17 November, 2020

EHC3. Sick Europe has lost the plot & Big Picture on Defence

Has Europe lost the Plot on Defence? Are Europe’s leaders blind to the Big Picture too? They seem confused about who Europe’s defence should be aimed against.

The plot has been lost for more than half a century! That does not mean the plotting against Europe has stopped. Europe has been under constant deadly attack since the European Community began.

Realistic Defence ‘against external threats’ is not only about classical bullets and tanks, planes and ships, but about preserving western civilisation in the long term– over a span of a century or more to come.

Europeans have failed to see the big picture — which is prerequisite to understanding what the plot is for defence.

Brexit in Defence

The potential rupture of UK and Continental European defence efforts, brought about by Brexit, is just one tear in the larger canvas.

Who gains if UK and EU do not patch things up?

Europe is presently war-wounded and in the sick bed. It is overspending trillions of Euros that will affect its future for a generation or more.

We are presently suffering from the devastation of the Covid-19 plague. The economy has crashed. Major social changes, never considered possible before, have suddenly taken place.

Small firms and workers have lost their livelihood, with often zero chance of regaining a life’s work.

Society has been turned upside down. Some say ‘normal’ will never return.

Families are separated. Old people are isolated. Then, through politicians blind care for national health systems, the same senior citizens are infected in ‘care homes’. The old take by far the biggest death toll.

Normal hospitals, recreation centers, public meetings and churches are closed. What happened to the freedoms that people fought world wars to defend?

Fierce family arguments rage among those that feel the government rules must be adhered to and others who say they are logically incoherent. The rupture of bonds and trust in government may have irreversible consequences for our future.

 

War on Western Society

Disease is war in the human body. It can also be war on society. What have the EU and UK defence agencies done to prevent this disruption, both foreseeing it and presenting policy? The EU has not even tackled properly the security aspects of disease and the cartels in the pharmaceutical industries.

Germs are considered to be the ultimate weapon. But in this case Covid is not a major plague and the death rate is no more than a bad winter. Its effects have, however, been massive.

The Wuhan virus acts as a torpedo of economic destruction bringing with it a wave of seemingly deliberately orchestrated panic and fear. Why is panic out of all proportion to the problem?

To date China, with 1.4 billion people, recorded just 4634 deaths.

Other countries less. Why?

 

Chinese Unrestricted Warfare

Who gains from such devastation of the West? Certainly those who see warfare as multifaceted and a long-term clash for global dominance – a doctrine the Chinese military call ‘Unrestricted Warfare’.

Civilisations like the Chinese think in terms of a centuries-long struggle for mastery of the planet. The ideology predates Mao. They have flexible, opportunistic strategies that use all means to gain it.

The Chinese have moved away from the communist pipe-dreams of Marx, Lenin and Stalin. They are fired up by a new syncretic version that sees world submission to the Middle Kingdom or rather Middle Republic ruled by the dictators of the proletariat.

 

Godless Communism

Soviet communism left the West in an effete state. The West won the arms race but its youth had absorbed Marxism’s poison of materialism. Dialectical materialism was the reason the USSR failed. It is the reason materialistic China will fail. Any society based on materialism will fail.

It was proved false in the Cold War. Why? Because it denies the spiritual world which is the basis for values like freedom of assembly and debate, human rights and sound belief based on the Creator of the physical universe, its mathematical basis and the Originator of all law and moral order. Denial of the moral order brings an inevitable reaction as much as it does in physics.

The Magna Carta and the US Constitution, the European Community, which has brought Europe its longest peace, were not inspired by materialism but directly from our common spiritual heritage.

Atheistic Defeat

The Soviet bloc was shown to be dialectically derelict by Protestants in East Germany, Catholics in Poland and Hungary, and Orthodox and Jews in USSR. The Nazis and the Fascists of Italy suffered the same opposition and the same fate.

Given the lessons of the last century, the West should hopefully begin to understand that it must defend itself against ideologies that have existed for millennia and seek global dominance.

