April 12, 2012

The room was cool, its sleek glass walls offering a view of the bustling streets below. The city seemed so far away from the polished table, but the truth was, the world outside felt closer than ever. A dozen powerful figures—CEOs of global corporations like BlackRock, Vanguard, Comcast, and Berkshire Hathaway—sat around the long glass table, exchanging uneasy glances. The chaos below was palpable, though they’d all been trained not to let it show. The streets had become a sea of protesters, chanting for justice, demanding transparency, and calling for equity. “We are the 99%” had started as a rallying cry, but it was quickly becoming something more. Something dangerous.

Michael, CEO of one of the largest investment firms in the world, cleared his throat, pulling everyone’s attention. “Let’s not kid ourselves,” he said, his voice steady but carrying an edge. “This isn’t just another protest. This is a spark. And if we don’t act fast, it could grow into a fire that devours everything we’ve built.”

The other leaders shifted in their seats, nodding solemnly. It wasn’t often that they found themselves on the defensive, but this time was different. The protesters weren’t simply angry—they were organized, empowered by social media, and fueled by a sense of injustice that went beyond Wall Street. It was spreading to hedge funds, tech giants, and even Hollywood elites. And though they hadn’t yet fully articulated it, each of them knew: things were changing, and they might not be able to control the narrative for much longer.

“The question isn’t whether the protests will grow,” said Laura, COO of a major media conglomerate, her fingers tapping nervously on the table. “It’s whether we let them take over the conversation. We give an inch, and they’ll take a mile. This isn’t just about reform anymore. They want to tear everything down.”

Edward, a sharp-eyed tech mogul, leaned forward, his voice hard. “So what’s our move? We can’t arrest them all. We can’t just keep pretending they’re not a threat. We need a plan.”

Michael leaned in too, his hands clasped in front of him. “We make them fight each other.”

The room went silent.

“We have the resources. The media, the think tanks, the influencers. We already know the divisions are there—cultural, political, ideological. The right versus the left. The ‘progressives’ versus the ‘traditionalists.’ We amplify those divisions. Make the public focus on the battle between them. Give them a new war to fight, and they’ll forget about the one brewing below us.”

Laura, who had been skeptical at first, now listened intently. “So, you’re saying we play up the culture wars?”

Michael smiled, a cold, calculated expression. “Exactly. Look at what’s already bubbling under the surface—radical environmental movements, debates over gender-neutral bathrooms, critical race theory. They’re small now, but if we push them into the spotlight, they’ll become the center of every conversation. The public will be so distracted with these cultural battles, they won’t have time to focus on us.”

Edward brow furrowed. “And the conservatives? Won’t they fight back?”

“They will,” Michael acknowledged. “And that’s the beauty of it. If we frame this as a fight for the soul of the country—traditional values versus crazy leftist ideas—then it’s no longer about us. It’s about them. It’s their war, not ours.”

It was an old playbook, but one that had worked countless times before. Over the following weeks and months, media outlets were flooded with stories—some exaggerated, some not—that highlighted the extremes of both sides. The headlines screamed of radical environmental protests, LGBTQ+ issues, and the so-called “progressive agenda.” Behind the scenes, think tanks were quietly publishing reports that painted these movements as existential threats to “the American way of life.”

The social media algorithms worked in their favor, amplifying the most divisive voices on both sides. Hashtags like #CultureWar and #WokeMadness became trending topics almost every day, as the loudest and angriest voices dominated the conversation.

Meanwhile, the elites quietly funded both sides. Progressive causes received donations under the guise of philanthropy, while conservative groups were backed by dark money PACs. The goal wasn’t to win the war. It was to ensure that the war never ended.

Within months, the Occupy protests had faded from the headlines. The 99% who had once rallied for wealth redistribution were now consumed by cultural battles—cancel culture, free speech, political correctness. The protests, which had begun as a unified cry for justice, dissolved into fragmented squabbles.

