SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=18241
The dust has barely settled on the site of the Brussels bomb blasts and already the EUreaucrats are salivating about the prospect of a pan-European intelligence agency. Join James for today’s Thought for the Day as he explains the latest example of how the authoritarians take more control after every major terror event.
SHOW NOTES and MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=4868
Your habits, your opinions, your thoughts and routines: what could be more personal than these? But what if your thoughts are not your own? Join us this week on The Corbett Report as we expose the social engineering agenda, from the bigger bigger picture to the nitty gritty detail.
Tonight Jordan Maxwell returns to the show.
For more than 50 years, Jordan continues as a preeminent researcher and independent scholar in the field of occult and religious philosophy. He served for three-and-a-half years as the Religion Editor of Truth Seeker Magazine, America’s oldest Freethought Journal which was established in 1873) His work exploring the hidden foundations of Western religions and secret societies has captivated the attention of critical thinkers from around the world.
He has conducted dozens of intensive seminars; hosted his own radio talk shows; appeared on more than 600 radio shows; and has written, produced and appeared in numerous television shows and documentaries – all devoted to understanding ancient religions and their pervasive influence on the world today.
His work on the subject of secret societies and their symbols, has fascinated his world wide audience for decades.
For this discussion Jordan will talk to us about the influence of religion on the societies and cultures of the world, the corporate governance which encapsulates our lives and then finish up with how the Abrahamic religions originated from Hindu mythos.
Jordon’s website is jordanmaxwellshow.com and a highly recommended section of his website is Jordan’s Research Society where for a $30 subscription, you will have access to a plethora of Jordan’s private research documents.
Jordan’s Research Society
Sage of Quay Blog: http://sageofquayradio.blogspot.com/
DISCLAIMER and TERMS
The views and opinions expressed by any guest featured on The Sage of Quay Radio Hour are those of the guest and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the host Mike Williams or of the The Sage of Quay Radio Hour as a whole.
All content provided on The Sage of Quay Radio Hour is for informational purposes only. We make no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information discussed or presented during the show or found by following any link mentioned in the broadcast or in the show notes.
All Sage of Quay Radio Hour shows and interviews are copyrighted. No portion of this presentation or any Sage of Quay Radio Hour show may be used, reproduced, altered or uploaded in part or whole without the expressed written consent of Mike Williams.
Any and all images used in this video or any other Sage of Quay Radio Hour presentation are considered to be in the public domain, free to use, royalty free material we have licensed or in compliance with the Fair Use Clause contained within the Copyright Act (17 US Code § 107). If by chance this is not the case and you are the rightful owner please contact us at email@example.com.
The song ‘Truth’ and ‘Free’ is from Mike’s album Leaving Dystopia http://www.laboroflovemusic.com/
© 2012 M. Williams – All Rights Reserved
Submitted by Karen, mahalo!
*See Links Below* In this Episode we take a very fascinating and in-depth look at the real matrix of power that operates in the world behind the scenes in relation to whats happening in the Middle East, the recent Paris attacks, Geo-Politics, Media, Religion, Zionsim, the Ottoman Empire, the Jesuits, the Red Papacy, the Nazis, the Royals, Black Lodge Masonry, Templarism, the unconscious mind, Psychology and more. We even touch briefly on this recent flat earth meme and the return of other medieval and pre-medieval ideas and why its being pushed at this time in particular.
I have been asked to summarize this issue many times, so here it is in the proverbial nutshell.
The problem is that privately owned for-profit corporations under contract to provide government services have misrepresented themselves as the government and used that presumed position of public trust to defraud us, enslave us, and levy false claims against us and our assets in the foreign jurisdiction of international commerce.
The misuse and abuse of “birth certificates” and their misrepresentation as “voluntary private contracts” has led to the literal enslavement of hundreds of millions of people worldwide almost a hundred years after slavery was universally outlawed. These issues of economic slavery and “slavery via corporate proxy” must be addressed and the mechanisms used to promote this abuse must be dismantled.
The registration of live births in America and throughout the former British Empire, most of Europe, and Japan is used not to simply record the birth of babies, but to name commercial “vessels” after those babies. These proxy entities may be variously constructed as estate trusts, foreign situs trusts, or even public transmitting utilities—- the creators of these incorporated entities named after living children then operate these corporations and accrue debts that they false charge against the living people using the deceitfully similar name as a means to defraud the victims. This is a bunko crime known as “personage”—knowingly “mistaking on purpose” a living man for a corporation using the same or similar name— for example, mistaking a man named “James Clarence Penny” for the retail department store doing business as “JC PENNY”.
The corollary crime routinely practiced by attorneys and barristers is known as “barratry”—knowingly bringing charges against this corporate proxies “as if” they were the same as the living people they are named after, and addressing those same people as defendents in civil and criminal actions. This is the tip of the iceberg of the harm that is routinely done to living people via the misuse of incorporated proxy entities merely named after them. It is a venal institutionalized fraud scheme that must be recognized for what it is and attacked by every peaceful and determined means possible.
When my son was born I was presented with the paperwork that all new Mothers are coerced to sign. When I refused I was bluntly told by two menacing interns and a Catholic Nun that I either signed or my son would be kept in State custody and I would not be allowed to take him home. Please bear in mind that I was a successful 40 year old married career woman with no criminal record, no addiction problems, no history of mental illness. There was and is no possible excuse for the way I and millions of other American women are treated and the extortion used to secure an inequitable, involuntary, and unconscionable “public” commercial interest in our babies as a chattel properties being bonded and used as collateral to finance the “public debt” of these private governmental services corporations pretending to be the American government.
Those responsible were and are criminals engaged in press-ganging land assets into the international jurisdiction of the sea, inland piracy, enslavement, human trafficking, unlawful conversion, extortion, racketeering, armed robbery, kidnapping, commercial fraud, and conspiracy against The Constitution for the United States of America. Every single person involved in this needs to be charged and arrested and thrown in jail without further delay, but the police are employed by the same privately owned and operated corporations that are benefitting themselves from these gross abuses.
That is, the police forces that we depend upon to enforce the Public Law are operating instead as private commercial mercenaries, not as public peacekeeping officers at all. The foxes are indeed guarding the hen houses of America, a circumstance that again requires awareness and action by the body politic to resolve.
As I have explained, the organizations we are dealing with are governmental services corporations—- not our lawful government. They are merely claiming to “represent” our government in the absence of our actual government, which is owed to us, and which must be provided by us. This addresses the heart of what “self-government” means.
Every living American has more civil authority on the land jurisdiction of the Continental United States than the entire Federal United States government. It’s time that we exercised that inherent power and put an end to this gross criminality, fraud, and usurpation by our “public servants”.
The historical facts and timeline progression of how we got into this mess is fully explained in “You Know Something Is Wrong When…..An American Affidavit of Probable Cause”, available on Amazon. com.
SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=16768
For the first time in decades, violent crime is back on the rise in major urban centers across America. What’s the problem? Fed-induced recession driving people into desperate poverty? Media-hyped race baiting inciting social discord? The militarization of police and tightening of the police state noose? No, it’s smartphone cameras that are the culprit according to FBI director James Comey. James Corbett breaks down the propaganda and reminds you why the police are so scared of cameras.
(RAWSTORY) Police in Norway hardly ever use their guns, a new report released by the Scandinavian country’s government shows. In fact, it’s been almost 10 years since law enforcement shot and killed someone, in 2006.
Perhaps the most telling instance was when terrorist Anders Breivik opened fire in 2011 and killed 77 people in Utoya and Oslo. Authorities fired back at him, all right, but only a single time. In 2014, officers drew their guns 42 times, but they fired just two shots while on duty. No one was hurt in either of those instances.
Considering that police officers in the United States have killed more than 600 people this year alone, the report certainly is eye-opening. Of course, law enforcement officials in the United States face greater threats of violence while on duty.
Guns are not central to police activity in Norway, which is one reason why the law enforcement shooting rates are so low. As in Britain, police in Norway typically patrol while unarmed and only bear arms in extenuating situations.
In the past, experts have said that reevaluating U.S. law enforcement tactics–specifically having less of an emphasis on force and making face-to-face interactions more common–could help cut the shooting rates there, at least in the short term. A more complicated issue is the relative lack of trust in police officers in the U.S.
Sociologist Guðmundur Oddsson, speaking to Tech Insider, said Norwegians’ higher sense of trust in law enforcement was perhaps one of the reasons for the country’s low gun violence rates. “Trust is an extremely powerful mechanism of informal social control. In smaller, more ethnically homogeneous countries like Norway, building that trust is easy. People feel a sense of togetherness for many reasons, including the fact that most people look similar and hold similar beliefs,” he said.
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/28/2015
“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official. The framers would be appalled.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation
Trying to predict the outcome of any encounter with the police is a bit like playing Russian roulette: most of the time you will emerge relatively unscathed, although decidedly poorer and less secure about your rights, but there’s always the chance that an encounter will turn deadly.
The odds weren’t in Walter L. Scott’s favor. Reportedly pulled over for a broken taillight, Scott—unarmed—ran away from the police officer, who pursued and shot him from behind, first with a Taser, then with a gun. Scott was struck five times, “three times in the back, once in the upper buttocks and once in the ear — with at least one bullet entering his heart.”
Samuel Dubose, also unarmed, was pulled over for a missing front license plate. He was reportedly shot in the head after a brief struggle in which his car began rolling forward.
Levar Jones was stopped for a seatbelt offense, just as he was getting out of his car to enter a convenience store. Directed to show his license, Jones leaned into his car to get his wallet, only to be shot four times by the “fearful” officer. Jones was also unarmed.
Bobby Canipe was pulled over for having an expired registration. When the 70-year-old reached into the back of his truck for his walking cane, the officer fired several shots at him, hitting him once in the abdomen.
Dontrell Stevens was stopped “for not bicycling properly.” The officer pursuing him “thought the way Stephens rode his bike was suspicious. He thought the way Stephens got off his bike was suspicious.” Four seconds later, sheriff’s deputy Adams Lin shot Stephens four times as he pulled out a black object from his waistband. The object was his cell phone. Stephens was unarmed.
If there is any lesson to be learned from these “routine” traffic stops, it is that drivers should beware.
At a time when police can do no wrong—at least in the eyes of the courts, police unions and politicians dependent on their votes—and a “fear” for officer safety is used to justify all manner of police misconduct, “we the people” are at a severe disadvantage.
According to the Justice Department, the most common reason for a citizen to come into contact with the police is being a driver in a traffic stop. On average, one in 10 Americans gets pulled over by police. Black drivers are 31 percent more likely to be pulled over than white drivers, or about 23 percent more likely than Hispanic drivers. As the Washington Post concludes, “‘Driving while black’ is, indeed, a measurable phenomenon.”
As Sandra Bland learned the hard way, the reason for a traffic stop no longer matters. Bland, who was pulled over for allegedly failing to use her turn signal, was arrested after refusing to comply with the police officer’s order to extinguish her cigarette and exit her vehicle. The encounter escalated, with the officer threatening to “light” Bland up with his taser. Three days later, Bland was found dead in her jail cell.
“You’re doing all of this for a failure to signal?” Bland asked as she got out of her car, after having been yelled at and threatened repeatedly. Had she only known, drivers have been pulled over for far less. Indeed, police officers have been given free range to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons.
This approach to traffic stops (what I would call “blank check policing,” in which the police get to call all of the shots) has resulted in drivers being stopped for windows that are too heavily tinted, for driving too fast, driving too slow, failing to maintain speed, following too closely, improper lane changes, distracted driving, screeching a car’s tires, and leaving a parked car door open for too long.
Motorists can also be stopped by police for driving near a bar or on a road that has large amounts of drunk driving, driving a certain make of car (Mercedes, Grand Prix and Hummers are among the most ticketed vehicles), having anything dangling from the rearview mirror (air fresheners, handicap parking permits, troll transponders or rosaries), and displaying pro-police bumper stickers.
Incredibly, a federal appeals court actually ruled unanimously in 2014 that acne scars and driving with a stiff upright posture are reasonable grounds for being pulled over. More recently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that driving a vehicle that has a couple air fresheners, rosaries and pro-police bumper stickers at 2 MPH over the speed limit is suspicious, meriting a traffic stop.
Unfortunately for drivers, not only have traffic stops become potentially deadly encounters, they have also turned into a profitable form of highway robbery for the police departments involved.
As The Washington Post reports, “traffic stops for minor infractions such as speeding or equipment violations are increasingly used as a pretext for officers to seize cash from drivers.” Relying on federal and state asset forfeiture laws, police set up “stings” on public roads that enable them to stop drivers for a variety of so-called “suspicious” behavior, search their vehicles and seize anything of value that could be suspected of being connected to criminal activity. Since 2001, police have seized $2.5 billion from people who were not charged with a crime and without a warrant being issued.
“In case after case,” notes The Washington Post, “highway interdictors appeared to follow a similar script. Police set up what amounted to rolling checkpoints on busy highways and pulled over motorists for minor violations, such as following too closely or improper signaling. They quickly issued warnings or tickets. They studied drivers for signs of nervousness, including pulsing carotid arteries, clenched jaws and perspiration. They also looked for supposed ‘indicators’ of criminal activity, which can include such things as trash on the floor of a vehicle, abundant energy drinks or air fresheners hanging from rearview mirrors.”
If you’re starting to feel somewhat overwhelmed, intimidated and fearful for your life and your property, you should be. Never before have “we the people” been so seemingly defenseless in the face of police misconduct, lacking advocates in the courts and in the legislatures.
So how do you survive a police encounter with your life and wallet intact?
The courts have already given police the green light to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons. In an 8-1 ruling in Heien v. North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that police officers can pull someone over based on a “reasonable” but mistaken belief about the law.
Of course, what’s reasonable to agents of the police state may be completely unreasonable to the populace. Nevertheless, the moment those lights start flashing and that siren goes off, we’re all in the same boat: we must pull over.
However, it’s what happens after you’ve been pulled over that’s critical. Survival is the key.
Technically, you have the right to remain silent (beyond the basic requirement to identify yourself and show your registration). You have the right to refuse to have your vehicle searched. You have the right to film your interaction with police. You have the right to ask to leave. You also have the right to resist an unlawful order such as a police officer directing you to extinguish your cigarette, put away your phone or stop recording them.
However, as Bland learned the hard way, there is a price for asserting one’s rights. “Faced with an authority figure unwilling to de-escalate the situation, Bland refused to be bullied or intimidated,” writes Boston Globe contributor Renee Graham. “She understood her rights, but for African-Americans in encounters with police, the appalling price for asserting even the most basic rights can be their lives.”
So if you don’t want to get probed, poked, pinched, tasered, tackled, searched, seized, stripped, manhandled, arrested, shot, or killed, don’t say, do or even suggest anything that even hints of noncompliance when it comes to interactions with police.
One police officer advised that if you feel as if you’re being treated unfairly, comply anyhow and contest it in court later. Similarly, black parents, advising their kids on how to deal with police, tell them to just obey the officer’s orders. “The goal,” as one parent pointed out, “is to stay alive.”
It seems that “comply or die” has become the new maxim for the American police state.
Then again, not even compliance is a guarantee of safety anymore. “Police are specialists in violence,” warns Kristian Williams, who has written extensively on the phenomenon of police militarization and brutality. “They are armed, trained, and authorized to use force. With varying degrees of subtlety, this colors their every action. Like the possibility of arrest, the threat of violence is implicit in every police encounter. Violence, as well as the law, is what they represent.”
In other words, in the American police state, “we the people” are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”
As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this mindset that any challenge to police authority is a threat that needs to be “neutralized” is a dangerous one that is part of a greater nationwide trend that sets the police beyond the reach of the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, when police officers are allowed to operate under the assumption that their word is law and that there is no room for any form of disagreement or even question, that serves to chill the First Amendment’s assurances of free speech, free assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Frankly, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a casual “show your ID” request on a boardwalk, a stop-and-frisk search on a city street, or a traffic stop for speeding or just to check your insurance. If you feel like you can’t walk away from a police encounter of your own volition—and more often than not you can’t, especially when you’re being confronted by someone armed to the hilt with all manner of militarized weaponry and gear—then for all intents and purposes, you’re under arrest from the moment a cop stops you.
Sad, isn’t it, how quickly we have gone from a nation of laws—where the least among us had just as much right to be treated with dignity and respect as the next person (in principle, at least)—to a nation of law enforcers (revenue collectors with weapons) who treat us all like suspects and criminals?
Clearly, the language of freedom is no longer the common tongue spoken by the citizenry and their government. With the government having shifted into a language of force, “we the people” have been reduced to suspects in a surveillance state, criminals in a police state, and enemy combatants in a military empire.
Note: Tyler Durden: “The United Kingdom has gone batshit crazy.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself! Stunning degree of psychopathy on behalf of British officials, absolutely unbelievable. Of course, over here in the U.S. we drug kids into subordination and indoctrination, where toddlers are prescribed prozac to control a variety of “mental disorders”.
What’s the difference between locking a kid up behind bars, or making them prisoners in their own minds?
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/28/2015 16:45 -0400
The United Kingdom has gone batshit crazy. There’s simply no other way to put it. I warned about Britain’s “war on toddler terrorists” earlier this year in the post: The War on Toddler Terrorists – Britain Wants to Force Nursery School Teachers to Identify “Extremist” Children. Here’s an excerpt:
Nursery school staff and registered childminders must report toddlers at risk of becoming terrorists, under counter-terrorism measures proposed by the Government.
The directive is contained in a 39-page consultation document issued by the Home Office in a bid to bolster its Prevent anti-terrorism plan.
The document accompanies the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, currently before parliament. It identifies nurseries and early years childcare providers, along with schools and universities, as having a duty “to prevent people being drawn into terrorism”.
Never fear good citizens of Great Britain. While your government actively does everything in its power to protect criminal financial oligarchs and powerful pedophiles, her majesty draws the line at toddler thought crime. We learn from the Independent:
A three-year-old child from London is one of hundreds of young people in the capital who have been tipped as potential future radicals and extremists.
As reported by the Evening Standard, 1,069 people have been put in the government’s anti-extremism ‘Channel’ process, the de-radicalization program at the heart of the Government’s ‘Prevent’ strategy.
The three-year-old in the program is from the borough of Tower Hamlets, and was a member of a family group that had been showing suspect behavior.
Since September 2014, 400 under 18s, including teenagers and children, have been referred to the scheme.
The fact that this story broke on the same day that chairman of the UK’s Lords Privileges and Conduct Committee, Lord John Sewel, was caught on video snorting cocaine off the breast of a prostitute with a £5 note, is simply priceless. You just can’t make this stuff up.
From the BBC:
Lord Sewel is facing a police inquiry after quitting as House of Lords deputy speaker over a video allegedly showing him taking drugs with prostitutes.
The footage showed him snorting powder from a woman’s breasts with a £5 note.
In the footage, Lord Sewel, who is married, also discusses the Lords’ allowances system.
As chairman of committees, the crossbench peer also chaired the privileges and conduct committee, and was responsible for enforcing standards in the Lords.
Lord Sewel served as a minister in the Scotland office under Tony Blair’s Labour government.
Tony Blair, why am I not surprised:
He has been a member of the Lords since 1996, and is a former senior vice principal of the University of Aberdeen.
Here’s a clip, in the event you’re interested:
The UK government is so far gone that it insists on protecting the public from toddlers, rather than protecting toddlers from powerful sexual predators. In case you need a reminder:
Note: American’s better wake-up to the smell of tyranny, the same thing is happening in the U.S., only more covertly.
Published time: 20 Jul, 2015 16:20Edited time: 22 Jul, 2015 14:54
There is a worrying and dangerous tendency in the UK to label as extremists anybody who poses a challenge and who wants to protest against the unfair economic system that exists in the UK, journalist and broadcaster Neil Clark told RT.
City of London police have been attacked for pigeonholing an anti-capitalist group, alongside Al-Qaeda and IRA. An anti-terror presentation for nursery and school staff featured a picture of the Occupy London campaign alongside images from the 7/7 London bombings in 2005 and an IRA attack in 1996. The anti-inequality group was also categorized as an example of domestic extremism.
RT: As we’ve heard London police have placed movements like the Occupy London movement alongside international terrorist groups. What are your thoughts on calling movements like these extremist?
Neil Clark: I think this all fits in with what’s been happening here in Britain because the government has got this new so-called ‘counter extremism initiative.’ They want to bring in a bill and… their definition of ‘extremism’ is deliberately designed to bring in people who challenge the established order. Of course it’s not just simply about terrorists; it’s about anybody who criticizes the capitalist system, anybody who poses any kind of challenge, and anybody who wants to protest against the existing very unfair economic system that we’ve got in Britain. This is worrying, this is dangerous.
I think we’ve got the biggest threat to our civil liberties in Britain at the moment under this government of David Cameron that we’ve had for many, many years – over 100 years certainly. I remember Cameron a few weeks ago made a very sinister speech when he said that for too long we’ve been a passively tolerant society [and] we’ve got to change that. And he said that in the past people who were not causing trouble would be left alone, and we’ve got to change that – I think it’s very sinister, really, because he is trying to clamp down on legitimate dissent.
RT: Why do you think the intention of the authorities was here?
NC: It’s very clear that what the intention of the authorities is to try to group together anyone who challenges the established order, and to group them all together as terrorists and extremists. So anybody who has any kind of dissenting views that wants to change our economic and political system will be equated with and put together with the most appalling terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda. This is all deliberate, it is all what it’s meant to do is meant to frighten people into conforming. And who wants to be equated with Al-Qaeda, let’s face it? But what they are doing, the authorities, are trying to use this anti-extremism agenda to really try to clamp down on legitimate dissent, legitimate protest, because the aim is, as I said, quite clearly is to group all these people together: ‘Occupy London,’ Al-Qaeda, terrorists, they all are the same, they all are extremists people, animal rights people…
RT: Does labeling of this kind have any impact on individuals and groups that disagree with government policies?
NC: I think lawful campaign groups will be absolutely incensed by this because we are in a very, very dangerous position here in Britain – our civil liberties are threatened in a way they have not been threatened for hundreds of years, probably. David Cameron in that very sinister speech said that he thinks that we’ve been passively tolerant society for too long…
One of the repercussions of that is that the legitimate groups who don’t like the way that country is run, who don’t like our very oligarchal ‘bankocracy’ system of government, who, for example want direct democracy, environmental campaigners, animal rights campaigners- all these people are not happy with the way things are. They were quite rightly being sensed that they are being bracketed with groups like Al-Qaeda. I think there is going to be a huge backlash to this, and that is the question of everybody who is dissenter drawing together now and saying: “Look, we’re not going to put up with this. We’ve got legitimate rights, we’ve got our concerns about the way the country is going, and we’re not going to allow ourselves to be branded extremists simply because we disagree with Mr. David Cameron.”
RT: Why are the authorities wary of protest movements? After all, they have a legitimate right to their opinion…
NC: Yes, I think that the City of London police has been accused in the past of not doing enough against the criminals in the City, the corrupt ‘banksters’, the financial crooks if you like of the City of London, and instead focus the attention on the petty crimes. You’re more likely to be arrested in the City of London for pick-pocketing than you are for doing a bank fraud worth millions of pounds. So I think that for the City of London police this is very regrettable. And they can’t just say they didn’t know what they were doing. The Occupy movement was very popular, the people made a legitimate statement against the kind of hardcore capitalist system that operates now in Britain. I think it’s a shame on the City of London police for doing this because their job is to be catching criminals and focusing on big criminals, not on trying to smear and put together legitimate protest groups with the most awful terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda.
RT: Can civil disobedience ever be linked to terrorism?
NC: They are doing that. I think the word ‘extremist’ is a very subjective term. The way that the British politics has gone over the last 30 years is that for anybody who holds the sort of what used to be a mainstream in the 1960-70’s in Britain, and I do: mixed economy, a fairer society, anti-war positions. Anybody who holds these views now is at risk of being labeled an extremist. We’ve gone so far to the neo-liberal right in this country; the neo-conservative takeover of power, the neo-conservative and neo-liberals that they brand anybody who doesn’t agree with their agenda as extremists.
The irony is that the biggest extremists are the British government at the moment. They are the ones who have been backing terrorists in Syria who they call rebels; they are the ones who have enabled and facilitated the rise of ISIS with their Middle East policies – these are the real extremists. They are the people who are pursuing extremist economic policies, extremist foreign policies, and they have the audacity to label people who want a more democratic Britain, to get back to the kind of fairer society that we had in the 1960’s and 1970’s in this country. They have the nerve to label these people as extremists, so it’s quite Orwellian. It is beyond George Orwell where you’ve got the moderates- other people who are being labeled as extremists. And the real extremists are the people in power at the moment in Britain.
‘The real terrorists are not those in tents’
Matthew Varnham, Occupy London’s legal advisor, suggests the UK government is labeling the movement as anti-social behavior just because it doesn’t fulfill their criteria of what they would like to see as protest.
RT: As we’ve heard City of London police have placed the movement you represent alongside international terrorist groups. What are your thoughts on being called an extremist?
Matthew Varnham: The fact is that being labeled an extremist is nothing new. In 2011, we were labeled ‘domestic extremists’ through the City of London’s terrorism and extremism update. London’s mayor, Boris Johnson, also referred to the protest as a ‘boil’ that needs to be removed. So it’s nothing new but it does disturb me that the City of London and the police would see a peaceful protest and a movement as something akin to terrorism. I find it particularly sickening that the movement was pictured next to 7/7 [London tube and bus bombings] and I would call on the commissioner, for example, to explain why those two images were next to each other.
RT: It’s been revealed that the mayor spent nearly £2 million pounds on policing a similar movement – Occupy Democracy. Was there any need to spend so much on policing dozens of protestors?