That must include religious ideologies that deny the obvious truths and values of the West. False religious doctrines can be as devastating as false political doctrines.

 

Blackmail of Infidels

Half a century ago the West, especially Europe, suffered devastation as severe as a major war. Its huge global currency reserves were snatched away. Europe was reduced to poverty levels and debt.

The cause? A global cartel applying ideology to change western foreign policy. In this case it was religious. After the failure of Egypt, Syria and its allies to annihilate Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Islamic oil exporters (AOPEC) placed a total oil embargo on the West. That was the equivalent of a declaration of war.

Why? The European States weren’t involved in any fighting. The Arab States wanted to overturn any pro-Israel policy of the Europeans.

When this jihad stumbled they introduced a four-fold increase of the price of oil. They later quadrupled the price again in 1979.

Europe’s factories closed down.

Motor vehicles ran by horse power not petrol power.

 

Petrodollar Boom and Bust

Has Europe today really recovered from this? Certainly the City of London has taken advantage of the flood of recycled petrodollars picked from millions of European pockets, but for the west it debased and diluted the currencies. It has only resulted in turning the currency into a moth-ridden inflationary rag of what was once solid money.

A dot.com economy based on dot.com imaginary money and bloated stock market graphs will find itself part of a Great Reset.

That monetary illusion makes the west vulnerable to other dangers. Global finance cartels could turn the population into poor slaves. In history it is a well-known technique.

What is the solution? Is it just to make sure that UK and EU retain common defence structures of the EU?

That would hardly be adequate to deal with any of the above assaults on western civilisation.

What is required is an up-to-date Community approach to defence that brings together all democratic interests of all society.

Today foreign and global forces can attack critical aspects of society by using modern means of communications. Defence is no longer just Atomic weapons, hypersonic rockets and airplanes. It is also about money, raw materials, religion, chemicals and disease. It is about space wars and the use of the Moon.

 

Strong Plan

The European Defence Community of the 1950s was agreed in all parliaments except the French (then dominated by Gaullists and Communists). It was foreseen to work in coordination with the Council of Europe and the safeguards of its Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

That organic link was broken.

How?

Much of the democratic vision that the Community structure offered was attenuated in the Gaullist and nationalist 1960s and 1970s. De Gaulle turned out to be a dupe or a eighteenth century nationalist dreamer.

French Prime Minister Robert Schuman, in contrast, had taken a quite different and highly innovative step to end Europe’s incessant wars and provide a strong common defence.

He said in 1948 that the Community must be based on strong, democratic States that sought the means to end wars between themselves.

He had initiated both the Council of Europe and the Community system with the idea that they should work hand in glove.

Nato was the expansion of the initiative he took in creating the Brussels Treaty Organisation for Continental defence.

He was co-author of the Washington Treaty, in particular article 5.

 

 

USSR won this war

The disinformation battle was won by the Soviet Union.

Eurocommunists, like Altiero Spinelli, sold gullible politicians a fake bill of goods called a federal Europe. It would only be successful, they said, if European political parties abandoned the democratic Community structure and put the Council of Europe and its human rights in the dustbin. What he did not say was written in his earlier wartime manifesto. He wrote that his goal was to ’emancipate the working class’ and abolish private property.

The ‘federalists’ had no idea what institutions to put in place. The only process they knew was ‘dialectical materialism’ and an end to the rich plutocrat classes whoever they were. The self-selecting theorists would be the new ruling class. This federalist fake, starting with the 1986 Single European Act, set back Europe for decades.

The Community system was replaced by the undemocratic EU, run by the closed-door European Council and the secretive Coreper. The powerful EuroGroup, a committee not mentioned in the treaties as an institution, controls the money and hence the lives of many Europeans.

From a defence point of view this is flashing red lights. Lack of real democracy makes Europe vulnerable to outside trouble-makers as well as insidious insiders.

Protecting Democracy

How does that contrast with a democratic Community system?

