Reaction to Snowden Interview Plus Stuff

A couple of brief, prefaces; only indirectly related to main points.

There is a bit of a feud going on between two media outlets. It’s been brewing for some time. They are First Look Media and Pando Daily.

First Look is the home of Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill. It is where the bulk of new reporting on NSA abuses of civil liberties is coming from. It is owned by Pierre Omidyar, who is also CEO of PayPal.

Pando Daily is the other. It writes a lot of stories about CIA abuses of civil liberties and other criminal activity. Over there, you have Paul Carr and Mark Ames. Among the investors in Pando Daily, you have Palantir CEO Peter Thiel.

Both of those outlets provide services beneficial to a healthy society. The problem largely extends from Pierre’s business dealings, and also the PayPal 14 {11 of whom were sentenced yesterday, see next part of preface}. In my opinion, Pierre is fair game. He is a billionaire, he doesn’t need anyone–not even Snowden supporters–apologizing nor defending him.

On the flip side, I think Glenn Greenwald has made his position clear and did so long ago: his concern is whether or not he can write what he wants to write, and thus far he has found that to be the case. Further, he was not even at FLM–there was no FLM–when Snowden blew the whistle.

Therefore, it is incredibly unfair–and I would argue overall unhelpful–to paint Greenwald and Snowden with whatever brush you want to paint Pierre with.

That said, and I’ve been meaning to look into this further for a long time, since I discovered Yasha Levine’s articles on Silicon Valley and their connections to the Department of Defense and CIA, for example, but just hadn’t gotten around to it until the latest FLM kerfuffle cropped up. This latest, apparently Matt Taibbi’s deal with joining FLM has fallen through.

Guess my point is that I fully understand the frustration of the Pando guys when it comes to US citizen ignorance and naiveté where the role of the US public and private intelligence community is concerned. It is, in my estimation, the proverbial giant meteor headed for Earth and, unlike most other “gold rush” over-doing it sectors, cannot be tamed or cured because at the same time it enjoys secrecy and the blatant protection of law enforcement…on top of the immense amount of propaganda it perpetuates, along with the lies, the fearmongering, and the PSYOPs. It’s a perfect storm for the end of the American Empire, which perhaps in itself wouldn’t be so bad but it is going to kill a lot of people on its way out and leave behind a nigh-to-impossible mess to clean up in its wake.

Totally get that. But then, I am fairly certain so do Greenwald, Scahill, Hussain, etc. over at the Intercept.

{Quick side note: if Snowden didn’t work on Echelon. Why should he be expected to talk about it?}

In short…GODDAMMIT CAN’T WE ALL FOCUS ON THE ENEMY INSTEAD OF EACH OTHER?!?

Re the PayPal 14…I’m still looking for the angle in taking it as easy on them as they did. Besides the obvious right-before-an-election ploy, I suspect it’s as much about releasing into “the wild” to see who else they can identify. This corrupt, criminal, inhumane government is not going to stop unless and until it is forced to. These people only care about themselves and their portfolios, they have made that abundantly clear. They don’t care–in fact want–to provoke people into violence so that they can scare and herd the rest of us into accepting still less freedoms and bill us for the pleasure. That’s what the record says, that’s how it is and how it will be again just after the first week of November until its time to pretend again in 2016.

Moving on…

You really should read this:

The Nation, “Edward Snowden: A ‘Nation’ Interview: In a wide-ranging conversation, he discusses the surveillance state, the American political system and the price he’s paid for his understanding of patriotism,” Katrina vanden Heuvel and Stephen F. Cohen, 28 October 2014:

thenation.com/article/186129/snowden-exile-exclusive-interview

Edward hits some very pertinent points, clarifies some things, and overall I tend to agree with what he says. He makes clear that he is not, an early concern of mine, one of those libertarians who is hiding behind a five-syllable label but is really just mad that the government won’t let them persecute blacks, Hispanics, homeless, etc.

For that, these people apparently need to get off their butts and go to the police academy. I say that but at the same time support their right to say whatever they want and to be ridiculed for it. Affirmative Action, whether it works/has worked or not, is not even close to our top problem. I marvel at the stupendous ignorance and isolation of thought that allows a human to think it is.

He also hits a point home that I was peddling on Twitter some time ago. That is, we have to address the issue of productivity, that is, 50 doing the work that once took 100. Hopefully, someone thinking seriously about this will realize that killing off 50 people doesn’t actually fix the problem since that means that much less work to do. Because that looks like the only “solution,” the final solution, heh, being implemented from here on the ground.

Here’s a graphic representation of what he was basically referring to:

prodsince1979

The old I-don’t-have-to-do-anything-about-it adage of “Get a job, you bum!” doesn’t work because their just aren’t enough jobs to go around. How do you deal with that?

He also defines Patriotism perfectly. He then uses that to differentiate between National Security and State Security, which was also awesome.

Where I differ from Edward, and really this may just be a matter of perspective, is on just a few things.

I would not call him naïve, it may simply be an avoidance of being “too political” or a matter of focusing on the direct problem rather than the indirect one. Or maybe he just disagrees. Reminds me of people quoting, when desiring to run down the government, Henry Ford’s statement that one need only think of the Native American. He is, of course, right. But what was the driving force behind the persecution, murder, and overall screwing of the Native American? The business interests of men like Henry Ford, I think it can safely be argued. Though it is certainly possible to have a government that is anti-business, there has not been one in this country in my lifetime…if ever. This kind of “socialist panic” only serves to make the business interests and the government even more paranoid and dangerously radical.

