Five eyes
It hasn't been a Good News Week over the last seven days in Australia. You all remember us, right? We may be on the other side of the world, way down under, and not very significant politically, but as a vassal of the American empire, what happens down here is usually pretty indicative of what's happening in the rest of the "international community". So let's see what this latest week had in store for us.

On Friday morning, the 14th of July, the prime minister of the 'Lucky Country' informed the multiverse that math was no longer relevant in Australia. Here's the quote:
Malcolm Turnbull: "Well the laws of Australia prevail in Australia I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.
Apparently, laws written by politicians and enforced by judges and juries, can somehow overrule basic mathematical concepts such as "1+1=2", proven in the early 20th century and documented in the Principia Mathematica by Whitehead & Russell, and intuitively known by humans for millennia if not longer. Clearly, Malcolm Turnbull has joined the neocon "reality creator" club, where a person can just "act" and the rest of us can then "judiciously" study the 'reality' they just supposedly created. The laws of government trump those that govern reality. Obviously.

The larger agenda behind this bizarrely stupid comment concerns the security agencies of the "Five Eyes" governments and their desire to remove the last vestiges of privacy from the Internet, and thus hopefully achieve "full spectrum dominance" in the face of an empowered Eurasia.
On Friday, the government unveiled plans to introduce legislation this year that would force internet companies to assist law enforcement in decrypting messages sent with end-to-end encryption.The package will also contain authority for the Australian Federal Police to "remotely monitor computer networks and devices", a power currently possessed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and force handset makers to help authorities break into devices they sell.
End-to-end encryption is exactly what the name suggests - encryption that secures the communication from the point of transmission from one participant to the point of reception for all others, and vice versa. If the communication is facilitated by intermediaries, all those intermediaries will see will be encrypted data, with no way for any of them to obtain the information in the communication. Popular software such as "Signal", "Telegram", and even Apple's proprietary iMessage software use end-to-end encryption to preserve the integrity and privacy of the information their users receive and transmit.

The complex mathematics that encryption is based upon make it very difficult to 'unscramble' a 'scrambled' message via automated, sequential calculation in a reasonable amount of time - unless you have the 'password' (or 'key') that simplifies the 'unscrambling' (decryption) process. As the computation capabilities of modern computers have rapidly increased over the last few decades, encryption methods have needed to change in order to prevent unauthorised decryption from becoming something that could be accomplished quickly. There are also ways to analyse cryptographic methods (algorithms) in order to find 'short-cuts' through the mathematics that don't require massive repetitions of calculations in order to decrypt encrypted messages. This is commonly referred to as 'breaking' or 'cracking' the algorithm. MD5 and SHA-1 are examples of two common, long-standing cryptographic functions that have been made insecure by advances in mathematical knowledge. The debate over whether 'uncrackable' cryptography is a fantasy is a long-standing one, and beyond the scope of this article.

Regardless of what Australian PM "Trumble", as he was famously called by Sean Spicer (or "Truffles" as he's also known in Australia) may think, what they are attempting to achieve is insanely difficult. Australian Attorney­ General (and apparent flaming psychopath) George Brandis stated to the prime minister that he was informed by the UK's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) intelligence agency that the government's plan to bust encrypted messages is possible:
"Last Wednesday, I met with the chief cryptographer at GCHQ ... and he assured me this was feasible. What the government is proposing to do is to impose upon the companies an obligation conditioned by reasonableness and proportionality." Brandis said that if the companies that are compelled by these laws disagree, then he will see them in court.
Clearly, the tech giants aren't impressed, because only a few hours after this statement, Facebook issued a response saying: "Weakening encrypted systems for them [police] would mean weakening it for everyone" and "[there is] a protocol in place to respond to [law enforcement] requests where we can." Apple declined to even comment on the matter. Having stood up to the FBI over national-security-related bullying in the San Bernardino false-flag terror case, it's unlikely that Apple (or any other major tech company) will even pause stride at the Trumble government's announcement.

That being said, is there any truth to the GCHQ chief cryptographer's advice to Brandis? It would be stupid to assume that Brandis did not first check with Australian security agencies (ASIO, and possibly the ASD) to verify the claims made by GCHQ before the government potentially opened themselves to a public fight that could make them look like clueless retards and put the final nail into the coffin of their government. This means we can reasonably conclude that the Aussie 'deep state' is in accord with its UK kindred, and most likely the rest of the "Five Eyes" group as well. And who invented these near-ubiquitous encryption algorithms? The NSA of course - part of the infamous US 'deep state'!

What it all boils down to is this: if the government and tech companies can bypass encryption, that essentially means the encryption is not really encryption. And when one person or organization can bypass it, someone else can too. And that defeats the purpose of encryption entirely, which is to protect the privacy of the average citizen. If you think privacy isn't important, next time you're talking to a friend or family member on the phone, imagine if the conversation was being automatically listened to by a government official. How does that make you feel?

So, if the Masters of Encryption need to show the Tech Giants who the real 'boss' is by publicly humiliating them through triggering their 'secret weapon' of flawed encryption of their own creation, surely they risk a) causing massive disruption to the infrastructure of the Internet (and any commerce that depends on it) and b) losing a key strategic advantage in surveillance technology - after all, the "190 Eyes" of the rest of the world will immediately shift to a different technology to secure their systems, and may become opaque to the "Five".

Thus, if they intend to do so, they must see a benefit to be had after emerging from such chaos. And if such a benefit exists, why have they not put this strategy into motion already? There are several converging factors to consider here:
  1. The US Petrodollar is collapsing, and as a result, so is the US economy.
  2. The US is being militarily stymied in its quest for resource dominance in the Middle East.
  3. Russian and Chinese high-tech industries are beginning to catch up to (and even exceed) those in the US.
  4. Years of cyber attacks against Russian infrastructure have been yielding no results, and Russian cyber security may actually be superior to US cyber warfare capabilities.
  5. The current US Trump Administration is openly defiant of attempts to have democratic processes and leadership roles in the US manipulated in the customary way.
  6. Solar Systemic Changes producing a global climate shift have been underway for decades, and the effects of drastic climate rebalancing may soon become more palpable to all across the world, potentially causing mass social upheaval in the most inequitable countries.
Another data point is what the Australian PM did next. On Monday morning, the 17th, he announced:
changes to the "call out" powers which will empower the military to join local police in confronting terror threats and grant special forces the ability to shoot-to-kill. [...] Australian barrister and spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance Greg Barns likened the new military powers legislation to "martial law", when military control is imposed over civilian government during war. "Martial law, from Malcolm Turnbull, who last week said the Liberal Party stood for freedom". Former Department of Defence secretary Paul Barrett also took to social media to warn Australians of his concerns over what he interpreted as "very dangerous legislation".
Australia Police state laws
© The Sydney Morning Herald
Announced in front of heavily-armed, gas mask-clad Special Forces troops (the photos speak for themselves), not even two days after the shooting death of an Australian woman by trigger-happy police in the US, the new laws take all the worst aspects of militarized policing directly from France & the US, effectively giving Australian troops legal immunity if they were ever ordered to kill Australian citizens.

Justine Damond
Not surprisingly, the Australian mainstream media responded with... nothing. Or rather, just brief reports of the main facts before pointedly moving on to other stories. Even most of the alt-media was fairly quiet. Of course, they didn't have much time to reflect upon it, because with a "one-two" that would have made Muhammad Ali proud, Trumble was back in front of the cameras the next day to announce the formation of Australia's new Gestap... err... "Department of Home Affairs". It seems "Home Office" and "Homeland Security" were already taken.
Australian paramilitary cop
Actually, "Home Affairs" is an appropriate name, because it reflects the kind of adulterous relationship the Australian government has with its ex (the UK government) and legal partner (the US government). Australia will happily bend over whenever the US asks, but it seems like it just has to run back to the UK every so often for a bit of that "stiff upper lovin' ", as former avowed Republican Turnbull did just the previous week. I guess he and his compadres needed some advice.

The new ministerial portfolio of 'Home Affairs' is a merger of oversight responsibilities for no less than six existing agencies - the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Border Force, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, and the Office of Transport Security.

The entity placed in charge of this new behemoth security apparatus was none other than former Minister for Immigration, Peter Dutton. Overseas readers may be familiar with his name - he has been responsible (in recent years) for destroying Australia's international reputation and overseeing the crushing of all hope of refugees in the Australian deterrence... sorry... 'detention' centres of Manus Island & Nauru, a role where he committed such devoted acts of service as: As David Donovan at Independent Australia writes:
"...there simply couldn't be a better person for the role of running Australia's new Austasi. As a former Queensland drug cop who quite unsuspiciously became extremely wealthy soon after leaving the force, there is no reason whatsoever to fear he may use his position for his own benefit. Perish the thought! His incorruptibility is, as we all know, legendary. And, of course, he will be firm but fair - as shown by his sensitive and not at all human rights abusing tenure overlooking Australia's overseas refugee holiday camps."

