After working for Trump’s campaign, British data firm eyes n

After working for Trump’s campaign, British data firm eyes n

Postby admin » Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:40 pm

After working for Trump’s campaign, British data firm eyes new U.S. government contracts
by Matea Gold and Frances Stead Sellers
February 17, 2017

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


During last year’s race, President Trump’s campaign paid millions of dollars to a data science firm, Cambridge Analytica, that touted its ability to target voters through psychological profiling.

Now, with Trump in office, Cambridge’s British parent company is ramping up its U.S. government business by pursuing contracts that could be driven by the new president’s policy agenda, according to multiple people with knowledge of the firm’s activities who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private interactions.

The company, SCL Group, has hired additional staffers who are working out of a new office down the street from the White House. It has in recent weeks pitched officials in key national security agencies on how its technology could be used to deter terrorism, bolster the military’s capacities as it prepares for a possible buildup and help assess attitudes about immigrants.

SCL Group has ties to people in Trump’s inner circle, including White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, who until recently was on the board of Cambridge Analytica.

In addition, one of Cambridge’s main financiers is hedge fund magnate Robert L. Mercer, whose daughter Rebekah is one of the most influential donors in Trump’s orbit, according to people with knowledge of Mercer’s investment.


Image
Alexander Nix, chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, confirmed recent outreach to federal agencies and acknowledged that the company was stepping up its efforts to secure U.S. government business. (Joshua Bright/For The Washington Post)

Company executives say they are not exploiting their ties to the White House and are simply building on government work they have done in the past. But SCL’s move to expand its government business reflects how corporate interests connected to the administration see new opportunities in Trump’s Washington, even as the president vows to “drain the swamp.” And it shows how contractors are viewing the new administration’s spending priorities as potentially lucrative opportunities.

SCL’s effort is being driven by a former aide to now-departed national security adviser Michael Flynn, who served as an adviser to the company in the past.

As part of its outreach to U.S. officials, SCL is touting more than 20 years of experience in shaping voter perceptions and advising militaries and governments around the world on how to conduct effective psychological operations. In materials obtained by The Washington Post, the company suggests it could help the Pentagon and other government agencies with “counter radicalization” programs. At the State Department, SCL is offering to assess the impact of foreign propaganda campaigns, while the company says it could provide intelligence agencies with predictions and insight on emerging threats, among other services.


Government officials familiar with the company said that SCL just finalized a $500,000 contract with the State Department in the works before the election and that its executives recently met with procurement officials at the Department of Homeland Security.

Alexander Nix, a senior SCL executive who has overseen its U.S. expansion, confirmed the recent outreach to federal agencies and acknowledged that the company was stepping up its efforts to secure U.S. government business. He said that the push is an extension of the work the company has done as a subcontractor on a variety of government projects during the last 14 years — and that SCL would have sought the new work no matter who had won the election.

“We’re clearly seeking to augment our existing client services and products with some of the new technologies we’ve been developing in our other sectors, such as the political field,” he said in a phone interview. “But this is not a radical shake-up or anything new.”

“I’d like to think that regardless of the outcome of the election, we’d be working in this space,” Nix added and said he has not communicated with Bannon about the company’s work. “We’ve survived different administrations from left and right of the aisle, with different policy agendas.”

Cambridge Analytica collected at least $6 million from the Trump campaign for its data-analytics work, federal filings show. Bannon was a key driver of the company’s push into the U.S. political market in 2014, according to multiple people familiar with his role.

Company officials declined to comment on Bannon’s relationship with Cambridge.

Nix said that any involvement Bannon “may have had with the company is being discussed” with federal ethics officials. Bannon, like other top White House staff, is required to file a personal financial disclosure form that will become public later this year.

“They will be, I’m sure, making all that information available in due course,” Nix said.

White House officials did not respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for the Mercers said they could not be reached for comment.

Trump’s surprise win has meant boom times for Cambridge, which is now in hot demand by political campaigns and corporate clients across the globe.

“It’s like drinking from a fire hose,” Matt Oczkowski, Cambridge’s head of product, said in an interview at the company’s new Pennsylvania Avenue offices. “Besides Antarctica, we’ve gotten interest from every continent.”

