What We Took Away from Wikileaks’ Vault 7

Source: TruthStreamMedia

By Melissa Dykes

Wikileaks has released the first of its highly anticipated “Vault 7″… and the documents prove that the CIA not only has an enormous arsenal of lovely hacking tools and malware at its disposal, but the agency also has a fat bag of exploits that essentially allow it to take backdoor control of smart phones, televisions, gaming systems and more and turn them into live microphones. One called “Weeping Angels” is even named after a Dr. Who villain (see episode #11 here). It makes television owners think their television is off, but it’s just a false off that allows the agency to listen to anyone within earshot.

The CIA… now in your living room any time it wants.

And now for the real takeaway of Wikileaks’ Vault 7 “Year Zero” dump… incrementally acclimating people to living in a total information awareness society where the government has access and can invade your privacy any time it wants through technology.

At this rate, we’re headed for Big Brother 1984 telescreens in no time.

CIAs role in financial markets EXPOSED by documents release

Source: Zero Hedge

The CIA is under pressure from a lot of individuals and groups that question the agency’s relevance in today’s world, even Jack Ma dropped the comment at Davos that $14 Trillion was ‘wasted’ on wars over the years.  As we explain in Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex – The CIA has been a currency manipulator and agency-employee for the banks, since inception.  Now, we have the evidence.  Due to overwhelming public pressure, the CIA released 13 Million files online which are more than 25 years old, you can search this treasure trove here:  Access CIA Crest archive by clicking here.

Bear in mind that, this is a view ‘back in time’ in an age before computers, we can only surmise based on facts and evidence how the agency is involved in FX operations today.  Notably, they were the hand twisting the Swiss arm in 2011 that led to the final destruction of the world’s only ‘real’ currency that had any value intrinsically; the Swiss Franc.  Now let’s go back to 1957 to examine our first case example:

This entire document can be seen here in PDF.  Although the operation here seems benign, the controlling of a client-state assets can be key in acheiving whatever goals set out, whether intelligence goals or economic ones.  In the case of Egypt, part of the ‘non-aligned’ movement during the post WW2 and Cold War period, in question was mostly their dealings with the Sino-Soviet Bloc, not their internal problems per se.  This is interesting as it follows a theme relevant today, that of blocking Russia’s economic success in order to gain a global advantage politically.

As explained in this groundbreaking book exposing the CIAs banking operations, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, the CIA has a simple plan to control the wealth of a nation, first sending in the ‘economists’ offering loans and various economic incentives – if that doesn’t work they send in the ‘jackals’ or CIA hitsquad and finally, when all else fails, they bomb the country into oblivion.

In this example, the CIA is ‘concerned’ that Egypt will ‘settle debts’ with ‘discounted goods’ purchased from western countries.  Sounds like a reasonable deal – but the CIA doesn’t play fair.  It’s the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ approach, it’s OK for the CIA to topple foreign leaders and seize the assets of foreign countries, but if another country does it, they are accused of ‘aggression.’  This double standard has been an old CIA trick since the days of spying and confidence tricks began.  It also was the beginning of the CIAs ‘banks not tanks’ approach to foreign policy which was used for the greater part of the last 70 years since WW2.  For example, if the CIA could control the assets of a foreign country and thus crippling them, it was akin to invading their most critical city successfully.  Although this is a no-brainer (so it seems today) in previous times such methods were not feasible to implement.  But the CIA grew and evolved in a time of modern communications leading to where we are today, in a flat world based on instant electronic communication around the world.

For a more modern example, here’s the smoking gun regarding Iraq:

A bizarre political statement by Saddam Hussein has earned Iraq a windfall of hundreds of million of euros. In October 2000 Iraq insisted on dumping the US dollar – ‘the currency of the enemy’ – for the more multilateral euro.  The changeover was announced on almost exactly the same day that the euro reached its lowest ebb, buying just $0.82, and the G7 Finance Ministers were forced to bail out the currency. On Friday the euro had reached $1.08, up 30 per cent from that time.  Almost all of Iraq’s oil exports under the United Nations oil-for-food programme have been paid in euros since 2001. Around 26 billion euros (£17.4bn) has been paid for 3.3 billion barrels of oil into an escrow account in New York.  The Iraqi account, held at BNP Paribas, has also been earning a higher rate of interest in euros than it would have in dollars.

So now that the CIA has released 13 Million files and will continue to release more every year on the Crest archive, it will provide investors, historians, authors, academics, bankers, and others the evidence they need to research and confirm what we already knew:  The CIA is an agency-employee that works for international banks first, and US Citizens second.

To get an education about how this works and more, including how to trade the FX market, checkout FC Trading Academy.  For a pocket guide to make you a FX Genius checkout Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex book.

 

Posted in CIA.

CIA Has Interfered With Over 81 Foreign Elections in the Past Century

By Nina Agrawal, Los Angeles Times

This number doesn’t include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn’t like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile.

The CIA has accused Russia of interfering in the 2016 presidential election (with absolutely zero evidence) by hacking into Democratic and Republican computer networks and selectively releasing emails.

But critics might point out the U.S. has done similar things.

The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it’s done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

cia-has-interfered-with-over-81-foreign-elections-in-the-past-century

That number doesn’t include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn’t like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring.

Levin defines intervention as “a costly act which is designed to determine the election results [in favor of] one of the two sides.”

These acts, carried out in secret two-thirds of the time, include funding the election campaigns of specific parties, disseminating misinformation or propaganda, training locals of only one side in various campaigning or get-out-the-vote techniques, helping one side design their campaign materials, making public pronouncements or threats in favor of or against a candidate, and providing or withdrawing foreign aid.

In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of “partisan electoral interventions” to be only about a 3% increase in vote share.

The U.S. hasn’t been the only one trying to interfere in other countries’ elections, according to Levin’s data.

Russia attempted to sway 36 foreign elections from the end of World War II to the turn of the century – meaning that, in total, at least one of the two great powers of the 20th century intervened in about 1 of every 9 competitive, national-level executive elections in that time period.

Italy’s 1948 general election is an early example of a race where U.S. actions probably influenced the outcome.

“We threw everything, including the kitchen sink” at helping the Christian Democrats beat the Communists in Italy, said Levin, including covertly delivering “bags of money” to cover campaign expenses, sending experts to help run the campaign, subsidizing “pork” projects like land reclamation, and threatening publicly to end U.S. aid to Italy if the Communists were elected.

Levin said that U.S. intervention probably played an important role in preventing a Communist Party victory, not just in 1948, but in seven subsequent Italian elections.

Throughout the Cold War, U.S. involvement in foreign elections was mainly motivated by the goal of containing communism, said Thomas Carothers, a foreign policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“The U.S. didn’t want to see left-wing governments elected, and so it did engage fairly often in trying to influence elections in other countries,” Carothers said.

This approach carried over into the immediate post-Soviet period.

In the 1990 Nicaragua elections, the CIA leaked damaging information on alleged corruption by the Marxist Sandinistas to German newspapers, according to Levin.

The opposition used those reports against the Sandinista candidate, Daniel Ortega. He lost to opposition candidate Violeta Chamorro.

In Czechoslovakia that same year, the U.S. provided training and campaign funding to Vaclav Havel’s party and its Slovak affiliate as they planned for the country’s first democratic election after its transition away from communism.

“The thinking was that we wanted to make sure communism was dead and buried,” said Levin.

Even after that, the U.S. continued trying to influence elections in its favor.

In Haiti after the 1986 overthrow of dictator and U.S. ally Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, the CIA sought to support particular candidates and undermine Jean-Bertrande Aristide, a Roman Catholic priest and proponent of liberation theology.

The New York Times reported in the 1990s that the CIA had on its payroll members of the military junta that would ultimately unseat Aristide after he was democratically elected in a landslide over Marc Bazin, a former World Bank official and finance minister favored by the U.S.

The U.S. also attempted to sway Russian elections. In 1996, with the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and the Russian economy flailing, President Clinton endorsed a $10.2-billion loan from the International Monetary Fund linked to privatization, trade liberalization and other measures that would move Russia toward a capitalist economy.

Yeltsin used the loan to bolster his popular support, telling voters that only he had the reformist credentials to secure such loans,according to media reports at the time.

He used the money, in part, for social spending before the election, including payment of back wages and pensions.

In the Middle East, the U.S. has aimed to bolster candidates who could further the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

In 1996, seeking to fulfill the legacy of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the peace accords the U.S. brokered, Clinton openly supported Shimon Peres, convening a peace summit in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheik to boost his popular support and inviting him to a meeting at the White House a month before the election.

“We were persuaded that if [Likud candidate Benjamin] Netanyahu were elected, the peace process would be closed for the season,” said Aaron David Miller, who worked at the State Department at the time.

In 1999, in a more subtle effort to sway the election, top Clinton strategists, including James Carville, were sent to advise Labor candidateEhud Barak in the election against Netanyahu.

In Yugoslavia, the U.S. and NATO had long sought to cut off Serbian nationalist and Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic from the international system through economic sanctions and military action.

In 2000, the U.S. spent millions of dollars in aid for political parties, campaign costs and independent media. Funding and broadcast equipment provided to the media arms of the opposition were a decisive factor in electing opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica as Yugoslav president, according to Levin.

“If it wouldn’t have been for overt intervention… Milosevic would have been very likely to have won another term,” he said.