Category Archives: Political Plots

A Virus…that Hacks the Human Mind?

Posted on by

Last year, Craig Venter created a form of artificial life, which he called “Synthia.” Now, the field of Synthetic Biology is racing ahead and experts are beginning to wonder what sort of hell this new science might unleash upon the world. Are scientists close to developing a virus that can hack the human mind? In other words, will mind-reading soon be a reality?

Is Mind-Reading a Reality?

The short answer is “No.” Mind-jacking and mind-reading have no basis in reality…at least for the moment. The longer answer is more complicated. Scientists believe that our expertise in the field of genetic engineering is “out-accelerating natural evolution by a factor of millions of years.” And since the human brain is similar in some ways to a computer, it stands to reason that a virus could be created that would allow one person to essentially hack another person’s brain. In other words, mind-reading.

“I advocate that cells are living computers and DNA is a programming language. This is one of the most powerful technologies in the world. I want to see life programmed and used to solve global challenges so that humanity can achieve a sustainable relationship within the biosphere. It’s growing fast. It will grow faster than computer technologies.” ~ Andrew Hessel, Singularity University

How long until Mind-Reading becomes a Reality?

And that day might be closer than you think. According to IBM’s “5 in 5” predictions, mind-reading will be possible within five years. This will be done by linking the human brain to electronic devices. Some early applications include gaming as well as developing a better understanding of brain disorders like autism.

“While much of the brain remains a mystery, progress has been made in understanding and reading electrical brain activity were we can use computers to see how the brain responds to facial expressions, excitement and concentration levels, and the thoughts of a person without them physically taking any actions. So the idea is to use these electrical synapses to also do everyday activities such as placing a phone call, turning on the lights or even in the healthcare space for rehabilitation.” ~ Kevin Brown, IBM Software Group’s Emerging Technologies

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

Once mind-reading becomes a reality, it’s not a far jump to mind control. Of course, there are many potential benefits to these new technologies. But the risks remain profound. Will we someday be uploading the equivalent of security software to our brains to protect them from attack? Only time will tell…

President Obama’s War on Civil Rights

Posted on by

For civil libertarians, it appears that “Hope and Change” means more of the same. Last week, President Obama announced his intention to sign into law a bill that “would deny suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens seized within the nation’s borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention.”

President Obama’s War on Civil Rights?

Human Rights Watch summed it up pretty well when it stated that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.” Not surprisingly, the only presidential candidate who’s voiced disagreement is Ron Paul, who recently pointed out that the bill is “literally legalizing martial law.” Here’s Glenn Greenwald for more on this sinister development:

In one of the least surprising developments imaginable, President Obama – after spending months threatening to veto the Levin/McCain detention bill – yesterday announced that he would instead sign it into law (this is the same individual, of course, who unequivocally vowed when seeking the Democratic nomination to support a filibuster of “any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom[s],” only to turn around – once he had the nomination secure — and not only vote against such a filibuster, but to vote in favor of the underlying bill itself, so this is perfectly consistent with his past conduct). As a result, the final version of the Levin/McCain bill will be enshrined as law this week as part of the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I wrote about the primary provisions and implications of this bill last week, and won’t repeat those points here.

The ACLU said last night that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.” Human Rights Watch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”

(See Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law for the rest)

The Switch in Time that Saved Nine?

Posted on by

In 1937, President Roosevelt proposed his notorious “court-packing plan.” It altered the ideological composition of the Supreme Court and singlehandedly changed the course of a nation. What was “the switch in time that saved nine?”

The Four Horsemen vs. The Three Musketeers?

During the 1930s, the Supreme Court contained two voting blocs. The “Four Horsemen,” which consisted of Justices Pierce Butler, James McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter, believed in upholding the Constitution and personal freedom. They generally opposed Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation. The Three Musketeers, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo, and Harlan Stone, supported the New Deal. Chief Justice Charles Hughes and Justice Owen Roberts acted as swing votes with Hughes often siding with the Musketeers and Roberts usually finding equal ground with the Four Horsemen.

From 1935-1937, the Four Horsemen and Justice Roberts struck down several parts of the highly unconstitutional New Deal. Roosevelt and his supporters despised the Horsemen. However, unless one of them retired, there was nothing he could do to stop them. That is, until he and his attorney general came up with the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937.

President Roosevelt’s Court Packing Plan?

This was the infamous “court packing plan.” President Roosevelt proposed that he be given the power to appoint a new justice for every sitting justice that continued to serve six months past his or her 70th birthday. The bill would’ve allowed him to add 44 federal judges as well as 6 Supreme Court justices. It encountered tremendous opposition even from Roosevelt’s supporters. The public lost faith in him and a previously supportive Congress began to question if the President was trying to create a dictatorship.

The Switch in Time that Saved Nine?

Less than two months after the Bill was announced, Justice Roberts joined the Three Musketeers and Chief Justice Hughes in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, which upheld minimum wage legislation. It was a strange vote considering the fact that Roberts had previously been on the other end of several decisions regarding the minimum wage. Since then, it has become known as “the switch in time that saved nine,” alluding to the theory that he switched sides in order to stop Roosevelt from usurping the Supreme Court’s independence.

