How the World Works

Item 1:

Here’s Yasha Levine’s latest. Not only is a large portion of California’s water privatized, but the billionaire couple who owns a major portion of it is one of the lobbies pushing for war with Iran because they grow pistachios.

Item 2:

Here’s Michael Hayden making a big deal of Huawei spying for China when all of Silicon Valley spies for Monstanto, Exxon, Pfizer, and large multinational banks on and against the public interests of US citizens:

Charles Riley, “Ex-CIA director says Huawei spied for China,” CNN, 19 July 2013:

Hayden currently serves on the board at Motorola Solutions, and is a principal at security consultancy Chertoff Group.

Phil Muncaster, “Former CIA and NSA head says Huawei spies for China,” The Register, 19 July 2013:

Aussie politicians responded by banning Huawei from bidding on the National Broadband Network (NBN) project.

The UK, on the other hand, has welcomed the firm with open arms, prime minister David Cameron even hosting founder Ren Zhengfei at Downing Street after he announced a £1.2bn investment in the country.

However, a parliamentary security and intelligence committee has since raised national security concerns with Huawei.

Could Motorola want Huawei’s UK, Australian, etc. contracts? Isn’t it a little odd how national security threats frequently align with personal business interests?

There’s more.

Here’s the Trump administration getting Canada to arrest the CFO of Huawei for “intellectual property theft”:

Dan Mangan, “National security advisor John Bolton says ‘I knew in advance’ about arrest of Huawei executive,” CNBC, 6 December 2018:

And that is the Trump administration giving future payola solutions to Motorola Solutions {NSA} to spy on Mueller’s team and escape whatever it is Team Status Quo had in mind for endgame in Russiagate, and otherwise prompting certain regions of the powers-that-be to pardon Team Trump Deep State/secret squirrel style.

Legion of Doom: +1. Humanity: 0.

Surveillance Abuse of the Thirteenth Kind

Remember this? Well, there’s been two studies since then. The first I’m ignoring because it basically said “we don’t know but everyone else was wrong and it’s not mass hysteria/delusion.”

The other, though.

Nora Gámez Torres, “Computer scientists may have solved the mystery behind the ‘sonic attacks’ in Cuba”, Miami Herald, 2 March 2018:

Professor Kevin Fu and members of the Security and Privacy Research Group at the University of Michigan say they have an explanation for what could have happened in Havana: two sources of ultrasound — such as listening devices — placed too close together could generate interference and provoke the intense sounds described by the victims.

This is especially interesting because as I’ve noted before, the legal definition of torture requires intent. Now, prove that spies or counter-intelligence agents, who are already operating under extreme secrecy and typically illegally albeit with approval from above did or did not intend to place two or more devices in close proximity in order to harass the surveillance target. It’s wrapped in so many iron boxes that it’s practically impossible to penetrate and even when you could, there’s the “Golly, gee, we didn’t do it on purpose, Beav” excuse.

Similar to Manning’s harassment/brainwashing being called medical or suicide watch, these agencies have a long history of skewing definitions, playing with words so that they can break the law while pretending its all okay under secret legal papers we can’t view in the first place to judge the legality much less the intent of the law as written.

Anyway, this is why I tweeted it with a note to the State, Justice and Defense Departments’ OIGs and the ACLU. Shall I hold my breath for any resulting OIG reports being made public? Probably just the part that talks about mistakes being made. The rest will be covered in black ink.

And as a bonus, one mo’ time…here’s a short fiction piece I wrote in September of 2013:

“In Plain Sight”

“…Guess what it does.”

It only took him three seconds to respond.


“Yep. Every time we listen in, we are also attacking the same target.”

“With what?”

“Variable sound that appears to be designed to annoy. Imagine a persistent, low-grade headache that won’t go away. The more we keep our eye on them–”

“The more irritated the target we watch becomes. The more violent. The more likely to do or say something suspicious.”


