LF: The Very Book The Government Does Not Want You To Read Just Went #1 In The World

Title: The Very Book The Government Does Not Want You To Read Just Went #1 In The World
Source: Collective Evolution
URL Source: https://www.collective-evolution.co ... read-just-went-1-in-the-world/
Published: Sep 18, 2019
Author: Arjun Walia
Post Date: 2019-09-20 07:27:10 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 14201
Comments: 88

In Brief

George Orwell’s 1984 is a classic book depicting a populace ruled by a political regime that persecutes individualism and independent critical thinking as “thoughtcrimes” that must be enforced by the “thought police.” This party seeks power above all, and, through the propagandist Ministry of Truth, presents the people with their version of truth and casts away all other information and opinion. Sound familiar?

This is exactly what’s happening today right in front of our eyes. The “ministry of truth” comes in the form, at least on social media, as FakeNews watchdogs. These are entities that are flagging information that threatens corporate and political interests and labels it as “fake news” when a lot of it, is in fact, the complete opposite. Since when does an authoritative entity like the government have to step in and decide for the people what is real and what is not? Are people not capable of examining sources and determining this for themselves? These fake news watchdogs have some interesting sponsors. One of these sponsors, for example, is NewsGuard. They are funded by Clinton donors and big pharma, with ties to the CFR. You can read more about that entity here.

Companies and government agencies who are threatened by information also seem to be employing an “army of bloggers, surrogates, trolls, and bots on Twitter, Facebook, and by email” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) to try and sway discussion and brainwash people. We here at Collective Evolution have been experiencing them as well.

The world knows why the hunt for Julian Assange was ongoing for so long, it’s because he leaked secrets and exposed those who keep them. He exposed the lies, corruption and deceit that represents the backbone of the Western military alliance and the American empire. He exposed, in the words of John F. Hylan, former Mayor of New York City, the “real menace of Republic”, the “invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation.” He exposes the ones “who virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.” (source)(source)

He exposed immoral and unethical actions that have no basis and justification, he is a hero.

The same thing goes for National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden, who leaked classified documents regarding the scope of the US governments surveillance programs, which is and was huge. He is and was not the first, William Binney did the same, along with Thomas Drake and many others.

Keep in mind that this is a global mass surveillance program. Snowden recently released a book about it, and more.

In the book, Snowden goes into great detail about how he risked everything to expose the US government’s system of mass surveillance. In it, he reveals the story of his life, including how he helped to build that system and what motivated him to try to bring it down.

Mass surveillance, facial recognition, etc, are justified by the national security state for the purposes of combating terrorism, for example. But, what does the connection between terrorist organizations and the US government say about these programs? If the US government itself, or factions of it, are arming these terrorists, creating them, and carrying out false flag events blaming them on terrorism in order to justify infiltration of a country for ulterior motives as well as a heightened the national security state which involves mass surveillance, this means that their justification for these programs is a complete lie. So what’s the real reason for them?

This is well known, a few years ago current democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard introduced the stop arming terrorist act, which would stop the U.S. government from using taxpayer dollars to directly or indirectly support groups who are allied with and supporting terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda in their war to overthrow the Syrian government. (source)

As far as false flag terrorist attacks go, many believe the chemical gas attacks in Syria were orchestrated by the western military alliance in order to justify the infiltration of the country. The evidence for this is quite grand. 9/11 is another example many people believe was false flag terrorism.

‘Protecting National security’ has now become an umbrella term to justify immoral and unethical actions.

Perhaps Snowden’s book sheds light on that. I have yet to read it.

William Binney is a former high ranking intelligence official with the National Security Agency (NSA). He’s had quite the go, starting in 2002 when he let the public know of a system ( ‘trailblazer’) intended to analyze data carried on communication networks (like the internet). He exposed the agencies eavesdropping program and has faced harassment from the FBI, NSA and more. He has been in and out of the court room ever since he decided to resign and blow the whistle.