The European Coal and Steel Community of 1950 provided Europe’s first agency to break international cartels in armaments and other sectors. Coal, steel, arms and banking cartels forced an arms race on indolent governments. That led to World Wars 1 and II. An industrial cartel with major international links to US and other capitalists paid for Hitler.

The later European Atomic Energy Community, Euratom, prevented the outbreak of atomic war amongst its member States.

The European Economic Community / Customs Union provided the means to prevent trade wars among member States and protect all against external threats.

 

The Big Picture

Today we need to regain the big picture.

There is no reason to limit western defence to the present Member States of the EU. The projected European Health Community of 1952 was open to all European States from Turkey to Iceland.

It would have been invaluable in fighting Covid.

Today, Europe’s democratic structure is not fit to provide the debating and deciding mechanism for warfare that might attack on all sides. For example in the UK major parliamentary reform was necessary before the Chinese virus struck. Brexit was the result, not democratic reform of the EU.

For defence strategy and management that indistinct parliamentary voice was stifled by the pandemic. Parliaments and ‘democracy’ became virtual. The press was suppressed.

Democracy defends itself

The needed democratic structure should allow the voices of all people to be heard. They are the ones who can detect early warning signs. Industrialists, trade-unionists and consumers can provide much expert analysis of the threats to Europe. A democratic Europe is its best defence.

The rickety structures of today, shaken by pandemics from China, energy embargoes and extortion from ideological foes, materialism, neo-Marxist propaganda, and arms cartels will not make Europeans feel safe and secure at home.

A return to first principles is urgent.

 

07 November, 2020

CNN does NOT call who won the US elections

Fraud to watch for in the American Elections!

A number of major TV companies have called the US elections as a victory for Joe Biden. However something smells foul. These companies are the media of the Washington Swamp that President Donald Trump has called Fake News. He has told them why in no uncertain terms. They are not his friends.

Other media do not support this conclusion. They are the independent. The cartel operations like Google, Facebook and Twitter have tried to censor or block them completely.

Why? They point to the frauds that have taken place — which the main stream media have failed for some reason to investigate. Nor have these Big Tech cartel companies investigated in the last three weeks of the election the ‘Biden Laptop from Hell‘ and other ‘Biden crime family’ scandals. Real journalists have exposed their vast, multibillion dollar crime, corruption, drugs, pornography and worse in the USA and around the world.

Citizens should also remind the hysterical main stream media that the media is not the institution that decides.

In June President Trump said there were millions of fake ballot papers being printed that would compromise the results in November.

Does anyone seriously think that Donald Trump did nothing about it? When he was annoyed about a member of his White House staff leaking information to the press, he passed wrong info to some suspects. When it appeared in the NYT etc, he knew who the leaker was. The guilty got the boot.

What has happened on 3 November and later?

1. Unusual voting trends

Graphs give the total number of votes as that accumulate over the day. It rises in a curve until the end of the day.
When you add votes from constituencies there is no way that all the votes are without exception for one candidate. This happened.

2. Here are two examples

3. Tammany Hall
The most important person is not the counter but the person who controls the counting. In 1870s New York 'Boss' Tweed ran one of the most corrupt political setups that made him a rich man, as well as his party pals, the 'Tweed Ring'.

4. Blockchain coding
What did Trump do about the fake bulletins he knew about in June? The most logical thing to do would be to place a secret blockchain code or watermark on authentic paper. Ballots have several layers of coding on them apparently and I would suppose at least one that is not known to the political parties involved. That way in a recount with the right equipment or in Court the real votes can be separated from the fake. The origin of the fakes would also point to the guilty and they could be pointed to the nearest gaol.

What would happen to ballots that have been destroyed, buried and confiscated? A serial system of coding would reveal any ballots that were missing. Any other ideas?

5. Outcome.

We are likely to see some interesting Court cases and Hearings in Congress. Will the main stream media give it full billing?

  

11 August, 2020

EU must act! How Google fiddles with your search results and mine!