That’s because I didn’t need to be told. I just didn’t know precisely how it was done.


Jon Rappaport Names People Involved in the UFO Narrative

And suggests motive based on their backgrounds, largely biological warfare and medical.


via Will the next UFO disclosure be “biological threats from outer space?”

Pursuance Project

Just listened to a podcast/radio show with Ken Webster Jr. interviewing Barrett Brown. For those who don’t know, Barrett and a number of other individuals have started an online collaborative system known as the Pursuance Project. You can read more about Pursuance Project in Barrett’s article over at VICE:

Barrett Brown, “What Is To Be Done?” MOTHERBOARD/VICE, 31 August 2017:

The radio show can be found here:

Got a few things I wanted to touch on. This first was going to be a post unto itself, but I decided to shorten it.

Ken notes that people frequently ask him why he supports people like Barrett Brown, Edward Snowden, etc. He has his response which he says usually resolves the situation quickly.

I note that Marvel and other superhero films are extremely popular and do well at the box office. I note that our obsession with heroes is interesting given that we as a whole don’t, as a country, support people who actually go up against corruption and power, and that this doesn’t entirely make sense.

There’s a whole thing with Alan Moore, where he states that superhero culture is inhibiting adult males in the US from “growing up.” I kind of agree, though I would take it in a direction he might not agree with. That’s the short version.

Other topics in the show included, for example, Alex Jones.


Please allow me to capsulize the situation as I understand and recall it.

Jones came out and proved that there was an employee at STRATFOR named Alex Jones and that they were two separate people. This was true as far as I know. It worked great to defend from accusations of working for STRATFOR and/or the Military-Intelligence-Industrial-Complex.

However, there was more that he did not address. First, in its early stages his website{s} shared an IP address with STRATFOR dot com. I believe this information came via a Hammond hack.

Second, Jones hired two people from STRATFOR to work for him.

Third, Jones was a STRATFOR subscriber (and may have had an email address as well as the Alex E. Jones who worked there}.

While it was Obama advisor Cass Sunstein who suggested “cognitive infiltration” be used against the American people {Glenn Greenwald has reported on this}, it appears as if this is what Jones and whoever was/is pulling his strings was already up to. As Ken notes in the show, he’ll sometimes hear something and agree with it only to hear something incredibly stupid mere moments later. Jones conflates real corruption with conspiratorial fantasy and the result is one of the many D’s that the intelligence community is so fond of, in this case Degraded capacity to make informed decisions and organize.


This is a bit similar to Bob Woodward, whose position is not hard to figure out as Chris Matthews once suggested on Real Time with Bill Maher. Woodward has been and still is a Pentagon shill.

How can this be? Didn’t he report on Watergate?

Yes. Mere months before that he was the liaison between a Navy Admiral and the White House. The same Navy Admiral, by the way, who was spying on the White House in what became known as the “Radford Affair.”

Why? Despite Nixon’s paranoia, which was probably only enhanced after being dosed with LSD on the way to Moscow to begin discussions on reducing nuclear arms, along with most of the passengers on Air Force One, he was fairly moderate when it came to biological and chemical weapons as well.

Making it brief again, when the Nixon order to remove all chemical weapon stockpiles came down, CIA considered its store of extremely potent and lethal fish toxin to be biological. When the order came down to destroy stockpiles of biological weapons as well, they considered the very same to be chemical.

The testimony from that appears in the the hearings that took place on assassination and the rights of Americans where the intelligence community is concerned in the 70s.

Nixon was too moderate for the military industrial complex. His own paranoia got the better of him, but let’s ask ourselves if NSA spying isn’t actually a bigger problem than one hotel and then ask ourselves why there were no resignations on the part of George W. Bush or Barrack Obama.

Power that is now in the hands of Donald J. Trump, by the way.

At any rate, there’s MOCKINGBIRD, which everyone should be familiar with in which various reporters were actually working for CIA spreading misinformation, as well as Intercept reporting on a Los Angeles Times reporter whose main editor was CIA.

To bring it back around, these are just a few of the kinds of reasons we need the Pursuance Project. Check it out.

Auf Wiedersehen, Miss American Pie

You might find some solace in the fact that a country with a partial electorate this gullible and people in positions of power this insane and/or manipulative…


…is going to get what it deserves. But the question came up regarding this prediction when I was discussing it the other night:

Travis Getty, “Here’s How the US Empire Will Devolve Into Fascism and Then Collapse — According to Science,” Raw Story, 7 December 2016:

[a Norwegian professor at the University of Hawaii and Transcend Peace University, Johan Galtung] predicted in his 2009 book, “The Fall of the American Empire — and then What?” that the U.S. was plagued by 15 internal contradictions that would end its global power by 2020, and Galtung warned that phase of the decline would usher in a period of reactionary fascism.

American fascism would spring from its capacity for global violence, a vision of exceptionalism, a belief in an inevitable and final war between good and evil, the cult of a strong state leading that battle, and a cult of the “strong leader.”

Galtung said all of those elements presented themselves during the Bush era, but he fears fascist tendencies could sharpen under Trump as those cultists lash out in disbelief at the loss of American power.

The sociologist identified unsustainable economic, social, military and political contradictions that would eventually topple the U.S. as a world power.

“What’s going to take its place?”

What indeed?



While a portion of this is nothing new, the point is I had not carried my thinking quite far enough. The point? There are people in government who don’t just want to cripple the federal government; they want to completely destroy it.

They want to set up Ted Cruz’s Dominionist/Seven Mountains kingdom, reflecting more Saudi Arabia than true Sharia Law, though certainly there are elements of legislating the bedroom that would fit with this nutty element’s intrusion upon what occurs between consenting adults. This while ignoring what occurs in the military between a non-consenting adult and a rapist. Since this works in the favor of multinationals who are waiting their turn to run the world, it continues and the loony tunes march toward inverted fascism and/or fascism seems inevitable. Imagine the Saudis controlling the Taliban and you get the idea with the difference being a Western spin with Jesus instead of Mohamed on the war banners.

This is because only a state–and then only a powerful one–could possibly present an obstacle to direct corporate control of the planet.

And that is largely because the intelligence community is just following orders. Nur nach Befehlen. Can you hear me now?

{Some tags are unrelated to the main point, eg., FINDERS.}


A Trip About Privacy

“All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.”
― Blaise Pascal, Pensées

“If terrorists are also wizards, we have a bigger problem.”
― Edward Snowden

Yesterday, I took a trip to the Tuscon area. Went up to the top of Mount Lemmon in the early afternoon and went to UA to see Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and Noam Chomsky speak about privacy with Nuala O’Connor of the Center for Democracy and Technology as moderator.


Scene of the 2003 fire.

Scene of the 2003 fire.

Howard the Hadrosaur

Obviously, a hadrosaur skull fossil. ‘Eye iz a paleontologist wiht pareidolia.’

I’d regale you with the full photo set, but I recall the “Hell’s Bells” segment from Rod Serling’s Night Gallery episode 15 starring John Astin.

"One person's vacay..."

“One person’s vacay…”

If you make it to the area, I do recommend the trip up the mountain. Also amazing to see so many bicyclists making it up 27 miles or so to an elevation of over 9,000 feet. These people are Olympiads. There are clubs that arrange biking groups, if you are so inclined to try that.


The University of Arizona is a beautiful campus, at least the portions I had time to tour. There’s also a nice, if commercial, pedestrian friendly area just across the street.

I found friendly people there and not as I feared young versions of John “LeGrouch” McCain. And the eye candy… Between the cyclists and the sporty types on this campus, well, I may have been a little distracted on this trip. The guy with an owlbear tattoo over his heart, for example. “Owlwha…?”