MV: That particular protest was held outside parliament in the run-up to the General Election and it was the most recent iteration of the Occupy movement. The policing of that protest was absolute and people were prevented from protesting on the square. That decision to close the square itself is actually open to a legal challenge currently being taken to the courts. What it does show is that a government – be it in the City of London, Square Mile or elsewhere – who is adamant that the rights of people who object to them are not going to be hurt. The real terrorists are not those in tents but are certainly the corporate and financial world… climate change, the melting ice caps… and high tuition fees. These are some of the things that Occupy was right about in 2011; its other things like that that they are raising now and the real terrorism are those who are introducing policies that prevent those view from being expressed.
RT: Does labeling of this kind have any impact on individuals and groups that disagree with government policies?
MV: The government is… looking at the issue of protesting the wrong way. It’s labeling it as anti-social behavior just by fact; it doesn’t fulfill their criteria of what they would like to see as protest. Protest isn’t going to fit in a particular box, it’s going to be messy and loud; it’s going to have an element of disruption. And the government increasingly can’t handle that.
*The following is a partial transcript of a press release sent out by Occupy London on July 21, 2015: Charges against 12 Occupy Democracy protesters were dropped [July 20] in the first two trials relating to the peaceful pro-democracy group’s occupation of Parliament Square in October 2014. Charges included refusing to comply with a direction to leave and for being in possession of a prohibited article, namely tarpaulin. A further trial relating to charges of aggravated trespass was dropped previously.
Former US General Wesley Clark went on MSNBC to promote detaining domestic ‘radicals’ or people ‘disloyal to the United States’ in internment camps for the duration of the war on terror.
The host asked Clark “How do we fix self-radicalized lone wolves, domestically?”
First, Clark cites people who lose a job or break up with a girlfriend as being especially dangerous. Next he tells us what he’d do to those who’re disloyal to the U.S. during the war on terror.
“In World War II, if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn’t say that was freedom of speech. We put them in a camp,” Clark continued, “They were prisoners of war.”
“If these people are radicalized, and they don’t support the United States, and they’re disloyal to the United States, as a matter of principle, fine, that’s their right, but it’s our (the government’s) right and our obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict. And I think we’re going to have to get increasingly tough on this.”
This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.
Note: Talk about a slippery slope! My question is, exactly how does the government define ‘domestic radicals’ or people ‘disloyal to the United States’? Seems like there’s a lot of room for interpretation in defining these terms….
Surviving the Matrix – Season 5 – Episode 02
“When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader” – Plato
“When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader” – Plato
In late November, 2014, Du Na Phuong (Tony) was shot by the Vancouver Police Department at the intersection of Knight Street and East 41st Avenue. Du, age 51, was waving a two-by-four plank of wood on the east side of the street. No people were nearby and nobody reported being threatened, yet police shot Du within one minute of arriving at the scene.
The shooting has sparked resistance and outrage from the Vietnamese community and supporters across Vancouver. In December 2014, a group of Vietnamese youth organized a vigil for Du, where dozens gathered at the site of the shooting, alongside friends and family of Phuong (Tony). Reverberations of the movement were also felt on social media. Event organizers created the twitter hashtag #OneMinuteforPhuong, referring to the one minute of Du’s life between the time police arrived and the time he was shot. During the vigil, a one-minute moment of silence was held in memory of Du.
Phuong was remembered at the vigil as a “gentle soul” by family and friends. He grew up in rural Vietnam before moving to Canada and worked two jobs as a janitor. “Tony was a hard worker,” recalls his family. Phuong’s birthday was on December 8th, when he would have turned 52.
A written statement by Phuong’s family also paid tribute to his late-life struggle with mental illness. “Although he had to quit his job as a janitor that didn’t stop him from cleaning. If you’ve ever been to Tony’s house then you would know that if nothing else the house was going to be spotless. Not many people would have been able to continue to do the things Tony did while battling such a debilitating illness but Tony did and he did so without forgetting who he was as a friend, brother or person.”
Birth of the v*ccj
Since December, the movement for justice in the killing of Du Na Phuong has persisted. Vigil organizers have made a collective decision to continue organizing as a group, and in March the collective decided on a name: viet* collective for community justice (v*ccj).
In an interview with The Mainlander, the v*ccj outlined their reasons for initially organizing the vigil: “We felt that because Mr. Phuong was a racialized disabled man, his unjust death at the hands of the VPD was swept under the rug. We wanted to hold this vigil to honour his life, support his family, and stand in solidarity with black resistance against police brutality in the U.S.” The group added a reflection on the need for organization: “Throughout the process, we realized that there were many issues that were specific to the local Vietnamese community but there were no accessible means to openly address them in a meaningful way, so we continue to organize.”
In addition to fighting against police brutality against Du, the group also spoke to the potential for building radical change within Vancouver’s diverse Vietnamese community. While the group was initially focused on the vigil, “[we] soon realized and decided as a group that we wanted to continue to have meetings and conversations about issues affecting the local Vietnamese community. With new members joining us and with more discussions on which direction we would like the group to go in the future, we are excited to see the group grow into the future.”
Du Na Phuong in context
The shooting of Du Na Phuong is the latest in a series of police shootings in Vancouver. The vigil for Du and the emergence of the v*ccj, in response, represent the latest march forward in the struggle for police accountability and an end to police brutality in Vancouver.
Accountability for police-involved deaths has been a major focus of activists in Vancouver since at least 1998, when protests led to an inquiry into the death of Frank Paul. Since then women and Indigenous communities have organized tirelessly for justice, before, during and after the “failed inquiry” for the murdered and missing women.
