How our phones are now Spy's in our pockets

How our phones are now Spy's in our pockets

By Dark Politricks

Remember the days when "conspiracy theorists" worried about the "mark of the beast" and people being micro-chipped so that the Government could follow everywhere they went and everything they did?

Well there is no need to worry about microchips anymore, we already have walked into George Orwell's 1984 with our Smart Phones, Smart TV's, Google DOTS, Amazon Echo's and all the rest of the modern day tech that seemingly makes our lives easier but in reality is also constantly monitoring us at the same time.

You may just think that the recording of our position on the planet all the time by either your phones GPS signal or Google's Location tracking, is just a helpful way to show you nearby events or shops that may interest you.

However this information not only is almost impossible to turn off but it's also passed on by the companies to Government agencies to log your behaviour.

If you have read your Smart TV's terms and conditions lately as I have done, you will see that it talks about recording you at all times through the TV's web cam as well as passing this information onto "unspecified 3rd parties".

Why are they unspecified? Who are they and why can't Samsung, Sony or Panasonic tell us what they are doing with this data they have captured of us sitting in front of the box?

Maybe it's because the NSA or GCHQ has a helping hand from the tech companies who now work alongside them.

Google are known to work with the CIA helping them on their PRISM type algorithms that allow agents to type into a CIA search engine an email address or phone number and get results of the person, their close contacts, details of social media posts, emails and website viewing history.

If this is the case why should we think that the CIA is not in a symbiotic relationship in which Google passes them data for their databases?

If they have already admitted building an underground data centre in UTAH the size of a city to hold all the data they collect on people what reason is there to think they are not using this data to spy on us?

How helpful would it be if the live feed of a bunch of terrorists, drug dealers, or even someone having a quite joint with their friends in front of Family Guy, is passed along from your Samsung TV to the local Police Station?

Suddenly you get a knock on the door and find yourself being arrested for supplying a drug and all because you passed a spliff to a friend in front of an all seeing, all listening, modern smart TV.

Oh and they have a recording of it happening to back up their claims, all from your TV set or the Amazon Echo sitting on your table that recorded it all happening! Live video footage and the sound evidence to go with it. A perfect spy in the room system.

If you don't believe how much we have slipped into an Orwellian society and how much our phones record our behaviour, even without SIM Cards, GPS enabled and Flight mode on then watch this recent FOX video.

In it they take two phones on a journey around the city. One with no SIM, no WiFi, and in Flight mode and one with it all enabled. Guess what?

When they got back from their trip round town they monitored all the data that was sent to Googles servers when the phones were attached to the WiFi system. They logged all the data and believe it or not the phone without WiFi in Flight Mode actually sent more data to Google than the one that had a SIM card in.

It sent information such as the number of steps you walked, the height off the ground you were, the temperature, when it thought you were in a car, and despite not having GPS or Location turned on it still logged it from pings to the phone masts.

It seems you cannot get away from Google tracking you and most phones are built around Googles technology, their email, play store, apps and settings and that is not to mention what the phone itself is recording behind your back.

Phones also can record you at all times due to the permissions you give them or the issues you get from removing certain applications like Googles Play Store. It basically states that it can record you at any point in time - why?

What function does this serve apart from spying on what you are saying.

A phone cannot accurately gain information about the potential products you would like from a few words in a long conversation it records to promote certain adverts at you when you next surf the web, so why is it doing it?

Is it because the new Silicon Valley / Intelligence / Government Nexus is all in bed with each other and want a Stasi like state, one in which people willingly engage in?

Watch this video for more information on how phones record you 24/7.



So where is this data going?

The phones, TV's and Google DOTS that don't stop recording you when you stop talking are obviously passing this information onto other places apart from advertising companies they say they are. 

They don't specify that they will be logging you at all times even when you switch your phones GPS and Location setting off, therefore they are being devious in making you believe you can actually stop them logging your position at all times. They can listen in to what you say through the microphone and video you from front and back webcams, not to mention logging your GPS position. 

Helpful apps like Samsung's Health app, monitors your heart rate, stress levels and oxygen levels. It also logs the steps you take each day with the phone on you, when it thinks your asleep (presumably due to you not using the phone), and probably sends all this data off to the Government so they can monitor health levels around the country.

We truly need to get back to dumb phones without GPS, masking tape over your web cams and get rid of constant spy bots like Amazons and Googles DOTS. It maybe tough to let go to your personal computer in your pocket but why not just use Facebook on your PC at home and take a simple phone out with you that can make calls and send texts only. 

They are designed specifically for older people not interested in the bells and whistles and are perfect for a dumb phone that does what you need without logging your constant actions.

This is just something to think about when you go to bed tonight with your phone on charge on the bed stand. Just what is your phone sending off to far away data-centres about your days activities and any nightly fun or lack of it in the sack.