Are you being manipulated by Google? Are they playing tricks on you so you become their commercial and political puppet? How can you tell?
One analyst found that:
‘Google maintains nine different blacklists to suppress information worldwide. We are all aware that Google deletes or blocks access to videos on YouTube, which it owns, but few people are aware that Google blocks access to millions of websites. On January 31, 2009, Google blocked access to virtually the entire internet for 40 minutes.’
You can test whether Google and Twitter are impartial. Here’s how using a simple technique below.

Global manipulation (c) Bron


Question: When you make a search, does Google really show which articles most accurately reflect the search question? Or do some human manipulators fiddle the results?
Remember that Google and Twitter have every motive to cheat. They sell advertising. They want you to buy things.
For example the Pharmaceutical sector spends hundreds and millions of dollars lobbying the US Congress. They oppose efforts to reduce prices. Critics of their products, pills and vaccines get stifled. What are you prevented from learning about the ‘Covid-19 pandemic‘? President Trump says that Big Pharma are ‘getting away with murder‘. How do they use Google to their advantage?
And Google may want you to vote for certain parties, and discourage others. Political parties get huge contributions from industries, trade unions and NGOs. All are active on the Net. Does Google load the dice so the results you get are altered in their favour of parties?
Worse, the big Info Tech companies sell your personal data — they know your intimate secrets. They can often predict what you can do — sometimes more than you can.
That means you are manipulated.
Public frauded
Google, compared to other search engines, does not give the public what is the true result. In the run-up to the US elections, conservatives complain of a bias.
You want impartial searches? Don’t go to Google. In the run-up to the US elections in November, search for these supporters online and you will often find the results are biased in favour of critics rather than the original source.
The result? The main Info-Tech companies make citizens who want to read the original source feel like they are someone with a minority viewpoint.
Is this a gripe or a fact? A senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Psychology and Technology studied the phenomenon in detail. Dr Robert Epstein testified to the US Senate Judiciary Committee. Here’s what he said:
In 2016, biased search results generated by Google’s search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported). I know this because I preserved more than 13,000 election-related searches conducted by a diverse group of Americans on Google, Bing, and Yahoo in the weeks leading up to the election, and Google search results – which dominate search in the U.S. and worldwide – were significantly biased in favor of Secretary Clinton in all 10 positions on the first page of search results in both blue states and red states.
Dr Epstein says that this Search Engine Manipulation Effect of the Google algorithm is used not only in USA but in other countries as well to manipulate elections.
Both the US and EU authorities should ask Dr Epstein for access to his database of searches over the last four years. They will show the dirty underworkings of western politics. If they are made public then all citizens can judge for themselves.
Dr Epstein outlined the results of his investigation:
I know the number of votes that shifted because I have conducted dozens of controlled experiments in the U.S. and other countries that measure precisely how opinions and votes shift when search results favor one candidate, cause, or company. I call this shift “SEME” – the Search Engine Manipulation Effect. My first scientific paper on SEME was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in 2015 (https://is.gd/p0li8V) (Epstein & Robertson, 2015a) and has since been accessed or downloaded from PNAS’s website more than 200,000 times. SEME has also been replicated by a research team at one of the Max Planck Institutes in Germany.
Dr Epstein calls this manipulation one of the most powerful means to control subliminally the democratic essentials of society.
SEME is one of the most powerful forms of influence ever discovered in the behavioral sciences, and it is especially dangerous because it is invisible to people – “subliminal,” in effect. It leaves people thinking they have made up their own minds, which is very much an illusion. It also leaves no paper trail for authorities to trace. Worse still, the very few people who can detect bias in search results shift even farther in the direction of the bias, so merely being able to see the bias doesn’t protect you from it. Bottom line: biased search results can easily produce shifts in the opinions and voting preference of undecided voters by 20 percent or more – up to 80 percent in some demographic groups.

