Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone
has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or
attacks.

As I have been writing on the subject of Edward Snowden’s
“ground-breaking leak” since June the 7th, many people have written me
or left comments, mostly in support of the notion that something is
going on here, if not exactly what I think, it’s something that doesn’t
pass the smell test. If you look around the internet at alternative
sites as well as the MSM though, you will mainly find journalists and
investigators parroting the consensus line that Edward is the most
heroic human in the history of mankind or at least ranking up there
between Jesus and Luke Skywalker. Cracks are starting to develop in his
story in the main stream press, cracks sites like this one and others
have been exposing from the beginning.

But while the self-proclaimed leaders of various alternative
movements and networks alike are calling for Snowden’s sainthood while
ignoring multiple falshoods and exaggerations in his story, it seems to
me the general public is less enthused with the validity of the story.
More and more comments litter the consensus spewing write-ups
questioning the facts of the story and whether or not this information
he leaked is actually something new, which of course it isn’t.

As I progress in my own understanding of the situation, I find I am
being asked quite often if this is some kind of measured leak crafted by
the very agencies and administrations who seem on the hook for the
decimation of our civil liberties, why on earth would they do that?

Here is my attempt to explain what it  is we are seeing and why they chose now to do it. (long post, sorry)

Some posit that it’s infighting in the intelligence universe, like
Tarpley’s Mormon Mafia in the CIA striking out against other elements.
Some suggest it may be a threat to get Obama to act more aggressively on
Syria and Turkey.

Some say it’s all a distraction designed to take attention away from
the IRS scandal and the AP wiretapping scandal or the drone policy of
Obama. Some say it’s been done to take attention away from what is
happening in Syria and Turkey in the wake of Sarin gas being found on a
couple of our mercenary terrorists over there. Having the Peace Prize
“winning” President arming terrorists with a chemical weapon of mass
destruction can’t be good for his falling approval numbers.

You can probably make an argument for most of these though I strongly
disagree that any of the powers that be want Obama out of office and
Syria is being backed to the launching of the nukes by Russia so no one
wants that or blames Obama for not launching WW III while they are
making so much money… especially now that the neoliberalization and
recolonization of Africa is well underway (thanks to Benghazi)

The questions put to me basically center around the “why” of it all
and honestly, though I put forward a hypothesis at the start (June 7th) I
would like to modify that theory a bit in relation to what we have seen
thus far.

The truth is, you don’t have to ask “why” at this point. They have
already told us the why of it. You’re just not listening. When these
kinds of psyops take place, it’s almost a race by the interested parties
to get on-board before their colleagues do. They want to ensure that
the powers that be take notice of their ability to see the agenda and
their willingness to help them achieve it.

We live in a world dominated by corporate ladder climbing yesmen.
Mediocre at best wannabes with no moral center. In fact, they revel in
that description, thinking somehow that makes them better than all the
rest of humanity who are still stymied by archaic belief systems of
“right and wrong” or the evil “altruism”

To this class of “new normal” sycophants to power, it’s not about
doing the right thing, it’s about doing the right thing for those who
matter. And you and I we simply don’t matter.

So they are rushing as fast as they can to help craft the endgame of
this psyop in service to the “why” of it all. You don’t have to guess at
it anymore folks. The “why” is all around us.

Now at first I figured it was damage control for a different psyop. Let me explain.

They had been running all kinds of leaks in the month of May just
after another sycophantic servant of their interests announced his big
“Final Revolution of America” armed march on Washington. That little
psyop was sniffed out immediately and even after staging his little
“disappearance” act, Adam Kokesh found himself sitting alone with his
big plans and no one buying his crap anymore. People knew he was setting
up gun owners and libertarians for what appeared to be a painful fall
on July the 4th of this year and he got reamed pretty hard for it. His
credibility tanked and his staged arrest made it even worse.

So the leaks they rushed through were designed to generate an anger
and a panic in the country especially in the libertarian/Tea Party types
and this final straw, the revelation of the mass surveillance of
everyone by “big government” in violation of their civil liberties then
coupled with abuses from their other big enemy, the IRS, would be more
than they could take, fermenting the very same “Final Revolution of
America” just as their other asset Kokesh had planned. Or at least, that
would be the story pushed by the MSM and their complicit “alternative
truth tellers” when all hell breaks out at the march on July 4th.

 

Read the rest of the article here

Posted

Naomi Wolf: My creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be

by Naomi Wolf from her Facebook page    (H/T David)

I hate to do this but I feel obligated to share, as the story

unfolds, my creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports

to be, and that the motivations involved in the story may be more

complex than they appear to be. This is in no way to detract from the

great courage of Glenn Greenwald in reporting the story, and the

gutsiness of the Guardian in showcasing this kind of reporting, which is

a service to America that US media is not performing at all. It is just

to raise some cautions as the story unfolds, and to raise some

questions about how it is unfolding, based on my experience with

high-level political messaging.