Much of the curiosity is driven by Cambridge’s emphasis on psychographics, the study of personality traits. By measuring qualities such as openness, conscientiousness and neuroticism, officials say they can craft more effective appeals and drive people to take action.


The Mercers were early investors in the company, dismayed that the Republican Party had lost the data war in the 2012 elections.

Bannon, who was then operating as the family’s political adviser, was a participant in strategy meetings as the company worked to sign up American campaign clients. “He was instrumental in the rollout of Cambridge Analytica in the United States,” said one person familiar with his role.

The company first garnered attention in 2015 when it was tapped by the presidential campaign of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). In the end, Cambridge’s work proved uneven, according to campaign officials, who said that while its data scientists were impressive, its psychographic analysis did not bear fruit. Company officials said they were still learning how to apply the approach in a tightly compressed primary environment.

Cambridge then moved on to serve as the Trump campaign’s data-science provider. While company officials said they did not have sufficient time to employ psychographics in that campaign, they did data modeling and polling that showed Trump’s strength in the industrial Midwest, shaping a homestretch strategy that led to his upset wins in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Headquartered in a non­descript building on New Oxford Street in central London, SCL Group has the look of a staid insurance agency, with employees working at rows of computer screens. But along with project managers, IT specialists and “creatives” who design websites are psychologists and a team of data-scientists, many of whom hold doctorates in physics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics.

SCL’s main offering, first developed by its affiliated London think tank in 1989, involves gathering vast quantities of data about an audience’s values, attitudes and beliefs, identifying groups of “persuadables” and then targeting them with tailored messages. SCL began testing the technique on health and development campaigns in Britain in the early 1990s, then branched out into international political consulting and later defense contracting.

Emma Briant, who wrote about SCL’s work in her 2015 book “Propaganda and Counter-Terrorism: Strategies for Global Change,” said its approach can be used to manipulate the public, which is largely unaware how much of their personal information is available.

“They are using similar methodologies to those the intelligence agencies use with openly available data in order to create a commercial advantage for themselves,” said Briant, a journalism studies lecturer at the University of Sheffield in Britain, who is on leave to conduct research at George Washington University. “They are exploiting our dependence on social media.”

Nix, who serves as Cambridge’s chief executive, said that none of the information the company collects is “particularly intrusive,” adding that SCL’s data-science techniques were predominantly developed in the political space, not for military clients.

“This is not medical data or health data or financial data,” he said of the U.S. data that Cambridge collects. “It’s what cereal you eat for breakfast and what car you drive.”

SCL, which says it has worked in 100 countries, offers military clients techniques in “soft power.” Nix described it as a modern-day upgrade of early efforts to win over a foreign population by dropping propaganda leaflets from the air.

In a 2015 article for a NATO publication, Steve Tatham, a British military psyops expert who leads SCL’s defense business outside of the United States, explained that one of the benefits of using the company’s techniques is that it “can be undertaken covertly.”

“Audience groups are not necessarily aware that they are the research subjects and government’s role and/or third parties can be invisible,” he wrote.

In the United States, the company’s efforts to win new government contracts are being led by Josh Weerasinghe, a former vice president of global market development at defense giant BAE Systems who previously worked with Flynn at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Flynn served as an adviser to SCL on its efforts to expand its contracting work, according to two people familiar with his role.


Weerasinghe declined to comment. Flynn, ousted this week as Trump’s national security adviser amid questions about his conversations with Russian officials, could not be reached for comment.

In early February, Weerasinghe met with several procurement officials at the Department of Homeland Security. A DHS official said the gathering was focused on “whether their data analytics services could benefit the department.”

The company also just finalized a contract with the State Department’s Global Engagement Center to provide audience analysis for the center’s efforts to dissuade military-age males from joining the Islamic State, according to people familiar with the details. A State Department spokesman declined to comment on why SCL was selected.

SCL’s efforts to land new government contracts come as Trump has vowed to vastly expand the military. In late January, he signed an executive order to launch the “great rebuilding of the Armed Forces,” pledging support for more troops, weapons, ships and planes.

Nix said that while an increase in defense spending could “help” the company’s business, SCL’s government division sees potential beyond the Pentagon and Homeland Security. “We see the applications for these technologies as much in tourism and health care and treasury,” he said.

He rejected the idea that SCL’s intensifying pursuit of government contracts could be viewed as a conflict of interest because of its role in helping elect the president.

“Look, clearly the decision-makers on the campaign are very different people than the ­decision-makers in government,” he said, noting that the responsibility for contracts falls with procurement officials. “There is a code of ethics in order to make sure that is the case, and we adhere to that.”

Cambridge now has a database of 230 million American adults, with up to 5,000 pieces of demographic, consumer and lifestyle information about each individual, as well as psychological information people have shared with the company through quizzes on social media and extensive surveys, Nix has said.

“By having hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans undertake this survey, we were able to form a model to predict the personality of every single adult in the United States of America,” Nix declared in a speech at a New York conference in September 2016.


The company has its share of skeptics who question whether its data-driven messaging can actually change behavior.

“They walked me through the entire formula, and something just didn’t add up,” said a consultant who worked briefly for SCL and spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private interactions with the company. “All of a sudden it spits out analysis and data. There was a leap in logic.”

Nix shrugged off such doubters.

“We have been doing this for nearly 30 years,” he said. “I suppose if it didn’t work, we wouldn’t still be in business and we wouldn’t still be growing.”

Sellers reported from London. Tom Hamburger in Washington contributed to this report.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17838
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: After working for Trump’s campaign, British data firm ey

Postby admin » Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:59 pm

Facebook Failed to Protect 30 Million Users From Having Their Data Harvested by Trump Campaign Affiliate
by Mattathias Schwartz
March 30 2017

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image

IN 2014, TRACES of an unusual survey, connected to Facebook, began appearing on internet message boards. The boards were frequented by remote freelance workers who bid on “human intelligence tasks” in an online marketplace, called Mechanical Turk, controlled by Amazon. The “turkers,” as they’re known, tend to perform work that is rote and repetitive, like flagging pornographic images or digging through search engine results for email addresses. Most jobs pay between 1 and 15 cents. “Turking makes us our rent money and helps pay off debt,” one turker told The Intercept. Another turker has called the work “voluntary slave labor.”

The task posted by “Global Science Research” appeared ordinary, at least on the surface. The company offered turkers $1 or $2 to complete an online survey. But there were a couple of additional requirements as well. First, Global Science Research was only interested in American turkers. Second, the turkers had to download a Facebook app before they could collect payment. Global Science Research said the app would “download some information about you and your network … basic demographics and likes of categories, places, famous people, etc. from you and your friends.”

“Our terms of service clearly prohibit misuse,” said a spokesperson for Amazon Web Services, by email. “When we learned of this activity back in 2015, we suspended the requester for violating our terms of service.”

Although Facebook’s early growth was driven by closed, exclusive networks at college and universities, it has gradually herded users to agree to increasingly permissive terms of service. By 2014, anything a user’s friends could see was also potentially visible to the developers of any app that they chose to download. Some of the turkers noticed that the Global Science Research app appeared to be taking advantage of Facebook’s porousness. “Someone can learn everything about you by looking at hundreds of pics, messages, friends, and likes,” warned one, writing on a message board. “More than you realize.” Others were more blasé. “I don’t put any info on FB,” one wrote. “Not even my real name … it’s backwards that people put sooo much info on Facebook, and then complain when their privacy is violated.”

In late 2015, the turkers began reporting that the Global Science Research survey had abruptly shut down. The Guardian had published a report that exposed exactly who the turkers were working for. Their data was being collected by Aleksandr Kogan, a young lecturer at Cambridge University. Kogan founded Global Science Research in 2014, after the university’s psychology department refused to allow him to use its own pool of data for commercial purposes. The data collection that Kogan undertook independent of the university was done on behalf of a military contractor called Strategic Communication Laboratories, or SCL. The company’s election division claims to use “data-driven messaging” as part of “delivering electoral success.”

SCL has a growing U.S. spin-off, called Cambridge Analytica, which was paid millions of dollars by Donald Trump’s campaign. Much of the money came from committees funded by the hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, who reportedly has a large stake in Cambridge Analytica. For a time, one of Cambridge Analytica’s officers was Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s senior adviser. Months after Bannon claimed to have severed ties with the company, checks from the Trump campaign for Cambridge Analytica’s services continued to show up at one of Bannon’s addresses in Los Angeles.

“You can say Mr. Mercer declined to comment,” said Jonathan Gasthalter, a spokesperson for Robert Mercer, by email.

Image

Facebook Elections signs in the media area at Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Aug. 6, 2015, before the first Republican presidential debate of the 2016 election. Photo: John Minchillo/AP

The Intercept interviewed five individuals familiar with Kogan’s work for SCL. All declined to be identified, citing concerns about an ongoing inquiry at Cambridge and fears of possible litigation. Two sources familiar with the SCL project told The Intercept that Kogan had arranged for more than 100,000 people to complete the Facebook survey and download an app. A third source with direct knowledge of the project said that Global Science Research obtained data from 185,000 survey participants as well as their Facebook friends. The source said that this group of 185,000 was recruited through a data company, not Mechanical Turk, and that it yielded 30 million usable profiles. No one in this larger group of 30 million knew that “likes” and demographic data from their Facebook profiles were being harvested by political operatives hired to influence American voters.

Kogan declined to comment. In late 2014, he gave a talk in Singapore in which he claimed to have “a sample of 50+ million individuals about whom we have the capacity to predict virtually any trait.”
Global Science Research’s public filings for 2015 show the company holding 145,111 British pounds in its bank account. Kogan has since changed his name to Spectre. Writing online, he has said that he changed his name to Spectre after getting married. “My wife and I are both scientists and quite religious, and light is a strong symbol of both,” he explained.

James Bond, our “hero”, is nothing but a mind-controlled pawn with a microchip in his arm.

-- How “Spectre” is Really About James Bond Being a Tool of the Occult Elite, by VigilantCitizen.com


The purpose of Kogan’s work was to develop an algorithm for the “national profiling capacity of American citizens” as part of SCL’s work on U.S. elections, according to an internal document signed by an SCL employee describing the research.

“We do not do any work with Facebook likes,” wrote Lindsey Platts, a spokesperson for Cambridge Analytica, in an email. The company currently “has no relationship with GSR,” Platts said.

“Cambridge Analytica does not comment on specific clients or projects,” she added when asked whether the company was involved with Global Science Research’s work in 2014 and 2015.

The Guardian, which was was the first to report on Cambridge Analytica’s work on U.S. elections, in late 2015, noted that the company drew on research “spanning tens of millions of Facebook users, harvested largely without their permission.” Kogan disputed this at the time, telling The Guardian that his turker surveys had collected no more than “a couple of thousand responses” for any one client. While it is unclear how many responses Global Science Research obtained through Mechanical Turk and how many it recruited through a data company, all five of the sources interviewed by The Intercept confirmed that Kogan’s work on behalf of SCL involved collecting data from survey participants’ networks of Facebook friends, individuals who had not themselves consented to give their data to Global Science Research and were not aware that they were the objects of Kogan’s study. In September 2016, Alexander Nix, Cambridge Analytica’s CEO, said that the company built a model based on “hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans” filling out personality surveys, generating a “model to predict the personality of every single adult in the United States of America.”

Shortly after The Guardian published its 2015 article, Facebook contacted Global Science Research and requested that it delete the data it had taken from Facebook users. Facebook’s policies give Facebook the right to delete data gathered by any app deemed to be “negatively impacting the Platform.” The company believes that Kogan and SCL complied with the request, which was made during the Republican primary, before Cambridge Analytica switched over from Ted Cruz’s campaign to Donald Trump’s. It remains unclear what was ultimately done with the Facebook data, or whether any models or algorithms derived from it wound up being used by the Trump campaign.

In public, Facebook continues to maintain that whatever happened during the run-up to the election was business as usual. “Our investigation to date has not uncovered anything that suggests wrongdoing,” a Facebook spokesperson told The Intercept.

Facebook appears not to have considered Global Science Research’s data collection to have been a serious ethical lapse. Joseph Chancellor, Kogan’s main collaborator on the SCL project and a former co-owner of Global Science Research, is now employed by Facebook Research. “The work that he did previously has no bearing on the work that he does at Facebook,” a Facebook spokesperson told The Intercept.


Chancellor declined to comment.

Cambridge Analytica has marketed itself as classifying voters using five personality traits known as OCEAN — Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism — the same model used by University of Cambridge researchers for in-house, non-commercial research. The question of whether OCEAN made a difference in the presidential election remains unanswered. Some have argued that big data analytics is a magic bullet for drilling into the psychology of individual voters; others are more skeptical. The predictive power of Facebook likes is not in dispute. A 2013 study by three of Kogan’s former colleagues at the University of Cambridge showed that likes alone could predict race with 95 percent accuracy and political party with 85 percent accuracy. Less clear is their power as a tool for targeted persuasion; Cambridge Analytica has claimed that OCEAN scores can be used to drive voter and consumer behavior through “microtargeting,” meaning narrowly tailored messages. Nix has said that neurotic voters tend to be moved by “rational and fear-based” arguments, while introverted, agreeable voters are more susceptible to “tradition and habits and family and community.”

Dan Gillmor, director of the Knight Center at Arizona State University, said he was skeptical of the idea that the Trump campaign got a decisive edge from data analytics. But, he added, such techniques will likely become more effective in the future. “It’s reasonable to believe that sooner or later, we’re going to see widespread manipulation of people’s decision-making, including in elections, in ways that are more widespread and granular, but even less detectable than today,” he wrote in an email.

Image
Donald Trump throws a hat to supporters during a campaign rally on Sept. 15, 2015, in Los Angeles. Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Trump’s circle has been open about its use of Facebook to influence the vote. Joel Pollak, an editor at Breitbart, writes in his campaign memoir about Trump’s “armies of Facebook ‘friends,’ … bypassing the gatekeepers in the traditional media.” Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser, has written in his own campaign memoir about “geo-targeting” cities to deliver a debunked claim that Bill Clinton had fathered a child out of wedlock, and narrowing down the audience “based on preferences in music, age range, black culture, and other urban interests.”

Clinton, of course, had her own analytics effort, and digital market research is a normal part of any political campaign. But the quantity of data compiled on individuals during the run-up to the election is striking. Alexander Nix, head of Cambridge Analytica, has claimed to “have a massive database of 4-5,000 data points on every adult in America.” Immediately after the election, the company tried to take credit for the win, claiming that its data helped the Trump campaign set the candidate’s travel schedule and place online ads that were viewed 1.5 billion times. Since then, the company has been de-emphasizing its reliance on psychological profiling.

The Information Commissioner’s Office, an official privacy watchdog within the British government, is now looking into whether Cambridge Analytica and similar companies might pose a risk to voters’ rights. The British inquiry was triggered by reports in The Observer of ties between Robert Mercer, Cambridge Analytica, and the Leave.EU campaign, which worked to persuade British voters to leave the European Union. While Nix has previously talked about the firm’s work for Leave.EU, Cambridge Analytica now denies that it had any paid role in the campaign.


Image
Leave.EU signage is displayed in London on March 5, 2016. Photo: Rex Features/AP Images

In the U.S., where privacy laws are looser, there is no investigation. Cambridge Analytica is said to be pitching its products to several federal agencies, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff. SCL, its parent company, has new offices near the White House and has reportedly been advised by Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, on how to increase its federal business. (A spokesperson for Flynn denied that he had done any work for SCL.)

Years before the arrival of Kogan’s turkers, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg tried to address privacy concerns around the company’s controversial Beacon program, which quietly funneled data from outside websites into Facebook, often without Facebook users being aware of the process. Reflecting on Beacon, Zuckerberg attributed part of Facebook’s success to giving “people control over what and how they share information.” He said that he regretted making Beacon an “opt-out system instead of opt-in … if someone forgot to decline to share something, Beacon went ahead and still shared it with their friends.”