Democracy is at stake. The EU needs to act immediately. This type of manipulation is an entirely different and more dangerous dimension from the present line of EU investigation at StratCom, disinformation and advertising.
Robert Schuman and the co-signatories of the European Community system provided a system where impartial information could be presented to the public for use in their decision-making. This requires that the Consultative Committees be elected on a Europe-wide scale by European associations representing all elements of organised civil society. Whether in the European Coal and Steel Community or the European Health Community access to valid information was to be guaranteed by the Human Rights Convention of the Council of Europe.
In the Gaullist period into the 1960s the Council blocked this. Access to impartial information was feared both by ultra-nationalists and euroCommunist federalists like Spinelli, who knew it would destroy their malign ideology.
It is now more urgent than ever that European peoples and its leaders implement this measure.


Human intervention
We are a pawn in the Google version of Big Brother — unless we take precautions. That trap includes not only a biased algorithm. It includes some human being fiddling with the results for partisan purpose.
The Info Tech giants are making a financial, economic or political gain out of this.
The Info Tech giants are already the biggest companies in the world with combined $5 Trillion turnover. They are not manipulating the results for small time users. Their main customers are global giants too.
The results may be fiddled to provide an ideological bias so the public will eventually be ‘educated’ according to the manipulator.
Arabs, Jews, Oil, Russians, EU, Blackmail
How would Google and Twitter react to an article covering all the above terms, all somewhat controversial to some sections of the public? On 6 July I published an article dealing with disinformation, Fake News, covering these topics.

Palestine-Israel: Now the Blackmail is over, can Europe bring a Schuman Plan for Peace?


I also tweeted about the topic and left a link at eurdemocracy.com
On the morning after I checked public reaction by asking Google for search results of the article. On Google I used a three word search <> the most prominent in the title of the article.
Google put my article in first position on the first page on the morning after. But when I checked that evening it was nowhere to be seen on the first six pages. It had disappeared from sight! What I got was a long list of articles about how Israel is blackmailing Palestinians!
The search result was the same with or without the hyphen. Zero links.

The Alternatives search engines
I checked:
Duckduckgo,com.
It came up first on the first page. (even with the hyphen)
Bing.com
It came first on first page (with the hyphen)

Dogpile.com (which uses Google and other search engines) With the hyphen there was not even a reply. I dropped the hyphen and it came up first on first page.
Yahoo search. It said nothing of this description available please check your spelling etc. So I dropped the hyphen and the article came up on first page second article.

Google’s political dealings
Google and Yahoo both use human modified search engines algorithms to give a particular bias. This seems to involve exclusions as well as skewed results. The Google COE billionaire Eric Schmidt contributed to and worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign. He was a frequent visitor to the Obama White House and known as ‘Obama’s chief corporate ally.‘ Google and associates had at least 427 meetings‘ with the Obama White House.
Schmidt resigned from Google in 2017 when Mrs Clinton did not get elected. That failure happened in spite of what the Epstein study of search engine manipulation concluded that Google skewed search results delivering around 2.6 million extra votes among ‘undecideds’ in the Clinton Democrat direction at the election. Dr Epstein testified that to Congress and he said he was a Democrat voter.

Continuing Google Saga
At this time by the next Friday my article was confirmed on Bing and other search engines as still top of their first pages with the 3 terms.
On Google its was nowhere to be seen.
On Saturday evening 11 July, I found that my article was still rated 1st or second on the main search engines. Then, surprise surprise, I found my article suddenly appeared first on page one of Google search.
Does the weekend imply change of staff supervisors at Google?
But by Sunday it had disappeared from Google‘s first 7 pages. How do they explain this on-off censorship of what is supposedly an impartial search engine?
I was then running second on Duckduckgo and Yahoo and first on Bing.
Nothing on Google except pages about how Israel blackmails the PLO /Palestinians.