If our generation doesn't do anything about the lack of privacy and civil rights we have noticed diminish before our eyes then the next generation is sure to grow up thinking that it is perfectly normal to live in a world where every moment is posted on Facebook, every photograph sent to Instagram and a phone goes with them wherever they go 24/7 365 days a year sending data to their phone company, advertisers and Government agencies constantly.

By Dark Politricks

© 2019 Dark Politricks

NAZI Nukes and a revised look at who really won WWII

NAZI Nukes and a revised look at who really won WWII

If you haven't heard of Joseph Farrell then you need to read up or watch as many Youtube videos that you can from this historian who looks at the history of NAZI's from WWII right up until 9.11 and the current day.

Who really won WWII?

Was it really the Western allies, or did NAZI's actually succeed in not only winning the war but embedding themselves in the USA, including agencies such as the CIA and NASA, as well as holding out a large population in Argentina that exists to the current day.

This first video looks at how the NAZI's were probably the first country to actually test a successful nuclear bomb as well as use other eccentric technologies and weaponry. 

Hitler was waiting for a "Super Weapon" to turn the tide of the war, this could have been the infamous "Bell", or it could have been a nuclear attack.

Many people don't even know that German planes that could refuel in mid air had flown the Atlantic escaping US air defenses, and had mapped out Manhattan, New York, for a possible nuclear bombing raid.

Not only did they have a Uranium enrichment plant, they also probably supplied the Allies with the laser trigger they finally needed for their own nuclear bomb to deploy successfully as well as a large amount of Uranium that was probably taken from a captured German UBoat with Japanese Officers on board.

This second video looks at how many leading NAZI's escaped WWII trials and embedded themselves in the new security agencies of the USA.

This included not only secret deals with the US to implant their highly skilled scientists in NASA and their missile programs, but also the CIA, a rogue agency from almost the outset, that has continued to work on NAZI programs such as mind control, drug induced trauma and other Mengele type tests which were evident by the CIA's MKULTRA program.

He not only links NAZI's from WWII to Neo-Cons in the current day, but looks at how a 3rd level of infiltration probably occurred during 9.11 by this NAZI International. A group of people according to a Russian author who warned of US homeland attacks, pre-911 in PRAVDA, that has up to $300 trillion in funds at their disposal!

He has many books and many videos online and isn't as some people claim a disinformation agent just because he ignores Zionist crimes, but actually links Zionists to NAZI's together, a symbiotic relationship that relied on each other.

Don't forget that one of the first ships that sailed to Israel with Jewish immigrants in 1935, the "Tel Aviv", originally named the Hohenstein, was sailed by a NAZI Captain and flew a flag containing a Swastika. This was under the NAZI / Zionists Haavara or Transfer agreement that allowed Jews to bypass their 1933 Jewish World Congress boycott on German goods and travel to British controlled Palestine.

Not to forget that the Zionists of today who support Israel in everything it does no matter how terrible, probably do have more in common with the NAZI's of Germany in not only mindset but action.

The Apartheid South Africa and Israel enjoyed a long partnership that not only resulted in a probable 1979 nuclear test, labelled the Vela Incident, but proved that Zionists and Racists could work together when required.

Therefore put away thoughts of disinformation just because Joesph Farrell doesn't blame Zionists or "Jews" for everything in the world today and listen to a few of his talks before commenting on any "angle".


By Dark Politricks

© 2019 Dark Politricks

The Drug Laws Need Rethinking

The Drug Laws Need Rethinking

By Dark Politricks

With the recent changing of Marijuana back up to a class B drug in the UK and the sacking of its head drug advisor due to public comments about smoking and drinking being more harmful than most drugs its worth looking at our crazy drug laws and wondering whether any governing party will ever have the balls to actually try and tackle the problem properly.

The fact is that our stupid drug laws in the west have not led to less drug users but more users, more deaths, more addicts and more money for the people at the top who control the trade. I am of the belief that all drugs should be made legal so that they can be controlled correctly and safely.

Certain drugs like Marijuana should be allowed to be home grown for personal consumption anyway and the more problematic drugs like heroin and crack cocaine should be regulated for the good of society as the current legal framework definitely does not lead to anything good for society just lots of people in jail, high crime rates, millions of addicts and deaths due to the lack of quality assurance that comes with an underground illegal trade.

The biggest problem is with Heroin, a drug that if taken in its pure form addicts can lead normal healthy lives but because of its illegality means that people die regularly.

Not only is overdose an issue because strength cannot be gauged by sight alone and there is no helpful packaging to let the user know how strong it is but because of impurities added to smack, the latest being Anthrax spores from a type of mud mixed in because it looks like the powder, addicts regularly die of other causes.

If the drug was controlled like it was before the 1973 misuse of drugs Act came into action in the UK then addicts could receive their dose from a doctor and lead normal lives with the offer of help to come off it when they are ready.

