Αγορά Πολιτών

Τρόπος Συμμετοχής

Χορηγίες

Πολίτες στην Αγορά

Έχουμε 842 επισκέπτες συνδεδεμένους

Επικοινωνία

Location: Berlin, Germany

Viber +41762833777

Citizen Band Radio:

- Call-channel: 1 FM (frequency modulation)

- Call-sign: EB-1142

A Greek Government In Exile

  

Greek Dissidents Political Persecution



 

60+ Trillion Euros Dispute for Greece's Minerals



 

21/06/2020 International Protests

 

Robbed at Copenhagen

 

George Bobolas

 

Prespes-Agreement Superimposed-Reality Ruthless-Propaganda

 

 

 

 

Mielke - Chrisochoidis

 

O/L to British P/M

 

O/L to E. Macron

 

Accountability-Free Genocides

 

Militarized "psychiatry"

 

The Absolute Evil

 

Gang-stalking Greeks

 

Byzantine Atrocities

 

European Dissidents ALARM

 

Human Rights' Court

 

The used up men

 

Dissidents - USG RICO crimes

 

Open Letter to Theresa May

 

Open Letter to António Guterres UN's SG

 

Triangulation - Zersetzen

 

Open Letter to Andrew Parker, MI5

  

Πράξεις ποταπές - Despicable choices

 

 

My father's death

 

Cavitation damage

 

Burglary and vandalism

 

Dry mini submarine

 

Message to Bundeswehr 2

 

Message to Bundeswehr 1

 

“Tough” guys and TOUGH guys

 

Μοναδική λύση, το Χόλιγουντ

 

Charlatans

 

Zeppelin: Beyond Gravity

 

Foreign intervention in Greece?

 

Η ανελεύθερη Ελλάδα

 

Η Ελλάδα καταγώγιο;

 

Αν.Επ. Π. Παυλόπουλο

  

Intangible prisons

 

Plausible deniability

 

Images of German w & s

 

Crimes against Humanity

 

"Chimera" - "Bellerophon"

 

pr. Donald Trump

 

  

Legal Notice 87

 

Βδέλλες, αποικιοκρατικές

 

Being a German

 

Legal Notice 84

 

Dirty colonial methods

 

Georgi Markov, BG - KGB

 

Samples of Barbarity

 

Ελλάδα - αποκόλληση

 

Έλληνες, στο έλεος...

 

Harvester's log 16/3/17

 

 

Legal Notice 66

 

Execrable

 

Legal Notice 62

 

  

My story

 

  

Aggression?

 

  

Η Εστία μου

 

  

Why so untidy?

 

  

Αποικιοκρατία

 

  

Εξόντωση Ελλήνων αντιφρονούντων;

 

  

Ζήτημα εμπιστοσύνης

 

  

Μεθοδικότητα

 

  

Ανοικτή Επιστολή πρέσβη ΗΠΑ

Αφορμή, U2RIT vs Ελλάδα;

Βιοηθική

A request to U2RIT

Colonial aggression - 2

Open Letter to UN S.G.

Open Letter to p.C. & p. O.

Δήλωση πρόθεσης επαναπατρισμού

 

Ο "εφιάλτης" της Νυρεμβέργης

Συλλογή Φωτογραφιών

Αίτημα προστασίας, προς Ιταλία

Chroma key, background removal

Science and Ethics

Να συμβάλει και η U2RIT

Θα ξαναφτιάξουν πολλές φορές Άουσβιτς και Zyclon B

 

Split-Screen effect

Η Ζωή είναι Ωραία.

Βόρεια Κορέα

Λευτεριά στους Έλληνες, εξανα- γκαστικά "Εξαφανισμένους"

 

Μυστικές δίκες;

Trustworthiness

Πολιτισμό, ή, απληστία;

Ακραία Στυγνότητα

Η Τέχνη της Επιβίωσης

Political Asylum 3

Επιστροφή στις ρίζες

The Human Cost of Torture

An urgent appeal for solidarity

More obvious than the Sun

Western "culture"

Political Asylum

Έννομη Προστασία

Μια μήνυση που εγείρει ερωτηματικά

 

 

 

Honor your father...

