Tuesday, June 18, 2013

LAND OF DOUBTS

The Edward Snowden story has grown several different sets of legs; news stories in the USA tend to do this.


Call it a growing distrust, or conspiracy theorising, call it critical thinking, call it general whacko-nuttery, but it happens.

A couple of front-runners (other than the always-out-there Alex Jones) in the "story has different legs" category are Naomi Wolf and Jon Rappoport.

Ms Wolf has the feeling that all is not exactly as presented to the public, and that Snowden's history and attitudes do not pass the smell test of an astute/intuitive looker-on. My own initial feelings were along those lines too (I wrote that I "felt uncomfortable" about it all, without knowing exactly why). However, Dave Lindorff, whose writings I've long respected (his website is among my links - see This Can't Be Happening) isn't convinced by the points Ms Wolf raises. Her opinion swings towards the idea that the whole thing is a staged "reveal" - her whole piece is HERE, it ends with:
"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?"

Jon Rappaport's views were featured at Cannonfire a few days ago (Friday 14 June), by another respected blogger from my links. (Update: See also the post for Tuesday 18 June there). Snip from Mr Rappoport's piece (for all of it, see HERE) :
"Scandals, and how they’re presented to the public through the press, are rarely what they seem.
The players are different, their motives are different, and they’re trading blows in a different arena.
They’re accessing the Matrix and manipulating it at levels invisible to the general public, who are trained by mass media to look in the wrong direction."

It's a bit like looking at the situation through a set of those magic mirrors often found in fairgrounds: different, possibly distorted, possibly accurate views of the same thing. It's the way some of us see the President too (see my own post Obama x 3).

Suspicious minds, like that old song Elvis sang : "We're caught in a trap....We can't go on together with suspicious minds". Nobody trusts anybody any more, often for valid reasons. At the core: the government doesn't trust any of us, we don't trust the government, some speak out, some of us distrust even their motives. Where does it end?

A commenter online, sadly I failed to keep a reference to the source, pointed out a danger in this mushrooming climate of distrust:
If you read most peoples' writings from the most totalitarian states, or the most competent and cogent figures in political fiction, and the motif remains the same: The worst part of totalitarianism is the public distrust sown between neighbours, when you believe that each other member of the state is a potential part of the apparatus that monitors you. Resisting a monolithic authority is possible when you can combine. Resisting the rest of your citizens is impossible, because you are alone.

What's the remedy? Is there one? Keeping an open mind is the only way, I guess.

5 comments:

♥ Sonny ♥ said...



I dont want to sound pessimistic because I'm not.. I'm very realistic and illuminati has been how all governments have been run , as well as everything else for that matter, since the beginning of time and thought..

" shine brightly on that which you wish to be seen " thus everything else stays in the shadows or the dark and lends itself to folks who THINK and they are rare..

I wish for the general public's sake they would KNOW this truth because then they could spend their time finding ways Around the system and making whatever the flavor or the moment is Work FOR Them versus comtemplating what the issues behind the issues are.

Twilight said...

Sonny ~ I think it was that "shine brightly....." feeling I picked up on when the story first appeared. Misdirection, distraction....?
Put another way - it reminds me of the scene in "Up" (movie) when Dug the dog has his attention distracted by "SQUIRREL!!"

http://youtu.be/SSUXXzN26zg

Yes, why can't We the People use such methods of distraction ourselves - in the other direction? With brainy geeks among us with something approaching the level of Ed. Snowden's apparent expertise it ought to be possible.

mike said...

Often the most untoward, obvious, and egregious behaviors and incidents, once exposed for what they are, seem too incredulous to be anything other than a cover-up or conspiracy...but they aren't.

Wolf and Rappaport imply that the obvious wasn't obvious, therefore it's all part of a reveal or manipulated misrepresentation. I've read where many others feel the same. All I can say is, where have these people been for the past twelve years??? Ever since the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld show, anyone believing that our freedoms haven't been denigrated due to increased "secret" security, have simply NOT been paying attention to the obvious. The obvious is called the Patriot Act, FISA, AUMF, and more.

Anyone that has endeavored to enlighten themselves about some of our LEGISLATED-BY-CONGRESS programs, should have seen the writing on the wall. These programs have been discussed and the essence has been made public. The take-home message has been that the USA's government can do whatever is required to protect our homeland. I was disappointed with Obama when I first read that he wanted to strengthen the Patriot Act...this was in mid to late 2008! The Patriot Act has been strengthened several times since. If a person didn't know about PRISM, did you really have to be told that PRISM existed? Wouldn't that be obvious by extrapolation? Same for FISA! The same for just about any program that can be imagined that our government may want to explore and-or enforce.

The FBI and CIA have come under fire for some of their incredulous programs as well. Some of these devious programs have actually made it into the daylight through the media. Maybe most citizens are too busy to notice.

Then we have the government stating it supports the whistle-blowers' program, but turns around and prosecutes the very whistle-blowers they claim to support. This has been in the mainstream news too many times now. The recent big news of the wire-tapping incident by the government into our news media telephone and internet lines to discover the "leak" should be of concern to the public, too.

I can only say that, for myself, around 2002, it became very obvious that our government was up to no good. It became acutely obvious with each passing year. It became even more blatant with the change of administrations and Obama expanded these programs and tightened things even more, although he campaigned on transparency and a halt to the Bush-era tactics. This has all been thoroughly divulged by the media, congressional hearings, and whistle-blowers.

Perhaps our government knows that the obvious is rarely detected or of not much concern to the public, if it should be detected. Look at the privacy breaches by just about any cell phone carrier or internet company...this has been occurring for years, yet causes outrage when the media reports it, but the public is willing to tolerate the breaches, because we love our gadgets and can't imagine life without these companies that bring those gadgets to life. It's a catch-22 that favors our government and corporations.

mike (again) said...

P.S. - It's a tenuous, fine line distinction between government and corporations now-a-day, too!

Twilight said...

mike ~~ My head begins to spin fuzzily when considering all that's written online on this issue. It's hard to ignore some of the creative explanations and hold tight to - what's that saying: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"?

I think the reason for some of the doubt/distrust of stuff noy being as reported arises from both the timing of the "revelations", and even more because the source is such a young guy, whose education and job history doesn't immediately lead one to imagine he'd be someone with high enough security clearance to have the access he claims to secret files, to earn the big salary, work around the world - Japan, Geneva and elsewhere on secret techie stuff.

Maybe it's because most of us just are not familiar with that kind of security/tech environment, have no knowledge of how things are in those circles.

I've wondered if there's not more to it than we have been told - but in a different way: that perhaps Snowden could be the messenger, the visible mouthpiece of a group of specialists. That way, the stuff he has revealed, and still has ready to reveal, would have come from several different, possibly more senior, and anonymous sources, keeping them protected.

I agree with all you've said, though - that really nothing new has been revealed - maybe a little fine detail, that's all. He has said his purpose was to wake up the public (even though they should have been aware anyway).