With a clean, free or cheap supply of the drug then the black market trade would surely decrease if not stop due to their being no money to be made. The only potential customers would be the "new" addict in waiting, the school kid or experimenter as anyone already hooked would be receiving their dose through regulated channels. Why risk banging up brick dust or Anthrax spores when you can get a pure shot from your GP?

As for the crime rate, insurance premiums, prison population size and taxes they would all come down.

Heroin and Crack addicts rob to pay the hugely inflated prices for their dose. An acre of poppy field can be bought in India or Afghanistan for less than a hundred pounds but a gram in the UK can cost up to £50. Therefore the markup on this product is immense and considering that a purity percentage of 30-50% is considered pretty good there is ample scope for dealers to cut the product to bump up their profits.

Most burglaries, robberies and theft is committed by addicts looking for money to pay for their fix.

Prisons are full of addicts and we all know that there is not enough rehabilitation occurring inside due to the high cost of actually trying to solve a problem as complex as an individuals life. However this is very short sighted as the cost of trying to wean an addict off drugs and help them rebuild their life is far outweighed by the costs of policing, insurance claims, court costs and the cost of holding someone in prison and feeding them.

Someone convicted of a theft related crime related to their drug addiction should not be given a criminal record and sent to prison but instead should be sent to special new detox centers which should be built on mass in this country.

Prisons should be kept for those convicted of violent offences or bankers who fraudulently steal billions but an addict who is forced to steal for their habit should be treated not punished. These centers would be locked down unlike open prisons and after detoxing there should be rehabilitation and life training, and before leaving the user should be provided with a Naltrexone implant to give them a clean next 6 months.

The cost of such an approach maybe high in the short term but in the long term it would pay huge dividends. The problem is that no governing party in the UK has ever been able to promote such an approach even if they had wanted to due to the moral outrage that such a policy would erupt inside Daily Mail readers who would think that this was "being soft on drugs".

There were signs that our government was starting to see the light when it moved Cannabis to class C down from Class B.

However with the recent re-classification of it back up to a Class B most people do not realise that this shift has actually meant that the punishments for Class C drugs are now more harsh than ever. 

This is because when Cannabis was moved down a class the penalties for all Class C drugs which included non-prescribed Benzo's, Barbs and so on went up. So what we are actually left with is actually a more harsher drugs regime than if the Labour government had just kept Weed as Class B in the first place.

Unfortunately the government is very two faced when it comes to drugs as one side says "Just say no" whilst the other darker side actively supports drug smuggling and uses the money for "off the book" operations that they don't want to have to pass through Government for approval. Governments have always been involved in drugs even before they were made illegal and the UK even went to war with China over their refusal to allow us to sell Opium to their citizens.

The CIA has been a well known drug smuggler since the days of their predecessor the OSS, Air America during Vietnam, the original Russian Afghanistan war, The Iran Contra scandal and now the new rise in Afghan poppy production that Blair and co promised to eradicate. I

n fact the biggest drug dealer of the 80's, a Burmese war lord named Khun Sa claimed that the CIA were one of his best customers!

by 1986 he was refining 80 percent of the opium harvest in the Golden Triangle. The king of opium trade, Khun Sa had risen to become the world's largest single heroin trafficker by controlling 60 percent of the world's illicit opium supply.

In 1986, Bo Gritz went to Burma with White House approval to meet with Khun Sa who supposedly had information on American MIAs. Khun Sa said that he wanted to end the opium and heroin traffic in his territory and to expose American officials involved in the drug smuggling.

Gritz claimed that he took this message to the United States government and was told by Tom Harvey of the National Security Council that "there is no interest here" in the Khun Sa overture. Gritz had in his possession 40 hours of video tape of Khun Sa who "charged American officials, both past and present, with being the chief buyers of drugs produced in that part of the world." He also claimed that he wanted to stop drug trafficking, but that the United States government would not let him.

Khun Sa said that the CIA were some of his best customers. He offered support to the DEA to alert them of drug movements, but this was rejected at the headquarters level.

For more information about the CIA's involvement in drug smuggling please read the following articles:

CIA Drug Smuggling History - Part 1

CIA Drug Smuggling History - Part 2

CIA Drug Smuggling History - Part 3

CIA Drug Smuggling History - Part 4

Also more recently we have been at war in Afghanistan for almost 20 years and it is intrinsically linked to the rise in Opium production which the Taliban banned in 2001. Also the current Western puppet rulers of the country, President Karzai and his brothers are supposedly the biggest Opium dealers in the country that supplies over 92% of all Heroin/Opium used in the world today.

With all these powerful vested interests that are involved in the continuing black economy of illegal drug smuggling it is no wonder that there is no serious move by any western government to come up with a sensible drug policy.

Just by being illegal, the price of drugs is pushed up beyond any other commodity and the drug industry is worth billions of pounds a year which is a pretty powerful incentive by those making money out of it to carry on with the status quo.