Noise

Creative Greeks

A pair of Dictatorships

It's gonna be a bright sunshiny day PDF Εκτύπωση E-mail
Αξιολόγηση Χρήστη: / 0
ΧείριστοΆριστο 
Συνεννόηση για Δράση - Απόψεις
Συντάχθηκε απο τον/την Χρήστος Μπούμπουλης (Christos Boumpoulis)   
Σάββατο, 04 Ιανουάριος 2020 02:14

Johhny Nash – I Can See Clearly Now

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FscIgtDJFXg

 

It's gonna be a bright sunshiny day

 

Entryism as well as deception, may be employed to various degrees.

However, the contemporary settler-colonialism exercises against the existing settler-colonised Nations, like Greece, to a disgusting level, both of them.

For example, the settler-colonisers, in Greece, they have established a dictatorship (“Huge Cooper & Co” treaty treason, inaccesible judicial-penal files, political elections results counted/verified by a private company); they have perpetrated an hybrid-invasion at the Thrace region (8000 Russians from Ossetia – Abhkazia and British neuroleptics factory at Alexandroupolis); they perpetrate child organs-harvesting; and they, arbitrarily install on Greek/Cypriot soil Israel’s vital economic interests, meaning the EastMed (while Israel overtly violates almost the entire international law).

The U.K. directly controls Israel which uses to indirectly control the U.S., the Russia (which controls Iran) and the Turkey.

For covering-up the Greek dictatorship, the hybrid-invasion at Thrace and the child organs-harvesting, the settler-colonisers are fabricating, as a decoy, the Turkish perpetual revisionism against Greece and they fabricate fake-news, like the pseudocide of the Iranian military general (which was pictured with American soldiers).

And they fabricated the recent and illegitimate,Turkish-Lybian borders agreement in order to make the EastMed agreement appearing (a mere entryism) as an supposed counter-measure towards the Turkish-Libyan borders agreement.

According to reliable public information the settler-colonisers they perpetrate, against many European Nations, international crimes which they are related, to genocides; to international aggression; to gang-stalking; to Claustrum/RNM brain-implanting; to directed-energy microwave weapons; to weaponisation of, cancer, aids, embola, alzheimer, ms, etc.; to weaponisation of the supermarkets; to “psychiatric” genocide; to pharmaceutical industry’s entryism, etc. These crimes, various kinds of deception and entryism, are also covering-up.

As I belong to those who love life; living; and who they wish to live peaceful, free, creative and prosperus lives, I believe that, the members of the existing civilised Nations they should develop the ability to, promptly, discriminate both, deception and entryism; and they should concentrate their attention and their active efforts towards, securing their human rights and totally dissassociating their countries from the contemporary settler-colonising Nations.

Consequently, I believe that is both just and accurate to say in brief that, for all those who wish to stay alive; to enjoy the bleshings of the civilisation; and their joint efforts to become effectively coordinated, all roads lead to Berlin.

 

Christos Boumpoulis

economist

 

Berlin Tiergarten in 4k

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcKSN8c-Sjg

 

Appendix

 

CIA: The History of Deception

By Sam Chester | Nov 1, 2019

The thing that makes the CIA such a threat to the world is how the agency gets off scot-free time and again no matter how egregious its activities.

From training the Contras to testing LSD on humans to assassinating presidents, the CIA does as it pleases. How did it come to this and when will it end?

The Central Intelligence Agency has become somewhat of a household name in the US and in other countries unfortunate enough to be a stage for its meddling. Practically since it was founded to this very day, it has gone well beyond simply collecting intelligence and assisting the President, which are the limited tasks the CIA states as its mission.

Whatever your stance on the present-day CIA may be, it’s hard to object to the notion that every state must have an intelligence agency. It is like the balance of terror: in the world where everyone has their own intel-gathering agencies, you should have one, too.