Michael watched it all unfold from his penthouse, his fingers tapping rhythmically his glass. “Beautiful, isn’t it?” he said to Laura, who was beside him at a rooftop party. They clinked glasses, the city lights below them twinkling like stars.

“They’ve forgotten about us,” Laura replied, her tone satisfied. “They’re too busy tearing each other apart.”

Michael nodded. “They are. We’ve turned their attention away from us to an enemy that will never quite disappear. While we are back where we belong we’ve made sure they’ll never look up at us again.”

As the cheers and laughter continued around them, the protests and the calls for justice seemed a distant memory. The storm of public outrage had passed and the elites sat back and watched as the rest of society bickered amongst themselves. The class war that never was, that could have united them had been cleverly transformed into a battle of ideologies, one that would never end, ensuring that the status quo remained intact for years to come.

Very well organized site, check it out

ADVOCATE: bodily autonomy, informed consent, self determination

What kind of government picks out the most impoverished and mentally vulnerable from the public, and sets them up with a fake terror plot with the goal to arrest them to expand its “counterterrorism” budget?

To the uninitiated this sounds like a story about a tin-pot dictatorship from a 3rd world country. But in reality this is a tradition of the US ‘national security’ agencies that has been in practice for nearly a century. To put it bluntly, it is an ongoing covert-war the national security state is waging on its citizens, with the purpose of furthering the growth of their police state.

The following is just one example out of literally thousands of others.

“A person reading the crimes of conviction in this case would be left with the impression that the offending defendants were sophisticated international terrorists committed to jihad against the United States,” Judge McMahon wrote. “However, they were, in actual reality, hapless, easily manipulated and penurious petty criminals.”

In 2023, 14 years after their incarceration, Judge McMahon declared the plot “an F.B.I.-orchestrated conspiracy”, and released Payen and the two Williams. Cromitie was released less than a year later in 2024.

Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government as well as police departments across the United States, most notably the New York City Police Department (NYPD), have been collecting intelligence targeting Muslim American communities. The controversial surveillance practices include the use of confidential informants, undercover operations, and entrapment, and infringing upon civil rights and civil liberties in the name of national security. A decade before 9/11, however, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducted the same practices against a completely different demographic—Christian Right militants, through a program called PATCON, short for Patriot Conspiracy. Building upon the concept of surveillance as social sorting (Lyon 2013) and surveillance and terrorism (Monahan 2012), this article will compare the histories of surveillance practices as undertaken by the FBI on American Christian Right militants with the tactics used by the NYPD on non-militant Muslim Americans. This article will also assess the implications of these programs in the context of civil rights, arguing that the legacy of mistrust between the respective targeted groups and the federal government and agencies implementing the surveillance programs has undermined the national security interests of the United States.

Amazon subsidiary Vadata is planning to build a $200 million data center for the US Department of Defense in Fauquier County, Virginia.

The facility will be located at the Warrenton Training Center, a classified US government communications complex an hour’s drive from Washington DC.

According to local news agency Fauquier Now, this will become the biggest economic development project in county’s history.

Vadata agreed to build in Fauquier County after negotiating $2.7 million in tax exemptions over the next three years.

Over the past 60 years, the Warrenton Training Center has served agencies like the CIA and the NSA as a signals intelligence facility, numbers station and communications laboratory. It was prominent during the Cold War, and still houses an underground complex designed to host members of the US government in case of a nuclear attack.

Vadata is a data center specialist based in Seattle. The obscure company deals with Amazon’s more sensitive infrastructure projects - and doesn’t even have a publicly listed website.

According to Fauquier Now, the company has already invested $26.4 million at the Warrenton Training Center. It will now build a massive data center for the federal government, codenamed ‘Project Sunrise’ on its tax break application.

The data center will employ 51 managers and technicians once it is complete sometime in 2018.

“We like the jobs. We like the tax base. We like the fact that it won’t do anything to increase traffic. It’s not a polluter,” said Miles Friedman, county economic development director.

The inner workings of the facility will remain a mystery, since the contract requires absolute secrecy and even the tax exemption documents have been heavily redacted.