Tag: eliteforexblog

GlobalIntelHub2

“We’re Running A F**king Casino” Congressman Admits DC Is A “Sinkhole Of Leeches”

Elite E Services
More details are being released about the anonymous expose of Washington D.C. corruption and largesse that confirms why Americans hate their national government and have rallied to anti-establishment presidential candidates like Donald Trump. As NYPost reports, the 65-page manifesto called ‘The Confessions of Congressman X’ is based on years of transcribed private discussions, which the congressman last November gave editor Robert Atkinson, says more time is spent fundraising than reading bills and calls Washington a “sinkhole of leeches,” where money ‘corrupts’ and House members are “puppets” to lobbyists who bankroll their campaigns.
“Like most of my colleagues, I promise my constituents a lot of stuff I can never deliver,” he admits.
“But what the hell? It makes them happy hearing it . . . My main job is to keep my job.”
As NYPost.com reports, the book, published by the small Mill City Press, is based on years of transcribed private discussions, which the congressman last November gave editor Robert Atkinson. Atkinson declined to say whether Congressman X – a Democrat – is a current or former House member.
The title of one chapter sums up his view of congressional leaders: “Harry Reid’s a Pompous Ass,” he says of the Senate Democratic leader.
“We spend money we don’t have and blithely mortgage the future with a wink and a nod. Screw the next generation. It’s about getting credit now, lookin’ good for the upcoming election,” he says.
He said he and his colleagues often lie to try to be all things to all people instead of tackling the nation’s problems.
“I contradict myself all the time, but few people notice,” X says. “One minute I rail against excessive spending and ballooning debt. The next minute I’m demanding more spending on education, health care, unemployment benefits, conservation projects, yadda, yadda, yadda.”
Voters are described as gullible, know-nothing jerks, while the only people who count are the big donors who pour billions of dollars into lobbying.
“Voters are incredibly ignorant. It’s far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification . . .,” vents Congressman X.
He says money “corrupts” and House members are “puppets” to lobbyists who bankroll their campaigns.
“Business organizations and unions fork over more than $3 billion a year to those who lobby the federal government. Does that tell you something? We’re operating a f–king casino,” he says.
He describes himself as a “closet moderate” who supports charter schools and tax vouchers to allow poor kids to go to private schools.
But students take a back seat to partisan politics…
“Our education’s in the toilet, and all we do is snipe at each other,” he says.
Congress is too polarized and partisan to get anything done, by the congressman’s account.
“There seems to be a complete disintegration of confidence in government. A fear that government is its own special interest,” he says.

“America’s on an irreversible decline and no one in Washington seems to care . . . God help us.”

X says the cloak of anonymity gave him the freedom to expose ­secrets, including how the public’s money is wasted. New York sources speculated it’s Rep. Steve Israel (D-LI), a moderate who announced he’s retiring and who has complained about the constant need to fundraise to finance re-election campaigns.
Continue Reading
GlobalIntelHub2

How to build your own Set Files

Elite E Services
I wanted to give a quick run down of the process that I go through to give us set files so everyone isn’t wasting their precious time “throwing darts” but making real steps forward with black & white hard data. I would like to help advance our EA’s (Blessing & Evolution) as well as help other developers/designers with this very efficient process of “tuning” our EA so more people can help in the process as there are just too many combo’s to discover (which is nice!). So below is a ROUGH draft of the method I developed testing many-many EA’s over time. It will allow you to rather quickly learn, test and tweak ANY EA out there to the fullest of it’s ability. No mystery, its hardcore gathering data. I spend all day, everyday testing and writing down what the test showed, but this means almost nothing if not gathered in the right logical order.
Allow me to explain my common sense logical approach to tuning EA’s.

My “CHAIN OF COMMAND” METHOD

In the natural world, successful businesses, militaries or even just families have in place a “Chain of Command.” There MUST be order or there is confusion and a computer program is no different. It is this TRUTH that the whole method of EA code breaking with set files comes into play. We M-U-S-T find the Chain of Command, -the “hottest” settings to the least hottest and adjust them accordingly IN THAT ORDER, or it will throw off the “balance” of the EA and it will run “choppy” if at all just like things in the natural world without a tight Chain of Command do.
Example:
Take an “ON/OFF” switch of ANY EA, because the on/off switch IS THE HOTTEST setting if it is in the “off” position every other setting under it in the Chain of Command doesn’t matter, tweak on them all you want the EA is OFF and it does no good. See, how the Chain of Command works and the importance of it? Likewise EVERY setting has lesser settings that follow it’s orders. Our job is to find these “Alpha Male” settings and note them from Alpha to Omega, beginning to end. If we do not follow this order there will be chaos and this will show in the profit graph of a back test as it will be unsmooth. You’ll make no/none/ZERO “solid” progress forward day after day as there is no “logic” behind tuning your set file, and no logic means no “balance,” and no balance means it’s a gamble or like every other EA out there.
BALANCE is defined as the ability of the setting to “read” any market condition correctly with any amount of capital as it is self adjusting to the markets condition as well as handling the money management of the account.
The difference between indicators and an EA is that an indicator just “records” what it is programmed to do, it is never “wrong” as it can only record. An EA using indicators to look for recorded events that point to historical market conditions that can be seen recorded before they happened therefore we can profit from them. I simple example would be a Stochastic indicator and how it can be oversold or overbought and the outcome result of each…
Quick HINTS to keep in mind, then I’ll explain the method step-by-step:
–Never try to find a NEW set file with a back-test with a low amount of money, instead use at least $100,000 with Money Management “OFF.”
Why?
A back-tests report “can” show MANY things. For instance, if there is only 50 trades and then an EP hit, what does that tell you? Well, not much, it MIGHT tell you that the setting you are trying is very out of balance, but if you used a $100,000 with Money Management OFF and a fixed lot size of only .01 and start your back-test this should be enough to get you over any DD area which is important because we NEED TO “SEE” what & how our setting is running so we know WHAT TO FIX. You may see that this was the only spot where your setting had trouble and that it ran very well the rest of the test and in fact ISN’T as out-of-balance as you thought. You then can zero in with a VISUAL back-test of that problem area and maybe you see 2-3 long drippy candles that caused this DD area like the USD/JPY or EUR/CHF pairs like to do. If that’s the case, then adjusting the “Delays” in our EA’s should take care of that problem and now you have a great set file to continue working on that you would have missed with a lesser starting amount.
In the above example, if we started with a low back test amount (or MM “on”) we would have skipped right over the setting and thought it was “junk” simply because it crashed right away in the back-test. See now why the higher starting amount is NEEDED so we can “SEE” just what we’re dealing with so we can then absorb that into our setting and make it safer when trying to find new set files?
So never back-test with Money Management “on” when finding new set files. With ANY set file you can adjust it so that it’s so aggressive it’ll crash, so how can you know what is too much or too little aggression? We test and note where it starts to get “hot” so then we know for sure where the “comfy” spot of the setting is. What we want are set files that make it through the test period, we ARE NOT looking for profit when finding new set files, not at first, but then we will be looking to “tune” our EA in so that it can “read” the markets conditions correctly and then first see what it can yield in profit.
Profit settings come after we find set files, never before, -how can they???
  • Never use a STOPLOSS when finding a new set file.
When back-testing you never use a stoploss, as this will affect the profit graph and you won’t be able to “SEE” how the underlying EA is running. Back-tests where stop-losses are used are choppy, you simply cannot get a read on how your EA is doing if a stoploss is getting in the way. A SL was NEVER meant to produce profit, if a EA has a stoploss being used to “help it” make profit that is simply a underdeveloped EA. A SL is only used as a LAST DEFENSE should the market throw something at the EA that it wasn’t programmed to deal with (underdeveloped).. Notice our EA’s are very advanced, even the free B3, and we don’t have a “stoploss” as they just aren’t needed as the set file is developed and the settings matched to the base setting. Not that we run blind with no safety, no way. We have Max DD% protection levels among other things.
  • And any type of stoploss in an EA is ALWAYS THE VERY L-A-S-T thing to finish your set file as it has NOTHING to do with how your EA runs but is there as a LAST safety device. EA’s on the net that attempt to use a SL as a active part of their set files are giving away tons of profits and their profit graphs in back-tests are choppy because they are way under developed and should be avoided. The more a EA is developed (logically, -Chain of Command) the “smoother” it will trade as its program is more advanced/developed so it deals with market conditions better.
Let’s start, —Here’s what you do.
  • Use 1 notebook for each pair. You will find that the better you keep your notes the more use you’ll get out of them later as you read and go over your notes perhaps looking where there might be a “fork-in-the-road” that you can return to, to perhaps find a better setting. I do this all the time as there are “forks” at each major “step” within the set file. I’ll define these as we go on.
*I highly recommend getting several different colored pens and highlighters, one color for WHAT is being tested, another color for the RESULTS and another highlighter for BEST result. This will allow you to quickly flip back and watch each pairs development and clearly see the “forks” in the roads as you went. You’ll be able to quickly SEE “where & what” a set file was born out of which may give a clue to another set files tweaking… This spot will also be a pivotal “fork in the road” where you can return to and try a different path and see a different end outcome (there are MILLIONS of these pathways mixed in the settings to find and explore).
If you’re totally new to the EA, start with 1 setting at a time, notice how “touchy” (hot) it is and rate it, 10 being VERY HOT meaning a small change can EP hit the whole setting. After you have ALL this data on how touchy each setting is, look at which ones are the “hottest” as those are the ones you want to adjust on FIRST, it M-U-S-T be done this way. Do not adjust a not-so-hot setting and then expect to “draw” the higher settings to it, -it CANNOT be “balanced” if we do that. Remember the “on/off switch” example and how it didn’t matter what setting is used if the higher, hotter setting wasn’t “on” first. Map out the Chain of Command, that is your road map to success, without it you’re throwing darts in the dark as the set file will not be logical…
This sounds complex but this is very simple, just do things in the right order is all.
Now, the HOTTEST setting, adjust it up in logical “steps” until it busts and note at every step the:
  1. Profit
  2. DD%’s (Max & Rel)
  3. Win/Loss ratio
  4. Total trades
Let’s talk about Steps as they can be tricky:
[This is where a optimizer can be used with “stepping” different settings looking for a door opener, but ALWAYS double check your findings!]
The Steps are the spacing between numbers that will be tested to give you the data to show you where you need to be looking in DETAIL and at every step. Remember to start with the “hottest” setting… For this example let’s use the GAF setting. If we have a setting of “1” for this we need to know “where” this setting is within the setting, -is it “hot” or cold for example? First run a backtest so you have your “benchmark” to beat. We’ll then test in “steps” with .1 steps and write down the data (1-4) as we did with the benchmark setting. Then test from .1 all the way to 1 (10 tests) the benchmark setting, and note what happens to PROFIT, DD% max/rel, Win/Loss ratio and Total trades at EACH STEP.
Profit of course tells us how well the setting is taking profit and keeping it.
DD%’s will tell us how well the settings are entering trades.
Win/Loss will show the sharpness of entry/exit.
Total Trades will show us how “tight” the settings are, -or how slopped out it is, or if it’s “sleepy.”
Then adjust the GAF up and do the same, “stepping” the settings upward until bust and filling up pages of data if need be, -data that “shows” where the profits are and where they are not in black & white in your notebook. Now we do this with every setting, taking data by “steps” as we go. Some settings (grid) might be tested in steps of 10, while a GAF setting will be tested in steps of 1, or even smaller, 0.1 or .01 or .05.
You may find that the best setting is a 1.2 GAF for now….
If a setting is set at 3, test at 2 and 1 and even 0.1 to see if it works, -if it does…. -does 0.2 work also??? –if yes keep on even checking to see if .09 works, explore and learn what this setting does by doing these sometime countless tests and NOTE what they do (1-4). You WILL be re-reading these notes later as you “fine tune.” Sometimes there are wide ranges of settings so take “steps” of 5 or 10 as mentioned.
Example: 110, 120, 130,…
Now work your way to the LEAST HOT setting and as you go leave behind you the “trail” of the best settings behind you. Don’t “cheat” and over step settings when testing, you may “miss” a doorway. Note also that with every change in the setting that these are the MAJOR “forks-in-the-road” I was talking about.
So, the “trail behind you” in other words, are the settings that had what you wanted, be it low DD% or Profit or? You KEEP PICKING OUT what you want as you go and that is how you line up a “BASELINE.” The baseline is what all the other indicators are tweaked to. You can baseline low DD settings or baseline the best Profit settings or even a blend like DD% & Profit (my favorite) for a baseline.
So “Baselining” is finding every settings best setting by using the steps data to find what setting each one gives the best result with according to what your baseline is being used for. A simple example would be “Profit.” If you wanted to “baseline” Profit you would work through all the settings and use the settings that produced the best profit for each setting. You would have then “baselined” all the settings to “Profit.”
I’ll repeat, you can baseline anything, DD%, Profit, Number of trades (for you rebate cashback hounds!) or combinations can be baselined. But something MUST be baselined because all the settings have to be pulled to it. That gets rid of the chaos and by doing this in a Chain of Command way you work in the Balance (smoothness) which will be seen in your profit graph of your backtest.
All settings in order of the Chain of Command remember!!!!, TO THE LEAST of the settings. -Or remember they won’t be “balanced” and will spin out and a crash will happen. It has nothing to do with a EA being “good or bad” but how you told it to trade.
Let me say it Again, adjusting the “hottest setting first, to least MUST happen.” Or you’ll end up with crappy fluky EA settings like all the other guys on the net. Take a look at FapTurbo, this monster coded EA trades only the slow moving Asian market period, and yet they still have yet to produce CONSISTANST profits and try “band-aid” after band-aid fixes but don’t know about “balancing” settings. Instead their approach is to give their followers “new” set files monthly, —great marketing, but lame. What a joke IMO. Their massive code can’t “read” a slow Asian market trading session, so THEY have to do it by looking (I’m guessing) at higher charts like weekly/monthly and adjust the settings MONTHLY to try to slop out a “lucky” profit. –unreal ~
Would YOU trade YOUR real money like that? Gambling month to month with what someone “thinks” will do good and that changes month by month?…
Could you imagine B3 or the highly advanced Evolution having to be “adjusted” monthly as time goes on?… LMAO ~~
Wouldn’t that be admitting it doesn’t read the market for crap??? Well wouldn’t it????……
I want people around me to KNOW what I do so they can start helping, because EV’s combinations for “tuning it in” are limitless now, even B3’s abilities can clearly be seen with honest study. But with all these endless combinations of settings and different pairs (as well as Metals and even stocks like Google as I’ve demonstrated) I simply “can’t” do every test that shows me every combination, so an ARMY of “me’s” are needed, pure & simple and we hope that is what our “Club EV” does.
I have no reason to keep any secrets as far as what or how I do my job here as Chief of Development and am looking forward to working for years to come with these EA’s that we have and the people who run them. You’re time spent learning them won’t be a waste as the theory of their trading basics can be used in Forex or the Stock market, -and as further developments take form and different EA’s come out you’ll already know how to drive them basically.