However, the power of the CIA started to exceed merely collecting intel very soon after its creation. Just one year after the National Security Act had established the Agency in 1947, another piece of legislation bestowed a bunch of extra powers on it.

This new act, NC 10/2, placed the authority over covert espionage and counter-espionage operations abroad during the time of peace under the control of the Director of Central Intelligence. Such operations were to be conducted by the Office of Special Projects nominally independent of the other CIA units; the Chief of this office, however, was to report to the Director of the CIA only. Moreover, the Director also held the power to approve the candidate for the position of the Chief of the OSP.

The next time the CIA was granted additional privileges was not long in coming. Per Section 6 of the 1949 Central Intelligence Agency Act, it was exempted from the obligation to disclose any information regarding its funding. Of course, it went against the Constitution’s demands to publish regular reports on how any money withdrawn from the Treasury was spent but why would anyone care? The Supreme Court definitely did not, essentially telling the public that how much money the Agency spends and how should not concern the citizens.

That case, United States v. Richardson, is extremely indicative of the relationship between the CIA and the general public. It showed that some entities in the nation are free from all scrutiny and the less the population knows about their doings, the better for it.

And indeed, the Agency doesn’t want anyone looking into its activities not only because of the oh-so-secret intelligence but also because they are oftentimes illegal.

The most famous example of the CIA treating American citizens as guinea pigs is, of course, the MK-Ultra program. That project, carried out in the middle of the twentieth century at eighty-six institutions, involved conducting unethical experiments on humans.

“Unethical” doesn’t even begin to describe it, really. Here’s what Ted Kennedy told to the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resource during the joint hearing in 1977: “The Central Intelligence Agency drugged American citizens without their knowledge or consent. […] The Agency itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientific sense. The agents doing the monitoring were not qualified scientific observers. […] Other experiments were equally offensive. For example, heroin addicts were enticed into participating in LSD testing in order to get a reward — heroin.”

There is something other than the shocking cruelty and indifference to human life and well-being that Senator Kennedy’s words tell us about the CIA. To give heroin as a reward, it would need to have obtained heroin somewhere in the first place. Surely, the drug trade is not something that the CIA would do, is it?

Well, we don’t necessarily have the proof that it did participate in drug trafficking back when MK-Ultra was still undiscovered by the Senate. What we do know, though, is that the Agency was involved in it a few decades later, using drug money to help finance the Contras.

Pilots who delivered arms from the US to Nicaragua could “bring back [their] own cargo”, that cargo being marijuana and cocaine to earn a little extra. The CIA made sure that they were not searched on arrival. Moreover, the drugs those pilots were flying back to America were also provided by the CIA and a “friend” it had brought into this scheme, drug trafficker George Morales whom it had pressured into providing planes and money to the Contras in exchange for some benefits during his jail time.

With its nearly limitless financing that it doesn’t have to give an account of, you’d think that the Agency should be hyper-competent in fulfilling its primary task, namely gathering and analyzing intel, especially such that concerns the safety of the American citizens. If the CIA has time and funds to see coup d’états through in half a dozen foreign states, it surely must manage to keep the American soil safe from inside and outside dangers.

But as we all know, it is as far from the truth as it can possibly be. What was the taxpayers’ money that went to finance the CIA wasted on if it couldn’t prevent 9/11 despite having advance knowledge of the planned attack and having been tracking some of the hijackers?

The eyes of the CIA were more drawn to other countries than to the USA from the get-go. Back in 1953, the CIA planned and saw through the TPAJAX project which resulted in Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh being deposed and the authority of the Shah being consolidated.

Because of this overthrow of a democratically elected official, the rule of the Iranian monarch that was perceived as pro-American was also widely hated by the Iranians. While it can be argued that it was facilitated by the Shah himself and his West-oriented policies that angered the traditionalists much more than by the circumstances of his installation as the ruler, the result was the same. After 26 years, the CIA’s efforts to secure Iran as a secular and US-friendly state went bust when the Iranian Revolution happened in 1979.