People worry about drugs being legal thinking that this would drive demand up but many studies have shown this not to be the case and in fact there is a certain kudos involved with the substance being illegal which actually stimulates demand especially in young people.

We all know the types of children that if you told them they couldn't do something they would go out and do the opposite purely because its a "forbidden fruit". We already have a huge demand for illicit drugs in this country as well as the rest of the world so any increase would surely be negligible and by legalising or even de-crimilising and regulating the market we would save billions of pounds and hundreds of lives a year.

Maybe the New Year will bring along a politician with the balls to create a proper public debate about this matter and not be scared by the "moral majority" on the right which like to shout loud about other peoples indiscretions whilst keeping their own kinky fetishes, perversions and misdeeds locked behind closed doors.

If the good of the country matters anything to anybody then the hypocrisy must stop. 

Talking tough on drugs and sacking advisers who give rational scientific advice whilst allowing the sale of cigarettes and alcohol to continue even though they kill hundreds of thousands a year makes no sense. 

If the government wants to pay off our national debt quickly then maybe the legalisation of drugs could be the answer. Just imagine all that tax revenue that would be brought in by the millions who smoke weed every day and pop E's each weekend.

I have never understood the hypocrisy that says that if a doctor prescribes me a Valium for anxiety its perfectly fine but if I take an non-prescribed one for pleasure or to help with a plane flight its considered morally wrong.

This dubious moral line is one which is illogical and should be scrapped straight away. Millions of people every day and night in clubs, pubs and homes across the country are sticking two fingers up and saying "Fuck You" to the stupid drug laws. We just need someone to listen.

The politicians need to realise that any war on drugs just like any war on terror cannot be won as its an illogical concept in the first place.

There will always be drugs and always people willing to take them.

Maybe if the country wasn't such a shit and depressing place where people could see a future that they could control and take a part in forming then taking drugs wouldn't be such a good escape. So maybe if the government wants to continue with its current policy and avoid legalisation like the plague it should concentrate on making the country a better place to live.

Just a thought for the New Year!

Terrorism is not an excuse for the loss of our liberties

Terrorism is not an excuse for the loss of our liberties

By Dark Politricks

The war on terror has been used by the UK government as a battering ram to the rights of the citizens of this country. New laws have been passed including 2 new terrorism acts (2000 and 2006) which have restricted free speech, the rights of demonstrators to protest and have given the police new powers of stop and search and lets not forget the 28 days detention and control orders.

Now you may say "well you have nothing to fear unless you have something to hide" which is a bend over attitude that leads to fascism. I am not a terrorist but nor are most people who have been affected by this new age of fighting terrorism.

Its the thin edge of the wedge which has taken advantage of peoples justifiable fears about terrorist attacks to introduce laws that if only applied to real terrorists would be fine however who can forget the 82 year old Walter Wolfgang who was dragged out of the Labour conference for heckling Jack Straw under the terrorism act in 2005. Or what about Gordon Brown invoking the terrorism act to freeze Iceland's bank accounts during 2008?

Just these two acts alone prove how our government intends to use these new powers for reasons other than fighting terrorism.

Once the public has been forced into a mindset that demands protection from unseen shadowy terrorists and that they must be dealt with severely it then allows the government to widen the scope of what actually constitutes terrorism.

One day you are a protester exercising your legal right of protest the next you are a terrorist trying to overthrow the state with subversive acts. Take a look over the pond to see how the US government is trying to class gun owners, ex servicemen and Ron Paul supporters as domestic terrorists.

It seems that the US constitution is slowly being eroded bit by bit. I never used to understand the Americans fascination with their right to bear guns however the more I have read up about Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers and their desire to protect the people against the tyranny of government it makes perfect sense. I especially love the following two quotes that Jefferson made:

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not .warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I have come to have a renewed respect for the founding fathers of America and the contemporary patriots who want the US government to return to the constitution. The world would be a quieter and probably safer place if it did.

Even though Jefferson and Washington kicked their British rulers out during the war of Independence us Brits must never forget that the father of the revolution was Thomas Paine an Englishman whose books the Age of Reasonand the Rights of Man had enormous influence on the Age of Enlightenment and the revolutions of France and America.

Two new republics were born that decreed that man had inalienable rights that could not be taken away by government. Therefore when people see their government treating their constitution as "just a piece of paper"as George Bush famously called it and trampling over their rights including the right to bear arms as if their inalienable rights were just an outdated idea that had no place in this century then I can see why they get so upset over the 2nd amendment.

Here in the UK its too late as we are currently a disarmed nation since the massacres of Dunblane and Hungerford took our guns away but then unlike the Americans we never had an inalienable right to bare arms anyway.

In fact although the UK passed the first ever bill of rights in 1689 it was never thought necessary for us to have a written constitution like the French and Americans.