Twitter block
When I first published my post, I also sent out a Tweet. But when I checked the link to eurdomocracy.com it did not work. So I had to change the link to another site at blogactiv.eu .
I asked my online hosting service why, when I included a link to eurdemocracy.com in a Twitter message, it did not work. It was refused. I had to delete the tweet and use the blogactiv.eu backup copy of the article as the link source.
The help desk suggested it was the usual censorship by the hi tech industry.
Here’s what they wrote:
Thank you for contacting our support department. When I insert ‘eurdemocracy.com‘ in a browser, it does redirect to destination url
https://eurdemocracy.blogspot.com/ every time, so I am not able to replicate any issues with the redirect itself.
However, this isn’t to say that private platforms such as Facebook can decide to block any website they wish to, in which there are many examples of them doing so, as well as updating their terms of service several times over the years without warning. We are not sure why Facebook would block a redirect, but they use so many unknown factors on what they allow, that we don’t have any way to know exactly what the issue is.
Solution to cartel Information control
The public deserves a better service. After all, it is the public not the big cartel companies that is paying for the service.
Dr Epstein provides one solution against information cartel control:
The solution to The Google Problem is to declare Google’s massive search index – the database the company uses to generate search results – to be a public commons, accessible by all, just as a 1956 consent decree forced AT&T to share all its patents. There is precedent in both law and in Google’s own business practices to justify taking this step.
He says that declaring Google’s index a commons will quickly give to real competition in the information market place and the means to understand what is manipulated and what is not.
A key aspect of Schuman’s design was to provide Europe with a democratic defence of the powerless against the powerful. The Community was provided with anti-cartel machinery. It should use them on the most vital sectors against Info Tech control of information.


24 July, 2020

RUSSIA: How Spies deceive other Spies and You!

The UK is about to change the main focus of its intelligence surveillance operations.
Russia.
Was Russia involved in the Brexit referendum? Did it influence the Scottish independence referendum?
How can governments know where the main threat is? Intelligence is about deception. The agencies are not only in the business of collecting information on others, foes and friends, but of deceiving enemies.
Sometimes they are so good at deception that they fool themselves. And the Public is at the end of the whole business. It gets deception information from all sides.
So should we be surprised if governments feel the main threat comes from a smaller State while ignoring a powerful foe with a population of 1.3 billion and an economy second only to America’s? And significantly Communist countries set a premium on propaganda to subvert and undermine those they consider their strongest enemies.
So shouldn’t we be a little leery of pat answers based on old prejudices?
Science not Prejudice
Who is in charge of the Intelligence agencies? It is the public in the shape of bureaucrats and politicians. If politicians cannot always be trusted, can the top spies they place in position to run the intelligence services always be trusted? Are they always honest? Politicians come and go. bureaucrats remain. If they are not honest, what can be done?
Thus Democracies often end up being run by deceived politicians trying to control the deceiving machines of the spy community.
Take the case of the recent report on Russia by the UK Parliament Intelligence and Security Committee. This has hit the headlines because Prime Minister Boris Johnson delayed the publication till after the election that brought him a large majority of seats in Parliament (although a minority of popular votes.)