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

Was the Switch in Time that Saved Nine deliberate? Did Justice Roberts abandon his ideology for political purposes? These questions remain a source of vigorous debate to this day. According to research conducted by Professor G. Edward White, the votes were cast a few days before the court-packing plan was announced. Others point out that Roberts wasn’t a consistent supporter of the Four Horsemen and suggest that his ideology, if indeed he had one to begin with, was actually closer to the Three Musketeers.

On the other hand, there’s some interesting circumstantial evidence to suggest that Chief Justice Hughes engineered the Switch in Time that Saved Nine. Knowing that Roosevelt planned to go after the Supreme Court, Hughes took Roberts under his wing and convinced him to abandon his principles. Also, according to Burt Solomon’s FDR v. The Constitution: The Court-Packing Fight and the Triumph of Democracy, even Roberts’ newly-found allies didn’t understand the Switch in Time that Saved Nine. Harlan Stone, one of the Three Musketeers, wrote a letter to Felix Frankfurter in which he called the Roberts’ vote, “a sad chapter in our judicial history” and referenced “explanations which do not explain.”

The Switch in Time that Saved Nine, as well as the subsequent retirement of Justice Devanter, ultimately led to the defeat of President Roosevelt’s court-packing bill. Still, it could be argued that Roosevelt won in the end as he held the office of President for another eight years, allowing him the opportunity to replace eight Justices and in essence, remake the Supreme Court in his image. But if Roosevelt won, then who lost? Some would say the American people themselves. As Judge Napolitano put it in his book The Constitution in Exile:

“Justice Owen Roberts switched ideological sides and brought a conclusive end to the Constitution as protector of natural rights, the free market, and federalism.” ~ Judge Andrew Napolitano

The Lost Amendment?

Posted on by

On December 6, 1865, America officially abolished slavery with the adoption of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, some people, known as Thirteeners, believe that this was actually the 14th Amendment. The real 13th Amendment, they argue, has been erroneously removed from existence. What is the Lost Titles of Nobility Amendment?

The Titles of Nobility Amendment?

In 1983, David Dodge and Tom Dunn were searching through public records in Maine. They came across an 1825 copy of the U.S. Constitution. To their surprise, it contained a strange 13th Amendment, which is now referred to as the Titles of Nobility Amendment. For the next few years, Dodge and Dunn searched archives across the United States. They recovered 18 documents printed between 1822 and 1860 that also included this previously unknown amendment. And slowly, a bizarre story began to unfold.

In the early 1800s, American citizens were extremely concerned about foreign involvement in their newly formed government. For example, the marriage of Jerome Bonaparte (Napoleon’s younger brother) and Betsy Patterson caused some controversy when they gave birth to a baby boy. Although Patterson was an American, she wanted her child to have a title from France. She may have even wanted a title for herself, reflected in the fact that texts at the time referred to her as the “Duchess of Baltimore.”

The idea of its citizens holding allegiance to another country didn’t sit well with the young American government. And the idea of such a person holding a U.S. political office was unthinkable. Thus, the Titles of Nobility Amendment was created in order to modify the following section of the Constitution:

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” ~ Article I, Section 9

The amendment, shown below, would’ve extended the law to all citizens. Furthermore, it would’ve increased the law’s domain, making it illegal for a citizen to receive any sort of honor or title from a foreign country without the consent of Congress.

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” ~ Titles of Nobility Amendment

Was the Titles of Nobility Amendment ever Ratified?

In order for a U.S. amendment to become law, it must receive support from two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress or be approved by a convention called by two-thirds of all states. Afterward, it must be ratified by either three-fourths of the states or by three-fourths of the convention. So, how did the Titles of Nobility Amendment do?

Pretty well, it turns out. The amendment passed both houses of Congress by large margins. Then it was presented to the states. At the time, there were 17 states so 13 votes were needed for ratification. But by that time, America was engrossed in the War of 1812 and the amendment was forgotten. When the issue was raised again by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams in 1818, he discovered that twelve separate states had voted for ratification, three had rejected it, and one had taken no action. The sole remaining state, Virginia, apparently never replied. So, how did it end up in all those copies of the Constitution? Is it possible that Virginia did ratify the bill and this oversight was corrected?

Dodge thought so. His research led him to a rather significant discovery. On March 12, 1819, Virginia’s legislature published its own official edition of the Constitution and amendments. That edition contained the mysterious Titles of Nobility Amendment.

“Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amendment, the Virginians had every right [to] announce their own and the nation’s ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special edition of the Constitution, and so they did.” ~ David Dodge

The Lost Titles of Nobility Amendment?

Wow. So, if Dodge is correct, how could the United States, in effect, lose an amendment? According to a 2010 Newsweek article on the subject, it’s not so hard to believe.