Despite the fact that Iran today is anything but a friend to the USA, opinions that it was the US that staged the revolution have been voiced. If it is so, it’s safe to assume that the CIA was involved in such an operation. It would be quite fitting, actually, if the Shah’s regime rose and fell with the help of the Agency.

And let us not forget, of course, the funding that the CIA gave to the Mujahideen of Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, trying to reestablish their foothold in the region after the Islamic Revolution in Iran. This so-called Operation Cyclone flooded the region with guns and ammunition that were later used by al-Qaeda.

The question all these considerations bring us to is this: Have the American people seen more good or bad from the CIA?

It can be argued that our view of this problem is going to be one-sided because we are less likely to find out about their successes than blunders. While it is true, the number and the magnitude of these blunders are so off the charts that no amount of good work that the CIA does can possibly outweigh it.

One thing makes the CIA as threatening to the world as it is. This thing is how the Agency gets off scot-free no matter what it does time and again. Nobody was punished for the awful events that transpired under the MK-Ultra project as the researchers were decided to be “protected intelligence sources” by the court and could not, therefore, be prosecuted.

Today, there’s little that we can do to change this situation. But to be aware of it, to be aware of every operation Central Intelligence wants to sweep under the rug, of every country that has suffered because of the Agency’s machinations is the step we all should take. It is the least we can do, but hopefully not the last.

Source: https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/11/01/cia-the-history-of-deception/

 

America Was Founded on Secrets and Lies

Espionage, kidnapping, and the dark art of spycraft is as American as George Washington.

BY STEPHEN F. KNOTT | FEBRUARY 15, 2016, 9:14 AM

ith all due respect to early-American hagiographer Parson Weems, George Washington knew how to tell a lie. In fact, he told a lot of them. Moreover, talent for deception was shared by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, all of whom, to borrow from former Vice President Dick Cheney, worked the “dark side.” And though these Founding Fathers’ knack for the shadows may cut against the image of modern-day saints that has grown up around them, it is difficult to see the American Revolution succeeding without it.

In popular history, clandestine operations, and their control by the executive, are a cancerous growth that began in the 20th century with the so-called “imperial presidency” and the rise of the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency. This is fiction. Unfortunately, this fairy tale account of American history is gospel in far too many quarters. It was accepted as fact by the Church Committee in the 1970s, resurrected again in the majority report of the Iran-Contra Committee in 1987, and now finds renewed life on the libertarian right. As Jefferson noted, for the founders, the “laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger,” overrode traditional standards of conduct or any written law. Enlisting their legacy in the cause of restricting or banning these operations can only be achieved by either distorting or ignoring their repeated use of underhanded means.

Facing off against the greatest superpower of his day, Washington understood that when fighting a more formidable foe, deception acts as a force multiplier. Though Washington’s commitment to espionage may have been written out of the laudatory histories that established America’s first president as the “Jupiter conservator,” striking a demigod pose, the work of spying was never far from his mind.

One of Washington’s first acts upon taking command of the Continental Army in 1775 was to hire a spy to go behind the enemy lines and report on British activities in Boston. He devoted a considerable amount of energy to his role as intelligence chief, including using personal funds to pay for clandestine operations. These operations were essential to winning the war, he believed, and so sensitive, that he withheld information about them from the Continental Congress. As he bluntly noted in 1777, “there are some secrets, on the keeping of which so, depends, oftentimes, the salvation of an Army: secrets which cannot, at least ought not to, be entrusted to paper; nay, which none but the Commander-in-Chief at the time, should be acquainted with.”

His commitment to espionage, however, was a pragmatic one. While Washington understood that success in the struggle between nations required the use of covert operations — and the employment of individuals who were ethically challenged — he was not particularly enamored with these tactics or with the types of individuals employed in these endeavors. In fact, Washington bemoaned in 1779 the “ambiguous characters” that were essential to conducting covert warfare, and warned his intelligence officers to constantly be on the lookout for double agents. Nonetheless, Washington believed that these operatives and their underhanded methods were necessary to defend American interests.