The politicians enquiry was conducted in the years of Prime Minister May and draws on interviews of the time and published material dating even further back.
Much information has come out since then that throws the evidence into a critical light.
The Concluding Decision.
The report has led politicians to the conclusion that the intelligence services underestimated the role of Russia in the two referendums. They say that the services did not take the danger seriously. They did not investigate thoroughly or properly.
So what must be done? In the future Russia must be analysed with more care and more money.
Is this the correct conclusion? Let us turn to the key paragraphs that leads the parliamentary rapporteurs to come to this decision.
The main sources of Russian propaganda are:
  • Broadcaster RT and Sputnik,
  • Trolls and bots on the internet,
  • Hack and Leak of important documents, as exampled in the US elections,
  • Real life interference such as giving bank loans to the French National Front party.
If this is the evidence then it is pretty thin except for one point.
  • In a footnote the Report admits that only 1300 people on average watch the Russian broadcaster, RT. Hardly enough to swing a referendum of 46 million voters.
  • Trolls and bots might increase FaceBook traffic etc but what influence do these have?
  • Did the Russians actually turn the US elections to their favour by getting the American public to vote for Donald Trump? His opponent, Hillary Clinton and her husband, seemed to have intimate relations with the Russian government.
  • As for one Russian bank making a loan to a French nationalist party, it was refused loans from all Western banks. What was it to do? What loans do other parties get from foreign-owned banks or foreign millionaires such as the oil-States?
One could contrast this with China’s success in its Unrestricted Warfare policy:
  • taking over British Steel Ltd (after massive Chinese steel dumping destroyed the viability of EU’s steel sector).
  • taking over a major sector of the UK nuclear power industry as constructors.
  • implementing of Chinese Huawei connectors into the UK communications networks. This has made the new 5G upgrade seem inevitable. But this could lay the whole network susceptible to infiltration. What better potential for spying?
Thus the Chinese have a grip on UK construction and defence materials, the energy sector and communications. How can a State build battleships and canons if the steel is controlled by foreigners? How can you compete if the lights go out? Who needs spies on the ground when you can tap into their communications?
Russian hack is ‘evidence-free’
This UK conclusion also contrast with a group of US intelligence veterans who say that when certain politicians claim a Russian hack changed the US election results, it is 'evidence-free'.
So what is the key triumph of the Russians that shows their guilt and proves they are the main foe of the West? Surely having swung the US elections in favour Donald Trump. But did they? What is the evidence?
The UK report says:
42. It was only when Russia completed a ‘hack and leak’ operation against the Democratic National Committee in the US – with the stolen emails being made public a month after the EU referendum – that it appears that the Government belatedly realised the level of threat which Russia could pose in this area, given that the risk thresholds in the Kremlin had clearly shifted, describing the US ‘hack and leak’ as a “game changer”, and admitting that “prior to what we saw in the States, [Russian interference] wasn’t generally understood as a big threat to [electoral] processes”.
43. It appears that the Intelligence Community did learn lessons from the US experience, and HMG recognised the Russian threat to the UK’s democratic processes and political discourse.
Let’s examine the ‘Game Changer‘ as it is the main ground for the report’s conclusion. The report admits here that this was an allegation in a far different league than bank loans, trolls or propaganda TV with no audiences.