Seven years later, Facebook appears to have made the same mistake, but with far greater consequences. In mid-2014, however, Facebook announced a new review process, where the company would make sure that new apps asked only for data they would actually use. “People want more control,” the company said at that time. “It’s going to make a huge difference with building trust with your app’s audience.” Existing apps were given a full year to switch over to have Facebook review how they handled user data. By that time, Global Science Research already had what it needed.

Top photo: A collage of profile pictures makes up the Facebook logo on a wall at a Facebook Data Center in Forest City, N.C., in 2012.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17838
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: After working for Trump’s campaign, British data firm ey

Postby admin » Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:28 pm

How “Spectre” is Really About James Bond Being a Tool of the Occult Elite
by VigilantCitizen.com
March 21, 2016

Image

Spectre, the newest film in the James Bond franchise, is about a secret group taking control of world governments and imposing world-wide mass surveillance. Under the guise of a typical James Bond adventure, viewers get a solid dose of the occult elite’s predictive programming agenda.

Warning: Gargantuan spoilers ahead!


After appearing in more than 25 movies spanning half a century, the fictional secret agent James Bond is now the face of British intelligence and the suave personification of the MI6. Based on the series of novels written by Ian Fleming, who got most of his insights from his stint as a naval intelligence officer, Agent 007 exports the aims of Britain’s elite to the world. A perfect illustration of this occurred in 2012 when James Bond, played by Daniel Craig, appeared as Queen Elizabeth II’s escort in the opening ceremony video of the 2012 London Olympics. This simple yet powerful image encapsulates the entire raison d’être of James Bond in popular culture: He safeguards the elite’s interests.

Image
James Bond (played by Daniel Craig) escorting the Queen during the 2012 London Olympics opening ceremony.

The same way parents sneak vegetables into their children’s spaghetti sauce, James Bond movies sneak pro-elite messages into a big bowl of sex, violence and shiny things. And with Spectre, the Agenda takes a definite “Illuminati” (i.e. occult elite) turn.

A Continuous Agenda

While James Bond used to be a defender of the British empire and its interests around the world, recent 007 movies reflect an important change in world politics, which is especially true in Spectre. Loosely based on two separate Ian Fleming novels, Spectre is an original story crafted to push a specific world view. And, as I’ve outlined countless times in past articles throughout this site, the modern Agenda is all about revealing how an occult elite is taking over the world and imposing a New World Order.

Spectre is a perfect example of predictive programming: Exposing the masses to an “outlandish” concept so that when it really happens, the public’s sense of outrage is already dulled out. Of course, Spectre is far from the only movie pushing this message. The same exact premise is found in Kingsman – another British spy movie that came out in 2015 (read my article about it here).

In both movies, the “bad guys” are the global elite looking to control the world. Yet, in both movies, there are also clear signs that the British spies are strongly connected to them and that the only real losers are the masses, a “wild herd” with little to no say about what is happening. While in Kingsman, we witness massive depopulation using cellphones, Spectre is more symbolic (and upsetting). Indeed, the only time we see “regular” people in the movie is during the first scene and they are … dead.

Image
The first frame of the movie perfectly describes how the elite perceives the masses.

Image
The first scene of the movie takes place in Mexico, during Cinqo de Mayo celebrations (the day of the dead).

We then see an action scene in Mexico, during celebrations for Dia de los Muertos – the Day of the Dead. All “non-elite” people are dressed as skeletons and dancing in the streets.
After the opening scene, we don’t really see regular people in the movie – just the British government and “Spectre” struggling for power. However, as the movie subtly lets us know, they are two sides of the same coin.

Spectre = The Occult Elite

If 007 represents the British government and the MI6, then “Spectre”, the shady organization looking to control the world, represents the occult elite.

Image
The symbol of Spectre is an octopus – a symbol loved by the real world elite. Its many tentacles represents the many areas in which it meddles.

Image
When the US National Reconnaissance Organization launched its spy satellite NROL-39 (used for mass surveillance) into space, it released a mission patch featuring a giant octopus engulfing the Earth with the words “Nothing is beyond our reach”. Coincidentally enough, Spectre is about the same kind of surveillance.

Image
In the movie “Captain America: Winter Soldier”, the secret elite organization Hydra aims to control the world with the New World Order. Its symbol also features octopus-like tentacles. The proliferation of these symbols is how mass media programs the world.

