Strolling through the most liveable city of 2012

I happily admit that I fell in love with Melbourne. Some of the weirder experiences I had here lately make me wonder whether the title of most liveable city on this planet really applies. If so, the planet must have turned into some really unpleasant place.

Collection of cameras in less than 5 minute walking distance around the main motive,
no duplicates, many omissions

Anyway, I went on a mission to investigate a little bit whether I could find some surveillance equipment that could fit into the #Trapwire technology. The internet research unveiled no direct links into Victoria, however, the government here committed to have stricken a deal with SAIC, another one of the global paranoia players providing the technological equipment for total population control.

Williams Str 91

On my way to the city I enjoyed some blue skies and a bit of sun, which I hadn't seen thanks to Melbourne winter for a while. The familiar sight of chemtrails made me aware that soon the sun would vanish behind some hazy clouds. I knew from Google Maps to look for a building with an ANZ branch in it, close to Collins Street, and soon I arrived at the building, inconspicuous like most of the farms for people in suits in this area.

Eagle House

While looking for the location of the Melbourne office on the web, I noticed that SAIC also has an office in Pine Gap, a well establish spy base close to Alice Spring, not mention being located in plenty of US military bases around the world. Some of the bases had strange names often with 'Eagle' somewhere in it. Not that I don't like eagles, but in a way it's interesting that this company shares their favorite animal with the Nazis.

Tenants of the Eagle House, (highlight by PS)

Although there weren't any current job adverts, SAIC had already spread out in this building to another floor. Varec Inc might be just another company belonging to the web of 'security' companies that like to use as many disguises to remain looking harmless, and warrant a high level of internal compartmentalisation.

Collins Street

Now that I knew my way to yet another place where millions, if not billions of taxpayers money is spend against the population, I continued to look around for some dome cameras as they are used for #trapwire. I didn't have to go far.

Collins Street again

Most intersections along Bourke Street had one dome camera, hidden in plain view as most people frequenting this area don't pay much attention to anything around them. The council might explain them as 'traffic' related, although they differ a lot from typical red-light or speed cameras.

ANZ Bourke Street

This scenic view however, doesn't show a traffic cam - unless you can break the law easily as pedestrian. It captures the entrance of the ANZ building, but basically has a splendid view along the pavement of Bourke Street.

Close up ANZ Bourke Street camera

Hmm. Looks exactly like some the cameras attached at intersections, and although it kind of blends into structure, it looks like being attached after the building was finished.

Parliament House Station

Now that's what I call a convenient location for a surveillance camera - directly at the entrance to a train station, and it seems to be the same kind of model as the one in front of ANZ.

Colourful stretch of Bourke Street

The upper part of Bourke Street has a lot of gastronomy, cosy little buildings framed by the skyscrapers in the background. Outdoor areas to have some food and drinks, meeting with friends, having a yarn, while someone might a great view into the cleavage of guests from above.

Close up from scenic Bourke Street view

Or, depending on the resolution of this camera, which can pan, tilt and zoom, you might even read laptop or mobile phone screens over the shoulder over the user, without raising suspicion with your smelly breath when this still had to be done in person.

Less scenic Bourke Street view

I admit, this photo doesn't really look good. It's as chaotic as a lot of the views in Melbourne's inner City, but maybe you can guess why I took it.

Close up less scenic Bourke Street view

Yet another one of those nicely shaped surveillance cameras, like many others not really planned to blend smoothly to its attachment, yet again nearly invisible due to its height. Basically another perv cam, in summer time many women working in offices show off their cleavage in their business customs, maybe that's one of the perks for the poor souls condemned to spy on their community.

Witty caption (forgot the location)

Okay, call me boring, there's a diversity of camera models in public, not only the dome type that looks so much like the photos I saw in some of the TrapWire stories. At some point, I noticed that especially ANZ branches had cameras directed on the public, but hey, I'm sure it's a coincidence that SAIC has its office in a building shared with ANZ. And claiming that jumbling the letters and adding an I makes ANZ Nazi would totally undermine any credibility to this story, so I don't.

Obviously corner Bourke and Swanston Street

I didn't follow Bourke Street further down south, depending on some more sunshine with less chemtrails I might do this. I wouldn't even be surprised to find less of them, because of the strategic importance of this specific stretch of the city. Most rallies held in the CBD start at the State Library, go down Swanston Street, turn onto Bourke Street up to the Parliament.

Corner Swanston and La Trobe Street, opposite State Library

When Eastern Germany disintegrated, and the files of the Stasi (GDR's secret service) became public, many were shocked to find out that the Stasi was able to track people in East Berlin's centre completely just with surveillance cameras. Not to mention that even toilets had some, just like the idea of contemporary shop owners to have cameras in changing rooms.

TrapWire cam (via rt.com)

Go ahead, coincidence theorists, explain it all as harmless, unimportant or 'conspiracy'. Or maybe someone get issue an FOI to the Melbourne Council, asking for the purpose of the cameras, the money spend on it, the people operating and watching.

The TrapWire story seems to make the Empire nervous, lots of things happened to distract the overly short attention span of average citizens. The trolls on chats eagerly dismissing the importance of Trapwire were of course not at all PsyOp. I mean, the government wouldn't really spend money on engaging in social media, using similar strategies to viral marketing to whitewash their curiosity about every step we take in public.

A historical speech

I'm not really of friend of politics, most of the times it rather makes me mad to hear the dissonant and incoherent utterings of people who appear to be quite insane. Yet sometimes even politicians say things which rather touch my heart than try to screw my mind. The speech given about the decision of the Ecuadorian government belongs to this category, and as it is probably under reported in the mainstream media, and for my personal pleasure, and as hobby historian, I could not resist to republish it in full length in its english translation.

Statement of the Government of the Republic of Ecuador on the asylum request of Julian Assange

On June 19, 2012, the Australian citizen Julian Assange, showed up on the headquarters of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, with the purpose of requesting diplomatic protection of the Ecuadorian State, invoking the norms on political asylum in force. The requester has based his petition on the fear of an eventual political persecution of which he may be a victim in a third State, which can use his extradition to the Swedish Kingdom to obtain in turn the ulterior extradition to such country.

The Government of Ecuador, faithful to the asylum procedure, and attributing the greatest seriousness to this case, has examined and assessed all the aspects implied, particularly the arguments presented by Mr. Assange backing up the fear he feels before a situation that this person considers as a threat to his life, personal safety and freedom.

It is important to point out that Mr. Assange has made the decision to request asylum and protection from Ecuador because of the accusations that, according to him, have been formulated for supposed “espionage and betrayal” with which the citizen exposes the fear he feels about the possibility of being surrendered to the United States authorities by the British, Swedish or Australian authorities, thus it is a country, says Mr. Assange, that persecutes him because of the disclosure of compromising information for the United States Government. He equally manifests, being “victim of a persecution in different countries, which derives not only from his ideas and actions, but from his work by publishing information compromising the powerful ones, by publishing the truth and, with that, unveiling the corruption and serious human rights abuses of citizens around the world”.

Therefore, for the requester, the imputation of politic felonies is what backs up his request for asylum, thus in his criteria, he faces a situation that means to him an imminent danger which he cannot resist. With the purpose of explaining the fear he has of a possible political persecution, and that this possibility ends up turning into a situation of impairment and violation of his rights, with risk for his integrity, personal security and freedom, the Government of Ecuador considered the following:

1. That Julian Assange is a communication professional internationally awarded for his struggle on freedom of expression, freedom of press and human rights in general;
2. That Mr. Assange shared with the global population privileged documented information that was generated by different sources, and that affected officials, countries and organizations;
3. That there are serious indications of retaliation by the country or countries that produced the information disclosed by Mr. Assange, retaliation that can put at risk his safety, integrity and even his life;
4. That, despite the diplomatic efforts carried out by the Ecuadorian State, the countries from which guarantees have been requested to protect the life and safety of Mr. Assange, have denied to provide them;
5. That, there is a certainty of the Ecuadorian authorities that an extradition to a third country outside the European Union is feasible without the proper guarantees for his safety and personal integrity;
6. That the judicial evidence shows clearly that, given an extradition to the United States, Mr. Assange would not have a fair trial, he could be judge by a special or military court, and it is not unlikely that he would receive a cruel and demeaning treatment and he would be condemned to a life sentence or the death penalty, which would not respect his human rights;
7.  That, even when indeed Mr. Assange has to respond to the investigation open in Sweden, Ecuador is aware that the Swedish prosecutor’s office has had a contradictory attitude that prevented Mr. Assange from the total exercise of the legitimate right to defense;
8. That Ecuador is convinced that the procedural rights of Mr. Assange have been infringed during that investigation:
9. That Ecuador has verify that Mr. Assange does not count with the adequate protection and help that he should receive from the State of which he is a citizen;
10. That, according to several public statements and diplomatic communications made by officials from Great Britain, Sweden and the United States, it is deduced that those governments would not respect the international conventions and treaties and would give priority to internal laws of secondary hierarchy, contravening explicit norms of universal application; and,
11. That, if Mr. Assange is reduced to preventive prison in Sweden (as it is usual in that country), it would initiate a chain of events that will prevent the adoption of preventive measures to avoid his extradition to a third country.

Accordingly, the Ecuadorian Government considers that these arguments back up Julian Assange’s fears, thus he can be a victim of political persecution, as a consequence of his determined defense to freedom of expression and freedom of press, as well as his position of condemn to the abuses that the power infers in different countries, aspects that make Mr. Assange think that, in any given moment, a situation may come where his life, safety or personal integrity will be in danger. This fear has leaded him to exercise his human right of seeking and receiving asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in the United Kingdom.

Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador defines clearly the right to grant asylum. Regarding those dispositions, the rights to asylum and shelter are fully recognized, according to the law and international human rights instruments. According to such constitutional norm:
“People who are in a situation of asylum and shelter will enjoy special protection that guarantees the full exercise of their rights. The State will respect and guarantee the principle of no return, aside from the humanitarian and judicial emergency assistance”.

Moreover, the right to asylum is recognized in the Article 4.7 of the Organic Law of Foreign Service of 2006, which determines the faculty of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Integration of Ecuador to know the cases of diplomatic asylum, according to the laws, the treaties, the rights and the international practice.

It is important to outline that our country has outstood over the last years for welcoming a huge number of people who have requested territorial asylum or refuge, respecting with no restriction the principle of no return and no discrimination, while adopting measures towards granting the refugee status in an efficient way, bearing in mind the circumstances of the requesters, most of them Colombians escaping the armed conflict in their country. The High Commissioner of the United Nations for Refugees has praised Ecuador’s refugee policy, and has highlighted the meaningful fact that these people have not been confined to refugee camps in this country, but they are integrated to society, in full enjoyment of their human rights and guarantees.

Ecuador states the right to asylum in the universal brochure of human rights and believes, therefore, that the effective application of this right requires the international cooperation that our countries can provide, without which its enouncement would be unfruitful, and the institution would be completely ineffective. For these reasons, and bearing in mind the obligation that all the States have assumed to collaborate in the protection and promotion of Human Rights, as it is established in the United Nations Letter, invites the British Government to provide its contingent to reach this purpose.

For those effects, Ecuador has been able to verify, in the course of analysis of the judicial institutions regarding the asylum, that to the confirmation of this right attend fundamental principles of general international law, which because of their importance have universal value and scope, for they are consistent with the general interest of the international community as a whole, and count with the full recognition of all the States. Those principles, which are contemplated in the different international instruments, are the following:

1. The asylum in all its forms is a fundamental human right and creates obligations erga omnes, meaning, “for all”, the States.
2. The diplomatic asylum, the refuge (territorial asylum), and the right to not being extradited, expulsed, surrendered or transferred, are comparable human rights, thus they are based on the same principles of human protection: no return and no discrimination with no distinction of unfavorable character for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other type of opinions, national or social origin, birth or other condition or similar criteria.
3. All these forms of protection are ruled by the pro homine principles (meaning, most favorable to the human being), equality, universality, indivisibility, complementarity, and inter dependency.
4.  The protection is produced when the State which grants the asylum, refuge or requested, or the protective potency, considers that there is a risk or fear that the protected person may be a victim of political persecution, or are charged with political felonies.
5.  It corresponds to the State which grants the asylum to qualify the causes of asylum and, in the case of extradition, to value the evidences.
6. Regardless of the modality or form in which it is presented, the asylum has always the same cause and the same legal object, meaning, political persecution, which is a legal cause; and to safe guard the life, personal safety and freedom of the protected person which is a legal object.
7. The right to asylum is a fundamental human right, therefore, it belongs to the ius cogens, meaning, the system of imperative norms of right recognized by the international community as a whole, which does not admit a contrary agreement, annulling the treaties and dispositions of international law against it.
8. In the unforeseen cases on the law in force, the human being is under the safe guard of the humanity principles and the demands of the public conscience or under the protection and empire of the principles of the law of people derived from the established uses, of the humanity principles and the dictates of the public conscience.
9. The lack of international convention or internal legislation of the States cannot be legitimately claimed to limit, impinge or deny the right to asylum.
10. The norms and principles that rule the rights to asylum, refuge, no extradition, no surrender, no expulsion and no transference are convergent, to the necessary extent to perfect the protection and providing it with the most efficiency. In this sense, the international law of human rights, the right to asylum and refuge and the humanitarian law are complementary.
11. The rights of protection to the human being are based on ethical principles and values universally admitted and, therefore, they have a humanitarian, social, solidarity, assistant and pacific character.
12. All the States have the duty to promote the progressive development of the international law of human rights through effective national and international laws.

Ecuador considers that the right applicable to Mr. Julian Assange’s case is integrated by the whole principles, norms, mechanisms and procedures foreseen on the international instruments of human rights (regional or universal), which contemplate among their dispositions the right to seek, receive and enjoy asylum for political reasons; the Conventions that regulate the right to asylum and the right of refugees, and that recognize the right to not be surrendered, returned or expulsed when there are founded fears of political persecution; the Conventions that regulate extradition and that recognize the right to not be extradited when this measure can mask political persecution; and the Conventions that regulate the humanitarian right, and that recognize the right not to be transferred when there is a risk of political persecution. All these modalities of asylum and international protection are justified by the need to protect this person of an eventual political persecution, or a possible imputation of political felonies and/ or felonies connected to these last ones, which, to Ecuador’s judgment, not only would put at risk the life of Mr. Assange, but would also represent a serious injustice committed against him.

It is undeniable that the States, having contracted with so numerous and substantive international instruments- many of them judicially binding- the obligation to provide protection or asylum to people persecuted for political reasons, have expressed their will to establish a judicial institution of protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, founded as a right in a generally accepted practice, which gives those obligations an imperative character, erga omnes that, being bonded to respect, protection and progressive development of human rights and fundamental freedoms, are a part of the ius cogens. Some of those instruments are mentioned bellow:

1. United Nations Letter of 1945, Purposes and Principles of the United Nations: obligation of all the members to cooperate in the promotion and protection of human rights;
2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948: the right to seek and enjoy asylum in any country, for political reasons (Article 14);
3. American Declaration of Men’s Rights and Duties of 1948: the right to seek and enjoy asylum in any country, for political reasons (Article 27);
4. Geneva Agreement of August 12, 1949, regarding the Due Protection of Civilians in War Times: in no case it is due to transfer the protected person to a country where they can fear persecutions because of their political opinions (Article 45);
5. Agreement on the Refugees Statute of 1951, and its New York Protocol of 1967: forbids to return or expulse refugees to countries where their life and freedom may be in danger ( Article 33.1);
6. Convention on Diplomatic Asylum of 1954: the State has the right to grant asylum and to qualify the nature of the felony or reasons of persecution (Article 4);
7. Convention on Territorial Asylum of 1954: the State has the right to admit in its territory people it judges convenient (Article 1), when they are persecuted for their beliefs, opinions or political filiations, or by actions that may be considered political felonies (Article 2), not being able the asylum granting State, to return or expulsed the asylum seeker that is persecuted for political reasons or felonies (Article 3); in the same way, the extradition does not proceed when it is about people who, according to the required State, are persecuted for political felonies, or for common felonies that are committed with political purposes, nor when the extradition is requested obeying political motives (Article 4);
8. European Extradition Agreement of 1957: forbids the extradition if the requested Part considers that the felony imputed has a political character (Article 3.1);
9. 2312 Declaration on Territorial Asylum of 1967: establishes the granting of asylum to the people that have such right according to Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including people who fight against colonialism (Article 1.1). The denial of admission, expulsion or return to any State where they can be object of persecution is forbidden (Article 3.1);
10. Vienna Convention on the Right of the Treaties of 1969: establishes that the norms and imperative principles of general international right do not admit a contrary agreement, being null the treaty that at the moment of its conclusion enters in conflict with one of these norms (Article 53), if a peremptory norm of the same character arises, every existent treaty that enters in conflict with that norm is null and ended (Article 64). As far as the application of these articles, the Convention authorizes the States to demand their accomplishment before the International Court of Justice, with no requisition of conformity by the demanded State, accepting the tribunal’s jurisdiction (Article 66 b). The human rights are norms of the ius cogens.
11. American Convention on Human Rights of 1969: the right to seek and receive asylum for political reasons (Article 22. 7);
12. European Agreement for the Repression of Terrorism of 1977: the required State has the faculty to deny extradition when there is danger of persecution or punishment of the person for their political opinions (Article 5);
13. Inter American Convention for Extradition of 1981: the extradition does not proceed when the requested has been judge or condemned, or is going to be judge before an exception tribunal or ad hoc in the required State (Article 4.3); when, with arrangement to the qualification of the required State, it deals with political felonies, or connected felonies or common felonies persecuted with political purposes; when from the case’s circumstances, can be inferred that the persecuted purposes is mediated for considerations of race, religion or nationality, or that the situation of the person is at risk of being aggravated for one of those reasons (Article 4.5). The Article 6 disposes, regarding the Right to Asylum, that “none of the exposed in the present Convention may be interpreted as a limitation to the right to asylum, when this proceeds”.
14. African Letter of Men and People’s Rights of 1981: the right of the persecuted individual to seek and obtain asylum in other countries (Article 12.3);
15. Cartagena Declaration of 1984: recognizes the right to refuge, to not being rejected in the borders and to not being returned;
16. Fundamental Rights Letter of the European Union of 2000: establishes the right to diplomatic and consular protection. Every citizen of the Union may seek refuge, in the territory of a third country, in which the Member State of nationality is not represented, to the protection of diplomatic and consular authorities of any member State, in the same conditions of the nationals of that State (Article 46).

The Government of Ecuador considers important to outline that the norms and principles recognized in the international instruments mentioned, and in other multi lateral agreements, have preeminence over the internal laws of the States, thus such treaties are based in a universally oriented normative by intangible principles, from which a greater respect is derived, guarantee and protection of human rights against unilateral attitudes of the same States. This would subtract efficiency to the international law, which otherwise has to be strengthen, so the respect of fundamental rights is consolidated in function of integration and ecumenical character.

On the other hand, since Julian Assange requested political asylum to Ecuador, dialogues of high diplomatic level have been held, with the United Kingdom, Sweden and the United States.

In the course of these conversations, our country has appealed to obtain from the United Kingdom the strictest guarantees so Julian Assange faces, with no obstacles, the judicial process open in Sweden. Such guarantees include that, once treated his legal responsibilities in Sweden, he would not be extradited to a third country; this is, the guarantee that the specialty figure will not be applied. Unfortunately, and despite the repeated exchanges of texts, the United Kingdom never gave proof of wanting to achieve political compromises, limiting to repeat the content of the legal texts.

Julian Assange’s lawyers requested the Swedish justice to take statements of Julian Assange in the premises of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Ecuador translated officially to the Swedish authorities its will to facilitate this interview with the purpose of not intervening or obstacle the judicial process that is carried out in Sweden. This is a perfectly legal and possible measure. Sweden did not accept it.