“If you find it hard to believe that an amendment to the Constitution could have been in effect for four decades and then mysteriously excised and forgotten, well, the times were different. There was no single reference copy of the Constitution to which scribes with quill pens ceremoniously added amendments as they were ratified.”

Of course, Dodge’s evidence is fairly circumstantial. And Jol A. Silversmith, who has written extensively on the subject, argues that by 1819, 13 votes wouldn’t have been enough since other states had joined the Union. A quick check shows that America had 21 states as of March 12, 1819, which means that 16 votes would’ve been required for ratification.

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

David Dodge and other proponents of the Titles of Nobility Amendment believe that a greater conspiracy is at work. They think that the amendment was deliberately excised due to the fact that it would’ve made it illegal for lawyers to hold political office since the British Bar refers to American lawyers as “Esquire.” Silversmith and others consider this crazy due to the fact that Esquire carries no special privileges and is not inheritable, among other things.

Interestingly enough, the Titles of Nobility Amendment is still technically pending since its time for ratification was never limited by the 1810 Congress. In order to pass, it would require another 26 votes although I imagine that state legislatures that had already voted on the amendment would demand a revote. In total, 38 votes would be needed in order for the bill to become law.

You may scoff at the idea of modern society passing a law that’s been in limo for over two hundred years. But there is precedence. After all, how do you think the 27th Amendment was passed?

What is the Report from Iron Mountain?

Posted on by

In 1967, Dial Press published a book called Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace. It remains one of the most controversial works of all time. Who wrote the Report from Iron Mountain? What does it say? And most importantly…is it real?

What is the Report from Iron Mountain?

The Report from Iron Mountain purports to be the findings of a 15-man Special Study Group. It hints that it was commissioned in 1963 by the Department of Defense and was produced by the Hudson Institute, which is located at the base of Iron Mountain in New York. The purpose of the supposed top-secret study was “…to determine, accurately and realistically, the nature of the problems that would confront the United States if and when a condition of ‘permanent peace’ should arrive, and to draft a program for dealing with this contingency.”

The Report from Iron Mountain states that from a historical perspective, war has been the only reliable way for a government to perpetuate itself. Fear of an enemy will cause civilians to accept government intrusion into their lives. Also, war creates loyalty for political leaders. But during times of peace, people begin to turn against taxes and intrusion.

“The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable internal political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its ‘legitimacy,’ or right to rule its society. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power. The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, by the forces of private interest, of reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements.” ~ Report from Iron Mountain

The Report from Iron Mountain sought to find a credible substitute for war and considered several ideas such as an alien invasion. However, aliens were ultimately discarded for an “environmental-pollution model.” In passages that are eerily prescient of the current global warming debate, the Report proposes that people would be willing to accept a lower standard of living, higher taxes, and increased governmental intrusion in order to “save Mother Earth.”

Was the Report from Iron Mountain Real?

As you can imagine, the Report from Iron Mountain sent giant waves rippling throughout the world back in 1967. It became a New York Times bestseller and was translated into fifteen languages. Its authenticity quickly came under question, a debate that continues to this day.

On one hand, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it’s an authentic document. In 1967, the U.S. News and World report claimed that the report was real and that it had confirmation to that effect. In 1976, John Kenneth Galbraith (under a pseudonym) wrote in the Washington Post that he had been invited to participate in the Special Study Group.

“As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions. My reservation relates only to the wisdom of releasing it to an obviously unconditioned public.” ~ John Kenneth Galbraith

On the other hand, Leonard Lewin, who wrote the original introduction to the book, came forward in 1972 and claimed to be the author. He said that it was meant to be a satire. Supposedly, he got the idea from a New York Timesarticle that discussed how a “peace scare” led to a stock-market sell-off.

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

So, who wrote the Report? In all likelihood, Lewin was indeed the author. In 1990, Liberty Lobby published its own edition, claiming that the study was in the public domain since it was a U.S. government document. Lewin sued for copyright infringement and received an undisclosed settlement.

The bigger question regards its authenticity. Most scholars consider it a hoax. Still, numerous groups continue to believe that the Report from Iron Mountain is genuine and that Lewin only called it a hoax on orders from the United States government. Others would say that whether its authentic or not misses the point. What really matters is that the ideas presented in the document are no longer just ideas…they are rapidly becoming a reality.

Why did America Really Bomb Hiroshima?

Posted on by

On August 6, 1945, the United States of America dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later, it dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki. These bombs remain the only two nuclear devices ever deployed during war and, according to many experts, decisive reasons for Japans’ subsequent surrender on August 15. But a substantial amount of experts think the Hiroshima atomic bomb and the Nagasaki atomic bomb were unnecessary and worse, were dropped for political purposes. So, who’s right?

The Chaos Book Club

Today is Day 17 of the Chaos book club. Chaos is an adventure thriller along the lines of Indiana Jones or books written by Clive Cussler, James Rollins, Douglas Preston, or Steve Berry. Thanks to those of you who’ve bought the novel already. If you haven’t already done so, please consider picking up a copy at one of the following locations:

Kindle * Nook * Kobo * iBooks * Smashwords * Paperback

The Hiroshima Atomic Bomb: The Official Story

As I mentioned above, the official story of the Hiroshima atomic bomb is that it caused Japan to surrender and thus, ended World War II. This saved hundreds of thousands of American lives since soldiers were spared from having to conduct Operation Downfall, or the planned invasion of Japan.