Which brings me to the next point. On a personal level, the most notable thing about this trip is how little there is to note. The Spookspace Meter stayed right at zero the entire time. And it’s not like I wasn’t expecting or looking for something to happen. But it didn’t. What may this portend? I may blog about that in a few days if I get my thoughts on it in order. In any case, it was a reminder of what “normal” was like. And I kinda miss normal.

The closest thing, apart from the discussion about privacy itself, regarding subjects normally found on this blog came from a simple question from a police officer doing security at the event. He asked me if I made this myself:

A Conversation on Privacy

I explained that, no, it was from a professor from the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences {also involved with this event and a continuing series of speakers on privacy which will begin in October}. She was giving them out for free.

What’s interesting about this question is I think that he was really doing a threat assessment. He was really wondering, “Here’s a guy wearing a baseball cap backwards, looking perhaps a little haggard,” {I brought the hat because I figured some time on top of a mountain was not likely to be kind to the hairdo and I was correct}, “who showed up early and took his seat. May as well see how he reacts to law enforcement.”

But this is exactly how it should be done. Build a rapport. The police and the public are one. All basic law enforcement science, part of what came out of sweeping reforms in the UK in the 19th Century, also known as Peelian Reform, a la Sir Robert Peel. It also works wonders in interrogation. Whereas the Reid Technique and torture will only gum up the works.


Noam Chomsky referenced the quote at top as the definition of privacy. I don’t want to delve too deeply into being a target, but this is exactly what is denied you. Regardless of the means and methods, the cause, even being alone in a quiet room does not convey a relaxing effect. It feels as though you are not alone and that the room is anything but quiet. Those who utilize these methods are aware of this and part of the purpose is to destroy the target via these “invisible” means in order to maintain plausible deniability and the illusion that power is limited by law and some sense of morality when the opposite is true.

Some of the things Greenwald and Snowden said they had said before but they bear repeating. If there is a legitimate basis for mass surveillance, then let’s at least let the public know so they can sign off on it.

But there were some shifts in the conversation as well. Added to this was, if we are not informed, then we are ruled from above and not, as democracy is supposed to work, electing people who represent our interests.

They went even further. It has become abundantly clear that the purpose of mass surveillance is not terrorism and to a large extent not even crime. It is because much of, for example the Pentagon Papers, indicate that the public is considered the enemy, that it is hiding things from the public that power spends a lot of time and effort trying to achieve.

When power talks about protecting the nation, what they mean is preserving state power and economic/corporate power. They do not mean protecting the public at large nor the public interests which often run contrary to these former concerns.

I was liking what I was hearing. No more playing the “game” of pretending to, or on good faith actually doing it, take power at its word. This is a huge step in the right direction. I cannot express how frustrating it was, and still is for so many media outlets and people in general, to simply assume power says what it means. It’s a huge waste of time and energy to do so.

Snowden also said, “Privacy is how we know what we think.” This is another way of describing that quiet room. How can you stop, get away from all the influences, if those influences are constantly in your face? Whether watching FOX or CNN, or being glued to Facebook or on that Rightwing Dad mailing list {many of those emails being penned by political operatives no doubt} you cannot, are not, making up your own mind; you are parroting someone else’s opinion without critical thought.

And, really, free will is not quite as free as we’d like to think in the first place per the neuroscience and perhaps even some psychology models. Take away that quiet time and it becomes orders of magnitude less free.

Edward also pointed out the terms we use and why we use them. “Private citizen.” “Public official.” We are supposed to be scrutinizing these people, not the other way around.

And yet... "I have a wide stance."

And yet… “I have a wide stance.”

And, even though they’ve said it before and I’m sure will again and yet often do not get credit for having done so, both Snowden and Greenwald were clear to point out that corporate power is also an issue. For example, the Apple v FBI thing. “Apple did not react the way it did because it suddenly became a privacy advocate; it did it because it’s afraid people will buy some German company’s products instead.” Edward threw up the SilVal timeline slide of when NSA had access to their servers, which of course included Apple and Google.