Binney hasn’t stopped, one of the highest-level whistleblowers to ever come out of the NSA. He is now saying:

“At least 80% of fibre optic cables globally go via the US, this is no accident and allows the US to view all communication coming in. At least 80% of all audio calls, not just metadata, are recorded and stored in the US. The NSA lies about what it stores. The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control.” (source)

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, the US government suing the publisher of Snowden’s book is only bringing more attention to the truth of mass censorship and that this global elite is losing power. The more the global elite respond the way they are, with this like the mass censorship of information, alternative independent media outlets being shut down, and jailing people like Julian Assange, the more they hurt their own interests… which is inspiring for humanity as we awaken.

Uh Freedom of Speech …

Despite the absolute language of the First Amendment, wars, threats of wars, and perceived risks to national security have prompted the government to, at times, restrict freedom of speech and other First Amendment freedoms throughout U.S. history.

Sedition Act is an example of a freedom restriction for the sake of national security

A prime example is the legislation passed only seven years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, in 1791. In 1798 the Federalist Congress, fearful of an impending, full-blown war with France, adopted the Sedition Act, which attempted to stifle any speech that criticized the president, who was conducting an undeclared conflict with France at sea. The Federalist Party justified the Sedition Act as a measure needed to prevent threats to national security from within the country.

Other wars have seen First Amendment restrictions to protect national security interests

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in some parts of the North, especially those that were unstable, and the Confederate government acted in a similar fashion.

World War I saw the adoption of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which led to the first Supreme Court decisions, among them Schenck v. United States (1919) and Abrams v. United States (1919), that punished political dissidents because their speech allegedly presented a clear and present danger to national security and war efforts.

During World War II, the government incarcerated Japanese Americans. That war and the Cold War that followed spurred adoption of the Smith Act (making it illegal to call for the overthrow of the U.S. government), intrusive congressional investigations into personal beliefs and associations, and other efforts to suppress domestic Communism.

The prolonged U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and its high death toll prompted the eruption of protests nationwide, along with efforts to suppress them. Such issues were rekindled in the aftermath of the al-Qaida attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, and the U.S. responses to those events.

Periodically, the Supreme Court has examined whether the government can restrict speech to further the compelling interests of national security. In doing so, the Court has recognized that national security, as a governmental interest, does justify restrictions on First Amendment rights. In the landmark free press decision Near v. Minnesota (1931), the Court established a general rule against prior restraints on expression. However, the Court did note that the government could shut down a newspaper if it published military secrets: “No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.”

Nevertheless, the government must provide proof that national security interests really are in play—that is, the government cannot simply use national security as a blank check to sidestep constitutional challenges. In New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the majority of the Court rejected the government’s national security justifications for attempting to prevent the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, the top-secret history of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. In his concurring opinion, Justice Hugo L. Black explained that “the word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.”

War on Terror led to debate over the balance of liberty and security The War on Terror that commenced after the September 11 attacks on the United States brought into focus the debate over national security and the proper balance between liberty and security. One controversy arose over certain provisions of the USA Patriot Act, which Congress passed forty-five days after the attacks, especially the widespread use by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of national security letters (NSLs) under Section 505 of the act.

A national security letter is an administrative subpoena instrument used by the FBI to compel recipients of the letter to comply with requests for various data and records on the person who is the subject of the subpoena. This instrument requires no probable cause or judicial oversight. It also contains a gag order preventing recipients from even acknowledging they have received an NSL. A 2007 Department of Justice audit revealed that in 2005, 47,221 requests applicable to 18,000 people were issued. Similar numbers were posted for 2003 and 2004.

"Secret evidence" is a questionable instrument used by the government in national security cases

“Secret evidence” is another questionable instrument sometimes favored by the government, especially in immigration cases. In 2003 Sami al-Arian, a tenured professor of computer engineering at the University of South Florida, was arrested, based on secret evidence, for his alleged ties to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The al-Arian case caused an uproar within academia because of its free speech and free association implications as well as his termination from his academic posting.

Despite the credible nature of the charges against him, several prominent academicians came to al-Arian’s defense, demanding an inquiry and reinstatement. Al-Arian was charged with seventeen separate counts, but as part of a plea agreement, he was convicted on one count of conspiracy and sentenced to nineteen months in jail beyond the fifty seven months already served. Al-Arian admitted that he had raised funds for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

"Outing" intelligence operatives is a controversial national security issue

Yet another national security issue that continues to generate controversy is the published “outings” of known intelligence operatives. The best-known case is that of career Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative Philip Agee.

