, their voting preferences still shift in the desired directions—even more than the preferences of people who are oblivious to the bias. In our national study in the United States, 36 percent of people who were unaware of the rankings bias shifted toward the candidate we chose for them, but 45 percent of those who were aware of the bias also shifted. It’s as if the bias was serving as a form of social proof; the search engine clearly prefers one candidate, so that candidate must be the best. (Search results are supposed to be biased, after all; they’re supposed to show us what’s best, second best, and so on.)

Biased rankings are hard for individuals to detect, but what about regulators or election watchdogs? Unfortunately, SEME is easy to hide. The best way to wield this type of influence is to do what Google is becoming better at doing every day: send out customized search results. If search results favoring one candidate were sent only to vulnerable individuals, regulators and watchdogs would be especially hard pressed to find them.

For the record, by the way, our experiments meet the gold standards of research in the behavioral sciences: They are randomized (which means people are randomly assigned to different groups), controlled (which means they include groups in which interventions are either present or absent), counterbalanced (which means critical details, such as names, are presented to half the participants in one order and to half in the opposite order) and double-blind (which means that neither the subjects nor anyone who interacts with them has any idea what the hypotheses are or what groups people are assigned to). Our subject pools are diverse, matched as closely as possible to characteristics of a country’s electorate. Finally, our recent report in PNAS included four replications; in other words, we showed repeatedly—under different conditions and with different groups—that SEME is real.

Our newest research on SEME, conducted with nearly 4,000 people just before the national elections in the UK this past spring, is looking at ways we might be able to protect people from the manipulation. We found the monster; now we’re trying to figure out how to kill it. What we have learned so far is that the only way to protect people from biased search rankings is to break the trust Google has worked so hard to build. When we deliberately mix rankings up, or when we display various kinds of alerts that identify bias, we can suppress SEME to some extent.

It’s hard to imagine Google ever degrading its product and undermining its credibility in such ways, however. To protect the free and fair election, that might leave only one option, as unpalatable at it might seem: government regulation.

Robert Epstein is senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today. Follow him on Twitter @DrREpstein.

 

 

Proving That Google Manipulates The Internet For Elon Musk and His Political Elections And Stock Market Results For Investors: How It Was Done

          Technical testing arrays were built, by numerous groups, which spent long periods testing the internet

          Results prove that “mood manipulation” technology is intentionally used and operated by Google management

          Google accused of running “NAZI-LIKE” mind experiments on the public without their knowledge

 

Internet search engines may be influencing elections

By 

David Shultz 

 “What we’re talking about here is a means of mind control on a massive scale that there is no precedent for in human history.” That may sound hyperbolic, but Robert Epstein says it’s not an exaggeration. Epstein, a research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research in Vista, California, has found that the higher a politician ranks on a page of Internet search results, the more likely you are to vote for them.

“I have a lot of faith in the methods they’ve used, and I think it’s a very rigorously conducted study,” says Nicholas Diakopoulos, a computer scientist at the University of Maryland, College Park, who was not involved in the research. “I don’t think that they’ve overstated their claims.”

In their first experiment, Epstein and colleagues recruited three groups of 102 volunteers in San Diego, California, who were generally representative of the U.S. voting population in terms of age, race, political affiliation, and other traits. The researchers wanted to know if they could influence who the Californians would have voted for in the 2010 election … for prime minister of Australia.

So they built a fake search engine called Kadoodle that returned a list of 30 websites for the finalist candidates, 15 for Tony Abbott and 15 for Julia Gillard. Most of the Californians knew little about either candidate before the test began, so the experiment was their only real exposure to Australian politics. What they didn’t know was that the search engine had been rigged to display the results in an order biased toward one candidate or the other. For example, in the most extreme scenario, a subject would see 15 webpages with information about Gillard’s platform and objectives followed by 15 similar results for Abbott.

As predicted, subjects spent far more time reading Web pages near the top of the list. But what surprised researchers was the difference those rankings made: Biased search results increased the number of undecided voters choosing the favored candidate by 48% compared with a control group that saw an equal mix of both candidates throughout the list. Very few subjects noticed they were being manipulated, but those who did were actuallymore likely to vote in line with the biased results. “We expect the search engine to be making wise choices,” Epstein says. “What they’re saying is, ‘Well yes, I see the bias and that’s telling me … the search engine is doing its job.’” 

In a second experiment, the scientists repeated the first test on 2100 participants recruited online through Amazon’s labor crowdsourcing site Mechanical Turk. The subjects were also chosen to be representative of the U.S. voting population. The large sample size—and additional details provided by users—allowed the researchers to pinpoint which demographics were most vulnerable to search engine manipulation: Divorcees, Republicans, and subjects who reported low familiarity with the candidates were among the easiest groups to influence, whereas participants who were better informed, married, or reported an annual household income between $40,000 and $50,000 were harder to sway. Moderate Republicans were the most susceptible of any group: The manipulated search results increased the number of undecided voters who said they would choose the favored candidate by 80%.

“In a two-person race, a candidate can only count on getting half of the uncommitted votes, which is worthless. With the help of biased search rankings, a candidate might be able to get 90% of the uncommitted votes [in select demographics],” Epstein explains.

In a third experiment, the team tested its hypothesis in a real, ongoing election: the 2014 general election in India. After recruiting a sample of 2150 undecided Indian voters, the researchers repeated the original experiment, replacing the Australian candidates with the three Indian politicians who were actually running at the time. The results of the real world trial were slightly less dramatic—an outcome that researchers attribute to voters’ higher familiarity with the candidates. But merely changing which candidate appeared higher in the results still increased the number of undecided Indian voters who would vote for that candidate by 12% or more compared with controls. And once again, awareness of the manipulation enhanced the effect.

A few percentage points here and there may seem meager, but the authors point out that elections are often won by margins smaller than 1%. If 80% of eligible voters have Internet access and 10% of them are undecided, the search engine effect could convince an additional 25% of those undecided to vote for a target candidate, the team reports online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. That type of swing would determine the election outcome, as long as the expected win margin was 2% or less. “This is a huge effect,” Epstein says. “It’s so big that it’s quite dangerous.”

But perhaps the most concerning aspect of the findings is that a search engine doesn’t even have to intentionally manipulate the order of results for this effect to manifest. Organic search algorithms already in place naturally put one candidate’s name higher on the list than others. This is based on factors like “relevance” and “credibility” (terms that are closely guarded by developers at Google and other major search engines). So the public is already being influenced by the search engine manipulation effect, Epstein says. “Without any intervention by anyone working at Google, it means that Google’s algorithm has been determining the outcome of close elections around the world.”

Presumably Google isn’t intentionally tweaking its algorithms to favor certain presidential candidates, but Epstein says it would extremely difficult to tell if it were. He also points out that the Internet mogul will benefit more from certain election outcomes than others.

And according to Epstein, Google is very aware both of the power it wields, as well as the research his team is doing: When the team recruited volunteers from the Internet in the second experiment, two of the IP addresses came from Google’s head office, he says.

“It’s easy to point the finger at the algorithm because it’s this supposedly inert thing, but there are a lot of people behind the algorithm,” Diakopoulos says. “I think that it does pose a threat to the legitimacy of the democracy that we have. We desperately need to have a public conversation about the role of these systems in the democratic processes.”

Posted in Brain & Behavior, Technology

       PSYCHOLOGIST’S WORK FOR GCHQ DECEPTION UNIT INFLAMES DEBATE AMONG PEERS

          https://prod01-cdn06.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2014/12/andrew-fishman-350x350.jpg

          Andrew Fishman

         
Aug. 7 2015, 6:18 p.m.

         A British psychologist is receiving sharp criticism from some professional peers for providing expert advice to help the U.K. surveillance agency GCHQ manipulate people online.

         The debate brings into focus the question of how or whether psychologists should offer their expertise to spy agencies engaged in deception and propaganda.

          Dr. Mandeep K. Dhami, in a 2011 paper, provided the controversial GCHQ spy unit JTRIG with advice, research pointers, training recommendations, and thoughts on psychological issues, with the goal of improving the unit’s performance and effectiveness. JTRIG’s operations have been referred to as “dirty tricks,” and Dhami’s paper notes that the unit’s own staff characterize their work using “terms such as ‘discredit,’ promote ‘distrust,’ ‘dissuade,’ ‘deceive,’ ‘disrupt,’ ‘delay,’ ‘deny,’ ‘denigrate/degrade,’ and ‘deter.’” The unit’s targets go beyond terrorists and foreign militaries and include groups considered “domestic extremist[s],” criminals, online “hacktivists,” and even “entire countries.”

          After publishing Dhami’s paper for the first time in June, The Interceptreached out to several of her fellow psychologists, including some whose work was referenced in the paper, about the document’s ethical implications.

         One of the psychologists cited in the report criticized the paper and GCHQ’s ethics. Another psychologist condemned Dhami’s recommendations as “grossly unethical” and another called them an “egregious violation” of psychological ethics. But two other psychologists cited in the report did not express concern when contacted for reaction, and another psychologist, along with Dhami’s current employer, defended her work and her ethical standards.

         A British law firm hired to represent Dhami maintained that any allegations of unethical conduct are “grossly defamatory and totally untrue.”

          The divergent views on the paper highlight how the profession of psychology has yet to resolve key ethical concerns around consulting for government intelligence agencies. These issues take on added resonance in the context of the uproar currently roiling the American Psychological Association over the key role it played in the CIA torture program during the Bush administration. The APA’s Council of Representatives voted Friday to bar psychologists from taking part in national security interrogations or to advise on confinement conditions. Dhami’s consultation with JTRIG and the APA’s role in support of the CIA torture program are disparate — there is no suggestion that Dhami advised on interrogations involving torture nor that her paper was part of an ongoing relationship with JTRIG — but Dhami’s GCHQ work, like the APA scandal, provokes heated disagreement and criticism.

      Psychologists respond strongly to ethical issues

         Some peers are outspoken against Dhami’s paper. They do not believe it is possible to engage ethically with the deceitful activities of a unit like JTRIG at any level. Arguments in defense of assisting psychological operations, meanwhile, include the notion that doing so helps ensure they are conducted in a responsible fashion and can help obviate the need for operations that are violent.