On the other hand, Ecuador searched the possibility that the Swedish Government would establish guarantees to avoid the onward extradition of Assange to the United States. Again, the Swedish Government rejected any commitment on that sense.

Finally, Ecuador directed a communication to the Government of the United States to know officially its position on the Assange’s case. The consults referred to the following:

1. If there is a legal process in course or the intention to carry out such process against Julian Assange and/ or the founders of the Wikileaks organization;
2. In the case of the above being truth, what kind of legislation, in which conditions and under which maximum penalties would those people be subjected;
3. If there is the intention of requesting the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States.

The answer of the United States has been that they cannot offer information on the Assange’s case, with the allegation that it is a bilateral matter between Ecuador and the United Kingdom.

With these antecedents, the Government of Ecuador, faithful to its tradition to protect those who seek shelter in its territory or in the premises of its diplomatic missions, has decided to grant diplomatic asylum to the citizen Julian Assange, on the basis of the request presented to the President of the Republic, through a written communication dated in London on June 19, 2012, and complemented by a communication dated in London on June 25, 2012, for which the Ecuadorian Government, after carrying out a fair and objective assessment of the situation exposed by Mr. Assange, attending his own sayings and argumentations, intakes the requester’s fears, and assumes that there are indications that allow to assume that there may be a political persecution, or that such persecution may be produced if the opportune and necessary measures are not taken to avoid it.

The Government of Ecuador has the certainty that the British Government will know how to value the justice and rectitude of the Ecuadorian position, and in consistency with these arguments, trusts that the United Kingdom will offer as soon as possible the guarantees or safe conducts necessaries and pertinent to the situation of the asylum requester, so their Governments can honor with their actions the fidelity they owe to the international laws and institutions that both nations have contribute to shape along their common history.

It also trusts to maintain inalterable the excellent bonds of friendship and mutual respect that unite Ecuador and the United Kingdom and their respective people, confident as they are in the promotion and defense of the same principles and values, and because they share similar concerns about democracy, peace, Good Living, which can only be possible if the fundamental rights of all people are respected.

How to destroy social movements

Sometimes, even Facebook can link to valuable information. I thought long and hard about why Occupy Melbourne didn't really get off the ground, although it had an amazing collection of talent. Then I read the lengthy explanation underneath this cute picture, and had a better idea of what social movements are up against, and that it simply crumbled under psy-op attacks as described below.

================

HOW INFILTRATORS AND DISINFORMATION AGENTS WORK: 

How government counter intelligence operates on Facebook and internet forums.

These tactics have been repeatedly used in many activist groups, the tactics highlighted below are a common blue print, that government agents use in all campaigns that they have been assigned to, usually because whatever the campaigns objectives are, they may in some way be damaging to the establishment.

Psy-ops

Psychological operations, the label is quite self explanatory, this is the techniques they employ
to “head fuck” their victim, and also confuse other genuine group members. I will list various techniques that I have both been victim to and observed on social networking sites, mainly Facebook.

1. Character Assassination

They identify who is potentially the biggest threat, they then set about getting that person removed from the group, they have various means of doing this, and most entail discrediting that person in one way or another. Whispering is their most common method, ie, private messaging other members of the group, and telling lies about their victim. They then pick off the members of the group one at a time, until the only players left in the game are the other government "shills".

When they have pinpointed who they deem to be the biggest threat to their agenda, they set about the most despicable character assassination. If you comment on forums, they will twist things you say, they will at all times be working towards having other group members think they are good and moral, and you are bad and immoral. They will take totally innocuous things which you have said, and try and twist them so as you appear hypocritical, a liar, insensitive…..it goes on and on!

They will stoop as low as they see fit, they may even befriend your bitter Ex partners to get as much "dirt" on you as possible.Then they will proceed to post their findings all over Facebook.

2. Whispering

The whispering can be telling other group members that their chosen victim has been either ridiculing them, or doing/saying something that could be damaging to the campaign. To ensure that the person they are messaging does not go straight to you and report the correspondence, they may suggest that you are a dangerous or very vindictive person, and that they are afraid of you.

Having personally been the victim of their whispering campaigns, I can tell you from first hand experience, that it is very difficult to defend yourself from the unknown, people just distance themselves from you, and you are in the dark, and have no clue why.

3. Dummy Friend

One of their number will befriend you, confide their secrets, and embark on a bonding process, this is one of their most deadly weapons, it is designed so that you will then confide things to them, and they can then form a “psychological profile chart” on you, they then use this against you, as they will know your weak spots. Your new “Dummy Friend”, will try at all costs to establish a bond with you and gain your trust. They will gently try and influence your opinions, often telling you lies, and trying to distance you from other genuine campaigners.

Your new Dummy Friend will invent dramas, claiming someone has been very nasty to them, the someone could be a genuine campaigner, or one of the psych-ops team. The invented drama will be reported in such a way as to warrant a reaction of some sort from you, this could result in them dragging you into a public slagging match, or you contacting the “nasty person” with accusations. Either way, you come out of it looking bad, while dummy friend smells of roses.

Dummy friend may pretend to have an illness or disability of some sort to make you feel protective of them. Dummy friend can be very clever, and will play you like a fiddle! Dummy

friend will present you with "evidence" about other genuine campaigners, which will suggest that they are in fact an infiltrator, and cannot be trusted. When you have been presented with this fabricated evidence, if you react in any way, and make any kind of comment about the person, that comment will then be passed onto them. Be aware, Dummy Friend will at all times be passing all your messages onto the other members of the psy-ops team.

It will also be Dummy Friends job to plant the seeds of paranoia, always passing on tittle-tattle about this one or the other one gossiping about you. When you eventually cop on that dummy friend has betrayed you, this is when dummy friend becomes their most lethal, they know they have been exposed and they will then publicly use all the information they have on you in public forums, at this stage they can say what they want as they know you don’t trust them any more, so they don’t need to worry about protecting that bond.

Dummy friend at this stage attempt to protect their identity amongst the rest of the group, will make out you are paranoid, crazy, a nut job if you try and reveal to the rest of the group what they have been up to. Dummy friend is by far the most lethal member of the psy-ops team.

4. Rows rows rows!

They also instigate rows within the group, two agents will be in charge of the two warring factions, innocent members of the group take sides, and get drawn into their manufactured saga.

They will publicly attack the people they see as their biggest threat. They will malign and discredit them in the most despicable manner. They just love fighting, and at all times will be planting seeds all over the place to start rows. The most effective way to damage a campaign is to have continuous in-fighting. Dummy friend will play a big part in this, because if they have said something slanderous about you somewhere, and you did not see it, dummy friend will see it and pass it onto you. Even when you know their tactics, and you know that they are just trying to drag you into a public slagging match, it is very difficult not to react, and to just let the posse slander you on forums/groups/pages etc. In the manufacturing of these rows, they will either just straight out lie about you, or take things you have said, and report them totally out
of context.

Psy-ops agents are Masters at manipulation, coming off as truthful, knowledgeable,
and witty. Many of these tactics leave people feeling confused about what to believe, the whole while having fallen into their traps of paranoia, discontent, and criticism.

The whole thing ends in chaos “divide and conquer” the oldest trick in the book!

The constant rows often mean that genuine campaigners leave, either after being attacked, or because the constant fighting is wearing them out. Then the whole campaign either falls apart, or their order becomes the order of the group. If they are in control of the group, they will steer the group in a direction which will hinder not enhance the overall campaign.

5. Time wasting

The psy–ops team will at all times be devising ways to waste your time. Time wasted is time not spent on the campaign. An example of this would be to publicly accuse you of some kind of wrong doing, it is human nature that when wrongly accused you will want to clear your name. Clearing your name may entail trawling through emails and messages from two years ago to back up your innocence in the slanderous claims.

Another method they use is to get “dummy friend” to send you links which they say is evidence of wrong doing of another team member, trawling through these links will take up an inordinate amount of your time and energy.

Dummy Friend is the most dangerous member of the psy-ops team, and will at all times be working behind your back to destroy you. Dummy friend will also send you links to obscure forums all over the net, where the other psy-ops team will be ridiculing and slandering you, remember, this is a full time paid job for these people, so don’t be surprised at the vast amount of time they use setting these stings up.

6. Multi-characters

One of the psy-ops team, may in fact be 4 members of the group, they will often have numerous identities, and often even start rows with themselves to try and drag other group members into taking sides and getting involved in the manufactured drama. Divide and conquer.

7. Victimisation

While you are their victim, and they are at all times working towards discrediting you and victimising you, they will make attempts to make others think it is in fact the other way round. There are many ways they can do this.

When it then becomes very obvious what they are up to, and you block them, they will spend the next two or more days going to other forums all over the place to discredit you further for blocking them, they will accuse you of being a liar, a hypocrite etc etc. All the time making out that they have been a victim to you! Should you attempt to defend your actions on these forums, you will then be pounced on by the other psy-ops team, and a full scale slagging match ensues. I now ignore all such attempts to embroil me in their dramas.

8. Exposure

This is their greatest fear, and when exposed they will join forces and attack like the nest of vipers that they are, when there has been full exposure, it means that they have to create new identities and go through the entire process again of gaining trust and influence in the group, they have done this in the past, but they prefer to avoid this, and retain the positions they already hold. They will go to great lengths to have people think that they are the victims, and the person doing the exposing is in fact the infiltrator.

They will point out the great amount of time that they have devoted to the campaign, which is often more than the genuine campaigners, as they are full time employees so to speak, and getting paid for all they do! On the face of it they may appear to have been great supporters, but when you scratch the surface just a little and examine what they have been doing in the shadows, and not the light, a very different picture emerges of their actual contribution.

Make no mistake, these people are often masters at what they do, they have been trained in mind manipulation, and know every trick in the book, as to how to influence group actions and behaviour.

It is their ultimate goal to head fuck the entire group, genuine supporters when faced with this level of Machiavellian tactics give up and leave the campaign. Others continue to support, but from the side lines, and do not get involved in the group activities, and I really don’t blame them!

I have penned this, firstly to outline my own position at not defending myself from their attacks, as I realised long ago that interactions with them are futile, and only serve to damage the campaign with in-fighting, secondly to let other supports be aware of the tactics they use, awareness will save you a great deal of time and annoyance.

A group of 27,000 was formed; the above tactics were used to totally disintegrate the group. I have seen many more of lesser volume obliterated by this.

I would urge all supporters, if you see arguments that appear to be among supporters, stay well clear, let them fight among themselves, do not join in, and do not be swayed by the lies they tell, question their motives in trying so hard to discredit honourable people and/or create hysteria, distrust, fighting, and an unhealthy environment.

==============================

As I consider fb not really a useful resource for collaboration, I copied the content over here. I encountered some of these strategies this morning, and still hope that information about psy-op strategies can immunise a sufficiently large part of those still willing to engage for the global occupy movement.

I think it's also handy to have the text handy in a format that makes copy and paste easy. Some of the things here happen also as part of 'normal' unhealthy interpersonal and group dynamics. In those situation I found 'calling one's bluff' usually can transform a situation to a less damaging outcome, or even, given a basic common intent to cooperate, into a win-win situation.

America’s Vassal Acts Decisively and Illegally

Repost from www.craigmurray.co.uk

100,000 HITS IN 100 MINUTES CRASHED THE SITE. WE DON’T KNOW YET IF GENUINE INTEREST OR DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACK. OUR BRILLIANT WEBHOSTS HAVE QUADRUPLED THE RESOURCE, BUT IF YOU CAN HELP TAKE THE STRAIN BY REPOSTING I WOULD BE VERY GRATEFUL.

I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and seize Julian Assange.

This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna Convention of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which encodes the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most subscribed single international treaty in the world.

The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic premises are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification or qualification elsewhere in the treaty.

Article 22

1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide.

The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of the neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international law.

The British Government bases its argument on domestic British legislation. But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations in international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would leave British diplomats with no protection worldwide.

I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the move against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken in Number 10.

There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal Democrats. That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact now in any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government salaries and privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any belief to these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party for over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had principles.