Yes, I said it. The Deep State is the radical, not necessarily those who oppose it.

So, that’s the first small difference: I see government power, when it serves to protect special business interests at the expense of the citizens, as being part of the private sector as much or more as the public one.

Similarly, Edward talks about Germany. Believe me, there are people here in the US who would also offer him an empty bed to sleep in {in fact, you guys can have mine. I’ll sleep on the floor}. Certainly, there are angry German citizens. Certainly, there have been German politicians publically attempting to address those citizens’ concerns.

But what is really happening behind the scenes? Germany has been, is, and will be for the foreseeable future, a partner for the Deep State. If anything, they are likely attempting to leverage the criticism into getting further in bed, access to some of the stuff we only share with the Five Eyes, in exchange for not really changing how CIA and NSA do business in the EU.

Understand fully the value of thinking positively. It’s not only beneficial, it is crucial to surviving {two bullets in the face and shoved out a plane…know the feeling}. But at the same time we are just not to that change yet. It’s a long, long way off. And this is why I don’t call Snowden naïve, he acknowledges that in the Occupy discussion.

The third thing is not so much a disagreement as it is perspective again. What is actually happening, here, within the confines and borders of this country on its own soil, is so much worse than surveillance I don’t know where exactly to begin discussing it again. Surveillance is a piece of it, a big piece of it, and tends to work as a quick way of letting a lot of people know at once that there is something wrong, but there is worse.

Which is where Gary Webb and the work of Mark Ames that I linked up recently comes in to an extent. Why is it, that the worse our government behaves, the less likely we are to talk about that worst in the behavior? We’re talking about drug smuggling or laundering, assassination {both designed to look like accidents and by directing mentally ill or drugged proxies}, and torture–genuine-no-question-torture–done by proxies. These things serve no real purpose except to perpetuate the violence so that the people who profit from pretending to fix these problems maintain that profit, those budgets, and the power that extends outwards from it.

The recent WaPo attack on Webb–to go with their help in covering it all up in the 80s–states that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It’s a misdirection, a ploy, a cover-up. They aren’t even being that careful: Michael Hastings could have been pulled out of his vehicle and likely lived were it not for his car exploding multiple times. That’s not a coverup: that’s a warning, a threat. Even LAPD couldn’t bother to lie to us and say that drugs or alcohol played a role.

Extraordinary claims don’t require extraordinary proof. Extraordinary criminal acts require extraordinary effort to uncover, require extraordinary people to deal with them, require extraordinary attention of the public to put a stop to them.

Let’s think about this for a moment. We’re going to let the world go down the crapper because we’re afraid of being accused of being conspiracy theorists? There are worse things to be called. Dead, for example.

Where to begin again?

1} I personally witnessed what can only be called “Dirty Tricks” camp, directed not at foreign enemies, terrorists, etc. but at US citizens in New Jersey in 1989 and 1990. The theater at which this occurred was partially funded by the Ford Foundation which has a history with the CIA. Not the KGB. Not the FBI. And as much as some of that stuff resembles what I read here about DIA, not the DIA. You will note again, Deep State apologists, that this was well before 9/11. There is no excuse at all.

2} My interaction with many other people, including but not limited to people like Julianne McKinney {CIA and INSCOM}, Lynnae Williams {CIA and DIA}, “Mark” {from NSA subcontractor Technodyne} is remarkably similar to what I observed there and later experienced myself beginning in 2009.

3} There is enough similarity also with some people who I believe have long struggled with mental illness to suggest that they, like the interns and actors at the theater mentioned in item 1, have been used for target practice by the people who conduct these kinds of operations. This both helps the Deep State thugs in that the victims will never be believed and serves to make certain that there is absolutely no empathy left in the people who conduct them. In fact, I think they have the process for turning someone into a thing that only receives pleasure from inflicting torment on others down to a T. And I think there are far more of these people than we would expect.

What is the legal basis for all this? Might makes right. The power of calling people “conspiracy theorist” as the ultimate shut-up. And it works, no matter how dire the situation becomes. It’s all in the public record, has been done before and will continue until this problem is taken seriously and dealt with.

The flipside, the part I cannot seem to communicate properly, is that any other changes, no matter your political persuasion, any other changes are in jeopardy or simply will not happen because of these COINTELPRO-like practices. It will be or is in danger of being, undermined, undercut, swept away due to psychological operations conducted without your best interests in mind, in violation of Title 18 USC Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights. That’s what all of this, including surveillance, is violating. Case in point:

PrivacySOS, “Shocking new information in Tsarnaev case casts doubt on official story about the killing of Ibragim Todashev,” sosadmin, 28 October 2014:
https://www.privacysos.org/node/1573

Whatever happened, however it occurred, it is screwy.

Let me repeat that more simply…

If this covert harassment issue isn’t dealt with, hang it up. Hang it all up. It is over.

windolfamesvwbus

Humor: the last thing to go.

Or maybe the second to last…

Advertisements

1 Comment

  1. Reblogged this on ChaosCode and commented:
    Really digging this post. Relevant, insightful and a pleasure to read.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s