          D32YEY Dr. Stephen Soldz,director of Center for Research Evaluation and Program Development at Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis

          Dr. Stephen Soldz, Director of Center for Research Evaluation and Program Development at Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis

           

          Photo: Alamy

          Dr. Stephen Soldz, co-founder of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology and co-author of two reports from Physicians for Human Rights on health professionals’ role in the CIA torture program, told The Intercept that the recommendations in Dhami’s report highlight the moral hazard of “operational psychology,” in which psychological expertise is used to further military and intelligence operations.

         Soldz condemned the “deeply disturbing and grossly unethical recommendations” in Dhami’s JTRIG report. He added that “the psychology profession and the public must grapple with developing proper ethical constraints on the activities of operational psychologists.”

          For Dr. Bradley Olson, who is past president of APA Division 48, which studies peace, conflict, and violence, using one’s training to assist in a mission like JTRIG’s, which involves the deception and manipulation of unsuspecting targets, is inherently problematic. Using one’s “expertise, research, or consultation to guide deceptive statements, even the statements of others, when the deceptive intentions are clearly documented … that is against psychological ethics,” according to Olson, who has collaborated with Soldz, including as a co-founder of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology. “This is a terrible, terrible violation of psychological ethics” and a violation of the APA’s ethical standards, he added.

          Dhami is not currently a member of the APA, but was a member of an APA Division at the time the report was written. According to APA bylaws, “Divisions must comply with all APA Bylaws, Association Rules and current policies.” Her online profile at Middlesex University, where Dhami is a professor, currently lists her as a member of APA Division 41 and a fellow ofDivision 9. A representative of APA Division 9, the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, said that Dhami stopped paying dues in 2013 and is therefore no longer a member. The APA and an officer of Division 41, the American Psychology-Law Society, acknowledged receiving but did not respond to questions from The Intercept.

         Dr. Christian Crandall, a professor in the University of Kansas’ social psychology program, disagrees with Dhami’s critics. “In my perusal, it seemed that she was writing a brief that would lead to research opportunities, consulting opportunities, and the like,” he said. “Because this brief was commissioned and written prior to the Snowden revelations … we might give Prof. Dhami the benefit of the doubt, that she might not [have] know[n] or anticipate[d] the extent of misconduct in the intelligence agencies.”

         Crandall is also a council member at SPSSI, the APA division that honored Dhami as a fellow in 2007, and, emailing in that capacity, said he sees nothing unethical about Dhami’s report for JTRIG. After a “fairly quick look at the document,” he said the report did not merit an investigation. “What should SPSSI do? Nothing. Nothing at all, until evidence of actual unethical conduct appears. And we have not seen it.”

         “It is certainly possible that JTRIG acts badly, spies on domestic (or American) targets, or even breaks international law. It is a stretch to hold Prof. Dhami responsible for this,” Crandall wrote. “[The report is] quite a bit like what the U.S. Army teaches their strategic communication officers. It’s less offensive than the behaviors of Karl Rove. It’s not benign. But Dhami specifies two relevant ethical codes … and two relevant UK laws … and recommends that JTRIG follow the relevant laws.”

       “I do not think that JTRIG requires a set of ethical guidelines that is different from those that are relevant to the rest of humanity.”

          Dhami was contacted for this article and responded to questions from The Intercept through Schillings, a British law firm, and Culhane Meadows, a U.S. firm. A letter from Schillings said that Dhami had “upheld the highest ethical standards” throughout her academic career and had never sought to hide her association with GCHQ. “The work undertaken by our client has been focused on helping GCHQ to accurately understand and responsibly apply psychological science,” the letter stated. “In working with the government our client typically provides advice on how to improve specific aspects of their work” and is “not therefore actively engaged in the day-to-day business of these departments, but rather an independent observer/commentator” with a “strong track record of publishing critiques of existing Government policies.”

          Schillings also said Dhami was “legally restricted in terms of the responses that she is able to give” to The Intercept’s questions “by virtue of the government agency involved,” adding that no “adverse inferences” should be drawn from this. Asked about Dhami’s report, GCHQ said in a statement that the agency is “aware of the responsibility that comes with the nature of its work and in addition to the legal accountability we also take the ethical considerations surrounding our mission seriously.”

         Middlesex University defended Dhami’s work, writing: “Middlesex University has robust ethical procedures and is committed to operating in an ethical way to ensure the highest possible standards of decision-making and accountability. Professor Dhami’s work for Middlesex University is carried out in strict accordance with the ethical codes of the organisation, which in turn conform to the standards laid down by the British Psychological Society.”

      Psychological advice for covert propaganda unit

          Dhami appears to have been a senior lecturer in criminology at Cambridge University when she wrote the report, as well as a social psychologist with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, an agency sponsored by the U.K. Ministry of Defence. During this period, she was temporarily transferred, or “seconded” to GCHQ, according to a version of Dhami’s CVposted online.

         The top-secret document, titled “Behavioural Science Support for JTRIG’s (Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group’s) Effects and Online HUMINT Operations,” appears to have been written during this stint at the spy agency. (The term “HUMINT” commonly refers to human intelligence.) It was based on interviews with 22 JTRIG staffers and seven support staff from GCHQ. In it, Dhami provides advice on how JTRIG can improve its approach and attain desired outcomes, for example, by applying theories and research around persuasive communication, compliance, obedience, conformity, and the creation of trust and distrust.

         “Compliance can be achieved through various techniques,” reads the “obedience” section of Dhami’s report, “including: Engaging the norm of reciprocity; engendering liking (e.g., via ingratiation or attractiveness); stressing the importance of social validation (e.g., via highlighting that others have also complied); instilling a sense of scarcity or secrecy; getting the ‘foot-in-the-door’ (i.e., getting compliance to a small request/issue first); and applying the ‘door-in-the-face’ or ‘low-ball’ tactics (i.e., asking for compliance on a large request/issue first and having hidden aspects to a request/issue that someone has already complied with, respectively).”

         In other cases, Dhami presents a menu of possible effective approaches grounded in specific psychological research that is formally cited throughout the body of the paper, in a “recommended reading list,” and in a “list of training requirements for JTRIG staff.”

         “Propaganda techniques include,” Dhami writes, “Using stereotypes; substituting names/labels for neutral ones; censorship or systematic selection of information; repetition; assertions without arguments; and presenting a message for and against a subject.”

          Dhami’s 42-page report came nearly three years before the world became aware of JTRIG and of its methods of deception, dissemination of online propaganda, and acquisition of human intelligence. The unit’s existence was first revealed through leaked documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and published by NBC News and The Intercept. JTRIG’s tactics include seeding propaganda on social media, impersonating people online, and creating false blog posts to discredit targets.

         Dhami recommends that staff be trained on the various specific techniques she outlines, that a social influence research program be developed, that the possibility of compiling psychological profiles for exploitation in intelligence operations be explored, that a catalog of online crime prevention techniques be developed, that processes for assessment of risk and effectiveness be established, and that JTRIG develop guidelines for operational best practices.

      ‘JTRIG has now acquired this material’

          Some of the psychology research texts Dhami recommends are marked with an asterisk indicating “JTRIG has now acquired this material.” The Interceptattempted to contact the authors of materials that had been “acquired” by JTRIG.

         One of those authors, Peter Smith, emeritus professor of psychology at University of Sussex near Brighton, England, raised questions about Dhami’s paper.

         “Some of the reported actions of JTRIG are clearly contrary to the ethical guidelines of the British Psychological Society,” Smith wrote in an email. “The descriptions that [s]he provides of the social psychology of influence are broadly accurate, but the use of this knowledge to deceive people or distort the information that they receive is not advocated in any of the sources that [s]he cites.” He added: “I am certainly not comfortable with the ways in which Dr. Dhami has used [her] knowledge of social psychology.”

         Dhami’s profile at Middlesex University does not list the British Psychological Society among her current professional affiliations.

          Other psychologists cited by Dhami did not criticize her paper but rather disclaimed any control over her use of their material. Susan Fiske, a Princeton psychologist and fellow of six APA divisions, also had her work acquired by JTRIG. She told The Intercept by email, “Anyone can buy my book. When you write a textbook, it’s in the public domain, and anyone can use it. I have no control over what happens after it is published.”

         Joseph Forgas, a psychology professor at the University of New South Wales in Australia, had his work on the list as well. He responded: “This is published research that is in the public sphere and is openly available to anyone. So, I have no further control over its use, and I see [no] problem at all with anyone using it. If there are indeed any ethical issues here, it is the responsibility of democratic governments to supervise such activity. I am not aware of any abuse, and on the whole, I don’t see any real issues here.”

          Eleven other psychologists whose work was cited by Dhami did not respond to emails from The Intercept.

      A ‘bespoke’ code of ethics

         Dhami does directly address ethical concerns in part of her report. But her treatment of ethics is brief. JTRIG, she writes, operates under “no specific guidelines on ethical practice.” She notes that professional codes of conduct exist, such as those of the British Society of Criminology and the British Psychological Society, but determines that “clearly, not all of the aspects of the above codes will be relevant or applicable to JTRIG’s operations” and the codes “do not identify best practice in all of the types of online interactions that JTRIG staff might be involved in.” “Thus,” she concludes, “JTRIG may need to develop a bespoke code” that complies with the U.K. legislation governing intelligence agencies.

         Smith, the University of Sussex psychologist whose work was acquired by JTRIG, views the issue differently. “Dr. Dhami neither condemns nor directly endorses the reported actions of JTRIG, but suggests that their actions may need to be guided by a ‘different’ ethical code,” he wrote. “I do not think that JTRIG requires a set of ethical guidelines that is different from those that are relevant to the rest of humanity.”

         The very idea of a “bespoke code” that “complies” with the law but merely considers established ethics codes “that may be pertinent,” without being bound by them, is controversial, but not novel. It’s far from clear that there is an ethically correct way to engage in acts to discredit, deceive, denigrate, and degrade unsuspecting targets, and it’s decidedly possible that developing guidelines that purport to do so will only lend legitimacy to unsavory behavior.

          A change to the APA’s Ethics Code, adopted in August 2002, allowed psychologists, for the first time, to “adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal authority” in cases where those regulations could not be squared with ethical standards.

          That same month, the Bush Justice Department issued one of the key, then-secret “torture memos,” which suggested that interrogators could avoid prosecution for torture if they believed in “good faith” their actions would not result in “prolonged mental harm”; demonstration of such “good faith” included “consulting with experts.”

          Three years later, after images of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal had shocked the world, the APA Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security affirmed the organization’s support for psychologists’ participation in government interrogations. “The Task Force believes that a central role for psychologists working in the area of national security-related investigations is to assist in ensuring that processes are safe, legal, and ethical for all participants,” it stipulated.

         This institutional posture gave psychologists the ethical cover to participate in interrogations, which in turn provided interrogators with the legal cover, in accordance with the DoJ memos, to engage in “enhanced interrogation tactics.”

          In 2010, the APA removed the clause added to the Ethics Code in 2002, which could open the door to the so-called “Nuremberg Defense.” The 2005 PENS report was retracted in 2013.

      ‘Propaganda for democracy’

         Social scientists and medical professionals have long struggled with the moral and ethical dilemmas inherent in operational work on behalf of militaries and intelligence agencies. Proponents of such work posit that so-called psychological operations can limit conflict and save lives — particularly when used tactically, for limited applications within a battlefield, as opposed to strategically around the world.

         Critics maintain that because the potential for abuse is inherent, scholars have an obligation to combat, rather than enable, psychological operations.

          Dr. Sara B. King, chair of the psychology department at Saint Francis University in Pennsylvania, summarizes the argument in her study of military social influence. Some propaganda critics, she writes, “have argued that ‘propaganda for democracy’ is simply a contradiction in terms, because pervasive propaganda inevitably shapes totalitarian, rather than democratic, psychological process.” In describing strategic psychological operations “planned and executed at the national level,” King explains: “These broad-based military perception management initiatives, argue some, have the potential to endanger both science and democracy.”

         According to King, this debate was most fervent in the period between the two world wars, was largely quashed during the anti-Communist McCarthy era, and became a relative whisper in the post-9/11 era, when the APA changed its ethical posture to enable psychologists to participate in interrogations.

          In a published response to King, Dhami argued in March 2011, the same month the JTRIG report was issued, that military use of psychology is inevitable, and therefore civilian psychologists have a responsibility to monitor its application in order to prevent misuse.

         “The integrity of our psychological science is threatened by the great potential for its misinterpretation and misapplication in military social influence campaigns,” Dhami wrote. “The harm that may be caused by remaining detached from such campaigns, perhaps because of the element of deception and invasion of privacy involved, may far outweigh the benefits of striving for the welfare and rights of the campaign targets.”

         Even in the wake of today’s APA vote, the debate over Dhami’s paper shows the profession of psychology is still grappling with questions over the ethical limits of involvement in government intelligence programs.

          “Psychologists should use their unique insights into human behavior to promote human welfare and dignity, not undermine or harm individuals,” Sarah Dougherty, a lawyer and senior fellow of the U.S. Anti-Torture Program at Physicians for Human Rights, told The Intercept. “The JTRIG allegations merit further investigation.”

      CONTACT THE AUTHOR:

          https://prod01-cdn06.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2014/12/andrew-fishman-350x350.jpg

          Andrew Fishmanfishman@​theintercept.comt@AndrewDFish

 

 

Psychologists Approve Ban on Role in National Security Interrogations

By JAMES RISEN

Photo

https://archive.today/bCsry/22226695f27fc17fb422d60bba087764cda48c6c.jpg

The Washington headquarters of the American Psychological Association, the nation’s largest association of psychologists. CreditStephen Crowley/The New York Times

 

TORONTO — The American Psychological Association on Friday overwhelmingly approved a new ban on any involvement by psychologists in national security interrogations conducted by the United States government, even noncoercive interrogations now conducted by the Obama administration.

The council of representatives of the organization, the nation’s largest professional association of psychologists, voted to impose the ban at its annual meeting here.

The vote followed an emotional debate in which several members said the ban was needed to restore the organization’s reputation after a scathing independent investigation ordered by the association’s board.

·        

The C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va. The American Psychological Association will vote on an ethics policy that would bar its members from participating in national security interrogations.

U.S. Psychologists Urged to Curb Questioning Terror SuspectsJULY 30, 2015

 

·        

The headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Va. A new report examines the collaboration between psychologists and officials at the C.I.A. and the Pentagon.

Outside Psychologists Shielded U.S. Torture Program, Report FindsJULY 10, 2015

 

That investigation, conducted by David Hoffman, a Chicago lawyer, found that some officers of the association and other prominent psychologists colluded with government officials during the Bush administration to make sure that association policies did not prevent psychologists from involvement in the harsh interrogation programs conducted by the C.I.A. and the Pentagon.

 

Nadine Kaslow, an association board member and head of a special committee established by the board to oversee the investigation into the organization’s role in interrogations, said she was pleased by the overwhelming vote in favor of the measure. “This is a very resounding ‘yes,’ ” Ms. Kaslow said. The ban was approved by the association’s council by a vote of 156 to 1. Seven council members abstained, while one was recused.

“I think this was a tremendous step in the right direction,” said Susan McDaniel, the association’s president-elect, who was the chairwoman of Friday’s meeting. She expressed hopes that Friday’s vote would persuade psychologists who quit the organization because of its involvement with Bush-era interrogations to rejoin the group.

Many A.P.A. leaders and members said they were stunned by the lopsided vote in favor of the ban, and its backers said that as late as Thursday night they were not certain it would pass. Just before Friday’s vote, the measure’s supporters agreed to change some of the ban’s language, which may have won over some wavering council members. Two of the ban’s advocates on the council, psychologists Scott Churchill and Steven Reisner, insisted that the changes did not weaken the ban. “This was a momentous day,” said Mr. Churchill.

The ban passed on Friday says that “psychologists shall not conduct, supervise, be in the presence of, or otherwise assist any national security interrogations for any military or intelligence entities, including private contractors working on their behalf, nor advise on conditions of confinement insofar as these might facilitate such an interrogation.” The measure’s backers added language on Friday that stated that psychologists may consult with the government on broad interrogation policy, but may not get involved in any specific interrogation or consult on the specific detention conditions for detainees.

The final vote was met by a standing ovation by many of the council members, as well as the large crowd of observers, which included anti-torture activists and psychology graduate students who had come to the meeting to support the ban. Some wore T-shirts proclaiming “First, Do No Harm,” a reference to the physicians’ Hippocratic oath.

 “I’m really happy they didn’t vote no,” said Deb Kory, a clinical psychologist from Berkeley, Calif. “I think that would have been the death knell for the A.P.A.”

Some psychologists did speak out in opposition to the ban, or at least expressed reservations about it during the debate before the vote on Friday morning, arguing that it went too far. “I’m concerned about unintended consequences,” said Larry James, who represents the A.P.A.’s division of military psychology on the council.

The ban would only prohibit involvement in what the association defines as national security interrogations, which are those conducted by the American military or intelligence agencies, or by contractors or foreign governments outside traditional domestic criminal law enforcement inside the United States.

It would not prohibit psychologists from working with the police or prisons in criminal law enforcement interrogations.

President Obama signed an executive order in 2009 banning the use of the harsh interrogation techniques employed against terrorism suspects during the Bush administration. But there are still some psychologists involved in the interrogation programs now used in terrorism cases by the Obama administration.

Most interrogations of important terrorism suspects now are conducted by the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, an interagency unit led by the F.B.I. that includes C.I.A. and Pentagon personnel. The group also includes psychologists, who both conduct research and consult on effective means of interrogating terrorism suspects.

Pentagon officials have said that psychologists are also still assigned at the American military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where they oversee voluntary interrogations of detainees.

 

A.P.A. officials said that psychologists could be subject to ethics complaints if they continued to be involved in national security interrogations after a new association ethics code was in place to reflect Friday’s ban.

Ms. McDaniel said that she did not know how many A.P.A. members were now involved in national security interrogations. But the measure passed Friday calls for the A.P.A. to send a letter to Mr. Obama and other top government officials informing them of the new policy, and requesting that psychologists be removed from Guantánamo Bay and other sites where national security interrogations are conducted, so that they do not violate the new ethics policy.

Psychologists played crucial roles in the post-9/11 harsh interrogation programs created by the C.I.A. and Pentagon, and their involvement helped the Bush administration claim that the abusive interrogation techniques were legal. The involvement of psychologists in the interrogations enabled the Justice Department to issue secret legal opinions arguing that the interrogations were safe because they were being monitored by health professionals, and thus did not constitute torture.

Even before Friday’s vote, the Hoffman report and its unsparing findings of collusion during the Bush administration had already had a dramatic impact on the A.P.A. Four top association officials, including its chief executive and his deputy, have left the organization since the report was released in July.

Friday’s vote in favor of the ban prompted an immediate reaction among military psychologists who are members of the A.P.A.

After the vote, about 50 members of the A.P.A.’s military psychology division, including several who were in uniform, held a separate meeting in another conference room in the hotel that hosted the annual meeting. They expressed frustration and anger.

Tom Williams, the president of the A.P.A.’s military psychology division, said that he thought the language of the ban was overly broad.

“I think the wording could have a large effect on any psychologist in a national security setting,” said Mr. Williams, a retired Army psychologist. He said that the group may consider splitting off from the A.P.A.

“We are keeping our options on the table,” Mr. Williams said.

Correction: August 7, 2015 

An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of a psychologist who supported a ban on involvement by psychologists in national security interrogations. He is Steven Reisner, not Reissner.

 

Did Kleiner Perkin’s and Vinohd Khosla Test Google’s Election Rigging System With India’s Elections

Obama connection to Silicon Valley now examined for darker purposes

Was Google taken over by a rogue CIA operation called In-Q-Tel in order to rig the Obama Election? In-Q-Tel money proven to be in Google. Eric Schmidt Connection to White House, New America Foundation and In-Q-Tel proven. Corbett Report says dirty deeds were afoot.

 

“GOOGLE WAS BUILT TO STEAL ELECTIONS” SAY EXPERTS AND TIPSTERS!

 

http://www.morenewznow.com/wp-content/uploads/SILICON-VALLEY-MADMEN1.png

 

“GOOGLE WAS BUILT TO STEAL ELECTIONS” SAY EXPERTS AND TIPSTERS!

  •  –          Charge Democrats used In-Q-Tel to conduit cash and CIA technology to take over Google Search to control elections
  •           Say “Rabid Silicon Valley Billionaires” use “Mood manipulation” to steer all perceptions to Obama or Hillary
  •           “Abuse of Freedom of Speech When You Trick Public” cry pundits
  •           Senators want laws requiring bi-partisan peer review of all Google search settings because Google is “Monopoly”

 

http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/GettyImages-555175279-1024x683.jpg

Slide: 1 / of 1 .

Caption: Getty Images

Skip Article Header. Skip to: Start of Article.

  • Author: Adam Rogers. Adam Rogers Science
  • Date of Publication: 08.06.15. 08.06.15
  • Time of Publication: 1:24 pm. 1:24 pm

Google’s Search Algorithm Could Steal the Presidency

GettyImages-555175279Getty Images

Imagine an election—a close one. You’re undecided. So you type the name of one of the candidates into your search engine of choice. (Actually, let’s not be coy here. In most of the world, one search engine dominates; in Europe and North America, it’s Google.) And Google coughs up, in fractions of a second, articles and facts about that candidate. Great! Now you are an informed voter, right? But a study published this week says that the order of those results, the ranking of positive or negative stories on the screen, can have an enormous influence on the way you vote. And if the election is close enough, the effect could be profound enough to change the outcome.

In other words: Google’s ranking algorithm for search results could accidentally steal the presidency. “We estimate, based on win margins in national elections around the world,” says Robert Epstein, a psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and one of the study’s authors, “that Google could determine the outcome of upwards of 25 percent of all national elections.”

Epstein’s paper combines a few years’ worth of experiments in which Epstein and his colleague Ronald Robertson gave people access to information about the race for prime minister in Australia in 2010, two years prior, and then let the mock-voters learn about the candidates via a simulated search engine that displayed real articles.

One group saw positive articles about one candidate first; the other saw positive articles about the other candidate. (A control group saw a random assortment.) The result: Whichever side people saw the positive results for, they were more likely to vote for—by more than 48 percent. The team calls that number the “vote manipulation power,” or VMP. The effect held—strengthened, even—when the researchers swapped in a single negative story into the number-four and number-three spots. Apparently it made the results seem even more neutral and therefore more trustworthy.

But of course that was all artificial—in the lab. So the researchers packed up and went to India in advance of the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, a national campaign with 800 million eligible voters. (Eventually 430 million people voted over the weeks of the actual election.) “I thought this time we’d be lucky if we got 2 or 3 percent, and my gut said we’re gonna get nothing,” Epstein says, “because this is an intense, intense election environment.” Voters get exposed, heavily, to lots of other information besides a mock search engine result.

The team 2,150 found undecided voters and performed a version of the same experiment. And again, VMP was off the charts. Even taking into account some sloppiness in the data-gathering and a tougher time assessing articles for their positive or negative valence, they got an overall VMP of 24 percent. “In some demographic groups in India we had as high as about 72 percent.”

The effect doesn’t have to be enormous to have an enormous effect.

The fact that media, including whatever search and social deliver, can affect decision-making isn’t exactly news. The “Fox News Effect” says that towns that got the conservative-leaning cable channel tended to become more conservative in their voting in the 2000 election. A well-known effect called recency means that people make decisions based on the last thing they heard. Placement on a list also has a known effect. And all that stuff might be too transient to make it all the way to a voting booth, or get swamped by exposure to other media. So in real life VMP is probably much less pronounced.

But the effect doesn’t have to be enormous to have an enormous effect. The Australian election that Epstein and Robertson used in their experiments came down to a margin of less than 1 percent. Half the presidential elections in US history came down to a margin of less than 8 percent. And presidential elections are really 50 separate state-by-state knife fights, with the focus of campaigns not on poll-tested winners or losers but purple “swing states” with razor-thin margins.

So even at an order of magnitude smaller than the experimental effect, VMP could have serious consequences. “Four to 8 percent would get any campaign manager excited,” says Brian Keegan, a computational social scientist at Harvard Business School. “At the end of the day, the fact is that in a lot of races it only takes a swing of 3 or 4 percent. If the search engine is one or two percent, that’s still really persuasive.”

The Rise of the Machines

It’d be easy to go all 1970s-political-thriller on this research, to assume that presidential campaigns, with their ever-increasing level of technological sophistication, might be able to search-engine-optimize their way to victory. But that’s probably not true. “It would cost a lot of money,” says David Shor, a data scientist at Civis Analytics, a Chicago-based consultancy that grew out of the first Obama campaign’s technology group. “Trying to get the media to present something that is favorable to you is a more favorable strategy.”

That’s called, in the parlance of political hackery, “free media,” and, yes, voters like it. “I think that generally people don’t trust campaigns because they tend to have a low opinion of politicians,” Shor says. “They are more receptive to information from institutions for which they have more respect.” Plus, in the presidential campaign high season, whoever the Republican and Democratic nominees are will already have high page ranks because they’ll have a huge number of inbound links, one of Google’s key metrics.

Search and social media companies can certainly have a new kind of influence, though. During the 2010 US congressional elections, researchers at Facebook exposed 61 million users to a message exhorting them to vote—it didn’t matter for whom—and found they were able to generate 340,000 extra votes across the board.

But what if—as Harvard Law professor Jonathan Zittrain has proposed—Facebook didn’t push the “vote” message to a random 61 million users? Instead, using the extensive information the social network maintains on all its subscribers, it could hypothetically push specific messaging to supporters or foes of specific legislation or candidates. Facebook could flip an election; Zittrain calls this “digital gerrymandering.” And if you think that companies like the social media giants would never do such a thing, consider the way that Google mobilized its users against the Secure Online Privacy Act and PROTECT IP Act, or “SOPA-PIPA.”

In their paper, Epstein and Robertson equate digital gerrymandering to what a political operative might call GOTV—Get Out the Vote, the mobilization of activated supporters. It’s a standard campaign move when your base agrees with your positions but isn’t highly motivated—because they feel disenfranchised, let’s say, or have problems getting to polling places. What they call the “search engine manipulation effect,” though, works on undecided voters, swing voters. It’s a method of persuasion.

If executives at Google had decided to study the things we’re studying, they could easily have been flipping elections to their liking with no one having any idea. Robert Epstein

Again, though, it doesn’t require a conspiracy. It’s possible that, as Epstein says, “if executives at Google had decided to study the things we’re studying, they could easily have been flipping elections to their liking with no one having any idea.” But simultaneously more likely and more science-fiction-y is the possibility that this—oh, let’s call it “googlemandering,” why don’t we?—is happening without any human intervention at all. “These numbers are so large that Google executives are irrelevant to the issue,” Epstein says. “If Google’s search algorithm, just through what they call ‘organic processes,’ ends up favoring one candidate over another, that’s enough. In a country like India, that could send millions of votes to one candidate.”

As you’d expect, Google doesn’t think it’s likely their algorithm is stealing elections. “Providing relevant answers has been the cornerstone of Google’s approach to search from the very beginning. It would undermine people’s trust in our results and company if we were to change course,” says a Google spokesperson, who would only comment on condition of anonymity. In short, the algorithms Google uses to rank search results are complicated, ever-changing, and bigger than any one person. A regulatory action that, let’s say, forced Google to change the first search result in a list on a given candidate would break the very thing that makes Google great: giving right answers very quickly all the time. (Plus, it might violate the First Amendment.)

The thing is, though, even though it’s tempting to think of algorithms as the very definition of objective, they’re not. “It’s not really possible to have a completely neutral algorithm,” says Jonathan Bright, a research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute who studies elections. “I don’t think there’s anyone in Google or Facebook or anywhere else who’s trying to tweak an election. But it’s something these organizations have always struggled with.” Algorithms reflect the values and worldview of the programmers. That’s what an algorithm is, fundamentally. “Do they want to make a good effort to make sure they influence evenly across Democrats and Republicans? Or do they just let the algorithm take its course?” Bright asks.

That course might be scary, if Epstein is right. Add the possibility of search rank influence to the individualization Google can already do based on your gmail, google docs, and every other way you’ve let the company hook into you…combine that with the feedback loop of popular things getting more inbound links and so getting higher search ranking…and the impact stretches way beyond politics. “You can push knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and behavior among people who are vulnerable any way you want using search rankings,” Epstein says. “Now that we’ve discovered this big effect, how do you kill it?”

Go Back to Top. Skip To: Start of Article.

How to Rig an Election: Confessions 

How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative…

https://duckduckgo.com/assets/icons/favicons/amazon.pngamazon.com/How-Rig-Election-Confessions-Republican/d…

How Google results could rig an election – The Week

Rick Santorum has a Santorum problem, in that the top Google results when you search his name are not about the man himself, but rather about a dirty sexual neologism.

https://icons.duckduckgo.com/ip2/theweek.com.icotheweek.com/speedreads/453430/how-google-results-coul…

More results

 

How to Rig an Election | Harper’s Magazine

Election rigging, Long might have … Secret skullduggery is not even necessary these days such is the boldness of the attempts by the GOP to “rig elections“.

https://icons.duckduckgo.com/ip2/harpers.org.icoharpers.org/archive/2012/11/how-to-rig-an-election/

More results

APC planning to rig election in North – Musiliu Obanikoro ..

APC planning to rig election in North … Have you forgotten so soon that elections can only be rigged for a … Your Nigerian Online News Source: Nigerianeye.com …

https://icons.duckduckgo.com/ip2/www.nigerianeye.com.iconigerianeye.com/2015/01/apc-planning-to-rig-election-in-n…

More results

FOCUS | How to Rig an Election – Reader Supported News

How to Rig an Election. By Victoria Collier, Harper’s Magazine. 26 October 12 t was a hot summer in 1932 when Louisiana senator Huey “Kingfish” Long arranged to rig

https://icons.duckduckgo.com/ip2/readersupportednews.org.icoreadersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/14198-focus-how-to-rig-an…

More results

Electoral fraud – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electoral fraud can occur at any stage in the democratic process, but most commonly it occurs during election campaigns, voter registration or during vote-counting.

https://duckduckgo.com/assets/icons/favicons/wikipedia.pngen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud

More results

How I Hacked An Electronic Voting Machine | Popular Science

What do you need to rig an election? A basic knowledge of electronics and $30 worth of RadioShack gear, professional hacker Roger Johnston reveals.

popsci.com/gadgets/article/2012-11/how-i-hacked-elec…

More results

Rodger A. Payne’s Blog: Could Google Rig an Election?

I’m interested in international relations, American foreign policy, climate change, US presidential elections, public debate, Kansas Jayhawks basketball …

rpayne.blogspot.com/2013/05/could-google-rig-election.html

More results

How Republicans Plan to Rig Elections in 2016

How Republicans Plan to Rig Elections in 2016. By Ian Millhiser, Josh Israel, ThinkProgress. 12 November 12 . ast year, Pennsylvania’s Republican Gov. Tom Corbett …

readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/14492-how-republican…

More results

How to Rig an Election | Harper’s Magazine – Part 4

Secret skullduggery is not even necessary these days such is the boldness of the attempts by the GOP to “rig elections“.

harpers.org/archive/2012/11/how-to-rig-an-election/4/

More results

Proven voting fraud! Gov’t programmer testifies voting ..

Rep. Tom Feeney (Fmr. Speaker of The House in Florida) employed this man from Oviedo, FL to rig elections and flip them 51% to 49%. Exit polling data was …

youtube.com/watch?v=t4aKOhbbK9E

More results

Rigged USA Elections Exposed – YouTube

Computer Programmer testifies that Tom Feeney (Speaker of the Houe of Florida at the time, currently US Representative representing MY district ) tried to …

youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs

More results

How To Rig An Election In The United States

How To Rig An Election In The United … But the second table can be hacked and altered to produce fake election totals without affecting spot check reports derived …

whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/rigvote.html

More results

An Inside Look at How Democrats Rig the Election Game

An Inside Look at How Democrats Rig the Election Game … An interesting email received this week offers a window into how Democrats used to rig the voter …

aim.org/aim-column/an-inside-look-at-how-democrat…

More results

 

 

 

 

 

Democrats Secret Weapon: UNLEASH THE BIDEN! The Biden Gaffe Machine

Democrats Secret Weapon: UNLEASH THE BIDEN! The Biden Gaffe Machine

 

While top political campaign managers are in virtual shock over the rise of Donald Trump, they are rapidly trying to analyze his voter power.

Tons of overnight contracts just went out, to special consultants, to have them try to figure out how Trump busted the six years of planning for the Hillary take-over.

The answer, though, is simple. In a speech Hillary comes across as stilted, insincere and massively rehearsed. Her neophyte social media consultants are too young to get the game and her old Nixon years advisors are too old to understand new media.

Trump, on the other hand, avoids scripts, says what he is thinking and reacts with honest, (possibly crazy), but honest emotion.

In the course of Trumping Hillary, and sending her public approval into the can, Trump has made himself famous for his gaffes. Politicos are shocked that statements that would destroy a Graham or Cruz, add another 100,000 voters to Trumps roster. It is simply amazing!

So Trump can work the gaffes. Trump is the JayZ of Gaffes.. or IS HE!?

Off in the distance, the roar of thunder rises from the horizon. The mountain rumbles. A hairline crack appears at the base of the mountain. Volcanic steam vents through the ever broadening cracks. The ground rumbles. Dark clouds gather in a swirl above the tower peak.

With a crash of lightning, and the in-taken sigh of a thousand angels, the mountain bursts asunder and a man stands before us. He is silhouetted in light. His bare chest emblazoned with a single letter: “B”.  The Music Swells. Another flash of lightning.

IT IS BIDEN!

GOD OF ALL GAFFE MASTERS!

He leaps into his fluorescent yellow TransAm and floors it. The music hits a crescendo of hard driving biker-from-hell hard rockin beats.

Biden roars across the political desert steering straight at the Trump!

Nobody on Earth can Gaffe like Biden.

No living human can even remotely approach the Biden intimacy of a public Biden erotic neck massage or a Biden wife-squeeze at the podium.

Nobody can say the things Biden can say. Nobody is as relaxed, chilled out and possible stoned, as The Biden.

For all of Hllary’s façade and insincere platform presence Biden brings the lugubrious, casual, laid back ease of comfort that your uncle offers, along with some moon pies and an RC Cola with peanuts in it.  

Biden and Trump lock eyes. The fever pitch of the music fills the air as lightning burst a trail of explosions between the two.

Their lips quiver. They prepare their mouths. The first gaffes are coming…wait for it.. wait for it…

 

 

 

2016 Election Cycle Brings Experienced Law Firms Opportunity To Make Big Bucks In Colorful Corruption Cases

2016 Election Cycle Brings Experienced Law Firms Opportunity To Make Big Bucks In Colorful Corruption Cases

San Francisco –  With the Age of Transparency, the rise of digital news and public approval of Congress at an all time low, Donald Trump discovered that the public will finally pay attention to politics if it has a bit of drama and color.

The public loves its public policy with a side of ham. A good Lois Lerner hit-job scandal, infidelity intrigues, mysterious email servers and technology bribes will bring the public out in droves.

Now, big law firms can ride the wave of public interest, in public policy, by taking on colorful public policy and anti-corruption cases. The PR value, in modern connected media, can sometimes be higher than their percentage of the contingency awards.

As shown at the website http://www.paybackpolitics.org , politicians are never at a loss to do bizarre, creepy, things in order to maintain cash and power. The public eats up the after-effects like bees on honey.

One enterprising group, of potential Plaintiffs, has gathered other potential Plaintiffs in order to, both, aggregate opportunity and source litigation partners.

At their website link: http://endtheblowoff.weebly.com/seeking-law-firms.html

They are offering a pretty nifty package for a big firm with some entrepreneurial spirit and top Fortune 1000 adversary skills.

Top federal cops, plaintiffs own private investigators, Senate staff, top journalists and whistle-blowers have spent millions of dollars, and tens of thousands of hours, gathering devastating evidence against the Defendants. Now they are ready to “bring the pain”.

Big names are involved in the case, and judging by the list of possible Defendants, a proper large law-firm could pick from among an excellent array of juicy targets. All of these targets got themselves in quite a bit of trouble by engaging in overt crimes, without realizing they were under sophisticated surveillance.

The cases involve substantial embezzlement activates by high-level federal officers working with criminally corrupt company executives. When federal investigators asked some of the Plaintiffs to cooperate with their investigations, Defendants contracted hit-jobs on the Plaintiffs. The Defendants used state, and federal, cash and resources for these hit-jobs, so the Plaintiffs expanded the opportunity pool.

Law-firms who are willing to take on these cases are sought. Plaintiffs are seeking contingency or contingency/hybrid arrangements. Quite a bit of work has already been done and is Bates Stamped and on file in multiple state, federal and expert locations.

Venue opportunities include Texas; Washington, DC; California; Michigan; Utah and any European venue for the defamation portions of the cases. News mention and social media PR for the law firms undertaking these cases is estimated, by branding experts, at over a million dollars in value.

If your law firm is a qualified litigation leader, contact the Plaintiffs group at:   http://endtheblowoff.weebly.com/seeking-law-firms.html

HUGE Cancer Breakthrough at Mayo Clinic

Jacksonville’s Mayo Clinic makes cancer research breakthrough

By Jenna Bourne

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — 

Researchers at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville have made a breakthrough discovery that they hope could turn back the clock on cancer cells.

“I’ll never forget the phone call that I got on a Friday night at about 7:30 from the surgeon, telling me I had stage 4 cervical cancer that had metastasized to my ovaries and I need immediately a hysterectomy, radiation and chemotherapy,” cancer survivor Cynthia Weiss said.

Three years later, the cancer came back.

“I ended up going through more chemotherapy. I didn’t lose my hair this time, which is always a blessing,” Weiss said.

Now she works for Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, down the street from its cancer research lab, where researchers have made a discovery that could lead to a treatment that would turn cancer cells into normal cells.


Latest News Headlines from Action News


“It’s like turning the clock back from an aggressive malignant cancer to a less malignant, benign cancer,” said Panos Anastasiadis, chairman of the Jacksonville Mayo Clinic Department of Cancer Biology.

Researcher Antonis Kourtidis discovered that molecules that hold cells together like glue can affect the molecules that control cell behavior, such as when cancer cells can’t stop growing.

“We know that these cells have lost their normal adhesion properties. So what we are trying to do is revert the effects of that,” Kourtidis said.

For Weiss, it means hope.

“We could very well cure cancer in our lifetime,” she said.

The work is far from over. Kourtidis said it could be another five years or more before the discovery could be used as a treatment.

The research so far has focused on breast, kidney and bladder cancers. Kourtidis said more research needs to be done to see if it works for all forms of cancer.

– See more at: http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/news/local/jacksonvilles-mayo-clinic-makes-cancer-research-br/nnRdn/#sthash.NfYi4f48.dpuf

A technology that makes it impossible for guns to fire: The ultimate safe neighborhoods.

A technology that makes it impossible for guns to fire: The ultimate safe neighborhoods.

Social scientists and technologists are scrambling to bring the impossible to life. They are racing to build something that will save life.

They are trying to build a gun-proof neighborhood.

In America, Africa and other regions, urban gun violence is tearing countries apart. It is only getting worse. As global economies crumble, urban youth are the first to suffer. Their only role models are now, almost exclusively, gangsters and their only dream is to live hard and die young.