There are no “Glass Ceilings” here, and this is one of the reasons why I love these EA’s and why I would love to have a group of people testing, developing and breaking the codes to solid safe profits for years to come.
Now, let’s talk about some troubles that you will run into with the Chain of Command Method: Some settings are pretty much as touchy as another so which do you do first? Also there are some (like grid) that have multiple settings within itself. This is like a whole tuning area within a tuning area, -so how do we tune it?…
If there isn’t a CLEAR defined Chain of Command (ranking) then settings that are out of “balance” will happen. This can usually be cleaned up by adjusting down the MM system. The “cleaner” you can align the Chain of Command the more the setting will want to scream with profit. How do we make them run cleaner???
By revisiting our notes in our notebooks, we look back at the forks in the road and see if there might be a place where we could back up to and start down a different path.
You see each change of a set file changes all the others. Even once you make it through an entire setting and have found all the best settings and have lined them up with your baseline in a Chain of Command order, -you’re not done……
You must now go through the whole order AGAIN… –and yet AGAIN if “any” setting is changed again. Because each setting will need to “settle” into place and what “was” the best setting may not be the best setting by the time you’re done going through the whole set file.
But as you go through the settings each time you’ll be able to scan smaller “steps” a couple out both ways up & down and see if in fact the setting that was changed affects the other settings enough to open doors to allow tweaks to their setting. But careful, sometimes you’ll find that a setting can change another setting A LOT, so much that another setting might have to be changed a lot to allow the new doorway to be opened. So just keep in mind that when re-going over the settings after your first time through them it still is better to do a lot of testing of the steps in both directions, and not just a few out each way. You will find that you’ll get a “feel” for things the more you work with it. You should start to develope a feel of if it’s running “comfy” or is stressed.
So these area’s are the “forks in the road” where we come back to, to find different roads to go down if we feel the path we are on isn’t where we want to be, and you’ll KNOW it because you’ll be fighting with a setting to much, like it won’t want to become smooth in the finer settings. Because of things like this the balance is affected, but can be offset by lowering LAF or the AGGRESSION of the setting but that’s kind of cheating. It’s ALWAYS better to get it running as “clean” (smooth) as it can.
Multiple Steps within Steps, how to test them:
First, let me say that the advanced settings allow EV to decide for itself where to place trades by the filters it uses. Usually a grid setting is used here to make sure trades don’t go off to close together you’ll see this more with our “1 Trader” set files.
Now back to multiple steps in steps… Example, our grid has different AMOUNTS of trades, LEVELS of trades and even different Take Profits amounts for each, so how can we set them to a logical interacting setting?
One way, is to Cross Hatch the data.
Test the first setting in steps and note the best, leave it at that best setting and go onto the next. Do this with the whole line. Then go back and retest the entire line, if no more tweaks are found move to the next line. Do the same here, step testing each as you go leaving the best setting behind. Do the same with the Take Profit line.
Then pretend these are just one line and retest and allow each to double check the other. That is, you may have to jump back and fourth up and down the line to try to get the settings to compliment each other. They will slowly weed out which settings are just “hot” and need to be replaced. You’ll know these if you change a setting and it crashes the whole. The more “comfy” the settings are together the move they can be moved around and not crash the back test. The “touchy” hot settings that crash your back test are the ones that are out of balance the most and where your attention should be.
Why $1,000 is used as a base for our backtests.
$1,000 is used because this seems to be the amount that passes when starting right before the biggest historical DD area’s and gets through them with no problems. We wouldn’t want to just start trading our EA and get wiped out because it turns out we started right on a trend change DD area so the $1000 is our insurance against the unknown. So from now on back tests won’t be posted with a lower amount then $1000, although they will go lower and pass most times. Sometimes as low as $100, but should your account not have enough time to build equity to survive a DD you may bust, -take the “insurance” and start with $1000 per pair IMO.
If anyone gets a new setting to pass a back test with $1000 for a new pair please post. But remember for SAFETY’S sake we start with a balance of $1,000 as no DD area “should” be able to shut us down by using this amount, — PROVIDED our starting Lot size is .01 and not extremely high because of a hot set MM setting…. But remember when trying to find totally NEW set files start with using a bigger starting amount when back-testing ($100,000 with MM “OFF”) so you can SEE what is causing trouble and fix it. A $1000 start is for tweaking in a set file that already passes the test period.
Of course even if you’re just having fun and “throwing darts” and changing settings and feel you got lucky, post what you found. There are nights when I “throw darts” myself. I know this is worthless as an approach but there is always the factor of blind educated LUCK when doing this. But as you can hopefully see now from reading this, “luck” isn’t the method of choice with our EA’s, -we’ll leave that to FapTurbo’s monthly guessing game set files…
Our EA’s “read” the markets in every trading session, news or no news, gaps or no gaps because they are programmed that way, and we’re ever learning and knowledge never stops with the development team under Jeff Talon, from the best free EA on the net (Blessing3) to the sophisticated Professional “Evolution” EA.
We “read” the markets, not guess at them.
What drives me is that I can sit down every night and get one more step closer to having these EA’s run so steady and smoothly that more & more they become my source of income for my family. I welcome anyone who’s serious along for the ride for as we make new benchmark settings together upon new benchmarks we’ll together realize some of our dreams start to materialize because it’s a progressive method, and not “dart throwing.”
May our accounts always be GREEN my friends!
Ratz
Real Analysis of Technical indicatorZ.
Continue Reading
GlobalIntelHub2