If he were alive today — and enmeshed in the debate over domestic spying — Washington would likely clash with the modern civil libertarian view of the sanctity of private communications. In other words, he would disagree with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy’s, or Michigan Rep. Justin Amash’s moral outrage regarding government monitoring of private communications, despite their claims to the contrary. Covert mail opening, he believed, was an important national security tool and instructed his agents to “contrive a means of opening them [letters] without breaking the seals, take copies of the contents, and then let them go on.” This type of intelligence gathering would provide “innumerable” advantages to the American cause, Washington argued. He was also comfortable using clergymen as intelligence agents. In 1778, he urged a chaplain to coax vital intelligence out of two captured British spies facing execution. Washington instructed the chaplain to exploit the fact that these men would want to get right with God, and by default with George Washington, before departing for the pearly gates.

There was an element of ruthlessness in Washington’s approach to clandestine operations.

In March 1782, he approved plans for a political kidnapping designed to grab the heir to the British throne while he was visiting New York City. Washington created a special team whose purpose was to kidnap the future King William IV, planning to hold him for ransom in exchange for the traitorous Benedict Arnold or use him as a bargaining chip to secure the release of American prisoners of war. The mission was called off after British intelligence was told of the plan and doubled the prince’s guard, but if Washington had had his way, a future king of England would have been snatched off the streets and kept in bondage.

His practice of deception wasn’t confined to the enemy. One of Washington’s greatest triumphs during the war, the Yorktown campaign of 1781, succeeded in part due to his skill at deception. The general decided that, in order to convince the British that he intended to attack New York City instead of marching south, he needed to mislead not only the British military but American officials as well. He so wanted American authorities to believe that “New York was the destined place of attack, he would later recall to Noah Webster in 1788, that he continued to draw recruits from the Mid-Atlantic States who might be less inclined to enlist for a southern campaign. Washington’s domestic disinformation campaign extended to his own army as well. As he put it to Webster, “pains [were] taken to deceive our own army; for I had always conceived, when the imposition did not completely take place at home, it could never sufficiently succeed abroad.”

Washington and other veterans of the Revolutionary War, including Alexander Hamilton, who served at the center of Washington’s intelligence network (along with Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Jay, who served on the political or diplomatic side of the conflict), believed that the new government established in 1789 needed to rectify some of the problems that had impaired U.S. security under the Articles of Confederation. They sought to transfer the unilateral control that Washington exercised under the articles into the newly created Office of the Presidency, in order to allow for more shrewd and coherent foreign and defense policy, including the use of clandestine means.

General Washington’s successful use of intelligence and deception during the Revolutionary War led President Washington to conclude that the new executive office needed a secret service fund to handle the “business of intelligence,” as John Jay referred to it in The Federalist Papers. Washington believed intelligence operations were the exclusive province of the executive, a hard-earned lesson taken from the inability of the Continental Congress to protect secrets. He would have little use for the permanent intelligence committees of the House and Senate, seeing this as an infringement on his “executive power” as vested in Article Two of the Constitution, including his powers as commander in chief and his role as the nation’s chief diplomat. All of the founders would be particularly concerned about the role of the House, since they intended a minimal role for that body in foreign affairs.

In his first annual message to Congress, Washington requested a “secret service” fund that would be controlled by the president and would allow the chief executive to conduct secret operations free from congressional oversight. The president’s request was approved by Congress in 1790, with the support of Rep. James Madison, and with it Washington was granted the authority to avoid the usual reporting procedures mandated by Congress — the president was in essence given a blank check to conduct secret operations that he alone deemed to be in the national interest.

The spycraft apparatus that Washington built lived on after he left — and grew.

No president was more temperamentally inclined to resort to clandestine schemes than Thomas Jefferson. The Sage of Monticello is frequently portrayed as a champion of deference to Congress and the patron saint of openness and accountability, but in fact he was a precursor to the imperial presidents of the 20th century. Jefferson utilized the secret service fund to a greater degree than almost any early American president, using it as something of a personal slush fund with which to bribe Native American tribes to cede territory, and funding the first covert operation designed to overthrow a foreign government. Dating back to his time as an American envoy in France, Jefferson was enamored with clandestine operations, including at one point attempting to covertly acquire a study of a plan from the Spanish government outlining a path for a canal through the isthmus of Panama, and utilizing a source in Holland to acquire information on the inner workings of the Dutch government and plant stories in the Dutch press favorable to Americans interests.