I personally think it would be in our own best interests to draw up our own document as soon as possible. Yes we have the Human Rights act of 1998 which the right wing media decries and complains about almost every other day as something that has been imposed on us from Europe. However ridiculous the examples the Daily Mail and Express use to denigrate this act seem we should never feel that getting rid of that act would be in our best interest.

Civil rights have been hard fought and won through years of battle between state and its populace and any document that tries to enshrine our rights for future prosperity should be cherished and held in high esteem. We should also remember that it was British lawyers that drew up the Europen Convention on human rights in 1950, that the act is based on, after the horrors of the second world war. So we should view this act as yet another example of us Brits bringing civil rights to the world rather than Europe imposing some alien concept on us.

From the Magna Carta in 1215, through to John Lockes and Thomas Hobbes social contract between man and the state through to the first Bill of Rights and then the Human Rights act we Brits have been at the forefront of civil rights and we should not let the fear of terrorism allow any of these hard won rights to be taken away as once gone they will probably not come back unless a Liberal Democrat government gets in power which seems most unlikely.

We are slowly walking down the path to a place that I don't want to call home. When George Orwells 1984 starts to become a commentary on modern times then we must all stop and ask ourselves what the hell is going on.

By Dark Politricks

What's the difference between a Cult and Organised Religion

What's the difference between a Cult and Organised Religion

By Dark Politricks

Watching The Big Questions this morning there was only one question which was "What's the difference between a Cult and Organised Religion"

On one side were the standard old age religionis, Christians, Catholics, Rabbis and Muslims and on the other side we had members of existing "new" religions such as Raelians, Moonies - or as they are called now members of the "Unification Church", an ex member of the Branch Davidians which if you remember was the target of the ATF and FBI ended up in a state sanctioned massacre of 82 religious people.

The audience was also filled with ex members of cults, psychologists who have studied the "brainwashing" techniques used by such called groups and other affected by these groups in one way of another.

In my mind it is quite simple but lets look at a definition of a Cult

• a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
• an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
• the object of such devotion.
• a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
• Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

Lets look at the definition of a Religion

• a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
• a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
• the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
• the life or state of a monk, nun, etc. to enter religion.
• the practice of religious beliefs - ritual observance of faith.

In mine and many in the audiences (apart from those belonging to organised religions) not much difference.

Jesus was supposedly a characteristic person who had followers - apparently a key sign of a cult. 

The same could be said about Mohammed, Buddha, Hari Krishna and many other "old religions".

The disagreement seems to be as one person said one of size. The Catholic Chuch is a huge and rich organisation whereas some of the organisations called cults such as the Raelians who believe we were created (just as scientists on this planet are now starting to do with DNA) by human beings from another planet in the universe.

A case of aliens geo-engineering the earth and it's inhabitants. When compared to some of the stories that the "official" religions believe in such as virgin births, coming back to life after dying and performing miracles not too bizare a belief.

What got my interest though was that one of the audience members said to an ex member of the Branch Davidians asked whether the leader David Koresh sexually abused children at the branch.

The member denied this but others of the "scientific" community said that one of the signs of a cult as compared to a religion was the sexual abuse that was endemic within cults which had such charismatic leaders that the followers did whatever he said due to brain washing techniques as well as the cult of personality.

Well doesn't that mean the Catholic Church has a very big cult, with a long history of sexual abuse of children as well as a personality cult revolving around their leader, the Pope?

This seemed to be a big difference between living your life by a set of defined values (as Christians, Jews and Muslims supposedly do) whilst cult members didn't.

There wasn't any mention of the numerous cases of sexual abuses, pedophilia, cover ups and criminal cases over the years that have been ingrained in "old religons" since their conception.

We have just experience a major Catholic cover up over its treatment of pedophile priests which led all the way up to the ex Nazi Youth Pope.

Court case after case in Ireland has shown the Catholic Church to be one of the biggest organised pedophole rings in the world - and one of the most well funded and protected.

The same sort of sexual abuse has been endemic in Christian history for a long time.

Why a man of breeding age would willingly chose abstinence and the company of little boys over a normal life seems obvious to me but in these times where psychology would give more than one answer it seems like an old excuse to hide ones sexual activities from the community at large.

Islam has always had its critics from those who called the original "cult leader" Mohammed certain terms due to the age of some of his wives.

However in some states of America where the age in some states it's 18 you might call the Spannish strange for having an age of consent of only 13 and other European countries from 13, 14 up to 18.

Even in some places in Africa and Asia is not uncommon for child weddings where an old man takes a 12 year old as a wife.

From Wikipedia:

Traditionally, across the world, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.

In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty.

The first recorded age-of-consent law dates back 800 years: In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.

In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds.