Not unlike the real occult elite, Spectre gathers in secret meetings in palaces made by the elite, for the elite.

Image
The secret Spectre meeting takes place in Rome at midnight.

In occult and popular culture, midnight is also known as the “witching hour”. It is defined as the time of night when creatures such as witches, demons, and ghosts are thought to appear and to be at their most powerful … and black magic to be most effective. Appropriately enough, in the film, the meeting is the theater for a symbolic blood sacrifice.

Image
When one member of the meeting is deemed unnecessary, he gets killed in one of the worst ways possible: A gigantic guy gouges his eyes out (eyes represent the elite) and breaks his neck in front of a silent room full of people.

During that meeting, a German speaker outlines the “successes” of Spectre, which are perfectly in line with the real world elite’s “black” agenda. Not a lot of fiction going on there. One these “successes” is particularly creepy: The speaker talks about 160,000 migrated females who have been placed in the “leisure sector”. The “leisure sector” means prostitution. In subtle scenes like this one, the movie discloses the true, devastating agenda of the elite in this day and age. As I’ve mentioned in past articles, the migration crisis has been forced on the world for several reasons. One of the darkest reasons is to easily exploit millions of displaced people, who have minimal rights and few written records, in all kinds of nefarious human trafficking ventures. It has already started: News sources have reported that over 10,000 refugee children are already missing. How many of them will find themselves in the occult elite’s underground child abuse rings?

However, like the occult elite, the main goal of Spectre is to subvert all world governments in order to to implement world wide surveillance and implement nothing less than a New World Order.
Indeed, in one scene, an agent tells Bond:

“In three days, there’s a security conference in Tokyo to decide the New World Order”.


Spectre has infiltrated the British government with its agents (namely one guy that goes by the name of “C”) to get this New World Order going. In several scenes, C uses typical “Illuminati” phraseology such as:

“We’re going to bring British Intelligence out of the Dark Ages and into the light”.


“Illuminati” means “the enlightened”. Later, in his speech in Tokyo, C states:

“Do not let them tell you we need less surveillance. We need more. Much more. I say again, the Nine Eyes committee would have full access to the combined intelligence streams of all member states. More data, more analysis, less likelihood of terrorist attacks”.


During that meeting, the participating countries are subjected to a vote to get worldwide surveillance going.

Image
We then see that South Africa votes “No” to the New World Order.

Upon learning the outcome of that vote, C says yet another phrase that is very Illuminati:

“Only a matter of time before South Africa sees the light.”


Image
Shortly after that negative vote, the South African city of Cape Town is subject to a violent terrorist attack.

We see here a clear disclosure of how the real-world occult elite works: False flag terror attacks scare populations and nations into submission and into accepting drastic policy changes. All of the scenes above basically sum up what the elite has been up to in the past years: Paris attacks, new surveillance laws, and the migration crisis.

Since this is a spy movie, the occult elite is personified by one supervillain: Ernst Stavro Blofeld. His trademark characteristic tells everything you need to know about him.

Image
Later in the movie, Blofeld loses one eye, making him a walking, talking, one eye sign.

Blofeld also likes to say Illuminati mottos:

“A terrible event can lead to something wonderful. Out of horror, beauty”.


And thus I went out in that night (it was the second night of the year 1914), and anxious expectation filled me. I went out to embrace the future. The path was wide and what was to come was awful. It was the enormous dying, a sea of blood. From it the new sun arose, awful and a reversal of that which we call day. We have seized the darkness and its sun will shine above us, bloody and burning like a great downfall.

-- The Red Book, by Carl Jung


This quote is remarkably similar to the occult elite’s favorite motto: Ordo Ab Chao – Order out of chaos.

Image
A Masonic insignia featuring the motto Ordo Ab Chao.

By using false flag terror, Spectre is taking over the world. Luckily, James Bond is here to kill everybody and have sex with a bunch of girls on his way there.

However, the movie makes one thing clear: James Bond is not “the people’s hero” trying to save freedom and democracy. He’s basically a puppet of the system. The British government and Spectre are simply two sides of the same coin. That little adventure you are watching – with the suave good guy and the evil bad guy – that is just theatrics to keep you distracted while real things are actually happening.