Echoing Washington, Jefferson believed that it was the executive’s prerogative to direct the secret instruments of the American government. In 1807, Jefferson wrote to George Hay, a federal judge who also happened to be James Monroe’s son-in-law, that “all nations have found it necessary, that for the advantageous conduct of their affairs, some of these [executive] proceedings, at least, should remain known to their executive functionary only.” He noted on an earlier occasion that “the Senate is not supposed by the Constitution to be acquainted with the concerns of the executive department … nor can they, therefore, be qualified to judge of the necessity which calls for a mission to any particular place … which special and secret circumstances may call. All this is left to the President.” In light of this, it comes as no surprise that Jefferson utilized private citizens for sensitive operations as a means of circumventing congressional oversight due to that body’s penchant for leaks. In one instance, in 1804, Jefferson used a private citizen to carry a secret letter to an American envoy in France, which contained an elaborate cipher and a statement in support of using private channels for public business.

In a sense, early U.S. attachment to spycraft was a practical choice. Both Jefferson and Madison were drawn to covert operations because they allowed them to project American power on the cheap without having to maintain a large standing military. One can see this in Secretary of State Jefferson’s policy toward Native American tribes, which involved bribery as a means of persuading them to concede territory. Jefferson succinctly summarized his views in an April 1791, letter to James Monroe, who would become the country’s fifth president: “I hope we shall drub the Indians well this summer, and then change our plan from war to bribery” — a policy he was able to fully implement after he was elected president.

In a secret letter written in 1804 to future president William Henry Harrison — then governor of the Indiana Territory — Jefferson urged Harrison to expand the number of trading houses in Indian-controlled territory so that prominent Indian leaders would accrue large debts and be forced to pay them off with land concessions. Additionally, President Jefferson authorized a covert operation to overthrow the King of Tripoli — the first of its kind undertaken by the United States — that involved recruiting a disgruntled family member to do America’s bidding. Jefferson would later dissemble about this operation to Congress, particularly regarding his decision to abandon the American-created mercenary army designed to place the disgruntled family member on the throne.

The celebrated Lewis and Clark expedition authorized by Jefferson in 1804 was more of an intelligence operation than an effort to discover new species of flora and fauna.

Jefferson’s proclivity for the dark side can also be seen in his lobbying effort to persuade his friend President Madison to retaliate for the British burning of the White House by hiring arsonists in London to burn down St. Paul’s Cathedral.

James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, had served as Jefferson’s Secretary of State and was well aware of his boss’s appreciation for the unseemly necessities of foreign relations, although he seemed to have somewhat less enthusiasm for scheming than Jefferson. In 1805, Secretary of State Madison procured a prostitute using money from the secret service fund in order to enhance the visit of a foreign envoy from Tunisia — the fund being designed in part to facilitate “foreign intercourse.” Madison, although more deferential to Congress than Jefferson, conducted his own covert operations which were designed to secure parts of Florida for the United States by inciting “spontaneous” uprisings in Spanish-held territory. In response to criticism, Madison provided misleading accounts to Congress and to foreign governments of his administration’s actions. On the eve of the War of 1812, Madison spent $50,000 from the secret service fund to purchase mail from a suspected British agent who claimed he could prove that New England Federalists had conspired to secede from the union.

One can dismiss the founders as irrelevant to the debate over contemporary intelligence issues by claiming that the United States has evolved beyond their unenlightened ways. But enlisting them in the cause of restricting or banning these operations is a distortion of history. These operations are as American as Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. The fairy-tale version of the founders that denies this dark side, is spun by libertarians on the right and liberals on the left. Like it or not, it’s not true.

Source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/15/george-washington-spies-lies-executive-power/

Τελευταία Ενημέρωση στις Σάββατο, 04 Ιανουάριος 2020 11:34