And then there is the Jewish Talmud, the book of laws made by Rabbis that is full of teachings that allow Rabbis to have sex with girls of extremley young ages or not consider rape illegal if the man was a Rabbi. These Talmudic laws have been known for a long time but are not unique for an age in which rape wasn't even considered a crime.

Even in England raping your wife wasn't considered a crime until back in 1990.

So sexual behaviour cannot be considered a sign of cultish behaviour.

However when a science fiction writer claims that "the best way to make a million dollars is to start a religion" and then goes on to do exactly that. Charging people thousands of dollars for learning it's many steps up to the big reveal, the "ultimate secret" one that wouldn't be out of place in any science fiction book:

Scientologists believe that 75 million years ago an evil galactic ruler, named Xenu, solved overpopulation by bringing trillions of people to Earth in DC-8 space planes, stacking them around volcanoes and nuking them. Then the souls of these dead space aliens were captured and boxed up and taken to cinemas where they were shown films of what life should be like, false ideas containing God, the devil and Christ and told to get ill.

After that they supposedly clustered together and now inhabit our bodies. Scientologists believe that if they rid themselves of these body Thetans then they will be healthier and will gain special powers like mind-over-matter.

People who try to leave are harassed, treated as traitors and have even had to face legal cases over their revelations of the "big secret" that people like Tom Cruise and John Travolata pay up to $500,000 for this top secret information. No wonder the Church of Scientology wants to keeps it's big secret secret!

So there seems to be clear cases of made up religions that can be called cults, in which the aim of the organisation is to extract money from the member instead of a pay if you want to bag of donations passed around a Church on a Sunday morning. However it seems that if one were to go back to the start of each off shoot of the Abrahamic faith with today's knowledge and science each new religion could easily fail into the class of a cult.

In my mind it is up to you what you want to believe but mocking another persons belief using claims that could easily fit your own brand of spiritual belief is stretching rationality at least a little.

When the definition of what is a religion and a cult are so indistinguishable from each other then maybe members of either grouping should stop to consider their beliefs before slagging off their opponents.

I'm right because my religious book says so therefore you must all be wrong - is not a logical argument that stands up too long at all.

By Dark Politricks

An interview with Gary McKinnon about UFO's, Free Energy and UK Law

An interview with Gary McKinnon about UFO's, Free Energy and UK Law

By Dark Politricks

An old but interesting interview with Gary McKinnon the famous UK hacker who claims to have found evidence of aliens inside NASA computer systems.

Within the interview he discusses

• Why the American government want him so much and how the UK government capitulated without a fight.
• How he was a clueless hacker who didn't cover his tracks whilst investigating US computer systems.
• How he gained access to high grade military and NASA computer system through unsecured administrator accounts without passwords.
• How the US government claims that he caused $5,000 of damage to every computer he accessed which coincidentally is the minimum amount required by US law to be charged with the crimes he has been.
• Why he believes that the US government has access to alien technology such as free energy which should be distributed to the people of the world.
• How NASA has a special agency that's purpose is to remove evidence of UFO's from photos that are then distributed to the public e.g universities and science labs.
• How he read the testimony of one of these photographers and proved she was telling the truth by accessing the system in question and seeing first hand one of these images.
• What he feels his chances are of spending 70 years in an American prison and how he is challenging the unfair extradition law between the UK and US which means a UK citizen can be sent off to the USA without evidence of a crime having been committed.

CIA and its links to the Opium trade in Afghanistan

CIA and its links to the Opium trade in Afghanistan

By Dark Politricks

Another signal that the war on terror and the war on drugs in Afghanistan maybe more about controlling the very lucrative opium trade was the following article printed in the New York Times. The article details how the brother of Hamid Karzai a Ahmed Wali Karzai, who is regarded to be the biggest Opium dealer in the country, is also on the payroll of the CIA.

Now I won't even pretend to be shocked as we all know that the CIA is the biggest drug smuggler in the world and has been for some time. However for those people who are still under the illusion that our troops are dying out in the Stan for some noble cause it should be another sign that things are not always what our benevolent leaders tell us they are.

According to various sources including journalists and Russian government ministers the USA is definitely involved in the lucrative Opium trade which is severely affecting Russia with its ever increasing population of addicts. Russian journalist Arkadi Dubnov quotes Afghan sources as saying that “85 per cent of all drugs produced in southern and southeastern provinces are shipped abroad by US aviation.”

A source in Afghanistan’s security services told Dubnov that the American military buy drugs from local Afghan officials who deal with field commanders overseeing eradication of drug production. Dubnov claimed in Vesti Novostei that the administration of President Hamid Karzai, including his two brothers, Kajum Karzai and Akhmed Vali Karzai, are involved in the narcotics trade.

We should only have to look at a simple graph that shows the levels of Opium production in Afghanistan over the years to see that when the CIA has been involved crop production has spiked. Remember it was actually a flat-line at zero up until the war with Russia and then the CIA had the brilliant idea of getting the Mujahideen resistance fighters to grow Opium as a way of financing the guerrilla war as well as demoralising the Russian conscript army by getting them hooked to the drug.

The Opium crop only went up and up until the Taliban took over the country and then banned the growing of the poppy plantseeing it as Un-Islamic in 2001. They were actually successful at this eradication process and areas of the country controlled by the Taliban in 2001 grew next to nothing according to a UN report.


Should we be surprised that Afghanistan was then invaded later that year by the CIA and the Northern Alliance rebels it sponsored or was it just a lucky coincidence. The war was started supposedly to catch the master mind villain behind the 9.11 attacks a Mr Usama Bin Laden who denied all knowledge or involvement in the attacks in an interview taken just afterwards.

However the invasion went forward and once rooted in the country the invading forces seemed to ignore the chase for Bin Laden and put their full attention to destroying the Taliban instead and unsurprisingly the opium crop started rising with record levels of the drug being produced year by year. Therefore when Blair and Bush were telling us that not only were in Afghanistan to catch al-Qaeda masterminds but also to help eradicate the Opium crop were they lying on only one front or both?

The following article was taken from the New York Times website and I have re-published it in full. The original link is at the bottom of the article.

Brother of Afghan Leader Is Said to Be on C.I.A. Payroll

By DEXTER FILKINS, MARK MAZZETTI and JAMES RISEN
Published: October 27, 2009

KABUL, Afghanistan — Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.

The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home.

The financial ties and close working relationship between the intelligence agency and Mr. Karzai raise significant questions about America’s war strategy, which is currently under review at the White House.

The ties to Mr. Karzai have created deep divisions within the Obama administration. The critics say the ties complicate America’s increasingly tense relationship with President Hamid Karzai, who has struggled to build sustained popularity among Afghans and has long been portrayed by the Taliban as an American puppet. The CIA.’s practices also suggest that the United States is not doing everything in its power to stamp out the lucrative Afghan drug trade, a major source of revenue for the Taliban.

More broadly, some American officials argue that the reliance on Ahmed Wali Karzai, the most powerful figure in a large area of southern Afghanistan where the Taliban insurgency is strongest, undermines the American push to develop an effective central government that can maintain law and order and eventually allow the United States to withdraw.

“If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves,” said Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the senior American military intelligence official in Afghanistan.

Ahmed Wali Karzai said in an interview that he cooperated with American civilian and military officials, but did not engage in the drug trade and did not receive payments from the C.I.A.

The relationship between Mr. Karzai and the C.I.A. is wide ranging, several American officials said. He helps the C.I.A. operate a paramilitary group, the Kandahar Strike Force, that is used for raids against suspected insurgents and terrorists. On at least one occasion, the strike force has been accused of mounting an unauthorized operation against an official of the Afghan government, the officials said.

Mr. Karzai is also paid for allowing the C.I.A. and American Special Operations troops to rent a large compound outside the city — the former home of Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban’s founder. The same compound is also the base of the Kandahar Strike Force. “He’s our landlord,” a senior American official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Mr. Karzai also helps the C.I.A. communicate with and sometimes meet with Afghans loyal to the Taliban. Mr. Karzai’s role as a go-between between the Americans and the Taliban is now regarded as valuable by those who support working with Mr. Karzai, as the Obama administration is placing a greater focus on encouraging Taliban leaders to change sides.

A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment for this article.

“No intelligence organization worth the name would ever entertain these kind of allegations,” said Paul Gimigliano, the spokesman.

Some American officials said that the allegations of Mr. Karzai’s role in the drug trade were not conclusive.

“There’s no proof of Ahmed Wali Karzai’s involvement in drug trafficking, certainly nothing that would stand up in court,” said one American official familiar with the intelligence. “And you can’t ignore what the Afghan government has done for American counter-terrorism efforts.”

At the start of the Afghan war, just after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, American officials paid warlords with questionable backgrounds to help topple the Taliban and maintain order with relatively few American troops committed to fight in the country. But as the Taliban has become resurgent and the war has intensified, Americans have increasingly viewed a strong and credible central government as crucial to turning back the Taliban’s advances.

Now, with more American lives on the line, the relationship with Mr. Karzai is setting off anger and frustration among American military officers and other officials in the Obama administration. They say that Mr. Karzai’s suspected role in the drug trade, as well as what they describe as the Mafia like way that he lords over southern Afghanistan, makes him a malevolent force.

These military and political officials say the evidence, though largely circumstantial, suggests strongly that Mr. Karzai has enriched himself by helping the illegal trade in poppy and opium to flourish. The assessment of these military and senior officials in the Obama administration dovetails with that of senior officials in the Bush administration.

“Hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money are flowing through the southern region, and nothing happens in southern Afghanistan without the regional leadership knowing about it,” a senior American military officer in Kabul said. Like most of the officials in this article, he spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the information.