CIA: Undermining and Nazifying Ukraine Since 1953

Elite E Services
by Wayne Madsen, via Strategic Culture
The recent declassification of over 3800 documents by the Central Intelligence Agency provides detailed proof that since 1953 the CIA operated two major programs intent on not only destabilizing Ukraine but Nazifying it with followers of the World War II Ukrainian Nazi leader Stepan Bandera.
The CIA programs spanned some four decades.  Starting as a paramilitary operation that provided funding and equipment for such anti-Soviet Ukrainian resistance groups as the Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council (UHVR); its affiliates, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), all Nazi Banderists. The CIA also provided support to a relatively anti-Bandera faction of the UHVR, the ZP-UHVR, a foreign-based virtual branch of the CIA and British MI-6 intelligence services. The early CIA operation to destabilize Ukraine, using exile Ukrainian agents in the West who were infiltrated into Soviet Ukraine, was codenamed Project AERODYNAMIC.
A formerly TOP SECRET CIA document dated July 13, 1953, provides a description of AERODYNAMIC: «The purpose of Project AERODYNAMIC is to provide for the exploitation and expansion of the anti-Soviet Ukrainian resistance for cold war and hot war purposes. Such groups as the Ukrainian Supreme Council of Liberation (UHVR) and its Ukrainian Insurgent Army (OUN), the Foreign Representation of the Ukrainian Supreme Council of Liberation (ZPUHVR) in Western Europe and the United States, and other organizations such as the OUN/B will be utilized». The CIA admitted in a 1970 formerly SECRET document that it had been in contact with the ZPUHVR since 1950.
The OUN-B was the Bandera faction of the OUN and its neo-Nazi sympathizers are today found embedded in the Ukrainian national government in Kiev and in regional and municipal governments throughout the country.
AERODYNAMIC placed field agents inside Soviet Ukraine who, in turn, established contact with Ukrainian Resistance Movement, particularly SB (intelligence service) agents of the OUN who were already operating inside Ukraine. The CIA arranged for airdrops of communications equipment and other supplies, presumably including arms and ammunition, to the «secret» CIA army in Ukraine. Most of the CIA’s Ukrainian agents received training in West Germany from the US Army’s Foreign Intelligence Political and Psychological (FI-PP) branch. Communications between the CIA agents in Ukraine and their Western handlers were conducted by two-way walkie-talkie (WT), shortwave via international postal channels, and clandestine airborne and overland couriers.
Agents airdropped into Ukraine carried a kit that contained, among other items, a pen gun with tear gas, an arctic sleeping bag, a camp axe, a trenching tool, a pocket knife, a chocolate wafer, a Minox camera and a 35 mm Leica camera, film, a Soviet toiletry kit, a Soviet cap and jacket, a .22 caliber pistol and bullets, and rubber «contraceptives» for ‘waterproofing film’. Other agents were issued radio sets, hand generators, nickel-cadmium batteries, and homing beacons.
An affiliated project under AERODYNAMIC was codenamed CAPACHO.
CIA documents show that AERODYNAMIC continued in operation through the Richard Nixon administration into 1970.
The program took on more of a psychological warfare operation veneer than a real-life facsimile of a John Le Carré «behind the Iron Curtain» spy novel. The CIA set up a propaganda company in Manhattan that catered to printing and publishing anti-Soviet ZPUHVR literature that would be smuggled into Ukraine. The new battleground would not be swampy retreats near Odessa and cold deserted warehouses in Kiev but at the center of the world of publishing and the broadcast media.
The CIA front company was Prolog Research and Publishing Associates, Inc., which later became known simply as Prolog. The CIA codename for Prolog was AETENURE. The group published the Ukrainian language «Prolog» magazine. The CIA referred to Prolog as a «non-profit, tax exempt cover company for the ZP/UHVR’s activities». The«legal entity» used by the CIA to fund Prolog remains classified information. However, the SECRET CIA document does state that the funds for Prolog were passed to the New York office «via Denver and Los Angeles and receipts are furnished Prolog showing fund origin to backstop questioning by New York fiscal authorities».
As for the Munich office of Prolog, the CIA document states that funding for it comes from an account separate from that of Prolog in New York from a cooperating bank, which also remains classified. In 1967, the CIA merged the activities of Prolog Munich and the Munich office of the Ukrainian exiled nationalist «Suchasnist» journal. The Munich office also supported the «Ukrainische Gesellschaft fur Auslandstudien». The CIA documents also indicate that US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents may have interfered with AERODYNAMIC agents in New York. A 1967 CIA directive advised all ZPUHVR agents in the United States to either report their contacts with United Nations mission diplomats and UN employees from the USSR and the Ukrainian SSR to the FBI or their own CIA project case officer. CIA agents in charge of AERODYNAMIC in New York and Munich were codenamed AECASSOWARY agents. Apparently not all that taken with the brevity of MI-6’s famed agent «007», one CIA agent in Munich was codenamed AECASSOWARY/6 and the senior agent in New York was AECASSOWARY/2.
AECASSOWARY agents took part in and ran other AERODYNAMIC teams that infiltrated the Vienna World Youth Conference in 1959. The Vienna infiltration operation, where contact with made with young Ukrainians, was codenamed LCOUTBOUND by the CIA.
In 1968, the CIA ordered Prolog Research and Publishing Associates, Inc. terminated and replaced by Prolog Research Corporation, «a profit-making, commercial enterprise ostensibly serving contracts for unspecified users as private individuals and institutions».
The shakeup of Prolog was reported by the CIA to have arisen from operation MHDOWEL. There is not much known about MHDOWEL other than it involved the blowing of the CIA cover of a non-profit foundation. The following is from a memo to file, dated January 31, 1969, from CIA assistant general counsel John Greany, «Concerns a meeting of Greaney, counsel Lawrence Houston and Rocca about a ‘confrontation’ with NY FBI office on January 17, 1969. They discussed two individuals whose names were redacted. One was said to be a staff agent of the CIA since 8/28/61 who had been assigned in 1964 to write a monograph, which had been funded by a grant from a foundation whose cover was blown in MHDOWEL (I suspect that is code for US Press).One of the individuals [name redacted] had been requested for use with Project DTPILLAR in November 1953 to Feb. 1955 and later in March 1964 for WUBRINY. When the Domestic Operations Division advised Security that this person would not be used in WUBRINY, Rocca commented that ‘there are some rather ominous allegations against members of the firm of [redacted],’ indicating one member of that firm was a ‘card-carrying member of the Communist Party.’ The memo went on to say that Rocca was investigating the use of the individual in Project DTPILLAR concerning whether that person had mentioned activities in Geneva in March 1966 in connection with Herbert Itkin». Raymond Rocca was the deputy chief of the CIA’s Counterintelligence Division. Itkin was an undercover agent for the FBI and CIA who allegedly infiltrated the Mafia and was given a new identity in California as «Herbert Atkin» in 1972.
In 1969, AERODYNAMIC began advancing the cause of the Crimean Tatars. In 1959, owing to Canada’s large Ukrainian population, Canada’s intelligence service began a program similar to AERODYNAMIC codenamed «REDSKIN».
As international air travel increased, so did the number of visitors to the West from Soviet Ukraine. These travelers were of primary interest to AERODYNAMIC. Travelers were asked by CIA agents to clandestinely carry Prolog materials, all censored by the Soviet government, back to Ukraine for distribution. Later, AERODYNAMIC agents began approaching Ukrainian visitors to eastern European countries, particularly Soviet Ukrainian visitors to Czechoslovakia during the «Prague Spring» of 1968. The Ukrainian CIA agents had the same request to carry back subversive literature to Ukraine.
AERODYNAMIC continued into the 1980s as operation QRDYNAMIC, which was assigned to the CIA’s Political and Psychological Staff’s Soviet East Europe Covert Action Program. Prolog saw its operations expanded from New York and Munich to London, Paris, and Tokyo. QRDYNAMIC began linking up with operations financed by hedge fund tycoon George Soros, particularly the Helsinki Watch Group’s operatives in Kiev and Moscow. Distribution of underground material expanded from journals and pamphlets to audio cassette tapes, self-inking stamps with anti-Soviet messages, stickers, and T-shirts.
QRDYNAMIC expanded its operations into China, obviously from the Tokyo office, and Czechoslovakia, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Soviet Central Asia, the Soviet Pacific Maritime region, and among Ukrainian-Canadians. QRDYNAMIC also paid journalist agents-of-influence for their articles. These journalists were located in Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, Israel, and Austria.
But at the outset of glasnost and perestroika in the mid-1980s, things began to look bleak for QRDYNAMIC. The high cost of rent in Manhattan had it looking for cheaper quarters in New Jersey.
Assistant Secretary of State for European/Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, the baked goods-bearing «Maiden of Maidan,» told the US Congress that the United States spent $5 billion to wrest control of Ukraine from the Russian sphere since the collapse of the Soviet Union. With the recent disclosures from the CIA it appears that the price tag to the American tax payers of such foreign shenanigans was much higher.
Wayne Madsen is an investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. He is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club.
Continue Reading
GlobalIntelHub2

Forex’s ‘Last Look’ Practice Gets Curbed

Elite Forex Blog - Market Research & Analysis
Two of the world’s biggest currency-trading platforms plan to restrict a controversial industry practice in which banks can pull out of trades at the last moment if the market moves against them.
Thomson Reuters Corp. and BATS Global Markets Inc. will limit the practice, known as “last look,” on their platforms in coming weeks, in a move aimed at increasing transparency in the foreign-exchange market.
The change comes amid a broader shake-up of the trading industry prompted by concerns about traders’ efforts to manipulate a range of financial markets. Markets for precious metals, interest rates, stocks and currencies have all come under scrutiny from regulators in recent years because of allegations of inappropriate behavior.
Regulators in the U.K., the global hub for foreign-exchange trading, are expected to report next month on their own review into the supervision and transparency of some markets, including the foreign-exchange market. The so-called Fair and Effective Markets Review, or FEMR, specifically asked asset managers and other bank clients about their views on last look.
While some foreign-exchange platforms already don’t permit last look, it is still allowed on some large venues, including Hotspot, owned by BATS; and FXall, owned by Thomson Reuters. Hotspot and FXall account for about 25% of clients’ electronic forex trading, according to financial-industry consultants Greenwich Associates.
The last look practice is a legacy of over-the-phone currency trading, when traders would take a final check of the market before executing an order. It has survived even as foreign-exchange trading moved onto electronic platforms, leaving banks with the option to back out of an order after it was accepted by a client.
Thomson Reuters and BATS plan to tighten the time frame for canceling quotes and introduce a minimum acceptance rate banks have to respect.
Phil Weisberg, global head of foreign exchange at Thomson Reuters, said last look requires “more clarity.” Some clients don’t understand “the rules of engagement with the bank” and “are confused about trading protocols,” he added, referring to the exact conditions banks have to respect on the execution of each specific trade.
William Goodbody, head of FX at Hotspot, said, “Last look is a widely used practice in the industry. To make it work, it needs a clear set of guidelines.”
In June 2014, the U.K. Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority, the U.K.’s financial watchdog, launched the FEMR to consider ways to improve the supervision and transparency of some markets. FEMR findings, due to be released on June 10, are expected to establish rules on the execution of currency trades.
Foreign exchange is a highly unregulated market, compared to stock trading, as currencies aren’t traded on exchanges.
Banks’ foreign-exchange trading clients are likely to welcome the move to curb last look, said Kevin McPartland, a principal at Greenwich Associates.
“Giving market participants more visibility into where, how and with whom their orders are executed is a good thing,” Mr. McPartland said.
Javier Paz, a senior consultant at Aite Group, said last look echoes the equity-market practice of “spoofing,” an illegal strategy in which traders place orders they don’t intend to execute to move the market to their advantage.
But there are also some significant differences, he said. In spoofing, a trader places an offer to buy or sell, then cancels it quickly, whereas in last look, there’s always a client willing to execute one side of the trade, Mr. Paz said.
Write to Chiara Albanese at [email protected]
The Justice Department has begun looking into a common practice in foreign-exchange markets that allows banks to back out of unfavorable trades at the last moment, a person briefed on the matter said.
Prosecutors, along with the Securities and Exchange Commission, have asked Barclays Plc for information related to its electronic-trading platform, which contains a program that allows traders to take a “last look” at an order before executing it, according to the person, who asked not to be named because the matter isn’t public.
Prosecutors’ interest in the last-look practice has grown out of a broader investigation into the manipulation of benchmarks and client orders in the $5.3 trillion-a-day currency market. The inquiries follow an investigative path laid out in recent months by Benjamin Lawsky, New York’s banking regulator.
Barclays said earlier Tuesday that it set aside an additional 750 million pounds ($1.2 billion) to cover the cost of settling the currency-rigging investigation, bringing its total expected cost to about 1.25 billion pounds.

Vestige Practice

The last-look option is a vestige of the early computer era when the time lag between an order being entered at one bank and confirmed at another was long enough to expose the market maker to unpredictable price fluctuations. As that lag tightened, banks retained the right to halt currency trades on a last-look basis.
Critics of the practice say it’s obsolete and can harm investors.
“Last look is a hangover from a technology problem that no longer exists, yet still allows traders to reject trades and re-quote orders to the disadvantage of clients,” David Mercer, chief executive of LMAX Exchange, a forex trading platform, said in a Feb. 20 statement.
BlackRock Inc. said last month that last looks can cause market participants to experience so-called phantom liquidity where prices that appear to be available suddenly disappear, in response to the Bank of England’s Fair and Effective Markets Review. Making completed trades available and transparent would make the market better, BlackRock said.
“These developments, would in our view, facilitate fairer outcomes for end investors and increase market effectiveness and efficiency,” BlackRock said.

New Front

It isn’t clear whether the Justice Department’s review of last-look practices will lead to a new front in its forex investigation. The SEC is exploring whether any elements of the practice violate disclosure laws, another person briefed on the matter said.
Peter Carr, a Justice Department spokesman, declined to comment on any inquiry specifically into last-look practices, as did Florence Harmon of the SEC.
Until now, regulators in the U.K., Switzerland and the U.S. have been primarily focused on manipulation of benchmark currency exchange rates by traders at some 30 global banks, with an emphasis on collusive behavior. The last-look review indicates that regulators and prosecutors are turning their focus to established practices that could make markets unfair.
The prosecutors’ request appears to bolster a line of inquiry opened up by Lawsky, superintendent of New York’s Department of Financial Services, who said last month that he was looking into the practice.
In its annual report released Tuesday, Barclays said that various “regulatory and enforcement authorities,” including the Justice Department, SEC and Lawsky’s agency, “are investigating a range of issues associated with Foreign Exchange sales and trading, including electronic trading.” Kerrie Cohen, a spokeswoman for Barclays, declined to comment.
Continue Reading
GlobalIntelHub2

The Original Chechnya Bombers – The CIA, The Saudis And Bin Laden

Elite Forex Blog - Market Research & Analysis
What if Putin is Telling The Truth?
On April 26 Russia’s main national TV station, Rossiya 1, featured President Vladimir Putin in a documentary to the Russian people on the events of the recent period including the annexation of Crimea, the US coup d’etat in Ukraine, and the general state of relations with the United States and the EU. His words were frank. And in the middle of his remarks the Russian former KGB chief dropped a political bombshell that was known by Russian intelligence two decades ago.
Putin stated bluntly that in his view the West would only be content in having a Russia weak, suffering and begging from the West, something clearly the Russian character is not disposed to. Then a short way into his remarks, the Russian President stated for the first time publicly something that Russian intelligence has known for almost two decades but kept silent until now, most probably in hopes of an era of better normalized Russia-US relations.
Putin stated that the terror in Chechnya and in the Russian Caucasus in the early 1990’s was actively backed by the CIA and western Intelligence services to deliberately weaken Russia. He noted that the Russian FSB foreign intelligence had documentation of the US covert role without giving details.
What Putin, an intelligence professional of the highest order, only hinted at in his remarks, I have documented in detail from non-Russian sources. The report has enormous implications to reveal to the world the long-standing hidden agenda of influential circles in Washington to destroy Russia as a functioning sovereign state, an agenda which includes the neo-nazi coup d’etat in Ukraine and severe financial sanction warfare against Moscow. The following is drawn on my book, “The Lost Hegemon” to be published soon…
CIA’s Chechen Wars
Not long after the CIA and Saudi Intelligence-financed Mujahideen had devastated Afghanistan at the end of the 1980’s, forcing the exit of the Soviet Army in 1989, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself some months later, the CIA began to look at possible places in the collapsing Soviet Union where their trained “Afghan Arabs” could be redeployed to further destabilize Russian influence over the post-Soviet Eurasian space.
They were called Afghan Arabs because they had been recruited from ultraconservative Wahhabite Sunni Muslims from Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and elsewhere in the Arab world where the ultra-strict Wahhabite Islam was practiced. They were brought to Afghanistan in the early 1980’s by a Saudi CIA recruit who had been sent to Afghanistan named Osama bin Laden.
With the former Soviet Union in total chaos and disarray, George H.W. Bush’s Administration decided to “kick ‘em when they’re down,” a sad error. Washington redeployed their Afghan veteran terrorists to bring chaos and destabilize all of Central Asia, even into the Russian Federation itself, then in a deep and traumatic crisis during the economic collapse of the Yeltsin era.
In the early 1990s, Dick Cheney’s company, Halliburton, had surveyed the offshore oil potentials of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and the entire Caspian Sea Basin. They estimated the region to be “another Saudi Arabia” worth several trillion dollars on today’s market. The US and UK were determined to keep that oil bonanza from Russian control by all means. The first target of Washington was to stage a coup in Azerbaijan against elected president Abulfaz Elchibey to install a President more friendly to a US-controlled Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline, “the world’s most political pipeline,” bringing Baku oil from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey and the Mediterranean.
At that time, the only existing oil pipeline from Baku was a Soviet era Russian pipeline that ran through the Chechen capital, Grozny, taking Baku oil north via Russia’s Dagestan province, and across Chechenya to the Black Sea Russian port of Novorossiysk. The pipeline was the only competition and major obstacle to the very costly alternative route of Washington and the British and US oil majors.
President Bush Sr. gave his old friends at CIA the mandate to destroy that Russian Chechen pipeline and create such chaos in the Caucasus that no Western or Russian company would consider using the Grozny Russian oil pipeline.
Graham E. Fuller, an old colleague of Bush and former Deputy Director of the CIA National Council on Intelligence had been a key architect of the CIA Mujahideen strategy. Fuller described the CIA strategy in the Caucasus in the early 1990s: “The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power.”6
The CIA used a dirty tricks veteran, General Richard Secord, for the operation. Secord created a CIA front company, MEGA Oil. Secord had been convicted in the 1980s for his central role in the CIA’s Iran-Contra illegal arms and drugs operations.
In 1991 Secord, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, landed in Baku and set up the CIA front company, MEGA Oil. He was a veteran of the CIA covert opium operations in Laos during the Vietnam War. In Azerbaijan, he setup an airline to secretly fly hundreds of bin Laden’s al-Qaeda Mujahideen from Afghanistan into Azerbaijan. By 1993, MEGA Oil had recruited and armed 2,000 Mujahideen, converting Baku into a base for Caucasus-wide Mujahideen terrorist operations.
General Secord’s covert Mujahideen operation in the Caucasus initiated the military coup that toppled elected president Abulfaz Elchibey that year and installed Heydar Aliyev, a more pliable US puppet. A secret Turkish intelligence report leaked to the Sunday Times of London confirmed that “two petrol giants, BP and Amoco, British and American respectively, which together form the AIOC (Azerbaijan International Oil Consortium), are behind the coup d’état.”
Saudi Intelligence head, Turki al-Faisal, arranged that his agent, Osama bin Laden, whom he had sent to Afghanistan at the start of the Afghan war in the early 1980s, would use his Afghan organization Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) to recruit “Afghan Arabs” for what was rapidly becoming a global Jihad. Bin Laden’s mercenaries were used as shock troops by the Pentagon and CIA to coordinate and support Muslim offensives not only Azerbaijan but also in Chechnya and, later, Bosnia.
Bin Laden brought in another Saudi, Ibn al-Khattab, to become Commander, or Emir of Jihadist Mujahideen in Chechnya (sic!) together with Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev. No matter that Ibn al-Khattab was a Saudi Arab who spoke barely a word of Chechen, let alone, Russian. He knew what Russian soldiers looked like and how to kill them.
Chechnya then was traditionally a predominantly Sufi society, a mild apolitical branch of Islam. Yet the increasing infiltration of the well-financed and well-trained US-sponsored Mujahideen terrorists preaching Jihad or Holy War against Russians transformed the initially reformist Chechen resistance movement. They spread al-Qaeda’s hardline Islamist ideology across the Caucasus. Under Secord’s guidance, Mujahideen terrorist operations had also quickly extended into neighboring Dagestan and Chechnya, turning Baku into a shipping point for Afghan heroin to the Chechen mafia.
From the mid-1990s, bin Laden paid Chechen guerrilla leaders Shamil Basayev and Omar ibn al-Khattab the handsome sum of several million dollars per month, a King’s fortune in economically desolate Chechnya in the 1990s, enabling them to sideline the moderate Chechen majority.21 US intelligence remained deeply involved in the Chechen conflict until the end of the 1990s. According to Yossef Bodansky, then Director of the US Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, Washington was actively involved in “yet another anti-Russian jihad, seeking to support and empower the most virulent anti-Western Islamist forces.”