Problems with the Official Story

But here’s the problem with that scenario. Prior to the Hiroshima atomic bomb, President Harry Truman was aware of the fact that Japan was willing to surrender as long as Emperor Hirohito was allowed to keep his position and was not forced to stand trial for war crimes. Hirohito’s stated purpose was that he wanted to maintain discipline and order in Japan after the war was over. President Truman insisted on an unconditional surrender however, and went ahead with the bombings. But after Japan surrendered, Hirohito was allowed to keep his throne and escape prosecution. This strange sequence of events begs the question…what purpose did the Hiroshima atomic bomb serve?

Incidentally, this isn’t a new question. In fact, people started asking it almost immediately. And it wasn’t just ordinary people…it was prominent American leaders. Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, Fleet Admiral William Leahy, Brigadier General Carter Clarke, and Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz all found reason to disagree with the bombings. In a letter to President Truman, Fleet Admiral Leahy went so far as to say:

“The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons… The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” ~ Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

And this wasn’t just post-war regrets either. In his book, The Decision to Use the Bomb, Gar Alperovitz shows that practically every single American civilian and military advisor suggested that Truman accept Japan’s terms. But Truman chose to listen to the lone dissident, James Byrnes, instead. So, what was Byrnes up to? Clues can be found in discussions surrounding the 1945 Potsdam Conference.

“It was Byrnes who encouraged Truman to postpone the Potsdam Conference and his meeting with Stalin until they could know, at the conference, if the atomic bomb was successfully tested. While at the Potsdam Conference the experiments proved successful and Truman advised Stalin that a new massively destructive weapon was now available to America, which Byrnes hoped would make Stalin back off from any excessive demands or activity in the post-war period.” ~ John Denson, The Hiroshima Lie

The Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Myth & Damage Control?

So, there’s a case to be made that the Hiroshima atomic bomb was deployed to scare Russia rather than to defeat Japan. But if this is true, then why is the general public largely unaware of this today?

According to Alperovitz, the “Hiroshima myth” started shortly after Japan’s surrender. Admiral Halsey, Commander of the Third Fleet, called the bombs “a mistake.” Albert Einstein took to The New York Times to tell people that “a great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden deployment of the atom bomb.” Other military leaders started to come forward, expressing their misgivings over the decision.

James Conant, Chairman of the National Defense Research Committee, decided that it was important to convince the American public that the atomic bombs were necessary. He approached Secretary of War Henry Stimson, who wrote a long article on the subject for Harper’s magazine. This became the basis for the story that is widely-accepted today. Truman would later uphold this point of view, adding that his decision saved half a million lives.

“The most influential text is Truman’s 1955 Memoirs, which states that the atomic bomb probably saved half a million US lives— anticipated casualties in an Allied invasion of Japan planned for November. Stimson subsequently talked of saving one million US casualties, and Churchill of saving one million American and half that number of British lives.” ~ Kyoko Iriye Selden, The Atomic Bomb: Voices from Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The Hiroshima Atomic Bomb…the first shot of the Cold War?

World War II is often called “The Last Good War.” Unfortunately, at least in this case, the facts point to a different conclusion. The atomic bombs killed 90,000-166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000-80,000 in Nagasaki. Many of these people were women and children. Worse, there is reason to believe that the bombs were deployed to scare the USSR rather than for military purposes. If true, then the atomic bombs weren’t just the last shots of World War II…they were the first shots of the Cold War.

By the way, my purpose here isn’t to find fault with America. Indeed, too often citizens conflate the idea of “America the government” with “America the country.” It’s quite possible to find fault with one and not the other. In this case, I’m questioning the choice of President Harry Truman and the motives of James Byrnes.

The Hiroshima Atomic Bomb & Chaos

In my mind, the most interesting fictional villains are the ones that have a point. They may pursue evil goals and commit horrible atrocities along the way. But if you strip away everything, I think the best villains are the ones that have a legitimate gripe. Since much of the backstory for my novel Chaos takes place during World War II, it seemed only natural that the villain would draw his rage from that conflict as well. But since adventure novels are full of ex-Nazis, I wanted to go in a different direction. Thus, I created Jack Chase. His motive (SPOILER ALERT!), which you can probably guess from this post, is atomic in nature…

Chase grabbed both side of his silk shirt and yanked. It burst open, revealing a disgusting mass of scars, welts, and discoloration.

Bile rose in my throat. “What the hell happened to you?”

“August 6, 1945.” His voice took on a harsh, bitter edge. “The Enola Gay dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima. Eighty thousand civilians died instantly. Thousands more perished afterward, due to injuries and radiation fallout.”

“You were there? But that’s impossible. You told me your father was an American soldier who died while you were an infant. You said you wanted justice for him.”

