Sunday, June 25, 2017

Ed Sheeran: Piracy Is What Made Me   ~ hehe hows THAT fer a new biz ...model ???Image result for pic of skull and crossbones

from the good-guy dept

We all know by now the music industry's mantra that piracy kills artists. Well, not kills kills, but kills their musical careers before they could even really begin, so destructive is the dissemination of free music amongst the public. After all, if the public doesn't pay for every last instance of every last bit of music, how in the world could musical artists ever make a living? This mantra is one that tends to be applied universally to the concept of free music by the industry, with zero in the way of nuanced discussions about potential business models that might work for some, or many, artists.
Except that that's silly. It ignores the power of freely disseminated music in helping musicians to be discovered in the first place, where they can then go on and make all kinds of money through what have always been better profit-centers for artists, such as concerts, merchandise and the like. Many artists don't understand this, swallowing the industry's mantra whole. But there are exceptions, such as Ed Sheeran, who began his career sans record label, promoting himself instead.
Beyond writing the songs, Sheeran also wrote his own rules about how to sell them. Like so many others, he had set off for London as a teenager, singing on street corners and in pubs. But he didn’t knock on record company doors or wait to be discovered. Instead, he began marketing his own stuff, releasing his music himself on websites until -- inevitably -- a record label came calling. He had already earned half a million from his independent sales, putting the music out himself.
“What I didn’t have was infrastructure,” Sheeran said. “They have an American label, they have a Japanese label, they have an Australian label. So that’s what I was signing for.”
And that infrastructure is where labels can indeed provide some value. Except it's simply not the value for which labels have taken so much credit for far too long. There was no initial discovery and nurturing done by the labels in Sheeran's case. Sheeran did that himself. Instead, the labels came calling after the initial work was done and pitched even wider distribution in exchange for slapping their names on an already ascending star. This serves as a rebuttal to some of the reaction you see in cases such as Run The Jewels, with some complaining that their free music strategy chiefly worked because they were already a household name. Sheeran's case is the opposite, in which he became a household name because of his free music strategy. It's not that the strategy is easily portable to every artist in every case, but it does remind us that the blanket disgust toward piracy by the music industry is not supported by reality either.
But even after the labels were involved, Sheeran indicates a clear understanding of how and why his music supercharged his fame to the household status it now has.
Who helped him first? Fans, he says. “It was file sharing. I know that’s a bad thing to say, because I’m part of a music industry that doesn’t like illegal file sharing.”
“Code for piracy.”
“Yeah, but illegal fire sharing was what made me. It was students in England going to university, sharing my songs with each other.”
And what is his view on file sharing now? “I don’t think file sharing exists now.”
“Really?”
“Yeah, I think people rip off YouTube. That’s a thing. But I feel like it’s so easy to stream.”
Sheeran's case goes beyond simply giving music away, of course. His treatment of his fans creates a bond as well, one that fosters a desire among the fanbase to support him. The free music alone isn't enough, he needed his personality and talent, as well, to make it work. Still, it's easy to read shrugged shoulders into his comments on music piracy in the present, and obvious gratitude for it in his past. It's unfortunate how rare this mode of thinking is, which is why it's a bit jarring to hear a star like Sheeran say something as profound as "illegal filesharing was what made me." You can almost hear the groan from label executives as you read the words from a man far too busy counting his money and making his art to care.
And, to counter another industry claim that any gain by an artist through piracy is short-lived, it's worth noting that Sheeran's latest work is selling, and selling well. At a record breaking pace, in fact, even as the concert venues continue to sell out for Sheeran's appearances. Related image
Not bad for a young man who credits piracy for all that glory.

Run The Jewels Succeeds With Free Music And A True Connection With Fans

from the doing-it-right dept

Techdirt has always been a place where we have discussed new emerging business models for the entertainment industry, including the music business. For far too long, there has been a battle about how musicians should monetize their art, with one side claiming that infinitely reproducable music files should be costly out of respect for the musicians and the labels that produce them, and the other side pointing out that this doesn't make any economic sense and that there are plenty of ways for artists to monetize their work without pretending the internet doesn't exist. Free music has always been at the forefront of this discussion, as some artists have given away music files as a way to make money elsewhere: live concerts, merchandise, etc. Yet, no matter how much money the new models can and do make for those musicians that embrace them, there is a stigma about what is essentially art enjoyed for free. And that stigma is often dressed up as a concern for artists.
Yet that concern must wane as examples of artists making the internet work for them have proliferated. And those examples are no longer relegated to smaller artists with short music lifespans. Recently, Killer Mike and El-P from the exploding hiphop group Run The Jewels were guests on The Daily Show (we can't embed the video because Comedy Central, stupidly and inexplicably, doesn't use HTTPS — but you can view it at that link, or this one for our Canadian readers). While most of that conversation didn't revolve around the music industry, the first few minutes of the interview certainly did and both artists' explanation for why they chose to give away their music should sound quite familiar to Techdirt readers. Here's El-P:
I ran a record label for 10 years back in the day, I ran a record label called Def Jux, and it completely collapsed under the weight of the whole music industry, essentially. People stopped buying and we were based on an old model.
We kind of did the first record just as a thank you to our fans. We were really thankful that we had our solo careers, we had been working together, and we didn't want to go through everything. We didn't want to look at the first week sales, we didn't want to compete, we just wanted to give something away. It just occurred to us, it just felt right. We wanted to get the hearts and minds of people, we didn't want to trick them into buying a record with one single and, you know, we just didn't want to play the game.
We released it and we just gave it to everybody and said "if you like it, support us, and if you don't? That's fair."
What is clearly on display are two artists, one of whom had previously run a record label, that are far more interested in their art and their fans than they are playing the record label business game. Instead, Run The Jewels decided to give their music away for free, while also setting up a way for their fans to support them by buying the music as well, and it is working. Why? Why would young hip hop fans with internet connections choose to pay for music that was otherwise available for free?
Because Killer Mike and El-P connect with their fans on so many levels -- they treat their fans well, don't take themselves too seriously, and have built up a following that enjoys their work. For example, the whole Meow the Jewels effort from a couple years ago fits right in with our increasingly long list of examples artists connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy. It started with (of course), offering the music for free, combined with a variety of premium packages -- including the "I'm on the List, Asshole" package, in which you get backstage passes to a bunch of shows, and a promise that El-P and Killer Mike will pretend to be friends with you. But El-P also joked about remixing the album with just cat sounds, called "Meow the Jewels." And their fans took them seriously and put together a Kickstarter campaign. The guys originally felt uncomfortable about this, but eventually embraced it with a plan to donate all the music to charity. And, of course, they did, in fact, make the remix, and it's... actually pretty cool.
But it's not all jokes. Both guys are politically active and outspoken, which has helped build an even stronger connection with those who agree with their political leanings. In addition, the group also still makes all kinds of money off of merchandise and concerts, which has always been a key source for musician income. What's missing is a traditional record label siphoning away money for the kind of marketing efforts the band can now do themselves because of the internet and free music -- which enables a two-way path with the fans. It helps the group connect with the fans and deliver them awesome music, while also allowing the fans to support the artists back. No label needed.
Were the stories told by the labels accurate, we shouldn't even know who Run The Jewels and these two artists are, never mind being able to watch them explode onto the scene in the way they have. This is a success story that needs to be bookmarked and used as a rebuttal against those that say music must not be given away for fear of artists failing to make it.

The Doors - Light my Fire (Best Live Version!)

  THE   time to ...
hes·i·tate    is thru
ˈhezəˌtāt/
verb
verb: hesitate; 3rd person present: hesitates; past tense: hesitated; past participle: hesitated; gerund or present participle: hesitating
pause before saying or doing something, especially through uncertainty.

"she hesitated, unsure of what to say"

synonyms:pause, delay, wait, shilly-shally, dither, stall, temporize; More
be of two minds, be uncertain, be unsure, be doubtful, be indecisive, hedge, equivocate, fluctuate, vacillate, waver, waffle, have second thoughts, think twice;
informaldilly-dally, blow hot and cold, get cold feet, hem and haw

"she hesitated, unsure of what to say"
be reluctant to do something.

"he hesitated to spoil the mood by being inquisitive"

synonyms:be reluctant, be unwilling, be disinclined, scruple; More

The Doors - Light my Fire (Best Live Version!)

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Wall Street Is Starting To Get Very Nervous About Cable TV Cord Cutting

from the from-denial-to-hyperventilation dept

Wall Street is finally starting to realize there's a storm brewing on the horizon for the nation's biggest cable companies. Cable stocks took a notable dip this week after MoffettNathanson analyst Craig Moffett downgraded the entire cable sector because of worries surrounding cord cutting and streaming video competition. Moffett, who not that long ago used to mock cord cutters for being irrelevant basement dwellers, has seen the light -- more recently noting that 2016's 1.7% decline in traditional cable TV viewers was the biggest cord cutting acceleration on record.
And in a lengthy research note to investors this week, the analyst warned that the cable industry's approach to cord cutting (raising rates and offering horrible customer service while hoping it all works out) simply isn't going to cut it given the competitive threats to come:

"Broadband growth will inevitably slow, and it will likely do so at precisely the same time that video growth rates also come under pressure from OTT substitution," Moffett said in his Tuesday-morning note. "And while cable operators have the pricing power to offset these headwinds via their broadband business, we believe it is likely that investors will (appropriately) apply a somewhat lower terminal growth rate assumption to a business that is achieving its growth through pricing rather than unit growth."
Wall Street and the cable sector's optimism in the face of a massive sector (r)evolution is running out of oxygen, Moffett insists:

"The cable stocks have climbed a wall of worry to get here," Moffett wrote to clients. “But as any mountain climber knows, the higher you go, the thinner the air."
It's an interesting position for Moffett to take, given the fact that for years the analyst breathlessly supported broadband usage caps and overage fees as a fail-safe solution to this problem, once going so far as to declare usage caps "the next generation of communications." Arbitrary and utterly unnecessary usage caps are one trick Comcast has been using to hamstring streaming competitors, while raising prices on broadband to counter any potential TV revenue loss.
For the moment, Comcast has been cushioned from the cord cutting threat by its growing monopoly over fixed-line broadband service. Companies like AT&T and Verizon have shifted their attentions to media and advertising, and other major telcos like Windstream, Frontier, and CenturyLink lack the courage, money or incentive to upgrade their aging DSL lines at any real scale. So in many markets, customers looking for next-gen broadband speeds only have one option: cable. And when they show up, they're forced to sign up for TV services they may not want.
You'd think that a growing broadband monopoly, usage caps, and the government's decision to gut most meaningful oversight of one of the least-competitive sectors in America would have Wall Street stock jocks pretty damn excited. The fact that many of them are still very worried about the cord cutting threat to come -- despite Comcast's immense position of power -- tells you precisely what kind of threat we're looking at.              https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170621/05361237639/wall-street-is-starting-to-get-very-nervous-about-cable-tv-cord-cutting.shtml

Friday, June 23, 2017

Sheriff Defends Deputies' Lies In Court By Saying Officers Didn't Know They Were Supposed To Tell The Truth

from the keep-calm-and-screw-citizens dept

The Orange County (CA) District Attorney's office remains in the news. It's not often an entire prosecutors' office gets booted off a high-profile murder case, but that's what happens when misconduct occurs on a massive scale. An open-and-shut murder case with eight victims is now the DA's perpetual nightmare. Judge Thomas Goethals kicked the agency to the curb after uncovering repeated discovery violations committed by prosecutors.
But the problems go back further than this case. The office has hidden the existence of a law enforcement database from defense lawyers (and judges) for a quarter century -- a database holding all sorts of information about jailhouse snitches that may have made the difference in a number of cases.
A quarter-century of obfuscation followed by outright lying on the stand by prosecution witnesses is something you'd think would be addressed by a swift housecleaning. You'd be wrong. So far, there have been no announcements from the DA about pending investigations -- either into its own misconduct, or the repeated abuses of the jail's snitch program run by the local sheriff's office.
Add to that yet another revelation from the current criminal case: the sheriff's office shredded documents ahead of an announced investigation by the DOJ.
Sheriff's deputies doctored and shredded records after the announced launch of a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) probe eight years ago into suspected police corruption, according to the latest courthouse bombshell filed March 30 in what is known nationally as the Orange County Jailhouse Informant Scandal.
Revealed in a brief filed by Scott Sanders, the assistant public defender in People v. Scott Dekraai, a pending death penalty case marred by astonishing law enforcement misconduct, Deputy Michael Carrillo wrote an entry never intended for public consumption: "ADUJSTED (sic) THE DISCIPLINARY ISOLATION LOGS FOR THE DOJ TO MATCH THE LOGS FOR AD-SEG AND PC LOGS, PER SGT JOHNSON."
Those in charge of the sheriff's snitch program have been asked to testify in response to perjury allegations. They have chosen not to, with each sheriff's office witness called pleading the Fifth. This chain of events has led to the most jaw-dropping law enforcement statement I have ever read, and that includes arguments made in support of setting toddlers on fire with carelessly-tossed flashbang grenades.
Sheriff Sandra Hutchens claims the veteran officers were unaware they were required to testify honestly during prior court appearances for the death penalty case marred by astonishing degrees of government cheating.
Officers, especially veteran ones, are aware they are required to testify honestly. This is why they're sworn in before testimony. There's a promise made at that point. Not testifying honestly is called "perjury," as the officers are surely aware. High school students taking civics classes are aware of this. No one's really unclear on the whole "tell the truth in court" thing.
This is R. Scott Moxley's paraphrasing of what was actually asserted by the sheriff. The paraphrasing strips the original quote of its defensive obfuscation, but the real quote is no less damning, if not as direct. (Original quote obtained from Moxley.)
[T]he OC sheriff was asked why a veteran deputy had lied about the existence of incriminating agency TRED records after swearing in open court he would tell the "whole truth" and she replied, "I believe he was unclear about what he could or couldn't say about that system."
I'm not sure what the deputy thought was unclear, other than it seemed wiser for him to lie to the court than reveal the database the sheriff's office had kept hidden from defendants for years. If there was a question about what could be said in open court, the sheriff's witnesses could have asked to discuss the specifics in camera and allow the judge to decided whether it could be discussed publicly. Denying the existence of records that exist is still perjury, no matter how the sheriff wants to spin it.
Hutchens and every "veteran officer" she's referring to should be fired immediately. Anyone who honestly believes testifying in court is subject to discretion calls by the sheriff's office about what can and can't be discussed needs to replaced with those who understands and respects the oaths they take. If they're actually stupid enough to believe being a law enforcement officer makes truth-telling under oath optional, they should be forced to tattoo "THIS END UP" on their foreheads to prevent them from making unfortunate decisions about which method of bipedal ambulation works most efficiently and have "DON'T LIE IN COURT" notes safety-pinned to their chests if they're going to be within 1000 feet of any US courthouse.

Cops Sent Warrant To Facebook To Dig Up Dirt On Woman Whose Boyfriend They Had Just Killed    ~ hehe folks OUR FOREFATHERS ...knew "how" ta "handle" these so~called pube~lic   ass~fficails ! ..maybe ...time 2 bring BACK  lil "frontier justice" ... again  HUH ??? ...Frontier justice (also called vigilante justice or street justice) is extrajudicial punishment that is motivated by the nonexistence of law and order or dissatisfaction with justice.Image result for vigilante justice definition

from the blue-lives-are-more-equal-than-others dept

Everything anyone has ever said about staying safe while interacting with the police is wrong. That citizens are told to comport themselves in complete obeisance just to avoid being beaten or shot by officers is itself bizarre -- an insane inversion of the term "public servant." But Philando Castile, who was shot five times and killed by (now former) Officer Jeronimo Yanez, played by all the rules (which look suspiciously like the same instructions given to stay "safe" during an armed robbery). It didn't matter.
Castile didn't have a criminal record -- or at least nothing on it that mattered. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been allowed to own a weapon, much less obtain a permit to conceal the gun. Castile told Yanez -- as the permit requires -- he had a concealed weapon. He tried to respond to the officer's demand for his ID, reaching into his pocket. For both of these compliant efforts, he was killed.
Castile's shooting might have gone unnoticed -- washed into the jet stream of "officer-involved killings" that happen over 1,000 time a year. But his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, immediately live-streamed the aftermath via Facebook. Her boyfriend bled out while responding officers tried to figure out what to do, beyond call for more backup to handle a dead black man sitting in his own vehicle. Only after Yanez fired seven bullets into the cab of the vehicle did officers finally remove his girlfriend's four year old daughter.
To "win" at killing citizens, you must start the spin immediately. Yanez spun his own, speaking to a lawyer less than two hours after killing Castile. Local law enforcement did the same thing. Documents obtained by Tony Webster show Special Agent Bill O'Donnell issued a warrant to Facebook for "all information retained" by the company on Diamond Reynolds, Castile's girlfriend. This was to include all email sent or received by that account, as well as "chat logs," which presumably means the content of private messages. The warrant also demands any communications that may have been deleted by Reynolds, as well as metadata on photos or videos uploaded to Facebook. It came accompanied with an indefinite gag order.
Why would law enforcement want (much less need) information from the victim's girlfriend's Facebook account? It appears officers were looking to justify the killing after the fact. The following sworn statement was contained in the affidavit:
Your affiant is aware through training and expertise that individuals frequently call and/or text messages to each other regarding criminal activity during and/or after and [sic] event has occurred.
This is warrant boilerplate, especially when it comes to obtaining information from accounts or devices. But this warrant should be considered anything but business as usual. Should be. Isn't. This is the actual standard operating procedure after an officer kills someone: the department goes digging through its criminal records to find any reason at all to have killed the person and to buttress "feared for safety" excuses given by officers -- awarding them points for effort based on information they didn't have when they ended someone's life.
When it comes to police shootings in America, there are no aggressors in uniform, only victims. Officer Yanez made his own excuses, theorizing Castile's willingness to smoke pot in front of a 4-year-old child indicated Castile had no respect for human life.
I thought, I was gonna die, and I thought if he's, if he has the, the guts and the audacity to smoke marijuana in front of the five year old girl and risk her lungs and risk her life by giving her secondhand smoke and the front seat passenger doing the same thing, then what, what care does he give about me?
Following his testimony's logic, smoking pot in front of a child has so severely damaged Castile's moral compass, he apparently would have thought nothing about shooting an officer over a non-functioning tail light. There's no logical boundary cops won't cross to pin the blame on the dead. Hence the Facebook warrant to dig up dirt on his girlfriend in hopes of adding a bit more post facto righteousness to the shoot.
The only upside -- and it's incredibly small given the surrounding circumstances -- is Facebook refused to hand over the information on the grounds that the indefinite gag order was unconstitutional. Faced with this pushback, Minnesota police withdrew the warrant. But in the end, Yanez was acquitted and Philando Castile is still dead -- a man who did nothing more than try to comply with an officer's orders.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

 
If you’re familiar with the American war on drugs, then it may not surprise you to learn that the CIA represents one of the largest drug dealing organizations in history. The CIA originally designed LSD with the help of a Swiss manufacturer as a “mind control drug” as part of their MK Ultra program, hoping that it would allow patients under the influence to commit unspeakable acts commanded by the government and then forget they ever happened. Of course, this plan backfired, and then the CIA introduced LSD to the American population.
advertisement - learn more
The CIA has played a crucial role in producing, trafficking, and/or selling numerous drugs both in the U.S. and all over the world. The CIA is no stranger to money laundering, performing dangerous tests on unwilling patients, and even committing murder over drugs. One of the drugs the CIA has focused on for decades is heroin, which is created using opium. The CIA actually owned and operated a covert drug smuggling airline, referred to as Air Americawhich was used to transport numerous goods, including heroin.
The CIA’s involvement with the opium industry doesn’t just stop there. The CIA consciously turned a blind eye to the opium trade in Afghanistan in the 1980s, until the Taliban took control and attempted to put an end to production. The opium industry in Afghanistan, which represented 90% of the world’s opium production, then plummeted. 9/11 occurred only a year later, giving the U.S. a perfect “reason” to invade Afghanistan. Well, shortly afterwards, the U.S. seized the opium fields and took control of them, and then we witnessed opium production in Afghanistan skyrocketing again.
It’s clear that the U.S. government has an opium problem, one that’s likely making them a lot of money in the process.

What Is Air America?

No, I’m not referring to the hit 1990 movie starring Mel Gibson and Robert Downey Jr., though that movie arguably contained more fact than fiction. The movie was centred around the CIA’s private airline, Air America, which was used during the Vietnam War to transport food, supplies, and other items, which happened to include opium.
Those parts of the movie were actually correct, and it seems that the CIA-operated airline was in fact used to smuggle drugs. In Southeast Asia (SEA), during the Vietnam War, the CIA worked alongside Laotian general Vang Pao in an effort to help make Laos the world’s largest exporter of heroin. The CIA then flew drugs all over SEA, allowing the Golden Triangle (parts of Burma, Thailand, and Laos) to become the world hub for heroin.
Agents from the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs managed to seize an Air America aircraft that contained large amounts of heroin, but the CIA ordered the agents to release the plane and halt any further investigations.
The CIA wasn’t just involved with the transportation of the drugs, however. The heroin was refined in a laboratory built at the CIA headquarters in Northern Laos. After about a decade of U.S. military intervention, SEA represented 70% of the world’s opium supplier. Unfortunately, many of the operatives became addicted to the heroin themselves. At the same time, SEA also became the main supplier of raw materials for the U.S. heroin industry. Though Air America apparently stopped operations in 1976, the CIA’s involvement in the opium and heroin industries continued in other parts of the world.
Though the CIA’s website still denies that Air America was used to transport drugs, this is no longer a conspiracy theory. Mainstream media has even addressed this issue, as the History Channel just came out with a new series titled America’s War on Drugs, which so far has addressed fairly accurate information regarding the war on drugs, including Air America’s role in transporting heroin (at least within the first two episodes that were released this week).
According to a New York Times article written in 1993, the CIA’s involvement with the heroin industry began slightly before the Vietnam War. During the Korean War, in 1950, the CIA allegedly traded weapons and heroin in exchange for intelligence.
Well, it seems the CIA’s “heroin problem” didn’t start nor end in SEA.

The U.S. Government’s Role in the Afghan Heroin Trade

Afghanistan is another country with a complicated history of involvement in the opium and heroin industries, much of which implicates the CIA. In the 1980s, CIA-supported Moujahedeen rebels were heavily involved in drug trafficking heroin. The CIA supplied trucks and mules, which were used to transport opium.
Despite the fact that Afghanistan supplied approximately 50% of the heroin used by Americans, the U.S. failed to intervene or investigate the Afghan drug industry for years. Instead, many of the individuals trafficking the drugs in Afghanistan were actually trained, armed, and funded by the CIA at the time.
Opium production came to a gradual halt thanks to Taliban rule. By 2000, the Taliban had completely banned opium production, practically eradicating 90% of the world’s heroin. The following UN diagram outlines the history of opium production in Afghanistan:
After 9/11 occurred and the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, opium production suddenly skyrocketed. There have been tons of photos of U.S. soldiers guarding the opium fields, yet today, more than a decade later, they still have not destroyed them (view some of the photos here).
Meanwhile, a propaganda campaign by the Bush administration promised to destroy all drugs and assured zero drug tolerance, as the American war on drugs continued. Throughout the Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton eras, the public had already witnessed multiple presidents promising to crack down on drug use, which turned out to be a giant sham to mass incarcerate Americans, primarily blacks and hippies (read more about that here).
While these presidents were promising to put an end to different drug epidemics, they were actually fuelling them, as the CIA and other forms of law enforcement were heavily involved in the drug trade.
It’s no secret that 9/11 was an inside job, otherwise referred to as a false-flag terrorist attack. If you didn’t know that, please read this CE article.
So, this begs the question: Given that Afghan opium production skyrocketed once the U.S. invaded the country…

Was Opium One of the Motives Behind 9/11?

It was President Richard Nixon who originally started promoting the “law and order” mentality the elite are still pushing now, and Nixon was also the one who waged a “war on drugs” in 1971. Disguised as a tactic to decrease drug usage, this was actually a strategy to incarcerate people by the masses, particularly black citizens. Between 1970 and 1980, the U.S. prison population increased from around 300K to 500K. The irony was thick, as it was the CIA who was introducing some of these drugs onto the streets in the first place.
The war on drugs continued for decades, and by 2000, the U.S. prison population had almost doubled, skyrocketing to over 2 million as a result of these new drug laws. As long as more drugs were on the streets, presidents were able to conduct these propaganda campaigns against drugs and reap the benefits. At the same time, corporations were making a killing off the privatization of the prison system, and so it was a win-win for the both of them. The elite were also apparently pleased, as it was a Rockefeller who proposed the “15 years to life” rule in the first place.
However, the Taliban then took over Afghanistan, decreasing the opium and heroin on the streets of America (except for what Big Pharma was still providing). The CIA is no stranger to drug trafficking, so it’s possible they saw this as an opportunity to commit a false flag terrorist attack in order to justify the invasion of Afghanistan so they could take over the opium drug trade. The motive would make sense, as the American war on drugs was still an issue in 2001.
The CIA already had ties to this area, as the CIA created, trained, and funded “Al Qaeda/Taliban” during the Mujahideen. Ask yourself: If the U.S. government were actually against these organizations, then why are they still funding them?
“Al Qaeda and the Al Qaeda affiliated organizations, including the Islamic State, are not independent organizations, they are sponsored, and they are sponsored by the United States and its allies. It is documented that prior to 2011, there was a process of recruitment of mujahideen to fight in Syria, and this was coordinated by NATO and the Turkish high command. This report is confirmed by Israeli news sources and unequivocally, we are dealing with a state-sponsorship of terrorism, the recruitment of mercenaries, the training and the financing of terrorism.”
– Dr. Michel Choissudovsky (source)
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard was quoted as saying that the “CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. This support has allowed al-Qaeda and their fellow terrorist organizations to establish strongholds throughout Syria, including in Aleppo.” Gabbard even proposed a bill recently, titled “Stop Arming Terrorists Act,” which only received an alarming 13 supporters.
It’s certain that 9/11 was an inside job, but the entire truth behind the motive is still undetermined. The opium theory seems to be a strong possibility, but of course the elite had their own agenda and the U.S. government had other motives as well. The only thing that is considered to be fact is that 9/11 was a controlled demolition, and that the war on drugs in America was a propaganda campaign. Who knows if the two are related, but it seems to me that this is a potential link!