James Bond is Reduced to a Pawn of the Elite

The true status of James Bond is clearly depicted during the title sequence of the movie.

Image
While we hear a dramatic song by Sam Smith in the background, we see James Bond walking under the “protection” of the Spectre octopus, which represents the occult elite. I thought Bond was against them?

Image
Even his gun is tightly controlled by the elite’s tentacles.

Image
The same tentacles are behind Blofeld – suggesting that both the “good guy” and the “supervillain” are actually part of the same team.

Image
James Bond walks around as we see a bunch of eyes around him.

Image
The title sequence ends with a single eye inside which are tentacles. In short, this intro sequence is all about the occult elite revealing they control the world and the very movie you are watching – while Sam Smith sings “Writing’s on the Wall”.

Once it is established that James Bond is just a puppet of the elite, everything about him from then on makes sense.

Like in every James Bond movie, there’s a scene where the agent is presented with all the cool gadgets he’ll play with during that adventure. This movie is no exception. However, this time, there is a catch. Bond must have a microchip implanted inside of him before he can do anything else.

Image
As if to prove 007 is just a simple pawn, we see him get a microchip implant … just like the one they want you to get.

Q (the guy in charge of gadgets) tells Bond:

“Cutting edge nano-technology. Smart Blood. Microchips in your bloodstream that allows us to track your movements in the field”.


To which Bond responds:

“That sounds marvelous”.


In other words, the agent who is supposed to save the world from being monitored at all times by the government … is being monitored at all times by the government.

Image
On these monitors we see that Bond’s exact location and body stats are tracked in real time. These are the “heroes” the elite wants us to root for – a combination of transhumanism and Big Brother.

Later in the movie, Bond gets more of the mind-control-slave-style treatment, this time at the hands of Blofeld.

Image
Bond gets his brain drilled into by a machine controlled by Blofeld. The good guys and the bad guys both mess around with Bond’s body. He’s just a pawn of them both.

Image
In one scene, Bond faces Blofeld through glass. Blofeld’s reflection on Bond’s face is a subtle way of saying: They’re on the same team.

In the end, Bond successfully blows up Blofeld’s secret lair. But does he kill him? No. Instead, Bond drops his gun and goes to see the girl that he’s currently sleeping with. Then another guy comes in and tells Blofeld:

“Under the Special Measures Act of 2001, I am detaining you on behalf of the Majesty’s Government”.


So the bad guy gets arrested under the “Special Measures Act of 2001”, an ending that is 100% un-James Bond. In fact, it is so pointedly ironic that it can only be interpreted as the elite laughing at the viewers. Indeed, the “Special Measures Act of 2001” is likely a reference to the “Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001”, which came into law in Britain on December 14, 2001. This law is England’s version of the Patriot Act: A massive bundle of restrictive laws that were rushed through the Parliament in the wake of 9/11.

The Act was widely criticized, with one commentator describing it as “the most draconian legislation Parliament has passed in peacetime in over a century”. On 16 December 2004 the Law Lords ruled that Section 23 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 it remained in force.


Therefore, the bad guy of the movie, who was attempting to use terror to implement world wide mass surveillance, is arrested under a law that actually implemented mass surveillance after a terror attack.

This is the elite’s sick way of telling you: We are Spectre and you’re living under our rule.

In Conclusion

Although the Spectre organization is the “bad guy” and James bond is the “good guy”, none of this actually matters. The movie’s true goal is exposing the masses to a specific concept in order to make it part of the collective unconscious. Mass media is all about predictive programming – acquainting the public with planned societal changes to be implemented by the occult elite.

These changes are already happening now. Although James Bond is fighting Spectre “for the Queen”, we must not forget that the UK has for years been at the forefront of the Big Brother Agenda, implementing all kinds of restrictive, mass surveillance laws, right after every terror attack on the Western world.

In short, the UK was taken over by Spectre a long time ago. And, James Bond, our “hero”, is nothing but a mind-controlled pawn with a microchip in his arm.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17838
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to United States Government Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron