Are black-budget ops creating new meta-crimes?

Are black-budget ops creating new meta-crimes?

by Jon Rappoport

April 10, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

The Surveillance State has created an apparatus whose implications are staggering. It’s a different world now. And sometimes it takes a writer of fiction to flesh out the larger landscape.

Brad Thor’s novel, Black List, posits the existence of a monster corporation, ATS, that stands along side the NSA in collecting information on every move we make. ATS’ intelligence-gathering capability is unmatched anywhere in the world.

On pages 117-118 of Black List, Thor makes a stunning inference that, on reflection, is as obvious as the fingers on your hand:

“For years ATS had been using its technological superiority to conduct massive insider trading. Since the early 1980s, the company had spied on anyone and everyone in the financial world. They listened in on phone calls, intercepted faxes, and evolved right along with the technology, hacking internal computer networks and e-mail accounts. They created mountains of ‘black dollars’ for themselves, which they washed through various programs they were running under secret contract, far from the prying eyes of financial regulators.

“Those black dollars were invested into hard assets around the world, as well as in the stock market, through sham, offshore corporations. They also funneled the money into reams of promising R&D projects, which eventually would be turned around and sold to the Pentagon or the CIA.

“In short, ATS had created its own license to print money and had assured itself a place beyond examination or reproach.”

In real life, whether the prime criminal source is one monster corporation or a consortium of companies, or elite banks, or the NSA itself, the outcome would be the same.

It would be as Thor describes it.


We think about total surveillance as being directed at private citizens, but the capability has unlimited payoffs when it targets financial markets and the people who have intimate knowledge of them.

“Total security awareness” programs of surveillance are ideal spying ops in the financial arena, designed to suck up millions of bits of inside information, then utilizing them to make investments and suck up billions (trillions?) of dollars.

It gives new meaning to “the rich get richer.”

Taking the overall scheme to another level, consider this: those same heavy hitters who have unfettered access to financial information can also choose, at opportune moments, to expose certain scandals and crimes (not their own, of course).

In this way, they can, at their whim, cripple governments, banks, and corporations. They can cripple investment houses, insurance companies, and hedge funds. Or, alternatively, they can merely blackmail these organizations.


power outside the matrix


We think we know how scandals are exposed by the press, but actually we don’t. Tips are given to people who give them to other people. Usually, the first clue that starts the ball rolling comes from a source who remains in the shadows.

What we are talking about here is the creation and managing of realities on all sides, including the choice of when and where and how to provide a glimpse of a crime or scandal.

It’s likely that the probe Ron Paul had been pushing—audit the Federal Reserve—has already been done by those who control unlimited global surveillance. They already know far more than any Congressional investigation will uncover. If they know the deepest truths, they can use them to blackmail, manipulate, and control the Fed itself.

The information matrix can be tapped into and plumbed, and it can also be used to dispense choice clusters of data that end up constituting the media reality of painted pictures which, every day, tell billions of people “what’s news.”

In this global-surveillance world, we need to ask new questions and think along different lines now.

For example, how long before the mortgage-derivative crisis hit did the Masters of Surveillance know, from spying on bank records, that insupportable debt was accumulating at a lethal pace? What did they do with that information?

When did they know that at least a trillion dollars was missing from Pentagon accounting books (as Donald Rumsfeld eventually publicly admitted on September 10, 2001), and what did they do with that information?

Did they discover where billions of dollars, in cash, shipped to post-war Iraq, disappeared to?

When did they know the details of the Libor rate-fixing scandal? Press reports indicate that Barclays was trying to rig interest rates as early as January 2005.

Have they tracked, in detail, the men responsible for recruiting hired mercenaries and terrorists, who eventually wound up in Syria pretending to be an authentic rebel force?

Have they discovered the truth about how close or how far away Iran is from producing a nuclear weapon?

Have they collected detailed accounts of the most private plans of Bilderberg, CFR, and Trilateral Commission leaders?

For global surveillance kings, what we think of as the future is, in many respects the present and the past.

It’s a new world. These overseers of universal information-detection can enter and probe the most secret caches of data, collect, collate, cross reference, and assemble them into vital bottom-lines. By comparison, an operation like Wikileaks is an old Model-T Ford puttering down a country road, and Julian Assange, reviled as a terrorist, is a mere piker.

Previously, we thought we needed to look over the shoulders of the men who were committing major crimes out of public view. But now, if we want to be up to date, we also have to factor in the men who are spying on those criminals, who are gathering up those secrets and using them to commit their own brand of meta-crime.

And in the financial arena, that means we think of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan as perpetrators, yes, but we also think about the men who already know everything about GS and Morgan, and are using this knowledge to steal sums that might make GS and Morgan blush with envy.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

This entry was posted in Spygate.

10 comments on “Are black-budget ops creating new meta-crimes?

  1. Gunny G says:

    Reblogged this on CLINGERS… BLOGGING BAD ~ DICK.G: AMERICAN ! and commented:
    GYG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. […] Are black-budget ops creating new meta-crimes?. […]

  3. […] Are black-budget ops creating new meta-crimes? […]

  4. tyrannynews says:

    […] I’m compelled to expand upon your article. You’re spot on, IMO and I think you’ll see how my information gels nicely with your premise.

    Consider the possible players and partners in such a venture. It’s dizzying; NSA, DoD, IRS, CIA, DIA, the FED, FBI, DHS and on and on. Don’t forget insurance and re-insurance companies. Oh, and the software firms that power these agencies. And the network is 2-way, so everyone has a stake.

    Now, think about who the largest player in the stock markets in the US is. Not too many consider that question. I’ll give you a clue, they have 60,000+ sub-agencies. That’s right, the US government. And that’s not the majority of their holdings. Look into the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) for the various states for a partial view of this. I remember back in, I think 1994 seeing that the state of Texas had a 400 Billion portfolio. This NEVER appears in a budget. Think of CA and Jerry Brown. Closing schools, even parks because the deficit is insurmountable. Right. Why not spend some of that slush fund? It isn’t even considered. When it is explained at all, they give a shell game explanation to confuse you into thinking it’s all allocated to pensions.

    The banks are never so greedy as how they treat these holdings. Just to “manage” a 20 billion fund for CA a few years back, it cost the state 400 million in fees and only yielded 900 million! They would have done better in 1985 6 month CDs.

    Now, this web of data streams is vulnerable to peeking, front-running, etc. That’s true. However, when it comes to the banks and the transactions they conduct with other banks we enter a new paradigm. Did you know Alan Greenspan was a software programming hobbyist? Oh yeah. I think he wrote the software model that was expanded upon to become a major institutional framework later. I don’t remember the specifics. In any case, these transactions and account data are in a realm all their own. Heard of the Book of Maklumat? Sounds like an ancient manuscript kinda. It’s just one example of a code book that contains the account names, password-keys, etc.

    If you ever hear weird titles like, “Beautiful Boy” or “Brilliant White Boy” in relation to banks or money, it’s a reference to the named accounts containing ungodly sums. Trillions of dollars pass through these accounts. Normally, high-value inter-bank transactions (SWIFT, etc.) take place on what they call grey-screen systems. The ball-breaker trading takes place on black-screen systems.

    So, the banks enjoy most of the access of the other institutions plus they hold all the money. For real. For example, when China was awarded 4.7 Trillion dollars through the BIS Bernanke and Geithner both flew to China to authenticate the claim. Both signed off. The money appeared in a Chase account, which was transferred to a BofA account. Then, when transferred to HSBC, poof. It was gone. China could do nothing. However, they predicted such behavior and ran the whole thing as a sting. I have no idea what bargaining value they now possess.

    Now, to blow some people’s minds who’ve never seen what was dangling in their eyes the whole time, we know of this thing called money laundering. Banks are money launderers, as a function of their core business. They are literally in the business of money laundering.

    Add to the above high-frequency trading, fraudulent bond issuance, and the freaky stuff like the dual Australian government agencies fiasco and you see how it all must come down. It must all be brought to a halt and dismantled. Personally, I think an end to government secrecy and even national security secrecy is in order. I hope this was helpful, if not at least interesting.

    • GJH says:

      Yes, allowing ‘national security’ to trump all else just means we must submit to unseen overlords in a neo-feudal society. And of course they will be (are) the greatest harm to our security.

  5. […] Are black-budget ops creating new meta-crimes? « Jon Rappoport’s Blog […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *