Intelligence Agencies and Supremacy

Someone from an American intelligence agency says these organisations are partly to blame for the rise in white supremacy, i.e. the conviction that your skin colour makes you better than others, because they allowed it to grow into what it became today. Indeed, even ordinary people such as me who did a short investigation understood that certain posts were too extreme to allow in a healthy democracy although these posts allows you to understand people's concerns and who thinks in a certain way. As a messenger, he was fired for exposing this.

Anyone who follows the news understood the rise of white supremacy, of thinking one's own race is superior to others. The Tea Party in the USA are powerful and mainly religious (evangelical as they oppose the religion of the Pope) white people who were embraced by Republican presidential candidate McCain, opponent of later President Obama, so it became acceptable to speak like these persons with power. Yes, it was white supremacy propaganda that tried to block anything President Obama did to proof that a black president fails. Still, twice Mr Obama won with a large majority, showing a large fraction of people voted for inclusion. Many of these white supremacists also "deny" climate change although they know about it but they claim it is not humans but God who will punish us for having human rights for everyone, including equality between men and women, between heterosexual and homosexual and everything in between. It's all connected, I've written about this before. And thus they can use the excuse they don't need to take actions e.g. against climate change as it can't be stopped and they even wish the worst to happen.

Gathering intelligence information, we're all involved

And then came President Trump, unforeseen by many of these white powerful people who hoped someone else would come into power because President Trump is not only about white supremacy that now encourages certain persons to commit acts of terrorism although this happened already under President Obama but also about keeping jobs in the USA for ordinary people (others continue to claim prices will go up when products are produced close to home while the jobless will not mind that they will earn money and thus will be able to buy products). Further, although he isn't sufficiently articulate for many and that for a white person who should do better, he became more acceptable as he progresses the program of (mainly white) religious rightwingers, knowingly or not. Compare with Mrs Clinton's campaign who is articulate but partly lost because she still seemed to think that (investment) bankers are part of the solution while it's clear they had a huge responsibly in the financial crisis or she should have been open about what she said. Other reasons for Donald Trump's victory: he was seen by many as a strong successful businessperson who dares to take decisions so things move on while many Obama voters decided not to vote as both candidates were white, showing it is always necessary to vote or not complain.

Some research on the internet shows what certain powerful people want: lasting power by blocking the power of a black president to show that only white presidents are able to achieve something; for this they allowed dreadful comments on specific websites who made it possible Mr Trump won. When that doesn't work they hope climate change is on their side, the real reason why they deny it so it causes upheaval and weaken the many while they will be able to buy increasingly expensive food. Unbelievable that these propaganda from old powers are not better followed by Intelligence Agencies as the person in the article mentions and exposing it resulted in being fired. But what do you expect when people in power allow the content of these websites in return for financial support during elections? Similar, the National Riffle Association, a white dominated organisation, is allowed to continue selling weapons almost their way because they sponsor politicians. And thus sponsorship of politicians by (large) companies and organisations should not be allowed as they have already easier access to decision makers and thus can influence them. Small declared donations by individuals should be possible in addition to sponsorship by the concerned public body.

The same with the financial crisis and Brexit. They are partly organised because powerful people were fed up with the EU, and certainly its parliament that empowers ordinary people by giving them workers rights and environmental protection; this is called bureaucracy by opponents although I accept that simplification of procedures would not be a bad idea. But, people who warned this crisis may happen were fired at the height of the crisis just as the person working at the FBI while those who organised it (thus not everyone) became richer; indeed, those who control millions of shares can disturb stock markets when they sell too many shares at ones to take profits. Further, if the UK was allowed to rule the EU than the referendum may never have been organised as I think it was intended to scare the EU into accepting conditions the UK wanted, i.e. to become a free zone area without protection for workers and the environment. Indeed, I'm not talking about ordinary Brexiters and certainly many impoverished areas after PM Thatcher destroyed their jobs but about the top, both in politics and big industries who want to rule the EU according their terms or if this is not possible than don't mind to destroy it. Rightwingers. And, indeed, many are angry to leave the EU as they notice the many benefits such as meeting people from around the EU.

One of their goals is to become even richer (why as they have already such a wealth?) at the expense of smaller companies and ordinary people while shares of big companies on stock markets continue to rise until the powerful decide to take their gain and sell their shares. And with fewer competitors of which some are taken over by big companies, they can start to lower wages while increase the price of products to finance mergers and increase profits. Indeed, they want more but less for their personnel for maximum gain. And, it's natural as it happens as paying ever higher wages is no longer possible for many companies so they sell their company or face bankruptcy. We need deflation so wages can stabilise while certainly the highest earners should earn much less so what they no longer receive can be used to keep others employed. Example: someone earning one million euros still earns a lot when this is halved while 15 extra people can be employed earning just under 35,000 euros. But, it can also go wrong when too many small investors sell shares before the wealthy do. An example is when people no longer receive interests on savings and sell shares to buy something. Or they refuse to buy shares as they notice they don't receive correct information.

When the powerful want to grab more, of course they need to take attention away from themselves and foreigners are an easy target. Indeed, Europeans from poorer countries can be blamed for claiming benefits in other EU countries while other moments the wealthy claim they need foreigners as locals don't want to do the job (on lower wages). Also the refugee crisis is perfect to unite behind the argument the European borders should be closed as the refugees threaten our wealth while the financial crisis dates back from just before this major migration crisis. Indeed, if the very rich would accept to lower their earnings, they could still earn much more than others while more people can be employed at decent wages. The enormous wealth of the very rich results in higher prices of products and thus higher wages are needed to pay rents and buy products, an upwards cycle. And by blaming poor foreigners but also the unemployed and ill, it seems the wealthy side with the poor in their own country while they impoverished people by moving companies to low cost countries. The problem is that many no longer accept that the poor are to blame, they read that the wealthy have so much money that tonnes of it are stored in central banks while ordinary people who may have a few tens or hundreds of thousands of euros receive no interests to pay the costs to store all this money in these central banks.

That's also the reason why the powerful more organise a massive attack against social and serious medias because these medias can empower people when they can read about things that remained hidden before. Many youngsters are an example how they understand that in general not the poor but the rich are responsible for poverty when gaining more wealth becomes an obsession. That wars can be fought because the rich keep people in poverty by supporting dictators who suppress people so people fight against each other to improve their lives. Also in the middle east revolutions started because social media showed people democracy and therefore dictators try to block these media. Of course, not all rich are similar but there are sufficient examples in the media to understand who I mean. Also certain youngsters hope to gain by joining certain influential groups. Many call these stories conspiracy theories while many are written with the intention to influence people towards a certain goal. Or problems in society are minimised so people enlarge them in comments under publications as they have the impression they are abandoned except by certain powerful. But also people working in certain sectors but are honest still receive blame when certain individuals behave in a certain way. An example are bankers who should condemn those who cheat but they seem to allow this and thus are also considered guilty. As many youngsters understand this, they become a threat for rightwingers so the latter claim lefties are dangerous while these "lefties", of whom many are not lefties but people who care for others, protest for a better world for everyone. But, the way social media now act make them easy targets for condemnation as they betray those who use them most, i.e. young people, by selling data to those who pay. While often it seems they refuse to cooperate or only after pressure with Intelligence Agencies and police before or after a terrorist attacks.

As the person says, it's unbelievable that Intelligence Agencies allowed all these publications and fake news although many concern very influential people, not only politicians but also those in the weapon industry, climate change denial such as fossil fuel companies and other big industries such as certain banks and some people working for Intelligence Agencies. Of course, when rightwingers say they want to split their country, Intelligence Agencies will monitor them but otherwise it's more likely people in organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, Amnesty International and Doctors without Borders but also individual persons such as those who unite against fracking and likely also me with these publications are spied on because they are considered a threat to big businesses and money. And I have nothing against companies that grow but they should follow the rules anyone else must follow. And thus now some are gaining power to oppose changes to a system that is no longer sustainable and will eventual fall apart. But first, they want even more power and, while they allowed abuse and fake news about others such as "lefties", don't mess with them while real news is called fake.

The article also shows that people can change as the intelligence officer informs he was ones a conservative Republican who changed his opinion on a number of things, probably after research. Indeed, people can change, even religious and conservative people when people explain and they experience good people from other religions or who love someone from their own gender. It can although I'm well aware not everyone wants to listen to reason and they may become very angry when they experience some people betray their trust and when they start losing friends and family because of their extremism. And thus persons who changed to become moderate such as the intelligence officer but also this writer of books can explain why they changed although even then many extremists will remain convinced of their own righteousness, certainly after another terrorist attack as each group has its extremists who refuse to accept people outside their own group. In the end, they may fail when sufficient numbers of people get enough of them and their extremism and this in each society as the civil war in Syria shows as people were fed up with a dictator.