“If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck,” the American officer said of Mr. Karzai. “Our assumption is that he’s benefiting from the drug trade.”

American officials say that Afghanistan’s opium trade, the largest in the world, directly threatens the stability of the Afghan state, by providing a large percentage of the money the Taliban needs for its operations, and also by corrupting Afghan public officials to help the trade flourish.

The Obama administration has repeatedly vowed to crack down on the drug lords who are believed to permeate the highest levels of President Karzai’s administration. They have pressed him to move his brother out of southern Afghanistan, but he has so far refused to do so.

Other Western officials pointed to evidence that Ahmed Wali Karzai orchestrated the manufacture of hundreds of thousands of phony ballots for his brother’s re-election effort in August. He is also believed to have been responsible for setting up dozens of so-called ghost polling stations — existing only on paper — that were used to manufacture tens of thousands of phony ballots.

“The only way to clean up Chicago is to get rid of Capone,” General Flynn said.

In the interview in which he denied a role in the drug trade or taking money from the C.I.A., Ahmed Wali Karzai said he received regular payments from his brother, the president, for “expenses,” but said he did not know where the money came from. He has, among other things, introduced Americans to insurgents considering changing sides. And he has given the Americans intelligence, he said. But he said he was not compensated for that assistance.

“I don’t know anyone under the name of the C.I.A.,” Mr. Karzai said. “I have never received any money from any organization. I help, definitely. I help other Americans wherever I can. This is my duty as an Afghan.”

Mr. Karzai acknowledged that the C.I.A. and Special Operations troops stayed at Mullah Omar’s old compound. And he acknowledged that the Kandahar Strike Force was based there. But he said he had no involvement with them.

A former C.I.A. officer with experience in Afghanistan said the agency relied heavily on Ahmed Wali Karzai, and often based covert operatives at compounds he owned. Any connections Mr. Karzai might have had to the drug trade mattered little to C.I.A. officers focused on counterterrorism missions, the officer said.

“Virtually every significant Afghan figure has had brushes with the drug trade,” he said. “If you are looking for Mother Teresa, she doesn’t live in Afghanistan.”

The debate over Ahmed Wali Karzai, which began when President Obama took office in January, intensified in June, when the C.I.A.’s local paramilitary group, the Kandahar Strike Force, shot and killed Kandahar’s provincial police chief, Matiullah Qati, in a still-unexplained shootout at the office of a local prosecutor.

The circumstances surrounding Mr. Qati’s death remain shrouded in mystery. It is unclear, for instance, if any agency operatives were present — but officials say the firefight broke out when Mr. Qati tried to block the strike force from freeing the brother of a task force member who was being held in custody.

“Matiullah was in the wrong place at the wrong time,” Mr. Karzai said in the interview.

Counternarcotics officials have repeatedly expressed frustration over the unwillingness of senior policy makers in Washington to take action against Mr. Karzai — or even begin a serious investigation of the allegations against him. In fact, they say that while other Afghans accused of drug involvement are investigated and singled out for raids or even rendition to the United States, Mr. Karzai has seemed immune from similar scrutiny.

For years, first the Bush administration and then the Obama administration have said that the Taliban benefits from the drug trade, and the United States military has recently expanded its target list to include drug traffickers with ties to the insurgency. The military has generated a list of 50 top drug traffickers tied to the Taliban who can now be killed or captured.

Senior Afghan investigators say they know plenty about Mr. Karzai’s involvement in the drug business. In an interview in Kabul this year, a top former Afghan Interior Ministry official familiar with Afghan counternarcotics operations said that a major source of Mr. Karzai’s influence over the drug trade was his control over key bridges crossing the Helmand River on the route between the opium growing regions of Helmand Province and Kandahar.

The former Interior Ministry official said that Mr. Karzai was able to charge huge fees to drug traffickers to allow their drug-laden trucks to cross the bridges.

But the former officials said it was impossible for Afghan counternarcotics officials to investigate Mr. Karzai. “This government has become a factory for the production of Talibs because of corruption and injustice,” the former official said.

Some American counternarcotics officials have said they believe that Mr. Karzai has expanded his influence over the drug trade, thanks in part to American efforts to single out other drug lords.

In debriefing notes from Drug Enforcement Administration interviews in 2006 of Afghan informants obtained by The New York Times, one key informant said that Ahmed Wali Karzai had benefited from the American operation that lured Hajji Bashir Noorzai, a major Afghan drug lord during the time that the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, to New York in 2005. Mr. Noorzai was convicted on drug and conspiracy charges in New York in 2008, and was sentenced to life in prison this year.

Habibullah Jan, a local military commander and later a member of Parliament from Kandahar, told the D.E.A. in 2006 that Mr. Karzai had teamed with Haji Juma Khan to take over a portion of the Noorzai drug business after Mr. Noorzai’s arrest.

Read full article here.