IN THE NEWS(OR IS IT?): DID ANONYMOUS JUST HIT THE WORLD BANK, FED, ...
There's more news about the hacking group Anoonymous and its hacking exploits, or is there? Wwll, if you're watching the lamestream news, not really, at least, not according to these two artcles that many of you shared:
Anonymous Hits New York Stock Exchange, World Bank, The Fed, and Vatican — Total Media Blackout
Anonymous Hits New York Stock Exchange, World Bank, The Fed, & Vatican — Total Media Blackout
We blogged this story previously but now there appears to be a new wrinkle to ponder if you read these two articles closely, a wrinkle having to do with our high octane speculation of the day. But first, a caveat: we are assuming for the sake of argument that these two articles - which are more or less the same - are in fact true. But there is equally the possibility that they may not be, or at least, may contain a degree of "disinformation." This would dovetail quite nicely with the veiew of some that Anonymous may not be the "independent, altruistic" group that some say it is, but rather, a global organization with big backers behind it. Some have been of the opinion that it represents a cut-out for Chinese and/or Russian cyber warfare activity aagainst the West, and given the West's own economic warfare on Russia, a response in some form is to be expected. "Two can play the covert operations game". Again, completeness also demands that one entertain the possibility that the group may even be the dialectical catspaw for the banksters themselves, a way of demonstrating the vulberability of current digital financial systems to creaate a climate of opinion to emplace something draconian.
In short, there are any number of ways to speculate possible interpretations and implications of the story.
But assume, for the sake of argument, that these articles are true and genuine. If one does so, there's a paragraph that caught my eye, and that, upon reflection, fits in rather interestingly with a scenario I've been arguing over the past few years. The claim of the group calling itself OpIcarus(Operation Icarus), is straightforward enough:
Greetings citizens of the world, we are OpIcarus a collective of citizens from around the globe working on exposing the 1% through the global banking systems. The elite are responsible for the corruption currently taking place in all governments, media, drug cartels, sex trafficking and money laundering. This last week we have had success in taking down the banking systems of the Bank of International Settlements, the World Bank, the Vatican, Morocco, Macedonia as well as the Central Bank of Venezuela. We stand with the people of Venezuela as they protest their corrupt government and all should expect our support through operations during these uprisings wherever they may arise. We are the people, We stand with the people, We support the people.
You'll note first the greeting is addressed to the "citizens of the world," a greeting that could be interpreted in a way condign to the aims and goals of Mr. Global. No thank you; I am a citizen of the United States of America. But I digress. The paragraph that caught my eye was this one:
In a previous interview with the Free Thought Project, an Anonymous representative clarified that the operation is in no way intended to impact individuals accounts held within the banks, explaining that OpIcarus is directed solely at the 1% perpetuating injustice:
“We would just like to make it very clear that all targets of #OpIcarus have been Rothschild and BIS central owned banks. In fact most of the targets so far such as Guernsey, Cyprus, Panama, Jordan, British Virgin Isles, etc are in the top 10 places of tax havens for the elite. No on-line consumer accounts were harmed, no ATM’s were blocked and no personal client data was leaked. This has been a protest against the Central Banks and the 1% — no innocent or poor people were harmed” (Emphases added)
Like most readers here, I certainly am sympathetic at least to the emotional response most people have to the major banks and their role in creating the current mess. "Too big to jail" is the epithet many have used. What I found interesting here is the specific reference to "Rothschild and BIS central owned banks." So herewith my high octane speculation: could we be looking, in fact, at that "factional infighting" I've suspected has been going on at the top of the plutocrats' pyramid? A real struggle for control as "they" near their goal of global institutions? Could, say, the "Rockefeller" faction, which has always emphasized control of advanced technology, be battling it out with the "Rothschild" faction, which has emphasized control of land and actual physical assets, be battling it out?
Behind such a view of course lurks another for grist in our high octane speculation mill, for note that these two factions also represent a primarily American vs European interest, and the BIS, as most regular readers here are aware, represents a peculiar fusion between the two, and a further common surface with that "Fascist/Nazi International mafia" I've written so much about.
The bottom linee here is that I suspect, if this story be true, that we are possibly looking at more clues to that "factional infighting" that may be going on in the international criminal mafia of Mr. Global.
See you on the flip side...
10 Comments
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.
From a technical perspective, I find it highly unlikely that anyone would have the capabilities to do this. Not even mentioning the software that would interact with proprietary software, and even if they did hack it, hacking it and transferring money, especially the amount of money they are talking about, at a time when the bank is closed, I would find highly unlikely. I would think it much more likely the money missing was simply taken by either the bank or our alphabet agencies executed in tandem with the fed. (who would have a limited access to the system.)
When we talk about hacking on the web, and corps that have been hacked, they have gone into a front facing web server and executed standard queries to see what they would get. But when we talk about banks, the banking system is pretty tight. We hear and see where individual accounts get hacked, they get a customer’s login/pw etc to login to their account and get money that way.
But the hacks they are talking about here, with Swift, is mind-boggling, and not something that could be done alone, not something that could be done without an inside person or at least the odds of it are about the same as Sun Going Nova this year without outside influence.
In any transactional server, not only do you have to have the right signals to be able to login, and one can’t login remote. Some systems have a little ‘widget’, a physical piece of equipment that is coded to the person and account, they read a random number off the screen using infra-red, and then give you a random code that you then physically type in, this is in addition to the password and login which are standard.
So a person would have to be in a location with a swift server or they would have to spoof the IP address of the server and ‘pretend’ they are the server, but this is not a credit card company, this isn’t an immediate transaction/approval/deny situation. We talking HUGE funds here and International Transactions in “Real Time?” Honestly, I doubt this could ever be done even by the coders who built the swift system, because again, they would still need all the information with each bank they go through.
here’s a quote:
“As powerful as SWIFT is, keep in mind that it is only a messaging system—SWIFT does not hold any funds or securities, nor does it manage client accounts.” <–swift doesn't hold any funds, securities nor manage accounts, you'd have to go to the respective banks, perform the transaction over the swift system and then forward those funds to the receiving bank, all the time knowing every code, login, transaction codes and much more.
And Almost all banks (I'm aware of) won't even let the account holders of a business account transfer funds from your general account to your payroll account unless it's done in PERSON. This was always a pain in the ass on payday to have to make it to the bank in time for all the posting for different time zones.
The transactions mentioned in the Sri Lanka/Bangladesh heist, doesn't even make sense. First they stated 100+ million was taken, then they were able to get 23 million back, but not the other 80+million back.
So not only did they hack the banks, swift, but then they would have to have hit the bank of international settlements too. ???
Kaspersky is *the best* malware detectors/finders/responders on the globe, So I'm very curious to hear their take on this issue.
————–
As I state previously the hackers targets customers/employees but people who have accounts the hackers could receive money from such as this hack which involved ATM's and required people to pick the money up:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/15/hackers-steal-billion-in-banking-breach/23464913/
Here's more on the Swift System as well as some links at the bottom of this referenced page which will provide more information.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050515/how-swift-system-works.asp
Contrary to what people may think, a person can't call up a bank like with a modem and hack your way into it, they don't have any such capabilities.
===============
I am not familiar with the Bank of Bangladesh, but many countries have much more advanced software than we do, and even tighter security measures.
==============
I'll leave you with this thought:
How many banks do you know of that would allow 100 Million in transfer's with confirmation from the account holder? AND even if they did allow for the transfer, how many banks do you know that would release that kind of money to any account receiver without holding back 90% or at minimum 75% for X days?
They say they used the Fed Reserve for it, but outside the US, then it's not the Federal Reserve anymore. Then it's a different bank, with different protocols.
When I lived in Sweden, they wouldn't even deposit and release funds from a State Of Alaska Check into my account until they physically received the money which btw, took almost 3 months. Just fyi.
============
In my humble opinion, this would be more of elite fractions in fighting, using anon as their front. Or the Black budget, blackwater orgs needing to fund something right away.
Just fyi, The FBI regularly pretends to be anon's perpetrating 'crimes' which are then blamed on anon. What better way to turn the public against anon, and what better way to Anon against Each Other.
imho.
~e.
I wonder if these attacks are driving the increase in Bitcoin value.
It has went up 78dollars in the past week or about 17.5%.
Its so difficult to discern if the apparently decentralized cryptocurrency is a legitimate counter to the banks or if its a planted alternative.
What better way to get people transitioning to a (possibly controlled) cryptocurrency than to create problems with the current system?
If its legitimate, i want to participate in it, but the potential that its a poisoned apple has me on the fence… Still
nice support in our times of trial
with friends like these,….
Macedonia and Venezuela?
The same Macedonia that had its President killed in a mysterious plane crash over US controlled territory in Bosnia and is now under the pressure of a Soros style revolution?
The same Venezuela that is being frozen out of international trade by the US?
Seems like anonymous is playing the old double agent pony trick.
Yeeeeup!
I just winder what Cosmo de Medici would make of all of this ???
Those Venetians fellows were to say the least “savvy” when it came to money. So what would they think about “hacking” back then???
I’m sure they would take no prisoners and find out how they did it very quickly. The point here is, when attacked, attack back.
There is such a thing as too paranoid, in the sense that it ultimately leads to hiding in a closet. (A fair degree of paranoia is fine, in this day and age.)
I tend to look more at Anonymous as having a degree of self-existence, rather than being wholly-owned. Perhaps being infiltrated and ultimately being compromised, but reflecting a real sentiment.
The “Occupy” movement was ultimately a joke (except for planting the 1% meme in the general populace), because it had no real power. It depended on the forbearance of civic authorities for its actions, and those authorities are mostly in the pocket of those being Occupied. It hoped to get a popular-uprising going against those actually conducting class warfare, but the population was too fearful or sedentary. So, it failed…
The Anonymous group (if real and independent), on the other hand, is going right for the source of power of the 1%ers – the private banking system. Encouraging. I also like it that the means that the 1% have used to cause so much evil (the liquidity of capital through electronic transfer and massive computing power) has been used against them. Very encouraging.
Finally, like it or not, we are all citizens of the world. The march of technology assures that. Nations should exist; they are natural ‘firewalls’. However, the only real choice we have is whether the (human) world becomes like the Harkonnen homeworld (nobles and serfs, plus decadence) or a more benign world (Minbari?)…
Problem is how addicting greed in the end really is. The junkies of power and avarice won’t stop until they destroy everything including themselves the ultimate folly. The Will of the Wisp dreamland.
The Big Money House have been fighting it out for control of the hierarchical pyramid for many eons. It’s due the nature of the whole organizational structure including it’s control mechanisms/money/energy/food/violence.
What drew my attention was Venezuela.
The 1% are trying to get it back into their vampire fangs.
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2016/05/state-of-emergency-in-venezuela.html
Big sign that the claims about Anonymous are fake:
Anonymous really doesn’t grant interviews, though one from FreeThought is cited.
Then there’s the trope of owners of various central banks, ain’t the same as private board members from commercial banks, who are then able to do massive favors for their respective banks.