Bodansky revealed the entire CIA Caucasus strategy in detail in his report, stating that US Government officials participated in,
“a formal meeting in Azerbaijan in December 1999 in which specific programs for the training and equipping of Mujahideen from the Caucasus, Central/South Asia and the Arab world were discussed and agreed upon, culminating in Washington’s tacit encouragement of both Muslim allies (mainly Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) and US ‘private security companies’. . . to assist the Chechens and their Islamist allies to surge in the spring of 2000 and sustain the ensuing Jihad for a long time…Islamist Jihad in the Caucasus as a way to deprive Russia of a viable pipeline route through spiraling violence and terrorism.”
The most intense phase of the Chechen wars wound down in 2000 only after heavy Russian military action defeated the Islamists. It was a pyrrhic victory, costing a massive toll in human life and destruction of entire cities. The exact death toll from the CIA-instigated Chechen conflict is unknown. Unofficial estimates ranged from 25,000 to 50,000 dead or missing, mostly civilians. Russian casualties were near 11,000 according to the Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers.
The Anglo-American oil majors and the CIA’s operatives were happy. They had what they wanted: their Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan oil pipeline, bypassing Russia’s Grozny pipeline.
The Chechen Jihadists, under the Islamic command of Shamil Basayev, continued guerrilla attacks in and outside Chechnya. The CIA had refocused into the Caucasus.
Basayev’s Saudi Connection
Basayev was a key part of the CIA’s Global Jihad. In 1992, he met Saudi terrorist Ibn al-Khattag in Azerbaijan. From Azerbaijan, Ibn al-Khattab brought Basayev to Afghanistan to meet al-Khattab’s ally, fellow-Saudi Osama bin Laden. Ibn al-Khattab’s role was to recruit Chechen Muslims willing to wage Jihad against Russian forces in Chechnya on behalf of the covert CIA strategy of destabilizing post-Soviet Russia and securing British-US control over Caspian energy.
Once back in Chechnya, Basayev and al-Khattab created the International Islamic Brigade (IIB) with Saudi Intelligence money, approved by the CIA and coordinated through the liaison of Saudi Washington Ambassador and Bush family intimate Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Bandar, Saudi Washington Ambassador for more than two decades, was so intimate with the Bush family that George W. Bush referred to the playboy Saudi Ambassador as “Bandar Bush,” a kind of honorary family member.
Basayev and al-Khattab imported fighters from the Saudi fanatical Wahhabite strain of Sunni Islam into Chechnya. Ibn al-Khattab commanded what were called the “Arab Mujahideen in Chechnya,” his own private army of Arabs, Turks, and other foreign fighters. He was also commissioned to set up paramilitary training camps in the Caucasus Mountains of Chechnya that trained Chechens and Muslims from the North Caucasian Russian republics and from Central Asia.
The Saudi and CIA-financed Islamic International Brigade was responsible not only for terror in Chechnya. They carried out the October 2002 Moscow Dubrovka Theatre hostage seizure and the gruesome September 2004 Beslan school massacre. In 2010, the UN Security Council published the following report on al-Khattab and Basayev’s International Islamic Brigade:
Islamic International Brigade (IIB) was listed on 4 March 2003. . . as being associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban for “participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf or in support of” Al-Qaida. . . The Islamic International Brigade (IIB) was founded and led by Shamil Salmanovich Basayev (deceased) and is linked to the Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs (RSRSBCM). . . and the Special Purpose Islamic Regiment (SPIR). . .
On the evening of 23 October 2002, members of IIB, RSRSBCM and SPIR operated jointly to seize over 800 hostages at Moscow’s Podshipnikov Zavod (Dubrovka) Theater.
In October 1999, emissaries of Basayev and Al-Khattab traveled to Usama bin Laden’s home base in the Afghan province of Kandahar, where Bin Laden agreed to provide substantial military assistance and financial aid, including by making arrangements to send to Chechnya several hundred fighters to fight against Russian troops and perpetrate acts of terrorism. Later that year, Bin Laden sent substantial amounts of money to Basayev, Movsar Barayev (leader of SPIR) and Al-Khattab, which was to be used exclusively for training gunmen, recruiting mercenaries and buying ammunition.
The Afghan-Caucasus Al Qaeda “terrorist railway,” financed by Saudi intelligence, had two goals. One was a Saudi goal to spread fanatical Wahhabite Jihad into the Central Asian region of the former Soviet Union. The second was the CIA’s agenda of destabilizing a then-collapsing post-Soviet Russian Federation.
Beslan
On September 1, 2004, armed terrorists from Basayev and al-Khattab’s IIB took more than 1,100 people as hostages in a siege that included 777 children, and forced them into School Number One (SNO) in Beslan in North Ossetia, the autonomous republic in the North Caucasus of the Russian Federation near to the Georgia border.
On the third day of the hostage crisis, as explosions were heard inside the school, FSB and other elite Russian troops stormed the building. In the end, at least 334 hostages were killed, including 186 children, with a significant number of people injured and reported missing. It became clear afterward that the Russian forces had handled the intervention poorly.
The Washington propaganda machine, from Radio Free Europe to The New York Times and CNN, wasted no time demonizing Putin and Russia for their bad handling of the Beslan crisis rather than focus on the links of Basayev to Al Qaeda and Saudi intelligence. That would have brought the world’s attention to the intimate relations between the family of then US President George W. Bush and the Saudi billionaire bin Laden family.
On September 1, 2001, just ten days before the day of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, Saudi Intelligence head US-educated Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud, who had directed Saudi Intelligence since 1977, including through the entire Osama bin Laden Mujahideen operation in Afghanistan and into the Caucasus, abruptly and inexplicably resigned, just days after having accepted a new term as intelligence head from his King. He gave no explanation. He was quickly reposted to London, away from Washington.
The record of the bin Laden-Bush family intimate ties was buried, in fact entirely deleted on “national security” (sic!) grounds in the official US Commission Report on 911. The Saudi background of fourteen of the nineteen alleged 911 terrorists in New York and Washington was also deleted from the US Government’s final 911 Commission report, released only in July 2004 by the Bush Administration, almost three years after the events.
Basayev claimed credit for having sent the terrorists to Beslan. His demands had included the complete independence of Chechnya from Russia, something that would have given Washington and the Pentagon an enormous strategic dagger in the southern underbelly of the Russian Federation.
By late 2004, in the aftermath of the tragic Beslan drama, President Vladimir Putin reportedly ordered a secret search and destroy mission by Russian intelligence to hunt and kill key leaders of the Caucasus Mujahideen of Basayev. Al-Khattab had been killed in 2002. The Russian security forces soon discovered that most of the Chechen Afghan Arab terrorists had fled. They had gotten safe haven in Turkey, a NATO member; in Azerbaijan, by then almost a NATO Member; or in Germany, a NATO Member; or in Dubai–one of the closest US Allies in the Arab States, and Qatar-another very close US ally. In other words, the Chechen terrorists were given NATO safe haven.
Continue Reading