“My father was an American soldier. He was also a prisoner of war. The Japanese kept him in Hiroshima, along with at least eleven others, as a deterrent to prevent American bombings. Somehow, a Geisha girl found her way into his cell. She gave birth to me. But the politicians didn’t care about any of that. The deterrent, if you will, wasn’t large enough.” ~ David Meyer, Chaos

Chaos by David MeyerBy the way, Chase’s past is based on fact. According to Barton Bernstein’s, Unraveling a Mystery: American POWs Killed at Hiroshima, at least 11 and possibly as many as 23 American POWs died in the Hiroshima blast. It’s a sad and often forgotten footnote to that awe-inspiring disaster.

Later, we see the full extent of Jack Chase’s fury as he races to unleash his sinister plan…a plan that promises to rewrite the world as we know it. If you want to know what happens, pick up a copy of Chaos at one of the links above.

That’s all for today. Tomorrow, we’re going further back in time, specifically to Manhattan circa 1869. Stop by tomorrow to explore one of New York City’s greatest secrets…I hope to see you then!

 

Chaos Book Club

Predicting “Future Crime?”

Posted on by

In the popular television show, Person of Interest, a mysterious billionaire named Mr. Finch uses a secret computer program to identify people connected to “future crimes.” While Mr. Finch uses the program to save lives, it’s easy to imagine such a thing being used for evil (see: Minority Report). Fortunately, this frightening technology doesn’t exist in real life…does it?

FAST: Future Attribute Screening Technology…or Future Crime Technology?

In 2008, news began to leak out that the Department of Homeland Security was working on a program named Project Hostile Intent (now called FAST, or Future Attribute Screening Technology). Its purpose was to detect “‘mal-intent’ by screening people for ‘psychological and physiological indicators’ in a ‘Mobile Screening Laboratory.'”

Recently, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) obtained an internal document from the Department of Homeland Security. It revealed that FAST is not just a piece of hypothetical technology. Future crime technology is real. And its being tested on real people, albeit voluntarily.

The concept behind FAST is fairly simple. Government agents will use “video images, audio recordings, cardiovascular signals, pheromones, electrodermal activity, and respiratory measurements” to examine individuals from afar. Advanced algorithms will then analyze this information. This will supposedly allow agents to “predict” future criminal behavior and give them a “head start to stop a crime or violent act in progress.”

Future Crime versus Criminal Profiling?

Technologies to predict the future seem to be all the rage in government agencies these days. The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) is developing a program to detect traitorous insiders who plan to turn on their colleagues. Meanwhile, the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency (IARPA) is working on technology to predict future global events and the “consequences of U.S. intelligence actions.”

Still, the government’s desire to predict the future isn’t new. After all, FAST is, in certain respects, just a more advanced version of the common yet controversial practice of “criminal profiling.” But while profiling usually focuses on just one or two factors, such as ethnicity or gender, FAST goes to a whole other level. It examines ethnicity, gender, age, occupation, breathing patterns, body movements, eye movements, changes in pitch, changes in speech, changes in body heat, and changes in heart rate among other things.

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

So, it would appear that the government is laying the groundwork for a system to predict crime. Fortunately, it’s only confined to employees of the Department of Homeland Security at the moment. Right?

Wrong. It turns out that FAST “has already been tested in at least one undisclosed location in the northeast.” While the nature of this location remains unknown, the DHS claims it wasn’t an airport.

EPIC is concerned about the privacy implications and believes that FAST needs to be reviewed. And it’s hard to argue with them. The privacy concerns are mind-boggling to say the least, especially since the government plans to “retain information” that it collects. In addition, the idea of being spied upon, profiled, singled out, and questioned by government agents for a crime not yet committed is disturbing to say the least. The potential for abuse is alarming and real…Very, very real.

The Student Loan Conspiracy?

Posted on by

As I write this, protestors are gathered around the United States as part of the Occupy Wall Street movement. While they appear to lack a common platform, one of their primary concerns seems to be the enormous and growing debt load incurred by many students while attending college. Why is that load so enormous in the first place? Is there a Student Loan Conspiracy at work?

What is the Student Loan Conspiracy?

In 2009, the average college graduate had student loans totaling $24,000, up 6% from 2008. For postgraduate students, this figure rises substantially. Coupled with the challenging economic environment and the difficult job market, this has created a generation of heavily indebted students with few means to pay back their loans. Political circles have erupted with discussions of a “student loan crisis.” Heck, even professors are questioning the situation.

“Thirty years ago, college was a wise, modest investment. Now, it’s a lifetime lock-in, an albatross you can’t escape.” ~ Professor Fabio Rojas, Indiana University

All of this might be forgivable if students were getting good value for their money. However, the facts say otherwise. According to Richard Arum’s and Josipa Roksa’s book Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, 45% of U.S. college students show “no significant gains in learning” after two years in college. 36% of students show no such gains after four years of college. That might be because today’s students spend “50% less time studying compared with students a few decades ago.” And the things that are learned aren’t necessarily helpful. There tends to be a gigantic mismatch between the skills acquired in college and the skills that students need and use after college.

