But how to prove it all, or challenge western colonial hegemony? It starts by exposing it. Then, taking on the false, loaded terms-and tactics- of the FVEY arguments

是不是有点不寒而栗呢?

惊!境外有五只眼睛 几十年来一直在暗处盯着中国

[ 转自铁血社区 http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_13284060_1.html/ ]

境外,有五只眼睛,几十年来,一直紧盯着中国。这不是在写电影剧本。

“五眼联盟”,听说过吗?这个跨国情报联盟机构是冷战的产物,本该随着冷战的结束而画上句号,却在后冷战时代找到了一个新“使命”,就是盯防中国。

“五眼联盟”,针对中国的一面越来越不加掩饰。因它而起的事端也日益增多。

特殊

这究竟是什么样的组织呢?

五眼联盟,FIVE EYES,分别是美国、英国、澳大利亚、加拿大和新西兰这5个国家。不难看出,它们都是英语系国家,英国及它的前殖民地。组织的基本守则自称是共享情报,并且互不监控。

[ 转自铁血社区 http://www.tiexue.net/ ]

说说它的特殊性吧。世界上也有一些其他多边情报共享安排,比如北约内部。但即使北约各国间也很难做到分享所有情报,因为国家太多,它们的利益并不是时时都一致的。

五眼之间不存在这个问题,因为5个成员国是有着共同语言、价值观和几十年相互信任的好基友。

惊!境外有五只眼睛 几十年来一直在暗处盯着中国

五眼的历史可以追溯到第二次世界大战。最开始,只有英国和美国。它俩在破解苏联电文的过程中,感受到分享情报的重要性,决定加强情报方面的协作。1946年3月5日,美英签署信号情报合作多边协议,正式成立情报分享联盟,该协议被称为UKUSA协议。

UKUSA协议为冷战期间的英美合作奠定基础。换句话说,该协议巩固了英美之间的特殊关系。

加拿大1948年加入,澳大利亚和新西兰1956年加入。后来加入的这3个国家都是英语国家,同时也是英联邦成员,与英国有着相似的政治体制。至此,五眼联盟成立。

[ 转自铁血社区 http://bbs.tiexue.net/ ]

在联盟内,每份情报都标有秘密等级,并注明哪个国家拥有阅读权限。比如,一份美国情报机构才能阅读的情报上会盖有“绝密仅限美国眼睛”的红色印戳,而“五眼”源自于冗长的“澳大利亚/加拿大/新西兰/英国/美国五眼可见”保密级别,有该标记的文件预示着高级别的文件和信息。

70多年里,这一联盟的隐匿性或者说秘密性非常高,以至于1973年时任澳大利亚总理高夫·惠特拉姆都不知道它的创建条约是什么。直到2010年6月,UKUSA协议的全文才由英美政府公布,并首次得到官方认可。

分工

随着时代的发展,UKUSA协议也在不断演进,目前只解密了最初的文本。

根据1946年的原始条约,签约方同意交换以下与外国通讯有关的行动成果:流量收集、通讯文件和设备获取、使用分析、密码分析、解密和转换以及所有获取的与通讯组织、方式、步骤和设备相关的信息。

惊!境外有五只眼睛 几十年来一直在暗处盯着中国

[ 转自铁血社区 http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_13284060_1.html/ ]

如今,各国都有专门与“五眼”对接的情报机构:美国国家安全局、英国政府通信总部、澳大利亚信息理事会、加拿大通信安全局和新西兰政府通信安全局。

2012年12月加拿大智库“防务与外交事务研究所”发布了一份关于加拿大在“五眼”中作用的报告。该报告指出,“五眼”将全球分为五大区域,每个成员负责一区。

英国监测欧洲、俄罗斯西部、中东北非和中国香港。

美国负责监督中东、中国、俄罗斯、非洲和加勒比地区。

澳大利亚负责南亚和东亚。

新西兰负责南太平洋和东南亚。

[ 转自铁血社区 http://www.tiexue.net/ ]

加拿大监测的是俄罗斯和中国的内陆,以及拉丁美洲的部分地区。

尽管如此,区域划分并不意味着各方只能将其努力仅限于这些地区,而是它们对某些地区“负有责任”,却没有义务只监测这些地区。况且情报汇总后将作为一个整体进行分析评测。

发展至今,五眼联盟不再局限于最初的信号情报合作,合作范围还扩大至人工情报、秘密行动、反间谍、地理空间情报、执法以及金融和交通安全等领域的合作。

比如在海洋领域,五眼监测战略海域的航运交通;在航空航天领域,监测弹道导弹试验、外国卫星部署和空军的相关军事活动。

恐怖组织和武器交易也在五眼联盟的监控范畴,特别是现在它们对五眼成员的威胁与日俱增。五眼收集的情报和数据有助于政策制定,也对日常工作至关重要。这些日常工作,包括跟踪和识别恐怖行动,以及其他非传统威胁的可能来源。

斯诺登曾将“五眼联盟”描述为“超国家情报机构”,表示“它不遵守任何国家的已知法律”。他爆料说,“五眼”的成员一直在监视彼此的公民,并分享各自收集的信息,以绕过禁止监视公民的国家法律。

[ 转自铁血社区 http://bbs.tiexue.net/ ]

圈子

这些年,“五眼”成员之间也曾出现过一些紧张局面。去年5月,英国曼切斯特音乐会遭遇自杀炸弹袭击,美国有官员泄露了该事件的调查情况,英国就曾一度停止与美国之间的情报共享。

然而,这样的紧张不宜被夸大。

“五眼”历经70多年,5个成员国说着一样的语言,享有相似的文化、历史与体制,它们一直是铁杆盟友,是以美国为老大的核心朋友圈。

这种基于互信的情报共享具有明显的战略优势,而成员的扩充会弱化这一优势,因此,“五眼”眼下不太可能再吸收新的成员。

惊!境外有五只眼睛 几十年来一直在暗处盯着中国

[ 转自铁血社区 http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_13284060_1.html/ ]

这并不妨碍“五眼”成员与其他国家建立双边合作关系。“五眼”之前就曾与丹麦、法国、挪威和荷兰的合作,被称为“九眼联盟”。再加上比利时、德国、意大利、西班牙和瑞典,成为“十四眼联盟”。“十四眼联盟”的更正式名称是欧洲高阶信号情报,其主要任务是协调成员国间的军事信号交换。

美国还与法国、德国和日本等盟国保持着情报共享关系。在中东,美国也正式或非正式地与约旦、沙特、埃及、土耳其等几个国家分享情报,以打击伊斯兰国和其他恐怖组织。

针对

知道了“五眼”的前世今生,我们再看看最近的新闻:“五眼联盟加强合作,对付中国”。

这似乎给人一种误解,那就是“五眼联盟”以前只关注苏联,没中国什么事。显然不是这样。“五眼”作为一个正常的情报交换机制,中国从来都是它情报搜集的主要对象。

惊!境外有五只眼睛 几十年来一直在暗处盯着中国

[ 转自铁血社区 http://www.tiexue.net/ ]

对几乎所有国家来说,隐形战线的对抗从来都是各国对外关系中必不可少的一部分。无论双边关系是好是坏,各国都会搜集对方情报,只是活跃程度有所不同。

当两国关系稳定发展时,彼此间的间谍丑闻和矛盾都是闭门解决。如果关系不好,外界就会看到公开的指责、驱逐外交官等摩擦。同时,媒体也会得到一些安全部门的爆料,公开一些对方的情报活动、间谍案件等等。

所以说,改变的不是中国针对西方,或者西方针对中国的情报活动,而是中美关系。

惊!境外有五只眼睛 几十年来一直在暗处盯着中国

这也说明一点:“五眼联盟”作为冷战产物,本来没有什么存在的必要,但是美国却有意保留并大加利用,因为它便于美国影响核心盟友,尤其是澳大利亚受美国影响至深,在中澳关系上一轮的紧张中,华盛顿起到了推波助澜的作用。相较之下,其他国家对美国几乎没有影响力。

据说,为了应对“越来越强硬”的中国外交政策,“五眼”联合日德法等国家经常碰头。一名在过去几个月参加了多次相关会谈的人士说:“我们如今生活在一个新世界中,突如其来的威权政府正在促进我们之间更紧密的合作,强化我们的情报共享。”

[ 转自铁血社区 http://bbs.tiexue.net/ ]

在这一针对中国的跨国联合阵线中,华盛顿和堪培拉扮演了重要角色。

美国主要负责中国投资方面的情报协调事务,澳大利亚则致力于抵御中国的政治影响。

澳大利亚政府援引对中国影响力的担忧,公布了反外国渗透法案,收紧对外国游说和政治捐款的规定,同时扩大对叛国和间谍活动的定义。

美国推行了一项名为《外国投资风险评估现代化法案》的法律,赋予华盛顿新的权力以阻止某些类型的外国投资。该法案的文本要求特朗普进行“更强有力的国际外联努力”,以说服盟国采取类似的保护措施。

再看看频繁爆出的中国间谍、中国黑客等等诸多事件,其目的很清楚,美国及其盟友就是试图阻挠中国的高科技发展,不想中国继续做大。

惊!境外有五只眼睛 几十年来一直在暗处盯着中国

[ 转自铁血社区 http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_13284060_1.html/ ]

舆论干扰是其中很重要的一种手段,这些舆论在营造中国已经“被冷战”的感觉,想要带偏节奏,让我们疑神疑鬼,自乱阵脚,最后自毁长城。

五眼联盟搜集涉华情报,这是正常情报机构都会做的事情。斯诺登公开的大量文件,就曾涉及“五眼”围绕中国的网络窃听计划,难道那个时候它就开始全面针对中国了。

越是外界纷纷扰扰的时候,我们越要保持战略定力和战略清醒,不要跟着西方的瞎咋呼起舞。苏联是怎么倒的,就是跟着美国的节奏,被美国玩死的。

所以,我们要做的事情很简单:保持自己的节奏,坚持正确的发展道路。切勿被外媒牵制,产生基础性的误判。

文中图片均来自网络。

环球网

[ 转自铁血社区 http://www.tiexue.net/ ]

Related Story: How US Billionaires finance “black operations” using private security firms, NGOs, and target activists who are critical of western hypocrisy about human rights and “freedom”; and who do the bidding of the CIA around the world

The First Amendment versus the cumulative effect of decades of Fusion Center Spying: time to test drive our rights.

The ROGS reader will note that I have been a target of “the war on pure speech” and due process via “high policing” since 2004, but also, that I saw this coming in 1993 (search this blog for links to these years).
The reader will also note that I have endured decades of harm because I consistently stand on first amendment rights to speech, and have been 1) shot 2) tracked 3) surveilled 4) jailed 5) black bagged 6) slandered 7) much more, because I have stood for speech online and off since forever-but especially after I published stories in 2003-4 that were critical of how internet spyng and offline surveillance were then ad are now measureably worse than anything Joseph McCarthy, COINTELPRO 1, MHCHAOS, or Adolph Hitler EVER did to news media or propaganda and speakers of prtected first amendment speech.
This is all well documented in the record-some Americans are violent animals, who have manipulated the dialectic so abusively that it defies logic, in a lop-sided narrative that pits us against them, women against men, blacks against whites, etc-and “they” all belong to some insider club or another as they do this, in the pure cowardice of secrecy. some, have it far worse than others and some have plainly never been on the downside of our nation’s.
And for the record, ROGS has no more tears to weep for “progressive” white females in power who whinge on about their troubles with guys like Al Franken as if they actually HAVE troubles-these are little more than what Edward Bernay’s did as he manufactured women as pseudo feminist “Liberty Torches“; the handmaidens of the subversion of the Constitution and due process. And NONE of them have ever seen the inside of the jails they built, but should.
I have no tolerance for the one percent, racist zionist’s, dominionists, and others who who work for the One Percent, or new arrivals from India, and other places who have seized the American dialectic of race and forgone any awareness of class issues; or black billionaires like Oprah, for whom no end of derision, or destruction of black men could ever be enough too satisfy her power hunger.
The facts are that white women, for the most part, simply have no burden. Fakerape is a cover for the atrocities that these same wage on primarily low income black, white, and Hispanic men (who they birthed for a state check, and then fed into the prison pipeline), and not just in America; but also, their jaded narrative incessantly murders others around the world.
And too, all of the new arrivals from India, the Middle East, China, or other places have no right whatsoever to wade into the complex dialectic of race in America, without examining who the One Percent are, and how their propaganda system works-and most of them are egregiously wealthy and jaded-not at all the poverty stricken immigrants of decades ago.
These all are co-conspirators in the modern peonage systems of the DVIC, the MIC, and the PIC that targets our own fathers and sons, brothers and friends. Here is more on who these handmaidens off the police state are, from John Whitehead, describing the new peonage system’s in America, and debt bondage:
A Tale of Two America’s  “Despite prior attempts on the federal level and across the country to prevent the profound injustice of locking people in cages because they are too poor to pay a debt,” concludes The Atlantic, “the practice persists every day.”

Related Story: Who are “they”? One of the word games that psychologists/social workers/judges/litigators who are on the state teat like to play is asking you “who are “they”-why are you so important that someone would do this to you?” As if one NEEDS to be important-this is how distorted and out of touch political psychiatry is with the reality of modern policing and political targeting. So tell them to read this post here first, and these here, here, and here in order to understand the diabolical and enormous and unfathomable burden that was foist upon our people after 911
And- who are the One Percent that mocks us, and pits us against each other one generation after the next, in every century, and especially now that our Cnstitution has been suspended, and our own agencies target our citizens every word online, and stalk us in various ways offline?

And so: those who currently milk the DVIC teats (those who get paid hundreds of billions per year) get paid for this, more than anything else. They are complete psychopathic word twisters, and bullies, much as we see with all of this manufactured terrorism that targets the low income, the mentally ill, or the easily manipulated.
SO, in order to understand ROGS’ Thoreau styled peaceful, non-violent resistance to this fully blossomed “security state” that seems to think law does not apply to it, as it applies bizarre, scret, hidden interpretations of law to me/us/you, it is important to understand how long cases are dragged around in hidden dossiere’s and databases that are inaccessible to the public or to those who have been targeted by federal state and local agencies for decades.
And, how this all started at the NSA, when they decided to use a 4 BILLION dollar program to target the speech of American’s, instead of a 3.4 MILLION dollar program, that protected “our” rights (this in and of itself indicates “intent” on the part of government to violate the Constitution, to selectively target individuals and groups, and is prima facie evidence that these speakers were and are targeted; and PRISM, XKEYSCORE, Moonshoot CVE type programs, corporate-government sector collusion, and thousands of other government speech policing activities as well.)
And so, I can state with empirical evidence that  yet another state, federal, or internationalist NGO paid moron who derives their income from speech suppression is reading through stuff I wrote online four years ago, and cross reading other material that I wrote equally long ago. This IS what online gang stalking and speech policing IS-“they” literally databases our communications online, stalk you offline in community policing schemes, for years and years, passing you from one database or Fusion Center to another, without the benefit of a court trial or  court challenge to these practices.
Because, only two people in the world know what my blogs even are, and one of them is my lawyer. The other, is the guy’s/gal’s who listened to my phone in 2004-2016. While on the surface, this will seem a paranoid, or unrealistic claim, I ask the reader to know this: I wrote it here, now, for that EXACT reason, because proving NSA/Fusion Center/DHS/FBI/CIA/FiveEyes/JTRIG data theft and harassment is perhaps one of the most difficult things one could ever attempt to do, but that I attempt it reluctantly, because I have literally had existential threats otherwise. Here- have a look at one of my existential threats, and compare it to this, and this, then, note how I use an underground journalism style here,  and then, decide for yourself.
But this is how online speech policing works, and how it comes offline-this IS what organized gang stalking IS. And, it is against the law, against due process, and against substantive due process-but only if it gets seen in a court room, and sadly, “they” are murdering those of “us” who know this. And-who can afford such a fight in court? This is why fascism is prevailing, on both sides f the political aisle, and in all religious/cultic/sectarian elements in our society. They literaly are DVIC deep in it, together.
One might wonder how I know this about my readers-that they read across blogs, and some of those written half a decade ago? The answer is this: my writing is, primarily, an exercise in pure speech, which has been under attack by federal forces and state actors who hide like cancer along the internet backbone since 2001 (you can easily find my example and today’s proof by Googling “gang stalking” and “psychic driving.”)
In that year, 2001, deep state cults and bankers and states dependent upon federal handouts (otherwise known as “the Cult of Intelligence,”conspired in the sense of true conspiracy to limit our rights of privacy, and every right that could come after that. We are literally in an advanced phase of MHCHAOS, which is a CIA/bankster program to control dissent. And according to the intent of the Constitutional Framers, this is anathema to democracy. But I am one of many who this happens to, and some have it worse than me.
Here is a peek at how this plays itself out online: another blogger was recently imprisoned because some DVIC teat sucking narcissistic prick at the FBI wanted to privacy rape him, and did so because the guy used A SINGLE EMOJI. Then the state paid pathological narcissists kicked in his door, and traumatized his three children-FOR LIFE. His kids are literally scared to open their blinds now. This IS what a police state IS, nearly by definition. Not coincidentally, it is also one of the tactics used during the Palestinian exodus of 1948 and Hitler’s pogroms as well.
Here below is a case that demonstrates how far into the sh!tter pure speech online has been dropped by federal agents and the massive bureaucracy that is the NSA/DHS/FBI/CIA/FiveEyes data rape scheme, where agencies that manufacture terror, use funds to target speakers instead. In other words-the war hasn’t merely morphed from “fightin’ turrerriss'”, but now has openly fired yet another shot across the bow of one of nearly all of the pillars of American Democracy, which is the emoji, expressed in anonymity (….)
From Mike Masnick of Techdirt.com (Masnick is the inventor of the Streisand Effect, and also the Shirky-Masnick Bureaucracy Perpetuation Principle-that states “police states don’t just go away overnight“):

The DOJ’s Bizarre Subpoena Over An Emoji Highlights Its Ridiculous Vendetta Against A Security Researcher

from the lawlessness-under-the-guise-of-law-enforcement dept

Yesterday we broke the crazy story of how the DOJ issued a subpoena to Twitter attempting to identify five Twitter users, not because of anything they had done, but because someone else the DOJ disliked — a security researcher named Justin Shafer — had tweeted an emoji at them in response to a discussion about a different case. You can read all the details in that original post, in case you missed it yesterday. There was so much craziness in that story that I didn’t even get to cover all of it. Some of those named in the subpoena have posted their thoughts — including Ken “Popehat” White and Keith Lee. I suggest reading both, as the subpoena directed at each of them was particularly silly, given that both freely make their identities public. The DOJ didn’t seem to do even the slightest research into the accounts it was demanding info on, or it would have known just how easy it was to “unmask” White and Lee.
As for the other three Twitter accountholders — all of them are anonymous. But the DOJ certainly has zero legal basis for unmasking them. As we’ve discussed repeatedly in the past, anonymous speech is also protected by the First Amendment, and there’s a very high bar for law enforcement to get past to unmask anonymous speakers. EFF’s Kurt Opsahl pointed to a concise statement on this in a recent ruling in the Awtry v. Glassdoor case, which Lee also reposts in his blog:
The Supreme Court has recognized that “an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 342 (1995). Indeed, “[t]he right to speak anonymously was of fundamental importance to the establishment of our Constitution.” Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1092 (W.D. Wash. 2001) (citing McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 341-42). In particular, “Justice Black . . . reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names.” McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 342 (citing Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960)). So too were the responses of the anti-federalists, which were published by authors who used such fictitious names as “Centinel,” “Brutus” and “The Federal Farmer.” In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2011).
Further, it is well-established that anonymous speech on the Internet, like other types of anonymous speech, enjoys First Amendment protection. In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir. 2011)(“online speech stands on the same footing as other speech—there is `no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied’ to online speech”) (quoting Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997)). As the Ninth Circuit has explained, “the ability to speak anonymously on the Internet promotes the robust exchange of ideas and allows individuals to express themselves freely without `fear of economic or official retaliation . . . [or] concern about social ostracism.’” Id.(quoting McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 341-42).
First Amendment protection of anonymous speech “is not unlimited, however, and the degree of scrutiny varies depending on the circumstances and the type of speech at issue.” Id. Political speech is considered to be “core” speech and is afforded the highest level of First Amendment protection. McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 346. Online messages such as the ones at issue here are also entitled to some level of First Amendment protection, even if the hurdle for overcoming that protection is less stringent than it is for political speech. See In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168 at 1177; see also Highfields Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Doe, 385 F. Supp. 2d 969 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (finding that identity of individual who anonymously posted derogatory comments about a company on an online message board was protected from disclosure under the First Amendment); Art of Living Foundation v. Does 1-10, No. 10-cv-5022 LHK, 2011 WL 5444622, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (finding the standard articulated in Highfields applied to anonymously posted online commentary criticizing the plaintiff’s organization).

That the Assistant US Attoreny, Douglas Gardner, who signed off on the subpoena, either didn’t know this or didn’t care is hugely troubling and problematic. As Scott Greenfield colorfully summarizes of the federal agents involved in this case, looking at the details, “this situation is so utterly idiotic as to make one wonder how they can get out of bed without hurting themselves.”

It is important to note that in the one extant study cited online, that “targeted individuals are trapped into an echo chamber” it is extremely difficult, if not impossible for he average targeted individual to prove that they are indeed targeted and that their experiences are the cause of hidden actors. Because what is happening is tha one hidden actor passes your data to another hidden actor,,  and across state lines and across databases for years and years, as “they” build dossiers and tabulate potential speech crimes online.
SO it is beyond a doubt that these hidden actors are what I say they are-and that online speech itself is under attack. In fact, “they” have engineered an entire generation of online speakers who were entrapped at the internet switch from birth, as any kid born in 2001, who woke up to internet use between 2005-2017 has had their ENTIRE ONLINE ACTIVITY recorded at the NSA, and then, that data was given to 16 other US agencies to cull through, as well as Israel, which is a theocratic apartheid state.
Best of all, all of that data that was captured is now stored in Utah, at the Utah Data Center, which is controlled by Mormons. Does that make you think a bit about what is pure speech? What is “free” speech? And what is Online speech?” And especially “can speech be leveraged against a person’s other rights aka blackmail?”
I will let you answer that question yourself, but also leave you to ponder: what if all of your child’s data was kept at the Catholic Vatican; or in Saudi Arabia’s Mecca-maybe at the Forbidden City? Would you trust THOSE people with your data-and all of the back doors they have demonstrated that they use to manipulate you and your choices? So why do you trust the NSA/CIA/Zio-dominionists and their Mormon pets in Utah with it?
Yup-without a doubt, we see certain theocratic interests working from within secular cover to mediate the future of your child, from hidden positions along the cancerous internet backbone. It is extremely hard to document this link.

Related Story: How The NSA Hides Section 702 Surveillance with no oversight, or meaningful reform. Or “the definition of an un-Constitutional surveillance state.”

So-what CAN be documented is the ROGS model of using honeynets to catch stalkers in action. As I have documented- I have ad death threats, rape threats, and worse for many years for just speaking up. And, I have had many people before today’s special reader try to mis-use my words, or otherwise construe their meaning as potentially harmful. Obviously, I am not in this for fun.
Here, have a look at were my actual gang stalking began, in 2003-4, which was a “pure speech” related series of events, as opposed to a bunch of crooked people from various cults and sects of American society harassing me previous to that. And here is when it went into overdrive, and also centered around free speech expressed online.
See how long they-whoever “they” are can drag these things out? Yup. It is an insidious and completely new form of harassment that has up until ROGS avoided being named properly, because it is an overwhelming form of social dysfunction that has been enabled by the total surveillance state. And by design, it is nearly impossible to challenge, in life, or in a court room. But is IS what gang stalking IS online.
Well, as we see today the trend is that the “deep state” has sought by every hook and crook to stop speech at the switch using initiatives and pretexts ranging from “save the 16 year old girls of Japan (so that international bankers and white females can pimp them); to the nefarious Save Eastern Sex Traders Act, which seeks to keep online speech relegated to the middle ages, so that the same tribes and groups can profit from the control women, AND control narratives after that. Because boogiemen, of course. And scapegoating-lots of scapegoating.
And, stealing my GPS here and there too; or working from within public and private sectors and corporate “partnerships” to obfuscate rights; or black bag a reporters notes here and there. Don’t forget that.