FBI hierarchy fired under Trump

It was clear from the US election campaign and later events of 2017 involving the US intelligence service that corruption ran deep in the State system. Three and a half years on, we find that almost the entire intelligence superstructure has been fired.
Spying on the President
A notable exception was Admiral Rogers head of the NSA, the National Surveillance Agency. On 17 November 2016, he revealed to President-elect Trump that his staff’s communications were under illegal surveillance by both the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) and the FBI (the Federal Bureau of Investigation). This is not only highly illegal but treasonous as it undermined the newly elected president.
So who is in the right, the top FBI agents or the president? The FBI mandate is to investigate US-based criminal personalities. The CIA is the external agency for intelligence. But the CIA works with friendly intelligence agencies such as the British and Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand services in the Five Eyes collaboration. These other agencies can, if the CIA requests it, tap into US citizens in the USA. Hence the CIA has track on whomsoever it wishes.
Corruption and Big Money
Where does the corruption come in? Money and power. The US spends as much on Defence and intelligence as most of the rest of the world combined. A candidate who promises to clean up the Swamp is suspect and to be eliminated.
An early manifestation of the efforts of the intelligence community to oust President Trump was the ‘Dirty Dossier‘. This, according to FBI chief Comey, alleged that Trump had been caught with prostitutes and framed by the Russians when in Moscow.
This utterly untenable tale was soon proved false. Who had fabricated this fraudulent file? Who paid for it and spread it abroad?
It was a former British spy now open for hire as an independent adviser. His name: Christopher Steele. He was found to be paid by the lawyers who worked for the Democrat National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton.
Steele’s rewriting of unsubstantiated material in the dossier were so outrageous that even the supposed subsource of the information is suing him for deformation. Steele’s defence: The material should not have been divulged as it was secret.
What else do we know about Steele? He was known as virulently anti-Trump. And he is one of the contributors to the UK Parliament’s report on Russia! Mr Christopher Steele, director of Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, is listed as one of the five ‘external expert witnesses.’
In the US his Dirty Dossier was mischievously introduced as grounds, countersigned by FBI chiefs, to further surveille president Trump and his colleagues. Hundreds of documents have now been released showing how this fake document was used time after time in the FISA court to sustain a criminal and treasonous activity against the president. (FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that requires a court to agree to any surveillance.)
The intelligence chiefs knew the key dossier was fraudulent!
It was also used to initiate the Mueller enquiry. Over several years of investigation and multiple millions of dollars, it could not find any case for Trump being involved in illegal activity with the Russians. Some 2800 subpoenas were issued by Mueller, 500 witnesses called and 500 search warrants were executed.
The Democrats then turned to an attempted impeachment based on supposed mishandling of anti-corruption matters in Ukraine. That too failed. Why the Ukraine? A cover-up is the most obvious motive as Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden has now been declared to be a criminal suspect in what the Ukrainian president Zelensky declared may involve treason there.
So what about the key factor in the UK parliamentary report that is the real ‘game changer‘ for intelligence work to refocus on Russia? The allegation is that Russian hackers were able to penetrate the computers at the DNC and download files of Democrat leaders. These Russian hackers then allegedly passed them on to WikiLeaks who published them.
WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange denied the information came from a State actor, that is, Russia. He hinted broadly that he received the data from a disillusioned Bernie Sanders supporter and DNC employee. He was later assassinated in unusual circumstances.
UK report’s main evidence
This ‘cyber hacking‘ is the key to how UK may spend its intelligence budget, so what have later investigations shown?

William Binney

One man should know. That is Wlliam Binney the former technical director at the NSA, the top surveillance agency in the world. He broke with NSA as a whistleblower, because it was taking and storing all data of Americans contrary to its statute. This is the spy-on-everyone, Stasi version of intelligence. Besides his career, his integrity cost him dear.
He examined the metadata of the supposed downloaded files. It was not hacked, he concluded. It was downloaded locally. The internet would not support the speed stamps that the data recorded. The files could not have been downloaded and transmitted over the internet, and certainly not across the Atlantic. The speed of the download was so fast it could only have been accomplished by attaching a drive into the DNC computer itself. It was an inside job.
This view was confirmed by a group of former Intelligence community experts who wrote a memo to President Donald Trump, emphasizing that the data was taken locally.
They wrote:
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?
Executive Summary
Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer. After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device.
Something smelt foul. The intelligence community in charge refused to make any scientific evidence to back up their political assertions. They said that no evidence had been adduced that Russians were involved. Any attempt to analyse the evidence was resisted!
Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.

They concluded:
From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:
-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and
-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”
The second leak by ‘Guccifer 2.0’ was alleged to be a Russian or he may have been dressed up to be one using the CIA tool box. CIA Director Brennon was sacked by President Trump and his security clearance removed.
Thus it is highly unlikely that any Russians were involved at all. The FBI management refused to make a direct investigation of the DNC computers. They were never confiscated and examined by forensically. Instead, they contented themselves to have a contracted company, Crowdstrike, who worked for the DNC issue a report that was never finalised.
Secretary of State Pompeo has discussed this conclusion with Binney, as far back as 24 October 2017 when Pompeo was the new CIA Director. Is the UK parliamentary committee on Intelligence not familiar with this? Is the EU?
Given the importance of the issue it is appalling that the key ‘game changer’ issue has not been properly investigated in open Court.
The European Commission seems also to hold to the, as yet uncertain and probably untenable, idea that Russians cyber-hacked the DNC computer across the Atlantic internet. On June 2019 the Security Union Commissioner Julian King still repeated the Russian hack story as if it were a fact.
Are the UK, the EU and millions in the USA and across the world being fooled by what is easily testable Fake News?