How did we get into this situation? Why are high school graduates spending money they don’t have in order to obtain a college degree that in all likelihood, involves little to no self-improvement?

The Origins of the Student Loan Conspiracy?

The origins of the Student Loan Conspiracy can be traced back to 1944. Prior to World War II, higher education was a small, private, and rather expensive industry. Its services were of little value to most individuals and thus, were only utilized by about 10% of high school graduates. This all changed in 1944 when Congress passed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act. This Act, more commonly known as the G.I. Bill, gave educational subsidies to former veterans. More importantly, it marked the beginning of a “crony capitalism” relationship between college universities and the U.S. government.

With a precedent in place, it was only a matter of time before the U.S. government expanded its intervention in college education. In 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Higher Education Act of 1965 into law. It established several student loan and grant programs intended to make college more affordable. The increase of subsidies were a boon to the education industry and lifted enrollments. Unfortunately, this also had an unintended consequence. As subsidies increased, colleges realized they could raise tuition prices in response. And as they continued to raise prices, the government continued to increase subsidies, leading to an as-of-yet endless spiraling of education costs. As a result, since 1978, “the price of tuition at U.S. colleges has increased over 900 percent, 650 points above inflation.” Unfortunately, I was unable to find figures going back to 1965 but I imagine that the numbers would show a similar trend.

The Second Piece of the Student Loan Conspiracy Puzzle?

But that merely explains the origin of student debt in America. It doesn’t explain why so many people are willing to incur it. After all, its not like higher education is a necessity for most people.

“…the United States has become the most rigidly credentialized society in the world. A B.A. is required for jobs that by no stretch of the imagination need two years of full-time training, let alone four.” ~ James Engell & Anthony Dangerfield, Saving Higher Education in the Age of Money

This second piece of the puzzle can be traced to a 1971 Supreme Court case known as Griggs v. Duke Power. Up until that time, many companies used aptitude tests as a tool to screen potential employees. However, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Warren Burger (pictured above), changed that when it issued its opinion on Griggs.

“…in 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling (Griggs v. Duke Power) saying that if companies use aptitude testing to screen potential employees, they must be prepared to show that their tests are precisely calibrated to the needs of the job. Otherwise, they will be guilty of employment discrimination if their tests screen out minority workers who might have been able to do the work. Rather than face discrimination suits by the federal government, most employers started using a less precise but legally safe method of screening applicants—college degrees.” ~ George C. Leef, Why on Earth Do We Have a Student Loan Crisis?

So, the Supreme Court basically forced companies to stop using aptitude tests for screening purposes. However, that didn’t end the need for screening. Firms still needed a way to whittle down ever-growing pools of applicants. Thus, companies started to make the “possession of a college degree a requirement for applicants – even for jobs that could easily be learned by anyone with a decent high school education.” And just like that, the cheap, quick, and focused aptitude tests were replaced by ultra-expensive, ultra time-consuming, and ultra-unfocused college degrees.

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

In 1940, just 10% of high school graduates went to college. By 1970, that number was at 40%. And by the 1990s, it had risen to 70%. That’s because a college degree has become little more than a “signaling game.” By attending college, students “signal” to potential employers that they’re smart, hard-working, and easily trained. The ability to send that signal to employers, which was once accomplished via aptitude tests, is the sole reason that most students attend college in the first place.

The Student Loan Conspiracy isn’t a deliberate one. I don’t think any of the politicians or judges who created the current situation ever envisioned the full impact of their decisions. But unintended consequences can be harsh. The result is that many students who wish to work at regular jobs have no other choice but to waste four years of their lives at college. They end up studying subjects with little relevance to their futures and accumulating tens of thousands of dollars of debt for the privilege.

If politicians are serious about reducing student loan burdens (and this seems doubtful at best), they might consider removing themselves from the educational process. By re-legalizing aptitude tests, they can give employers a far cheaper and less time-consuming way of screening for employees. And if they remove themselves from the student loan business, colleges will be forced to slow tuition growth. Only then will the Student Loan Conspiracy finally, at long last, come to an end.

Did Hitler Fake His Death?

Posted on by

According to history books, Adolf Hitler shot and killed himself on April 30, 1945 while residing in an underground bunker in Berlin. His remains were subsequently burnt. But this story has long been questioned. Did Hitler truly die in the bunker? Or did he escape to somewhere else, unidentified and unpunished? Was there a Hitler Death Conspiracy?

The Hitler Death Conspiracy?

While most people believe the official version of Hitler’s suicide, others are unconvinced. Perhaps the most diligent and respected researcher in this area is Argentina-based journalist and historian Abel Basti. In 2010, Basti published El exilio de Hitler / Hitler’s Exile: Las pruebas de la fuga del fuhre a a la Argentina, in which he claimed that the official story was a fabrication. In fact, he believes in a Hitler Death Conspiracy.

According to an interview with Deadline-Live, Basti believes that Hitler escaped the Allies and fled across the ocean, ultimately taking up residence in Argentina.

“Hitler escaped via air from Austria to Barcelona. The last stage of his escape was in a submarine, from Vigo, heading straight to the coast of Patagonia. Finally, Hitler and Eva Braun, in a car with a chauffeur and bodyguard—a motorcade of at least three cars—drove to Bariloche (Argentina). He took refuge in a place called San Ramon, about 15 miles east of that town. It is a property of about 250,000 acres with a lake-front view of Lake Nahuel Huapi, which had been German property since the early twentieth century, when it belonged to a German firm by the name of Schamburg-Lippe.”

Evidence Supporting the Hitler Death Conspiracy?

Here is some of the evidence Basti uses to back up his various claims of a Hitler Death Conspiracy.

  • Hitler escaped to Spain?: Several eyewitnesses, including a still-living Jesuit priest “whose family members were friends of the Nazi leader,” spotted him in Spain after his supposed death. FBI documents indicate they were looking for Hitler in Spain after the end of World War II. And an “authenticated secret German document…lists Hitler as one of the passengers evacuated by plane from Austria to Barcelona on April 26, 1945.”
  • The Secret Submarine?: A British secret services document indicates that a Nazi submarine convoy left Spain around that time. It stopped in the Canary Islands before finally reaching Argentina.
  • Life in Argentina?: Hitler’s post-war life appears to be a bit of a mystery. Basti has met numerous South American eyewitnesses who say they had known Hitler. They state that the former Nazi leader shaved his head and mustache and had several meetings with other Nazi officials. Also, FBI documents show that there were claims of Hitler living in Argentina after the war.

All in all, the evidence supporting a Hitler Death Conspiracy is pretty flimsy. And yet, so is the evidence that Hitler died in the bunker. It rests on testimony provided by fellow Nazis who were fanatical devotees of Hitler. As such, its not hard to imagine they might’ve lied to help their former leader. It’s also hard to ignore the fact that major intelligence agencies believed that Hitler might’ve survived the war. The FBI conducted “an extensive 11-year probe into the possibility that Hitler faked his own death with a bogus suicide in 1945.” Soviet officials gave conflicting reports on whether or not they had found Hitler’s remains. Meanwhile, Joseph Stain, Premier of the Soviet Union, maintained a strong belief that Hitler escaped Germany, a fact which he relayed to President Truman in 1945.

As for physical evidence, the Soviet Union has long been in possession of skull fragments taken from the bunker. These have always been considered definitive proof that Hitler committed suicide via gunshot. In 2009, forensic investigators examined these fragments and determined that they came from a woman instead. And just like that, all physical evidence pointing to suicide vaporized into smoke. If there is other physical evidence pointing to suicide (or to his escape), its either lost to time or locked away somewhere (the U.S. government continues to keep many of its Hitler-related files classified, supposedly for National Security purposes – this same obsession with secrecy led to the nearly century long classification of World War I documents showing how to create invisible ink).

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

So, did Hitler fake his death and escape to Argentina? Was there truly a Hitler Death Conspiracy? While it’s impossible to say for sure, it certainly seems reasonable. Lesser Nazi officials successfully fled Germany and took up residence in South America. And the testimony supporting the suicide theory seems questionable at best.

Basti is presently searching for Hitler’s grave in Argentina, hoping to prove his case once and for all. We here at Guerrilla Explorer wish him the best of luck. If Hitler escaped, the world deserves to know the truth about how he got away…and why his escape remained a secret for so long.

The Amanda Knox Trial?

Posted on by

On November 1, 2007, an unknown person or persons murdered Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy. Italian prosecutors charged Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Patrick Lumumba with her murder. The tabloids quickly erupted with stories of witchcraft and Satanism. Yesterday, after four long years of prison, Amanda was released from jail in a stunning turn of events. Did she kill Meredith? And if not, who did?

Did Giuliano Mignini railroad Amanda Knox?

After Meredith’s murder, Amanda Knox attempted to help the police with their investigation. Little did she know that Giuliano Mignini had already decided she was guilty of the crime. Mignini tapped her phone (one of 39,000 conversations he tapped during the course of the investigation) and learned that her mother was coming to Italy and intended to get her a lawyer. Working quickly, he subjected her to a brutal interrogation which, according to Amanda, consisted of her being hit, shouted at, and denied water and the use of a bathroom.

It should be noted that Mignini, who recorded every other interview connected to the case, claimed that this particular conversation hadn’t been recorded and thus, Amanda Knox’s allegations proved impossible to prove. During the course of this interrogation, she eventually submitted answers to hypothetical questions where she essentially imagined what might’ve happened if her employer and bar owner Patrick Lumumba had been present at the murder. Despite this incredibly weak evidence, Mignini declared the case closed.

The Media Convicts Amanda Knox?

The arrest of Amanda Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba caused a media sensation, especially in Great Britain, the U.S., and Italy. Italy has no laws against pre-trial publicity and jurors are allowed, even encouraged to follow the news while deliberating a case. Thus, Chief Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini immediately took his case to the press, spinning wild tales of witchcraft, Satanism, and a “sex game gone wrong.” Although these theories lacked any sort of factual basis, they were quickly eaten up and distributed without checking by reporters such as John Follain, Nick Pisa, and Libby Purves.