More recently, migrant justice and transit activists have organized to stop the heavy policing of public transit, including the widely-criticized collaboration between Translink and CBSA officials. Their work has so far resulted in a partial victory – the Metro Vancouver Transit police ended their agreement with the CBSA.
For Ly, the death of Du is clearly part of a larger issue. “We are deeply disturbed by the circumstances of Mr. Phuong’s death and the actions of the Vancouver Police Department. We also are concerned about many issues within our community, such as violence, mental health, the lack of dialogue, racism, and police brutality.”
V*ccj organizers say that over the past five years, several member of the Vietnamese community have been killed due to violence, including Lam Thanh “David,” Tran Tung Thanh, Nguyen Tam Thi, Nguyen Cong “Danny,” Le Yen Thi, Phan Van Truong La, Nguyen Vinh The, Tran Huong “Andy,” Huyen Diem Chinh, Vu Yen Thuy “Jenny,” and Banh Phong Quai David.
Policing mental health
Activists in Vancouver have also begun to focus on police violence targeting individuals with perceived mental health issues. Last year the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) sounded an alarm bell about the Vancouver Police Department’s “repeated killing of individuals with perceived mental illness in Vancouver.” The Carnegie Community Action (CCAP) project has also focused on the issue, including a CCAP-organized mental health town hall in September late last year.
Other groups have also rallied against police violence over the past year. The Left Front’s Policing Working Group has spoken out on fatal police violence targeting individuals with perceived mental illness. In March 2014 the group passed motions in light of an “alarming number of fatal police shootings of mentally ill people in Vancouver.”
Between 1992 and 2002, police encounters with mentally ill people led to at least eleven deaths. From 2003 to 2010, at least seven more individuals lost their lives to the police. Yet these statistics are based on media reports, and are likely a gross underestimate of actual number of people killed by the police in cases that go unreported in the media.
In addition to the steady number of fatal shootings, mental health arrests in Vancouver climbed to a five-year high this past summer, with 1,470 apprehensions being made by the police in the first half of 2014. That number represents an average of eight apprehensions every day in Vancouver.
Under Section 28 of the BC Mental Health Act, an officer can arrest a person without charge if they are deemed a risk to self or others. In the words of Karen Ward, speaking at the the CCAP Town Hall, an apprehension under the Mental Health Act occurs “when the police decide you have a mental illness.”
The Independent Investigations Office of BC (IIO)
The Independent Investigations Office (IIO) is currently conducting an investigation into the police shooting of Du. The IIO was established in 2011 after decades of pressure from organizers, victims of brutality, and “civil society” groups like Pivot Legal and the BCCLA, in the wake of several high profile police killings in which the police were exonerated without any charges.
The intention of IIO is that it eventually will be civilian led, unlike the current police complaints process, which follows the model of police investigating police. However, according to a recent update to the BC legislature by IIO head Richard Rosenthal, the organization is still comprised of nearly a majority of former police officers.
In their few years in operation, the IIO has already been criticized for appointing RCMP staff as advisors, and has also been criticized for using pro-police experts with close working relationships to the police. However, last year for the first time in decades, a police officer was charged with murder in the shooting of Merhdad Bayrami at the Starlight Casino in 2012.
IIO does not have the power to lay charges, but can only make recommendation to the crown. In its first year of operation (Sept to July 2013), the IIO took on 33 cases, 11 of which have been closed without charges being recommended to Crown prosecutors, according to the Vancouver Sun. Only five cases have been referred to prosecutors, but the prosecutors decided not to press charges in two of them and are “still considering” the others.
Will the system also cover over the shooting of Phuong? Organizers with the viet* collective for community justice are hoping that the IIO investigation can lead to accountability and justice in the unnecessary death of Du Na Phuong.
*Thanks to Chanel Ly, Maria Wallstam, Rider Cooey and the v*ccj for helping in the research and writing of this article
June 19th, 2015
Tattoos might be the next biometric frontier, with one in five Americans sporting ink these days. The FBI is partnering with academia and private firms to develop a computer program that could help police identify people based on their body ink.
Matching tattoos with the government database could help officials identify victims of natural disasters, such as earthquakes or tsunamis. However, the government’s primary interest is they believe matching the tattoos into a computer system, could help to catch more criminals, as they have more body ink than the general population, according to computer scientist Mei Ngan.
Ngan works at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the Department of Commerce that teamed up with the FBI to organize a “challenge” workshop. This gave an opportunity to universities and corporations to show off the results of their research into tattoo-matching technology.
“You can’t use it as a primary biometric like a finger print or face because it’s not necessarily uniquely identifying,” Ngan told the Washington Post. “But it can really help in cold cases where you don’t have those things.”
Alvaro Bedoya, of the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law School, told the Post that identifying people on the basis of tattoos is less controversial than facial recognition or motion analysis, but that technology may be outpacing the law.
“People are being identified remotely without their knowledge,” Bedoya said, “and right now the Fourth Amendment doesn’t really say anything about that.”
The workshop was organized by the NIST at the agency’s headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and sponsored by the FBI’s Biometric Center of Excellence. Participants tested their image-recognition software in five different scenarios, such as basic tattoo detection, identification over time, and matching a partial image of a tattoo to a complete photo.