Agee served in Latin America but became disaffected by the CIA’s role there. He left the agency in 1968, a self-avowed socialist. In the 1970s, Agee published Inside the Company in which he named over 250 operatives and assets for the CIA in Latin America. In 1974 he announced a campaign against the CIA.

In response to Agee’s activities, Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr. revoked Agee’s passport. Agee countered by charging that his right to criticize the government under the First Amendment had been infringed by Secretary Haig’s action. In its 7-2 decision in Haig v. Agee (1981), written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Supreme Court disagreed. Justices William J. Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall dissented.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) of 1982 was drafted in the wake of the disclosures made in part by Philip Agee and the assassination of CIA Station Chief Richard Welch by the Greek terrorist group 17 November after his identity was revealed in the magazine Counter-Spy. The IIPA has been invoked twice since its passage: in the 1985 case of CIA operative Sharon Scranage, the only person convicted thus far under the IIPA, and most recently in the Valerie Plame affair.

In 2003 newspaper columnist Robert Novak publicly revealed that Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a vociferous critic of the George W. Bush administration and the prewar intelligence on Iraq, was a nonofficial cover operative of the CIA. Later, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald under the IIPA for disclosing Plame’s name to journalists, who, in turn, disclosed her identity to the American public. On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. However, in the end he was not convicted under the IIPA.

Ultimately, policy makers are responsible for maintaining the delicate balance between the First Amendment and national security—a balance with which society continues to struggle in an age of international terrorism.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1134/national-security

Salute,
Gatlin

ANYBODY with 2 IQ points to rub together knows the government "spies" on citizens.

You don't think the Feebs didn't spy on recent German immigrants during WW-2? Hell,they put Japanese people who were born as US citizens in internment camps for the duration of the war.

The ygly truth is the end result was they were protected from attack by idiot Americans for "looking like the enemy" during the war. People from Germany weren't put into containment camps because nobody could look at them and tell they were German.

ANYBODY with 2 IQ points to rub together knows the government "spies" on citizens.

Stop with the bullshit that “No one really knew the extent until Snowden revealed it.”

Since 2001 it has been common knowledge that the government has engaged in massive, illegal dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary citizens. There were full blown press reports in late 2005. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been at the forefront in an attempt to stops it. you can even read the timelines here.

In early 2006, EFF obtained whistleblower evidence (.pdf) from former AT&T technician Mark Klein showing that AT&T is cooperating with the illegal surveillance. The undisputed documents show that AT&T installed a fiberoptic splitter at its facility at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco that makes copies of all emails web browsing and other Internet traffic to and from AT&T customers and provides those copies to the NSA. This copying includes both domestic and international Internet activities of AT&T customers. As one expert observed, “this isn’t a wiretap, it’s a country-tap.”

News reports in December 2005 first revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been intercepting Americans’ phone calls and Internet communications. Those news reports, combined with a USA Today story in May 2006 and the statements of several members of Congress, revealed that the NSA is also receiving wholesale copies of American's telephone and other communications records. All of these surveillance activities are in violation of the privacy safeguards established by Congress and the US Constitution.
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying

Salute,
Gatlin

The contract can't make him keep things that are illegal secret. Since it requires a search warrant to search someone and they aren't they are in violation.

^source

The contract can't make him keep things that are illegal secret. Since it requires a search warrant to search someone and they aren't they are in violation.
Real Americans understand that.

Well, there – Good Buddy – will you please help out this poor ole country boy who you may not consider one of YOUR real Americans. I simply cannot understand what you are talking about here. I will therefore respond with a general statement.

Snowden signed non-disclosure agreements [contracts] with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA) agreeing to keep ALL things there and from there SECRET – and yes, it definitely does include anything illegal.

You are right In that they can’t MAKE him keep the things that are illegal secret – but they sure as hell can take him to court for violating the non- disclosure agreements [contracts] and seek a judgment against him.

Which they are now doing …

For on Tuesday, the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Edward Snowden for publishing a book, Permanent Record, in violation of non-disclosure agreements he had with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA).

Since it requires a search warrant to search someone and they aren't they are in violation.

I sincerely apologize to you – but I do not have any idea what you are saying here and what it is in reference to. If you would like to clarify, then I will be more than happy to respond.

Salute,
Gatlin

If you were a real American, you would know better than to even say something like this.

Another nonsense online apology. You state that your "apology" is "sincere" but you immediately gaslight Stone by insisting you have no idea what you are apologizing for. This is a way to deny Stone any agency in his own judgment of the matter and to try to pretend that he can have no rational basis for his opinion (even while you are "sincerely apologizing"). Why would you apologize to anyone unless you are admitting your own error in the matter?

First off, a sincere apology is one that is heartfelt, in which the wrongdoer has understood and confessed that they trampled on someone else's opinions and feelings and that they are resolved never to do that same thing again. Otherwise, apologies are simply empty meaningless words that are only used by psychopaths to manipulate others to do their will or accept their opinions or to persuade someone that their opinion is not a simple matter of right or wrong based on facts but is just one of many possible opinions on a matter that reasonable people might differ on.

So spare us all these self-serving, calculating and manipulative "sincere apologies".

No, you were clear enough. Gatlin was merely "apologizing" strategically as a way to continue to try to advance his own argument that you are profoundly wrong (but you have every right to be wrong in a way so mysterious that Gatlin cannot possibly even comprehend that you might hold a reasonable fact-based opinion).

Gatlin is gaslighting you with his manipulative so-called "apology". If he isn't wrong about the matter, why should he apologize at all? Why should you accept this condescending "apology" if Gatlin continues to say he doesn't understand why he is "apologizing"?

This business of "I don't know what I'm sorry for but I sincerely apologize for everything" is never a sincere apology in any way. It is a way to placate an impulsive child or a vindictive hysterical woman or a senile person.

Gatlin is humoring you, probing for weakness. That's all his "apology" means. It's the sort of thing a con man makes their living from.

Gatlin is gaslighting you with his manipulative so-called "apology".
I had to look that up - very apt description of Gatlin's tactics.

Look up the “Columbo Method” … Never mind, just read this version:

The key to the Columbo Method is to remember that all you really know is that the facts are conflicting. You don’t know for sure what else might be going on. So you carefully approach the situation in an humble way pleading lack of knowledge for if you approach the situation with an accusatory tone, assuming that the person is either incorrect or lying, then they most probably will get defensive. They will then check out mentally from the conversation and you will get nowhere. When you politely use the Columbo Method, it is more likely that the person will courteously open up and you get your point across better. All the while leaving the relationship intact.

Uh, let me see now, Deckard.

Hmmm…

Where were we?

Please help me correctly understand.

I think you said that “gaslighting” is a “very apt description of Gatlin’s tactics.”

I am a very old man, and I sometimes don’t get things straight.

Did I get that right?

Well, if that be so – then I guess I need to practice on my “Columbo Method” needs more practice

Obviously … Edit: Since I am so generous this morning – I will let you in on another of my techniques. I always start my effective price negotiations with “ I am an old man on fixed income and …”

Depending on the price and profit margin involved, that usually will get me five to ten percent right from the start.

Then I move ever so slowly forward with a hesitantly speech pattern using a modified “dumb” Columbo Method and work towards twenty five percent in my favor. Or, as close as I can get. I do often time use the “walk away” knowing full well they need to sell more that I want to buy.

I Have now shared with you, two secrets this morning. I will tell you more of my secrets. But it will cost you – dearly.

Salute,
Gatlin

I'm a contractor and I hear that line I think hmm. I'll charge them a little more for trying to con me. They pay. lol.

“ I am an old man on fixed income and …”
Depending on the price and profit margin involved, that usually will get me five to ten percent right from the start.
I'm a contractor and I hear that line I think hmm. I'll charge them a little more for trying to con me. They pay. lol.

I know there is Financial Exploitation in Aging …

Salute,
Gatlin

There's a pretty ugly suggestion there that you are exploiting and preying upon your elderly customers.