Sarah Smith, also at Independent Australia, writes:
"Refugee advocates have long-warned that what the Government sees fit to do to refugees, they are capable of doing to Australians. Still, we were not joined in the streets by millions protesting the detention and deportation of people who - just like them - called Australia home. The protests numbered only in the thousands and, when this was seen to be insufficient to sway the government to end their inhumane policies, the numbers did not grow. So perhaps it is fitting that on this, the four year anniversary of a decision that has caused suicides, deaths from medical negligence, physical and psychological impairment, and has been described as "inhuman" by the United Nations, we are now party to a new decision. A decision that will affect all of us and, if it doesn't personally cost us our liberty or our lives, has the potential to do so for our families, our friends, our teachers, our students, our neighbours and our colleagues."
Ominously, these rapid-fire blitzkriegs on freedom in Australia were marked by another set of seemingly unrelated events. Two sitting senators for the Green party, widely recognised as excellent, intelligent individuals and each unique among their peers in the Upper House of the Australian Parliament, were forced to resign suddenly when it was discovered that they held dual citizenship of Australia and a second country.

Section 44 of the Australian Constitution forbids dual-national citizens from taking up a post as an elected Member of Parliament in Australia, so there was no legal uncertainty about the situation. Normally such details are checked by multiple people (assistants, lawyers, etc.) in major political parties, but the oversight has cost them and their country dearly. Both were the co-deputy leaders of their party. Richard Di Natale, leader of the Greens, the party that represents the environment in Australian politics, temporarily stands alone while new deputies are appointed and replacement Senators found for the vacated seats.

Significantly, one of the former senators, Scott Ludlam, was considered to be one of the most knowledgeable politicians in Parliament regarding the Internet and Information Technology - he announced his retirement the same day that Malcolm Turnbull (widely viewed as one of the primary saboteurs of the Labor-party­-designed National Broadband Network) announced that the Laws of mathematics were irrelevant when it came to law in Australia.

The other former senator, Larissa Waters, made headlines not long ago by becoming the first Australian MP to breastfeed her baby daughter, Alia Joy Waters, while delivering an address to the Senate. She was generally applauded for this courageous act.

Malcom Turnbull's placing of Peter Dutton in a position of such power is an egregious mistake that he will live to regret. Andrew Lobaczewski, in his seminal work Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes made the following observation about leaders of totalitarian regimes, but the main point applies just as well to the government of Australia:
"An observer watching such a union's [the current Australian LNP government] activities from the outside and using the natural psychological world view will always tend to overestimate the role of the leader and his allegedly autocratic function. The spellbinders and the propaganda apparatus are mobilized to maintain this erroneous outside opinion."
Many Australians fervently believe that their Prime Minister holds absolute power as the head of government, and to a certain extent, the mainstream media support this current delusion. Since 2009 though, awareness is creeping in that political parties in Australia have the power to 'chop and change' their leader at will, and this has been observed numerous times since Kevin Rudd was deposed as PM in 2010 - he ousted Julia Gillard a few years later, then Tony Abbott was dispatched similarly after winning government for the LNP. Media (even mainstream media) speculation has been rife that Turnbull's current grip on power is shaky at best, but no obvious usurper has been identified yet.
"The leader, however, is dependent upon the interests of the union, especially the elite initiates, to an extent greater than he himself knows. He wages a constant position-jockeying battle; he is an actor with a director. In macrosocial unions, this position is generally occupied by a more representative individual not deprived of certain critical faculties; initiating him into all those plans and criminal calculations would be counterproductive."
One of the reasons Turnbull was able to seize power from Abbott was that he was able to convince the majority of the LNP that he represented a 'moderate', 'rational', and 'sensible' approach compared with the idiotic extremism of Tony Abbott, a man who humiliated his country and even more so himself, by threatening to "shirtfront" Vladimir Putin at the G20 meeting of 2015 when it was held in Brisbane. Arguably, that was the foolhardy move that finished Abbott's short-lived career as Australian PM.

Turnbull has always been considered a 'leftist among conservatives' in the LNP, based on his Republican movement background, 'scientific' approach to climate change (according to the mainstream perspective), and superficial grasp of technology issues. Although this gave him (and the government) a large popularity boost when he took over from Abbott, he has repeatedly been manipulated into making bad decisions that have possibly eroded his ability to truly assert himself as a leader strong enough to control the extremist elements in his ponerized party. With this latest series of announcements, he seems to have crossed a certain threshold of delusion, and appears to be embracing (and publicly expounding) pathological ideas.
"In conjunction with part of the elite, a group of psychopathic individuals hiding behind the scenes steers the leader, the way Bormann and his clique steered Hitler. If the leader does not fulfill his assigned role, he generally knows that the clique representing the elite of the union is in a position to kill or otherwise remove him."
Turnbull appears to be quite aware of this now. His pronouncements and press conferences have taken on the tone of someone who is saying what he believes he should say, rather than what he thinks. Unfortunately, his delusions and lack of knowledge are blinding him to the fact that only those with bonafide psychopathy are considered to be candidates for the 'elite' within a pathocracy, and so he will never be told the full story. He will be used as a puppet, and discarded once he is no longer of value to them. Perhaps he has been held hostage to the nutjobs within his party for so long now that he has developed some sort of political 'Stockholm Syndrome'. In any case, his critical thinking abilities seem to have atrophied to the point where it is unlikely he will ever achieve what he had hoped to by becoming prime minister.

And the spider, Peter Dutton, appears to have received the 'nod' from the elites within the party to proceed with the hidden agenda of 'reforming' Australia's security apparatus and bending it to their will, so that Australian citizens will soon wake up to find themselves in a similar sort of situation as their UK siblings - spied upon at every turn, intimidated into self-censorship, blasted continually with propaganda, and manipulated into proceeding down the path that is planned for them: focusing their attention on the goals and outcomes that the so-called 'elites' desire, one of which is to continue to turn public opinion against both Russia and China.

But Russia has already called the empire's bluff militarily. The likelihood of an all-out 'scorched earth' nuclear war has come and gone with Hillary Clinton. Faced with the failure of their keystone 'regime change' foreign policy in Syria, Iran, and North Korea (by which they attempted to contain, isolate, besiege, and dominate Russia & China), the Project for a New American Century, and the neoconservatives behind it, are finished. With the recent death of Zbigniew Brezinski, one of the masterminds of anti-Russian geopolitical strategy is gone. Is it simply coincidence that John McCain, one of the chief neocon warmongers in the US government, was just diagnosed with brain cancer? There have been renewed calls for Tony Blair to be held accountable for war crimes in Iraq, and John Howard receives criticism every time he makes a public appearance in Australia.

So what is the empire's 'Plan B'?

Thus we return to the subject of encryption, and the converging factors that point to a reaction by the "Five Eyes" into making final preparations to 'pull the trigger' on their Information 'secret weapon': to remove effective encryption capabilities for private citizens while simultaneously creating vulnerabilities in systems all around the world that could be quickly exploited to further a coordinated agenda. What comprises such an agenda might be highly speculative, but consider that with the moves in the West toward cashless economies, an automated workforce, and militarised police states, a situation noted by many alt-­media commentators and writers may be plausible: that a 'global economic reset' is in the works. And consider that without encryption, or more specifically, the commercial confidence that encryption enables, blockchain-based virtual currencies such as BitCoin will become useless.

Given the sudden development of an economic collapse, the U.S. 'deep state' would only need to activate such a plan, and not only would it disrupt global encrypted communications using the trojan protocols, but the financial consequences would be magnified many times over, and it could all be blamed upon 'cybercrime activity by mysterious hacker groups' with ridiculous names and unlikely origins. Note how many sets of military-grade cyber-weaponry have made it into the public domain over the last few years via 'leaks'.

While such a 'bigger picture' is highly speculative, the prognosis for Australia is, sadly, less speculative. Rather than embracing the opportunities offered by an empowered Eurasia, the Turnbull government, in thrall to its security agencies (and those of the UK and the USA), has once again doubled-down on the failed policies of a dying empire. Rather than foreswearing the "Five Eyes" and charting their own course, it seems Australian politicians are too addicted to power and cheap spy novels to make sensible and rational decisions.

Perhaps, after a little more time, experience and of course suffering, the Australian people will understand the nature of the creatures that currently occupy their Parliament, and choose to do something about it.