Which brings me to my only nitpicky criticism of Greenwald for the evening {because I thought the tie was fine, but see again what I said about wearing a baseball cap backwards}. When he told people to “google 2004 Rumsfeld report on terrorism.” I sometimes get prickly over political correctness, especially when it is really nitpicky, but given Google’s status as part of the surveillance state can’t we instead say “Duckduckgo 2004 Rumfeld Report on Terrorism” now?

Chomsy also brought up how lucky we are in the US to have as much openness as we do. While I think, and think he would agree, that we don’t have near enough {Snowden and Greenwald also brought up Chelsea Manning and how one million secret documents being released did not bring the Apocalyptic scenario that pro-classifiers suggest doing so would}, I think he has a point. He means from both FOIA and leaks. Of course I must remind folks about the FOIA reform NATSEC carveouts that may or may not find their way into the final version once the House and Senate versions get reconciled.

But his larger point was we can see, as noted above, power really considers democracy a drag, that the public is enemy number one.

Combine this with the stats on terror attacks–Al Qaeda actually killed fewer people than the IRA, for example–and you can see that someone is trying to cook the books. What are they trying to distract us from? Commercialization of…everything.

Brussels came up and Chomsky said it must at least be worth taking a look at why ISIS claims it is doing what it is doing. If you want terrorism to end, then it would be smart to do so. “And it would work,” he added, to applause. ISIS says it is hitting back for being droned. Pretty simple.

What is perhaps the most strange thing that was said was when Chomsky suggested that good, eg Ivy League, education can lead people to not question authority. That was an astounding thing to note, but pretty clearly true, especially in the UK.

You can read Eric Ortiz’ live blogging of the event for more:

Eric Ortiz, “Live Blog: A Conversation on Privacy With Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden,” Truthdig, 25 March 2016: live_blog_a_conversation_on_privacy_20160325

Or watch the video on Monday.

Overall I think things are moving in the right direction in terms of the serious dialog. Of course, policy, law, and oversight are other matters, but I’ll take what I can get.

What Can We Learn From the Pando / Intercept Divide?


This is likely to be long and rambly. Mostly, I’m writing it to get my own thoughts organized so I can stop thinking about it. I’m not expecting kumbaya or anything similar. Nor am I seeking to stir up trouble or open any old wounds.

Probably there’s a lot of extraneous stuff in here as well. That’s because the big picture is important as is attempting to repair or redress this incredibly broken system those of us in the US have to deal with.


In 2010, the following three pieces were written. The second is a response to the first and the third a response to that response.

Mark Ames and Yasha Levine, “TSAstroturf: The Washington Lobbyists and Koch-Funded Libertarians Behind the TSA Scandal,” Nation, 23 November 2010:

Glenn Greenwald, “Anatomy of a journalistic smear job,” Salon, 24 November 2010:

Mark Ames and Yasha Levine, “A Response to Glenn Greenwald,” Nation, 25 November 2010:

{Note that some time has passed and perhaps some perspectives have changed a little. For example, Misters Ames and Levine now live in the US, while Mr. Greenwald now lives in Brazil. Given Rio’s reputation for having a very active CIA station, there must at least be a small piece of common ground. Additionally, I’m sure events such as transpired with the Guardian over the NSA/GCHQ documents, the detainment of Mr. Miranda in the UK, and the theft of a laptop made at least some forms of government harassment visceral for Mr. Greenwald. On the other hand, he makes mention of the possibility of government reprisals against Mr. Tyner in his response, so perhaps that was already in mind just over five years ago.}

The main question revolves around the backlash against TSA airport screening. The secondary question is about whether the backlash against it is a grassroots or “astroturf” {a movement that appears to be a grassroots movement or a spontaneous “will of the people” action and is in reality backed by a corporation, wealthy individuals, government, or some other powerful entity}. The third thing is about the treatment of one John Tyner in the first piece.