They are taught, by their peers, music and media that “the world is unfair and you have to kill for your rights”. They are angry and disappointed in society’s total avoidance of responsibility for them, or their parents. Every generation, the anger doubles. Top politicians do not care about them. Taxes are paid but they see none of the benefits. They feel hopeless.

Schools and naïve “don’t be bad” TV commercials have failed to reduce urban despair.

The guns and the deaths are increasing.

What can be done?

Clever inventors have taken the next step. Take a look at some of the inventions, in the lab, that you may see in your toughest neighborhoods, if the science evolves:

In one system, test blocks in tough urban areas are blocked from vehicle traffic. The only way in and out is via metal detectors. You have to walk in, through the metal detectors. If you are caught with a weapon you get an RFID chip in your arm and you are never allowed back on that block. After an initial search of the block, it is certified secure. The metal detector has a light that is visible to the whole block, so that multiple neighbors can keep an eye on the riff-raff. Blocks are expanded, block by block, as each section is cleaned.

Many high crime neighborhoods now use sound triangulation sensors that can spot the location of the audio of a gunshot. New camera and drone systems can now see the illumination of a gunshot and record the sound location and the actual video location of the shot.

Those approaches are seen, by some as militaristic. What about a more benign way to stop gun deaths?

What if there was a way to blanket a neighborhood with waves or vapors that a gun could not fire in?

One technology approach involves blanketing a neighborhood with vapors that are breathable but do not allow combustion to take place. It may be a vapor like the Halon that we now fill office spaces with to stop large area combustion. A very specific kind of Halon-like vapor could be held in certain neighborhoods by vinyl enclosures. This new kind of vapor would only stop gun-like combustion.

Another technology involves an electronic arch, which all people and cars must pass through, in order to enter the neighborhood. This arch would always be emitting energies which destroy, or change, the gunpowder, or the ignition cap, in each bullet into something that cannot combust or explode. Every material and chemical composition has physic effects that will change, or destroy, that material or chemical composition. Lasers, Masers, High frequency Energy, Electromagnetic pulses and vapors can change many kinds of material from one form to another. The trick is finding just the right set of physics modifiers that will kill the bullet and not the people or your mobile phone.  This kind of gunpowder molecular reprocessing beam is gaining great interest.

Scientists are demonstrating a number a ways to stop gunfire by pointing a gun in a sealed chamber and filling the chamber with a certain process. The guns won’t fire. That isn’t the main problem with many of these possible technologies. The use of that process without a chamber and WITH humans and their pets is the biggest challenge. The process must be safe for people. After all, the whole goal is to improve human life, not sicken people with a new social ill.

The pot of gold is the molecular processor. Much like we can now focus beams inside the human body, wipe out a small patch of cancer, and leave the patient relatively unscathed; focused energy processing may be our best bet.

If a neighborhood, or all its access ways, after an initial sweep, can be bathed in energy that turns gunpowder into plastic then we might have something. While that sounds like science fiction, remember that margarine, which you eat, is only one molecule away from being plastic. The smallest changes in a material can have dramatic results in what that material becomes.

Many cars today don’t use keys. They detect if you are the right person via a chip in your pocket. Cancer doctors are already turning cancer cells into other kinds of non-cancer cells. Tiny manipulations of matter can yield big miracles in the full-size world.

One billionaire is talking about offering a million dollars for the first working “gun blanket beam”.

Families who have lost children in the urban drug wars are pleading with science to get that hope realized.

Even some gun enthusiasts embrace the concept. Instead of taking peoples guns away, you just turn off everybody’s gun in the worst areas. When they are out hunting, the beams have no effect.

As the world becomes more troubled, gun deaths increase geometrically. The NRA says that almost no person, who takes gun safety training, ends up shooting people in drug wars. The statistics show that untrained hot-heads shoot people and often by accident because they are just trying to intimidate someone. This localized shooting termination technology is fair to everyone because everybody is equally restricted from gun violence, in designated areas.

Will governments fund this research or will they resist, both, the research and it’s implementation?

Will homeowners put this technology around their individual homes so that, at least, their own home is shot free?

What are the other social and political implications of such a system?

The future will be here sooner than you think!

 

 

The essence of LOVE discovered by Stanford scientists

The essence of LOVE discovered by Stanford scientists

 

Just as women, who live together, coordinate their periods to take place in synchronization, via invisible chemical signals, love has been found to take place, between people, because of the same chemical signals.

In the case of menstruation, the signals coordinate aligned pregnancy preparations in the body. In the case of love, the signals create a chemical addiction designed to inspire sex and pregnancy in order to continue the species.

The makers of addictive retail products have carefully studied these effects and build similar chemical brain trigger mechanisms into everything from cigarettes to hamburgers.

While poets and writers have often sought to create the concept of “romance” around these brain addictions and impulses, scientists say that the concept of “romance” is derived more from the desire of church, and state, to control the breeding process, for their personal profit management, than an actual effect beyond chemical manipulation of the human for the preservation of the species.

Have you noticed how many of your friends meet someone you know is bad for them, have a relationship, and then break up when one, or the other, figures out that they got an abuser or bad partner? They then, later, get back together and you, and your other friends, are just shocked at how naïve they can be? It is just that old chemical addiction. Just like cigarettes. Dating is caused by chemicals. Bad dating is caused by love chemical addiction.

Few people can control, or even acknowledge, these brain chemical drives until after the age of 35, or so.

The drives are very strong from ages 14 to 29. Are we doing our youth a terrible injustice by not informing them about the addictions and urges when they are young?

We do not start the birds and bees training, in many communities, until much, much later in life. Are we setting young women up for rape, despair and mental illness by letting them go for almost a decade without proper information?

The scientists were looking at the increasing numbers of women on Prozac and in mental health counseling. They found that an inordinate number of modern women in mental health crisis were considered to be “the hot ones” in high school. The scientists are concerned that by designating women, by appearance, as sex objects, we turn them into tools of society and delete their humanity. In interviews, they discovered that the, so called, “hot girls” had four times more relationships than the average girls.

Plain and average girls tend to not have as many mental problems, while the high school “hot girls” tended to be less capable of handling reality and contemporary social concerns because they had been kept in a “look-at-me” bubble.

Because of the volume of relationships that “hot girls” were always being asked into, their chemicals were always fired off more. In a short amount of time they enter an endless cycle of sex, date, sex, date, sex that keeps them in a constant state of love chemicals which soon shifts to just sex chemicals. Eventually they feel used up.

Researchers say that love addiction chemicals start flying around as early as age 12. To ignore this is to put all children at risk, in a variety of ways.

The doctors who are studying this say that it is essential to start teaching children about the dangers and delights of love chemicals at this age, or risk mentally damaged lives for many of these hapless children.

America’s Internal Assassination Squad

America’s Internal Assassination Squad

 

Micheal T. works in a little known office, in a little known operation in Arlington, Virginia.

He gets up in the morning, brushes his teeth, makes bacon and eggs, reads the Washington Post and then drives 41 miles to work in a plain looking office high-rise.

He turns on his computers, upon arriving at his desk, and he begins killing American taxpayers in cities like Houston, San Francisco and Detroit.

He does not use bullets.

He uses metatags, databases and troll farms. He is a hired character assassin. He works for The President, Senators and their corrupt campaign billionaires.

What you are about to read is based on true incidents. The names have been changed. This actually takes place, on a daily basis, to thousands of Americans.

Today Micheal has logged in a “Z-Notice” on a man in Houston, Texas. This man worked with Sandia National Laboratories and this man, who we will call Steve, witnessed technicians burying plutonium in a field because their boss had forgotten to add a concrete casing order to his annual budget. The boss didn’t want to get a budget over-run, so he thought he could have his guys fix the cost problem with a shovel and some dirt. When all of the ground squirrels, that usually ran freely around the Sandia campus, suddenly died. People became suspicious.

After Micheal launches the retribution and revenge program on Steve, he will begin the take-down of Susan, a senior nurse at the San Diego VA hospital. She reported that VA officials were putting very ill veterans on a permanent hold, hoping they would die before the VA executives had to go to all of the trouble of treating them.

His next “Z-Notice” is on Bob who reported that Steven Chu was embezzling tens of billions of federal dollars during is tenure at the Department of Energy.

On and on, the Z-Notices keep on coming.

Traditional logic would presume that most government executives would just say: “Thank you for pointing out those bad actors. Here is your whistle-blower reward”.

In the world of corruption and dirty politicians, it does not work like that. Criminally corrupt politicians exist because they have a little club of other criminally corrupt politicians who operate a quid-pro-quo round-robin kick-back scheme.

That is how the British famous politician pedophile ring operates. One famous political pedophile passes the abused, and the cover-up media, to the next. Each one cover’s the other ones butt, so to speak.

The only weapon against them is transparency. The corrupt politicians and their billionaires are the most egotistical, narcissistic idiots you could ever meet. They would rather die than become embarrassed. That is their weak link. Their hubris and ego-mania will always get them.

The only weapon, against their foes, is character assassination. It is a dark and grimy path that the corrupt have wandered down.

Steve, in Houston, rated a “high kill order” because be embarrassed both the President and two, highly placed, corrupt Senators. Steve went to the FBI and that created files that will never go away. Congress has so many watchdogs on the FBI, now, that, despite what creepy things they may, or may not do, It is no longer possible for the FBI to have “hard drives go missing.”

Steve had gotten himself a new job as a technical aide at the University in Houston. Micheal had been watching Steve’s payroll 1099 forms, by hacking into the University HR service, and wanted to make sure that Steve had received at least 2 months of pay. At the same time, Micheal had his boys at Gawker Media write a hatchet job article about how someone suspected that technical aides at the University in Houston were raping young girls.

It was then a simple matter for Micheal to use his DNS spoofing computer to send a FAX to the HR Director, at the University, with a copy of the article, with the words: “I THINK THIS MIGHT BE STEVE”, scrawled across one corner of the fax. The Fax ID made it look like the FAX came from the New York Times. Micheal used a voice modifier and a disposable cell phone with a New Jersey spoofed SIM card to call the staff of the University to say that he thought Steve had molested his daughter. Steve was fired, without any reason except “budget cuts”, that afternoon.

Micheal used his special account on Axciom and Oracle’s recruiter database engine to place a flag on Steve’s background checks and online profiles so that every person that might hire Steve, will see the special internal code that is the digital equivalent of a “red flag”. This made certain that Steve would never get employed again.

He followed that up with a double whammy. Micheal went into all 3 of the main credit services and, first, downgraded Steves credit scores and then he pulled all of the data about anybody that Steve owed money to. Micheal sent anonymous notices to all of the lenders and payment suppliers that Steve was obligated to, in order to try to get them to call his loans, refuse his loans or demand payment, I order to force Steve into bankruptcy and get him to live in his car.

Because Steve was exposed to plutonium, Steve got poisoned by it.

When Steve applies for disability insurance through social security, Micheal gets a notice on his Lotus Notes tracker and Micheal then makes sure that, first, Steve’s disability review is delayed for as long as humanly possible and then, when he finally gets a response it is denied. All of Steve’s requests for hearings are denied too.

Micheal is delighted. The take-down of Steve is going great. This will teach those damn taxpayers to speak their minds! The Senator will probably give him a big Kill Bonus on this one. Steve can’t get a job, he can’t get disability. He can’t retire and use his other social security because he is not old enough, yet. Micheal, a few days later, gets another Lotus Notes computer notice that Steve has tried to open an online store on Zazzle and Café Press, in a desperate attempt to make money. Micheal sees to that by logging all of Steve’s email addresses as “flagged accounts” and rerouting any payments to Paypal into a black hole. Micheal has the contractors at In-Q-Tel, run a full hack on Steve’s phone.

Steve is persistent, though, and Steve tries to set up an online T-Shirt business. Damn, thinks Micheal, his shirts might sell. Can’t have Steve getting any cash. He might hire a lawyer.

Micheal logs into the agency account at Tai Systems in Taiwan. Tai Systems is a block, or two, of old warehouses. It looks like nothing is going on at the Tai Building. There are not many cars in the parking lot. Tai only needs a handful of people to do what Tai does. All of the buildings are filled with racks, and racks, of Dell Edge Servers. A few IT guys wander around the building looking for red lights and cooling issues. In one room 12 people sit at long tables with triple LCD screens on each table. They are firing digital machine guns.

Tai does two things well. It runs devastating troll farm blog screeds and it fires off some of the most potent denial of service attacks on websites. Micheal orders up a 3 month, 30,000 fake login attempt per day, attack on every website that Steve creates in order to try to get some money. Steve is wiped out and there is now no possible way for Steve to get any money.

Steve commits suicide 6 months later, with a little help from a modified sleeping pill prescription, that Micheal had wired into Steve’s Walgreen’s account, that changed Steve’s brain chemistry in order to increase his anxiety levels.

Micheal got a big bonus from The Senator for that one. The next target looked fun, some guy named Aaron with some wisenheimer tech start-up called Reddit.

Questions?

Questions?

 

Why are all of the Afghanistan Mining Deals, for the Cleantech companies, connected to only the exact same people who Steven Chu gave the money too, who also happen to be the exact same people who were campaign backers?

Why were Kliener Perkins, and Elon Musk, the single largest beneficiaries of the Steven Chu cash and, also, the same people who had Russian business connections to those Afghanistan, and other, mining deals?

Why did Steven Chu hand out so much taxpayer cash, in an American economic crisis, to Russian controlled companies?

Who is Frank Guistra?

How is the arrested, and jailed, Raj Gupta from McKinsey related to Kliener Perkins?

Steven Rattner was indicted for stock market fraud. Why was he working in the White House arranging the cash give-aways to car companies in the Cleantech crash?

Solyndra got raided by the FBI and the entire Solyndra investigation has not, yet, been released. Is Solyndra financing connected, in any way to anybody’s campaign financing?

McKinsey Consulting, Kleiner Perkins and Goldman Sachs promoted a number of white papers and articles entitled: “Afghanistan is the Saudi Arabia of Lithium” and “There are trillions of dollars of lithium in Afghanistan”? Why?

Steven Chu’s nomination records show that he was nominated by, lobbied for by, and gave almost all of the cash away, under his control, exclusively to his Silicon Valley business partners. Isn’t that a felony?

Eric Holder, who should have arrested Chu, had all of the same business relationships and benefits as Chu. Shouldn’t Holder have been arrested too?

Main stream news media say that the Afghanistan incursion has cost U.S. taxpayers over six trillion dollars. What upside have taxpayers received from that effort?

Gary D. Conley, David Bird, Rajeev Motwani, Doug Bourn, Karl Slym and others, died, mysterious, unexpected deaths and were connected to these investigations. Is that suspicious?

The Section 136 federal law stated that it was to be emergency cash for those companies in need. Why were billionaires Elon Musk and John Doerr considered to be “in need”? Why are they the only humans, in the world, to already have billions of dollars and then be given more billions of dollars by the White House? What they delivered vs. how much cash they got, still leaves over 16 billion dollars unaccounted for? Every other company on Earth has been able to deliver massively more product with far less cash. What really happened to that money?

Every single applicant, for Steven Chu’s Department of Energy money, that was not approved by Kleiner Perkins and the White Campaign bosses, was sabotaged and denied. Is that not a felony?

Over 34 U.S. Senators state that the Department of Energy Cleantech investigations have suffered from massive cover-ups, stone-walling and Lois Lerner-like hit jobs against anyone who speaks up? Is that legal?

Do any of the investors, who received financial benefits from Steven Chu, have electronic automated computerized stock market manipulation systems known as “Flash Boy Arrays”? Did any of these investors use Steven Chu’s financing announcements to manipulate valuation settings on the public stock market?

Have any of these investors worked with Eric Schmidt to control White House policy and to rig Google’s search engine in order to manipulate stock market results and news coverage?

Just curious…

We have a few more questions, but if you could start with these, that would be just terrific.

 

Main Stream Public Now Wearing Body Cams. Urban consumer body cams selling like mad!

  

Main Stream Public Now Wearing Body Cams. Urban consumer body cams selling like mad!

They are called button-hole cameras, fountain pen cameras and personal cams.

You can download dozens of apps that turn your cell phone into a secret body cam. That cell phone sticking out of a shirt pocket or facing outwards on a belt holster is also now a body cam.

Personal pocket drones are now remote body cams that record back to your cell phone.

The Spy Shop-type retail stores are having a hard time keeping up with orders in urban settings.

Ebay sales of button hole cameras, personal security cameras and Go-Pro cameras are at an all time high.

Many police officers are now doing two things, in sequence: drawing their guns and turning off their body cams. The Department of Justice is reviewing a new law which would make it a felony to turn off a police body cam and would also require all police body cams to have no off switch and to record to the Cloud. Many citizens groups have increased demands on DOJ to require body cams that can’t be turned off.

Until the body cam “turn off issue” gets resolved, the public has taken matters into their own hands.

The new packing list for protesters starts with: “Hoodie, Googles, body cam….”

Many a regular protester now has their own live video streaming USTREAM channel. During the Ferguson riots, the most watched news media was from a live streaming protestor in the middle of the riots.

The Russians got it started with the vehicle dash camera craze. Russians can barely get car insurance so they started using their own dash cams. They bought so many of them that Russian Dash cams became very low cost. Now Americans are buying the cheap dash-cams.

Button Hole cameras and campaign button cameras are rapidly dropping in price. Asia consumer electronic knock off fabricators have just released high volumes of super cheap personal consumer body cam chips and printed circuit boards that are only a few bucks, in volume.

Go on Ebay and, in the search window, type “Body cam”, “Button hole cam”, “dash cam” or “personal body cam” and look at the amazing array of options.

The trend seems to be: “You surveil us, we surveil you”

High ticket human rights groups are ordering volumes of body cams to give to Syrian refugees who have not been able to escape the region. Refugee airplane drops of food, water and clothing will soon include zip lock bags with mini body cams in them.

Privacy rights activists are torn. On one hand they hate the additional surveillance. On the other hand they recognize the obvious advantage in having the public record abuses.

Silicon Valley loves it because it creates more internet content. Some entrepreneurs are working on cloud-based human rights archives and public interest websites for the uploading of public safety body cam videos.

Are you part of the public body cam revolution or are you against body cams and dash-cams?

 

Chinese Hackers said to have “everything” from Hillary email servers

Chinese Hackers said to have “everything” from Hillary email servers

When the Euro-Hacker: Guccifer, got on the trail of something juicy, he usually got the red meat. He was a bit clumsey as a hacker, but he was great as a detective.

He loved to brag.

He had a little fan club of Chinese hackers. They followed in his tracks. Guccifer got into the notorious Bohemian Club of the Rulers of The World and, combined with his hack of Hillary’s email, bragged on blogs that he had seen dark secrets.

International investigators now believe that The Chinese went in right behind him.

The Chinese seem to have communications that indicate that Hillary, and the Obama Administration, worked together to put hit-jobs on U.S. citizens that they did not like. It seems that Lois Lerner is just the beginning.

Guccifer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Attention Walmart Shoppers: Most American Voters have the IQ of a child!

Attention Walmart Shoppers: Most American Voters have the IQ of a child!

By Dan Savige

Are you a pusillanimous pussy footer?

If you could read that sentence, know what it means, and know the historical significance of that statement, then you are part of only 9% of the people who vote.

If you passed that test then you probably don’t shop at Walmart twice a week.

If you shop at Walmart twice a week then YOU are going to decide who the next President of the United States will be.

If you even care, the tiniest bit about the election process, you need to go spend the afternoon at a Walmart. You do not understand what is going to happen in 2016 unless you do.

So the Obama Administration tried to kill off all of the old vets with the VA mismanagement but they didn’t get them all. Plenty of pissed off vets will be voting in 2016.

They thought that all the “old white people” would be dead by now but a bunch of them got on Obamacare and will now make it for one more national election.

As of today, 100 million Americans can’t find a job and are out of work. No matter how much the DNC orders the press not to disclose this fact, they exist. In what fantasy-land do you think they are not going to the polls? Oh, yah, and most of them shop at Walmart.

The Millennials, the savvy kids that were hoped to be the next-generation, turn out to be just as stupid as we all thought and are all living with their parents. They may not be the great hope some had hoped for. They may be turning out to be extra-stupid. Even worse than the 80’s!

So the stable group of Walmart people are coming in for the big haul. They got flab, attitude and Votes!

If you really won’t take a dutiful social responsibility trip to Walmart to try to understand, then, at least go to Youtube and watch some of the: “People of Walmart” videos.

A good chunk of the people on the internet live in small, higher income, central regions of big cities and have enough money, from their jobs, to buy ipads and read Buzzfeed all day. Hillary, and some other candidates hired these children to tell them how to be cool on the internet. They are addressing a voting population, though, that may have little effect on the final vote. You can have cool kids on your campaign staff, with tons of buzzwords, for every meeting, but if they don’t buy Little Debbie cakes by the case, from Walmart, they are the wrong people.

If you are reading Buzzfeed, you are young, inexperienced, have a short attention span and are not a Walmart Shopper.

The fast talking cool campaign advisors may have pitched a big game, but they may be selling some candidates fluff. Nobody trusts the internet anymore. Most of America still don’t use it. The Obama trick of giving the Walmart people “free” internet over their Obamaphone and then feeding the free internet with Obama-controlled Google is totally blocked by the GOP, now.

The Google-will-take-over-the-election issue is being counter-measured by a massive, well financed GOP DNS re-triggering technology and new keywording systems. The Google search engine-rigging trick may not work at all this time, ie: Donald Trump.

Scientists with real, actual computers, have analyzed the voters for over two decades. They can now prove that most voters are idiots. This is not to say that most American’s are idiots. There are over 300 Million Americans. Only about 65 million Americans decide who will be President. The scientists say, most of that 65 million are “idiots”.

Campaign managers focus on the idiots. They are easy to win. Sure, you smart ones might think some of the candidates antics are ridiculous. They are, but they don’t care about you. You smart ones don’t count. There are not enough of you to wrap up an election.

Rock On Walmart Voters!

 

Hillary Server Issues

Report: Hillary May Have Had Second Server

Image: Report: Hillary May Have Had Second Server

By Todd Beamon   |

  • Platte River Networks, the Denver-based company that managed Clinton’s email network after she left the State Department in 2013, told the Examiner earlier this month that it had transferred the data from Clinton’s original private server later that year.

    A Platte River attorney said then that “no useful data” likely remained on the server.

    However, the Clinton campaign has suggested that the Democratic front-runner did not erase emails she decided were personal until this past January.

    The disclosure raised questions regarding where the emails were located when they were reviewed by her staff to determine which ones were related to her four years as the nation’s top diplomat, the Examiner reports.

    It further raises concerns about the timing of Clinton’s decision to erase 30,000 emails that she said were not related to her work for the State Department, according to the report.

    Neither a Clinton spokesman nor an attorney for Platte River Networks returned telephone calls seeking comment, the Examiner reports.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-clinton-second-private/2015/08/22/id/671410/#ixzz3jsnRn3Wz
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

Donald Trump’s Biggest Secret

Donald Trump’s Biggest Secret

Ted Cruz does not get social media.

Donald Trump way, totally, gets social media.

Every time Donald Trump calls Megyn, the news-lady, a “Bimbo”, he gets another 237,363 votes.

I know. You are thinking. “No, that’s not possible”, He is “offending a female”; it will cost him votes.

Wrong!

As Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton will tell you, from their proven multi-million dollar formula: the more you offend, in social media, the stickier you become in people’s brains.

Yes indeed. It is the psychology of mass stupidity. It pretty much works, in perfect form, on the internet.

If you are a candidate and you can’t, right this second, clearly explain: “Mnemonic trigger mentions as a psychological tool”; then you have totally lost the race.

Remember that you first heard of Kim Kardashian when she created a multi-racial sex tape and now she is the brand image for multi-million dollar cosmetic companies. From a wiener in her butt to cash in the bank, she made outrage pay the bills. Did Anthony Weiner show his Weiner for the same reason? Was he trying to create social media outrage in order to get Hillary’s girlfriend some Mnemonic uptick for her Vice President gig? Kim’s weiner waggle won. Weiner’s weiner waggle was wasted. You have to wangle your weiner just right.

Outrage makes you rich and it gets you elected. Shockingly this is our new reality.

It is so powerful because few can see it happening, and it always works. The Donald’s social media director is frigging brilliant.

Donald is not tweeting all of those tweets himself, we bet. His Directors of Outrage and Social Disruption are up all night working on 140 letters of shock and awe a minute.

Trump knows that 80% of the voters react to shiny objects, noise and need zero substance. The voters need entertainment. Trump delivers in spades.

For those of you who say: “Trump is a joke. You can’t win a top political position by being an actor and a…  errrr..uh…”:

Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Ronald Reagan

Jessie Ventura

Trump gets it. In horror, some old school polling groups have discovered that many of the hip, cool, web savvy, ultra modern young Millennials are planning to vote for Trump just to “screw up the old rigged system”.

Are you outraged yet?

No?

OK, wait for Donald Trumps next tweet.

Then you will be out-raged; and his name will be permanently burned into your brain.

 

 

 

Current stock market crash is battle of giant robots. These robots may kill us all!

Current stock market crash is battle of giant robots. These robots may kill us all!

Kliener Perkins has a giant robot.

Goldman Sachs has many giant robots

Russia has a giant robot

China has many, many giant robots

Kim Jong Whatever has one.

If you try to see them; because hey, who doesn’t want to see a giant robot? You can’t see them.

They have the power of invisibility

These robots are computer servers that are connected to the stock market in order to manipulate that stock market. The wars are fought on the backs of the public, at a cost of many lives.

The technology is called flash-boy manipulation. No regular human is anything but a distraction to these robots, who seek only one goal: destruction of the opposition while grabbing money.

One robot hides, and maintains his invisibility, in a simple tan colored semi-modern office building on Sandhill Road in Palo Alto. He has a team of nerdy IT boys, from India, to tend to his every need.  The IT Boys, and the Robot, work for some famous Silicon Venture capitalists. Let’s call this robot: “Samson”.

As Samson fires his digital ammo at the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ, via buy routers, his arch enemy: “Panda-Mo” in North Korea is trying to anticipate his next move and pull interpolated anticipatory counter-buys that will screw up Samson’s deals. Samson’s money goes to the Obama’s campaign backers: John Doerr, Steve Jurvetson and Eric Schmidt.

Panda-Mo works for North Korea and they think Obama, and anything Obama-like, sucks green quail eggs; So they fire away. World War Three has been underway, like this, for awhile now. It is easier to fight it, this way, because nobody can see digital blood. The other day, all of the robots, in all of the stock market digital battles went into overdrive. If Panda-Mo wipes out all of John Doerr’s, Steve Jurvetson’s and Eric Schmidt’s stock assets then Obama doesn’t get any more money and Panda-Mo wins. If Samson wipes out Panda-Mo’s indium, copper and aluminum commodity options then North Korea can’t make any more TV’s and Samson wins. In every case, the public losses, though.

Most average people think of the stock market like a scene from an old Cary Grant movie. They visualize guys with fedoras yelling and making deals with other guys on telephones. That has nothing to do with modern reality.

The stock market is now, almost entirely controlled by a few special interest groups and their automated flash boy robots. You members of the public are just tagging along for the ride, if they even need you at all, for a bit of PR color. The Securities and Exchange Commission works for these bankers. They have even been recorded running overt collusion together. Normal humans are no longer the concern of stock markets. When stocks go down for Tesla, or IBM, the Tesla and IBM robots buy their own stock back in order to “pump” the stock or create fake valuation numbers.

These days, the fastest robot wins. Whoever has a robot that can fake more calls, from more synthetic locations in less milliseconds, gets the cash.

That is great for the robots but it sucks for the humans.

Recall all of the recent dire warnings about the possibility that robots will become self-aware and wipe us out? Uh-Huh? Really? Are you thinking about it…? 

See the problem? The robots that are now running the stock market get to see the worst of humans and they have the tools to destroy human economics within ½ second.

What could possibly go wrong?

Ok, let’s say the competing stock market robots have yet to become self aware. So maybe they are not blowing up the stock market now because they think stock brokers really are all dicks…yet.

Who might want to rip up the American stock market?

Who really hates America? Who loves to dick with America and keep America on a weak footing? Who has tons of robots and is willing to take huge losses in a battle in order to support long term gains?

Hmmm.. let’s think.. Are we thinking, uhm: China?

 

 

THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER CHRISTMAS! Political Korruption Karma!

THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER CHRISTMAS! Political Korruption Karma!

 

Without breaking a single law and with the help of members of law enforcement, journalism groups and over 300 million U.S. voters and over one billion internet users, Hornet’s Nest Digital is looking forward to a wonderful Christmas.

The United States Supreme Court has now confirmed that we can use anything, of any kind, that we find published on the internet, as evidence in our anti-corruption cases. You can use it, in your anti-corruption case, too.

We already had enough evidence, in hand, to put John Doerr, Goldman Sachs executives, Elon Musk, Dianne Feinstein and a few White House tops in jail.

BUT….

Christmas Joy.. Weird pissed-off programming nerd people and maniacal rogue Chinese hackers have been running around getting even more stuff and posting it. Now we have seen so much stuff that..it..it.. it is snowing disclosures.

4CHAN and Darknet are selling files. The feds are buying. Both political parties are buying. News journals are buying. It is the heyday of “rat-out-that-criminally-corrupt-Congressman”!

Have you noticed that more Senators have been arrested than ever before?

Merry Christmas!

Have you noticed how Hillary was the “Only Possible DNC Candidate” and now the vultures are circling.

Happy Hanukah!

Have you noticed how print media died and a ton of non-censored digital newspapers all took off?

Happy Holidays!

Things are poppin’