Each team was given the same set of images, drawn from the FBI’s existing Next Generation Identification database that includes tattoos in addition to fingerprints and facial recognition. Currently, the database relies on written description of the tattoos, which can be vague and sometimes not particularly helpful, says Ngan.
Some of the systems had “hit rates well above 90 percent” in certain tests, like matching a partial photo of the tattoo to the whole thing. Two areas that needed further research, Ngan said, were distinguishing similar tattoos on different people, and recognizing a tattoo from a sketch or a drawing, rather than a photo.
“Improving the quality of tattoo images during collection is another area that may also improve recognition accuracy,” Ngan said.
Participants in the NIST workshop included the imaging company Compass Technical Consulting, the Fraunhofer Institute of Optronics, System Technologies and Image Exploitation, the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission, the nonprofit research organization MITRE, the biometric tracking technology firm MorphoTrak, and Purdue University.
Founded in 1901, the NIST is one of the oldest US government science laboratories. It has been at the forefront of biometric research for decades, conducting mass evaluations of fingerprint and face recognition systems.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
ANNAPOLIS, MD – Governor Larry Hogan today released the following statement:
“For the safety and well-being of all Baltimore residents, I strongly urge everyone to continue to conduct themselves in a peaceful manner in the days ahead. The last week has been very difficult for the people of Baltimore and emotions are still running high following the indictments issued this morning by State’s Attorney Mosby. I believe in the criminal justice system, and we will all see this process play out over the coming months.
“I also want to thank the Baltimore residents who kept their protests calm and nonviolent over the last several days, including community leaders who worked to keep the peace in their neighborhoods. The incredibly hardworking men and women in the National Guard and State Police, as well as police and firefighters from Baltimore and the surrounding states and counties, deserve our thanks for their tireless efforts in protecting our citizens.”
As mayor, I have said from the beginning that no one is above the law in our city. I was sickened and heartbroken by the statement of charges we heard today. No one is above the law in our city. Justice must apply to all of us equally.
With today’s official indictment, I have ordered Police Commissioner Batts to utilize the full extent of his legal authority and immediately suspend, without pay, all officers facing felony charges. In fact, warrants have been executed and all officers are in custody.
We know that the vast majority of the men and women of the Baltimore Police Department continue to serve our city with pride, courage, and distinction. But to those who engage in brutality, misconduct, racism and corruption: there is no place for you in the Baltimore Police Department.
Today’s indictments are the next step in the legal process that is running its course. I will continue to be relentless in changing the culture of the police department to ensure that everyone in the City of Baltimore is treated equally under the law.
There will be justice for Mr. Gray,his family, and for the people of Baltimore.
An Open Letter to State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby 5/1/2015 http://t.co/iUJ7elR3bq
Note: While in the long run I believe a much Higher plan is unfolding for the collective, from what I’ve been observing on the global 3D “stage” it appears humanity “may” be heading into some uncomfortable territory later this year – especially in the U.S. and Canada. For those who have done the work and mastered Co-reational, manifestational aspects of their consciousness and are sharply tuned in to their inner turn-by-turn guidance system, you have already created a Higher Path thru any possible turmoil during the full-collapse of the financial matrix. Trusting yourself and knowing you planned this lifetime from the point of your ancient future and that your Higher Self is your navigator thru the labyrinth of the matrix is key.
It’s also important to be keenly aware that humanity has “assistance” from numerous off world and inter-dimensional races, not here as saviors but to help us make a course correction in ways that are hard for most of us to perceive from our current, limited perspective. Many contactee’s like Scott Lemerial and Simon Parkes are stepping forward with crucial information for understanding a much bigger picture unfolding that holds GREAT PROMISE. So while it’s important to be aware of whats happening in the world, it’s vital that we observe from the sacred neutral perspective and only invest a tiny portion of our energy into what “appears” to be on the horizon.
Our human perspective is limited and illusionary in nature. What happens in the outer world is a reflection of our inner world. And, our vibrational frequency determines the level of difficulty we create and experience on this sentient, holographic spaceship called Mother Earth/Gaia/Sophia/Mama. What you focus on you create.
With one caveat, if Max is correct in his assessment, what we’re heading into is for the most part a reality much of the unconscious collective has created thru fear and ignorance, the chaos will be their backdrop but still on the playing field we have to maneuver on. So maintaining a higher vibration while walking thru the fire is the challenge which will ultimately earn us personal Mastery over this reality.
That said, Max does a great job connecting the “3D dots” to help us best determine our next few moves on the chess board in the coming months. It’s not about fear, it’s about being aware and prepared, and not investing your energy into what may be distractions and false constructs. If your not already doing it, start seeding your intentions into the future to create the most desirable outcome possible. Visualize it, believe and see it come to pass with gratitude.
Most of all, remember the most important thing to keep our focus on is the energy of the NOW moment, in BEing present. Keep your focus on surrendering and allowing the greater good to flow into your life, in letting go of all resistance and relaxing into “It”. From my POV, the future is already done and we made it thru with flying colors…albeit a bit worn and tattered, WE shifted the paradigm!
And so it is!
The video below is only 15 minutes, I recommend listening to the show in it’s entirety here
Published on Apr 24, 2015
Max Igan – Surviving the Matrix – Season 4 – Episode 08
“When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader” – Plato
To download, please visit: http://thecrowhouse.com/radio.html
or to stream directly, please visit: http://thecrowhouse.com/dl/MaxIgan_Co…