The Arrest of Rudy Guede and Mignini’s Bizarre Vendetta against Amanda Knox?

Two weeks later, Mignini’s case fell apart. Lumumba was able to furnish an air-tight alibi, making Amanda Knox’s so-called “confession” useless. More importantly, the police arrested the real killer, a drug-dealer named Rudy Guede. Guede’s fingerprints and DNA were discovered in Meredith’s room and on her body. When interrogated, he claimed he had sex with Meredith, left the room, and later returned to find someone standing over her with a knife. Months later, he changed his story, claiming that the mysterious man was Amanda’s boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito and that Sollecito and Amanda Knox had killed Meredith after a sex game gone wrong.

Despite mounting evidence that he was wrong, Mignini stubbornly prepared his case. Italy’s Supreme Court threw out Amanda’s confession, but Mignini used a tricky legal maneuver to get it admitted into evidence. He also claimed that a knife found at Sollecito’s house was the murder weapon and that it had Meredith’s DNA on the blade and Amanda’s DNA on the handle. Furthermore, he stated that Meredith’s bra clasp contained Sollecito’s DNA. The DNA evidence proved powerful enough for a jury, which had already been swayed by months of Mignini’s leaked stories to the press, to convict Amanda and Sollecito in 2009. After the trial, psychoanalyst Coline Covington decided to add her two cents by comparing Amanda Knox, who she’d never met, to Holocaust organizer Adolf Eichmann.

“Knox’s narcissistic pleasure at catching the eye of the media and her apparent nonchalant attitude during most of the proceedings show the signs of a psychopathic personality. Her behaviour is hauntingly reminiscent of Eichmann’s arrogance during his trial for war crimes in Jerusalem in 1961 and most recently of Karadzic’s preening before the International Criminal Court at The Hague.” ~ Coline Covington, Signs that Suggest Amanda Knox is a Psychopath

The Vindication of Amanda Knox

Soon after, the evidence came under heavy fire. A witness who claimed to have seen Amanda Knox and Sollecito near the crime scene changed his story. The knife was found too large to fit the wounds and its blade contained no blood or DNA, in stark contrast to the prosecution’s claims. The bra clasp contained too little DNA to measure and video taken at the crime scene showed that it had been picked up by bare-handed police, tainting the evidence. Further analysis showed that the DNA evidence that convicted Amanda and Sollecito had been caused by lab contamination. Other witnesses came forth to reveal that Guede claimed responsibility for the murder. And on top of it all, Mignini was given a suspended 16-month sentence for “abuse of office” in regards to a separate case. Amanda Knox and Sollecito appealed their convictions and were finally freed on October 3, 2011.

But who Murdered Meredeith Kercher?

So who murdered Meredith Kercher? The most likely suspect is Rudy Guede. He changed his story at least once, his bloody handprint was found at the scene of the crime, and he supposedly told others that he had killed Meredith. But if Guede did it, then how did Meredith’s murder turn into such a sensationalized trial?

According to well-known author, Douglas Preston, the responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of Chief Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. While investigating the as-of-yet unsolved “Monster of Florence” murders, Preston ran afoul of Mignini. Mignini had reopened the case and thought that the “killer or killers were Satanists from an ancient cult that harvested body parts.” During the course of is own research, Preston was arrested by Mignini and informed that he had to confess to “perjury or obstruction of justice.” Preston was ultimately given the choice of facing charges or leaving the country. Preston left and proceeded to co-write The Monster of Florence, with Mario Spezi, which detailed the case as well as Mignini’s highly questionable methods and vast wiretapping. In regards to the Meredith Kercher case, Preston has been quoted as saying:

“There was no evidence. I realized it was all bogus. Mignini believes that Satan walks the land and anyone who is against him must be working for the other side.” ~ Douglas Preston

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

It seems clear that there was an incredible amount of prosecutorial misconduct in this case. Mignini had it out for Amanda Knox and Sollecito from the beginning and when his case fell apart, chose to sacrifice their freedom rather than his own reputation. In addition, there are disturbing stories of Mignini and the police deliberately punishing and attacking anyone who tried to question the verdict. The media, outside of a few examples such as the heroic Frank Sfarzo who blogs about the case at Perugia Shock, have been complicit in the whole sad affair. John Follain, Nick Pisa, Libby Purves, Coline Covington and many others bear some moral responsibility for being more interested in creating sensational headlines than in uncovering the truth.

On October 3, 2011, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were finally released from jail. It is believed that Amanda has already left Italy and I’d advise Sollecito to do the same. Meredith’s murder was a sad, horrendous event. Unfortunately, the four-year imprisonment of two people who were in all likelihood completely innocent only made things worse. We may never know the full story of Meredith Kercher’s murder. And the blame for that fact lies solely with Chief Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini as well as the people who aided his vendetta against Amanda Knox and Sollecito.