Some of Snowden’s emphases seem to serve an intelligence/police state objective, rather than to challenge them.

a) He is super-organized, for a whistleblower,  in terms of what

candidates, the White House, the State Dept. et al call ‘message

discipline.’ He insisted on publishing  a power point in the newspapers

that ran his initial revelations. I gather that he arranged for a

talented filmmaker to shoot the Greenwald interview. These two steps —

which are evidence of great media training, really ‘PR 101″ — are

virtually never done (to my great distress) by other whistleblowers, or

by progressive activists involved in breaking news, or by real

courageous people who are under stress and getting the word out. They

are always done, though, by high-level political surrogates.

b) In the Greenwald video interview, I was concerned about the way

Snowden conveys his message. He is not struggling for words, or thinking

hard, as even bright, articulate whistleblowers under stress will do.

Rather he appears to be transmitting whole paragraphs smoothly, without

stumbling. To me this reads as someone who has learned his talking

points — again the way that political campaigns train surrogates to

transmit talking points.

c) He keeps saying things like, “If you are a journalist and they

think you are the transmission point of this info, they will certainly

kill you.” Or: “I fully expect to be prosecuted under the Espionage

Act.” He also keeps stressing what he will lose: his $200,000 salary,

his girlfriend, his house in Hawaii. These are the kinds of messages

that the police state would LIKE journalists to take away; a real

whistleblower also does not put out potential legal penalties as

options, and almost always by this point has a lawyer by his/her side

who would PROHIBIT him/her from saying, ‘come get me under the Espionage

Act.” Finally in my experience, real whistleblowers are completely

focused on their act of public service and trying to manage the jeopardy

to themselves and their loved ones; they don’t tend ever to call

attention to their own self-sacrifice. That is why they are heroes,

among other reasons. But a police state would like us all to think about

everything we would lose by standing up against it.

d) It is actually in the Police State’s interest to let everyone know

that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled, and

that awful things happen to people who challenge this. Which is why I am

not surprised that now he is on UK no-fly lists – I assume the end of

this story is that we will all have a lesson in terrible things that

happen to whistleblowers. That could be because he is a real guy who

gets in trouble; but it would be as useful to the police state if he is a

fake guy who gets in ‘trouble.’

e) In stories that intelligence services are advancing (I would call

the prostitutes-with-the-secret-service such a story), there are great

sexy or sex-related mediagenic visuals that keep being dropped in, to

keep media focus on the issue. That very pretty pole-dancing Facebooking

girlfriend who appeared for, well, no reason in the media coverage…and

who keeps leaking commentary, so her picture can be recycled in the

press…really, she happens to pole-dance? Dan Ellsberg’s wife was and is

very beautiful and doubtless a good dancer but somehow she took a

statelier role as his news story unfolded…

f) Snowden is in Hong Kong, which has close ties to the UK, which has

done the US’s bidding with other famous leakers such as Assange. So

really there are MANY other countries that he would be less likely to be

handed over from…

g) Media reports said he had vanished at one point to ‘an undisclosed

location’ or ‘a safe house.’ Come on. There is no such thing. Unless

you are with the one organization that can still get off the

surveillance grid, because that org created it.

h) I was at dinner last night to celebrate the brave and heroic

Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Several of

Assange’s also brave and talented legal team were there, and I

remembered them from when I had met with Assange. These attorneys are

present at every moment when Assange meets the press — when I met with

him off the record last Fall in the Ecuadoran embassy, his counsel was

present the whole time, listening and stepping in when necessary.

Seeing these diligent attentive free-speech attorneys for another

whisleblower reinforced my growing anxiety: WHERE IS SNOWDEN’S LAWYER as

the world’s media meet with him? A whistleblower talking to media has

his/her counsel advising him/her at all times, if not actually being

present at the interview, because anything he/she says can affect the

legal danger the whistleblower may be in . It is very, very odd to me

that a lawyer has not appeared, to my knowledge, to stand at Snowden’s

side and keep him from further jeopardy in interviews.

Again I hate to cast any skepticism on what seems to be a great story

of a brave spy coming in from the cold in the service of American

freedom. And I would never raise such questions in public if I had not

been told by a very senior official in the intelligence world that

indeed, there are some news stories that they create and drive — even in

America (where propagandizing Americans is now legal). But do consider

that in Eastern Germany, for instance, it was the fear of a machine of

surveillance that people believed watched them at all times — rather

than the machine itself — that drove compliance and passivity. From the

standpoint of the police state and its interests — why have a giant Big

Brother apparatus spying on us at all times — unless we know about it?

Naomi

Posted

I remember watching his video and thinking that something bothers me.  I will have to watch it again, I also think there is something off.  I just couldn't lay my finger on it.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.