If there is indeed some reason for Koch and others to want to bash TSA {there is, privatization, which is, if climate change doesn’t get us first, going to be the principle reason for the decline of this country}, then this issue is also a bit of a chimera. On the one hand, we want our rights and dignity. On the other, we don’t want special business interests using infringement on either to result in handing over essential government services over to low-paid contractors who will provide worse service but receive less bad press for it just so rich assholes can make a buck.

Backing up a little, I recall back during the early healthcare reform debate that people like Keith Olberman suggested that the people, typically senior citizens, disrupting town hall meetings on the subject must have been paid Koch brothers plants. No such connections were ever found. Why? I’ll get to that in a minute. But in the meantime, compare the visions in our heads of what healthcare reform was going to be and what we got and ask yourself if it’s even worth discussing a past fight over something that fell so short of the promise.

I can easily see this chimera problem, by the way, as being what is behind a lot of the attention on the police shootings. By merely suggesting that there is a lot of media attention on these and that there might be a special business interest reason for it {privatization of police was a primary goal of Blackwater, as Mr. Scahill knows} it makes it sound like I’m callous to, mostly African-Americans, being gunned down by police. I am not. I am merely suggesting that the idea that we demand changes from our government will likely result in changes for the worse, not better, because that is Washington’s current and recent past track record. If they can find a way to make a buck, they will. We are to that point.

A brief anecdote: I saw petitions in Michigan to build another bridge to Canada in order to, I was told, alleviate traffic, provide competition, and some other things. Sounded good during the pitch. The real reason? So some wealthy man could make a bunch more money by owning a bridge subsidized by taxpayers. Framed as being in the public interest, sold to me by ordinary people who may not have even been aware of any ulterior motives, and it sounded like a good idea.


So how do we wind up in these situations where it appears as if “the people” are speaking but are wittingly or probably more often unwittingly serving some other purpose?

Let me count the ways. For starters, here’s what FBI was able to accomplish in the 1950s and 1960s without any magical powers that I am aware of:

Groups and individuals have been harassed and disrupted because of their political views and their lifestyles. Investigations have been based upon vague standards whose breadth made excessive collection inevitable. Unsavory and vicious tactics have been employed–including anonymous attempts to break up marriages, break up meetings, ostracize persons from their professionals, and provoke target groups into rivalries that might result in deaths. Intelligence agencies have served the political and personal objectives of presidents and other high officials. While the agencies often committed excesses in response to pressure from high officials in the Executive branch and Congress, they also occasionally initiated improper activities on their own and then concealed them from officials whom they had a duty to inform.

{Citation here}.

Stop and think about that for a moment. Pit two groups or individuals against each other without either being aware that it was the FBI behind it. Destroyed marriages, got people ostracized from their professions. And CIA did/does this with entire nations.

Then there’s Cass Sunstein’s “cognitive infiltration” and Alex Jones’ very popular disinformation efforts. This latter is most likely connected to intelligence subcontractor Stratfor {Jones hired two people from Stratfor, was or perhaps still is a subscriber, and I.W. shared Stratfor’s IP address early in their creation} which in turn is most likely connected to CIA and/or one or more of the other US intelligence agencies. We are being fed info-crap by our own government.

Then, we have discovered more recently, that the Koch brothers do indeed have their own intelligence division that keeps an eye on protestors.

Then we have not only the JTRIG slides from the Snowden trove but also, after at first denying it, the Department of Defense {and again some indication of CIA involvement if only guilt by association} in controlling the kinds of stories that people see in their feeds on social media. This was billed as being part of preparing for civil breakdown, and yet was a response not to any kind of civil unrest but rather the financial shenanigans of too-big-too-fail banks.

At the same time, there’s this guilt-by-association or personal politics thing that, really, is at times overdoing it.


I not only worked on the Ground Zero Mosque project in 2009 {which had clear connections to both the FBI and CIA, and was likely being used–illegally–as an election wedge issue to mobilize the bases of both major parties} but also a housing project in Almaty, Kazakstan. I ran across this gem just recently, even though the article is from months ago. I did read elsewhere that some soldiers alleged there is a US biological weapons base there in late 2013 or early 2014.

Sarah A. Topol, “Black Cat in a Dark Room: A Week in the Mysterious Sleeping Villages of Kazakhstan” BuzzFeed, 23 July 2015:

There are some bizarre similarities here with regards to hallucinations in Krasnogorsk, Kazakstan in 2010 with what transpired in Pont-St-Esprit, France in the 1950s. From the former:

When Lyuba woke up four days later, she didn’t remember anything. The nurse told her she’d had a stroke. Lyuba tried to stand. She put her legs down, but it was as if they didn’t exist — there was nothing under her. These legs aren’t mine, she thought.

Residents started noticing helicopters flying overhead — could they be spraying something? People saw ghosts. One woman saw UFOs, small red and blue orbs that hung a few feet above the earth; others swore they’d seen them too.

From the latter:

Eventually, the young man was tied down with thick leather straps, in a prone position on his back, onto a cot in a local jail cell. Within minutes, however, he had loosened one strap and chewed the others in pieces with such a frenzy and intensity that some of his teeth fell out of his bloody mouth. When he finally managed to break loose, he screamed that monsters were attacking him and he seized the metal bars of his cell, frantically trying to escape. With superhuman strength, he was able to bend them slightly, before he was again restrained.

Another young lad of about twelve years of age ran about the town screaming that dead people were rising up out of the ground at a nearby cemetery. “They’re coming to eat us, they’re coming to eat us alive,” warned the frantic boy….

{H.P. Albarelli, A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War Experiments, Trine Day, 2011, p. 351}.

See also, Alex Pasternack, “Why the U.S. Is Building a High-Tech Bubonic Plague Lab in Kazakhstan,” Motherboard/VICE, 27 August 2013:

And, Jeffrey K. Silverman, “Secret Bio-War Program Discovered,” Veterans Today, 6 October 2013:

{Scroll down for the Kazakhstan portion}.


But I had no idea that any of my work was in any way connected to the intelligence community at the time that I worked on those projects. It was just work. Which means that if I didn’t see it then lots of other people don’t see it either.


I am indebted to Edward Snowden and the people who reported on what he revealed. It does little good to say that, because he leans Libertarian or because NSA is government and it doesn’t seem to directly damage companies like Palantir, Booz Allen Hamilton, HBGary Federal, etc. that we should then not concern ourselves with surveillance {and look again, more than that–GCHQ online PSYOP similar to what USDOD’s Minerva seems to want to accomplish} when NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. all protect these contractors from scrutiny and responsibility; when they actively abuse their powers perhaps just so our approximately 70% private intelligence community can be further privatized; when these gross violations of privacy are abused for both political and financial purposes. Government both hold the contracts and are charged with holding private contractors responsible for abuses. The buck has to go there.

At the same time I am indebted to Mark Ames for his reporting on both the sort of natural result of privatization and Reaganomics as it pertains to “going postal” {since my ‘marriage’ was destroyed by the government and I was ‘ostracized’ from my profession, resulting in my having to resort to being a security guard for a time just to survive financially as well as spending my small retirement fund} and the less naturally occurring version of that involving Lois Lang and her shooting of a CIA money man who became too flashy to allow to continue {since some of the newer, field instead of lab, techniques were likewise employed against me}.

Totally get that we need hard evidence. But also get that the situation is so dire, and the motives often so obvious, that it seems like losing a battle over principles against an opponent who has none, who is very practiced at lying, excuse-making, and hiding and protecting evidence from discovery, and most importantly manipulating people into doing what it wants.

That is all. Mind those chimeras; they are a bitch.

  • Calendar

    • May 2019
      M T W T F S S
      « Feb    
  • Search