Uncategorized

Jim Rogers: ‘This Is Too Insane – and I’m Afraid We’re All Going To Suffer fo r the Rest of This Decade’

http://lewrockwell.com/rogers-j/rogers-j186.html

Jim Rogers: ‘This Is Too Insane – and I’m Afraid We’re All Going To Suffer for the Rest of This Decade’

by Tekoa Da Silva
Bull Market Thinking

<img src=”http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif” width=”125″ height=”16″ border=”0″ alt=”” />

I was able to reconnect with Jim Rogers this morning out of Spain, legendary co-founder of the Quantum Fund with George Soros, author of Hot Commodities, and chairman of the private Beeland Holdings.

It was an especially powerful interview, as Jim spoke towards the relentless downward pressure on gold, the upward explosion in interest rates, central bank money printing, and how to protect yourself ahead of the disastrous times he sees coming.

When asked if we’re seeing forced liquidation leading the smash down in gold this morning, Jim said, “We certainly are. There are a lot of leveraged players who are now being forced to sell. Usually when you have this kind of forced liquidation, you’re getting closer to a bottom, maybe not the final bottom, but certainly close to a bottom. I even bought a little bit [today].”

With regard to the intense bearish news stories being published on gold, Jim suggested investors shouldn’t ”Pay [much] attention to other people. I pay attention to what’s going on…Obviously with gold collapsing I know about that – but I don’t listen to other people.”

Over the last few years Jim has spoken extensively on shorting government bonds, and more recently, the 10-year U.S. treasury yield has rocketed higher (with a corresponding collapse in value). When asked if now is a good time to be covering those short bond positions, he explained that, “I’m grappling with that question as we speak…I’m not short government bonds, [but rather] I’m short junk bonds on the theory that they will suffer the most when the bond market finally breaks. The junk bonds will go first, [along with] emerging market bonds. So I’m trying to figure out what to do, but I am not covering my shorts [just yet].”

Commenting on the Fed’s historical ability to control the bond market, Jim said, “We’re getting to that point where either one of two things are going to happen; either central banks are going to stop all this [money printing], or the market is going to force them to stop it. It looks like we may be having a juncture of both…where the Fed is getting worried…and at the same time, the market is jumping in and saying, ‘Yes, it’s insane what you’re doing, and this has to end.’ So we may have a healthy convergence of both. And if it’s not ending now, it’s going to end sometime in the next year, because this cannot go on – it’s too insane.”

When asked about the explosive riots occurring in Brazil, Jim warned to prepare for much more, in that, “This is the first time in history where you’ve had all the central banks in the world printing money at the same time. Europe, Japan, America, and the UK, all, are frantically trying to debase their currencies…I’m afraid that in the end, we’re all going to suffer perhaps, worse then we ever have, with inflation, currency turmoil, and higher interest rates. As I say, this has never happened before, it’s never been a good policy in the long run, so I’m afraid we’re all going to suffer for the rest of this decade from this crazy, crazy money printing.”

As a final comment to investors looking to protect themselves from these impending disasters, Jim said, “The way to protect yourself is to own real assets…because that’s the only thing which will protect you as currencies debase.”

“If you have money in the financial system and the financial system collapses,” he added, “even though you may have done nothing wrong – you may suffer because somebody else did something wrong. So you need to be very careful about where your assets are in the financial system, or have strict control over them yourself, so that you’re not going to lose them.”

Interview with Jim Rogers (MP3)

June 28, 2013

Jim Rogers has taught finance at Columbia University’s business school and is a media commentator worldwide. He is the author of Adventure Capitalist, Investment Biker, Hot Commodities, A Gift to My Children, and A Bull in China. See his website.

Copyright © 2013 Bull Market Thinking

The Best of Jim Rogers

Uncategorized

The Wonderful American World of Informers and Agents Provocateurs by Todd Gitlin and Tom Engelhardt

http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt458.html

The Wonderful American World of Informers and Agents Provocateurs

by Todd Gitlin and Tom Engelhardt
TomDispatch

Recently by Tom Engelhardt: Nuclear Terror in the Middle East

<img src=”http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif” width=”125″ height=”16″ border=”0″ alt=”” />

Back in the early 1970s, I worked for Pacific News Service (PNS), a small antiwar media outfit that operated out of the Bay Area Institute (BAI), a progressive think tank in San Francisco. The first story I ever wrote for PNS came about because an upset U.S. Air Force medic wanted someone to know about the American war wounded then pouring in from the invasion of Laos. So he snuck me onto Travis Air Force Base in northern California and into a military hospital to interview wigged-out guys with stumps for limbs who thought the war was a disaster. In some cases, they also thought we should have bombed the Vietnamese “back to the stone age.”

I was a good boy from the 1950s and sneaking onto that base made me nervous indeed. It was also the most illegal act I encountered at either PNS or the institute in those years. We did, of course, regularly have active duty antiwar soldiers and members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War pass through our office, and we had an antiwar GI in Vietnam writing for us under a pseudonym. (At some point, we found out that the Pentagon had actually tracked down and interviewed every soldier in Vietnam with that pseudonymous name in its attempt to uncover our journalist.)

In any case, we doggedly researched, reported, wrote, and edited our stories on U.S. war policy, which we syndicated, with modest success, to mainstream newspapers as well as what, in those days, was romantically called “the underground press.” The only hints of “violence” you might have stumbled across in our office would have been discussions of the violence of U.S. war policy.

So imagine my surprise – okay, I shouldn’t have been, but I was anyway – when years later one of my co-workers got his FBI files thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request, and it became clear, on reading through those heavily redacted, semi-blacked-out pages, that there had been an informer in our office, spying on us and feeding information to the Bureau. If that was true in a modest place like PNS/BAI, where wouldn’t there have been such spies in the world of the antiwar movement? In fact, U.S. government informers and sometimes agents provocateurs were, it seems, a widespread phenomenon of those years. It’s a story that has never fully been told, in part obviously because the information to tell it just isn’t fully there. By far the best account I’ve read on the subject, particularly when it comes to agents provocateurs – government agents sent in to provoke violence – was a section of Todd Gitlin’s 1980 book The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left.

Recently, as Edward Snowden’s National Security Agency revelations about the high-tech gathering of global (and domestic) communications of every imaginable sort began unspooling, Gitlin’s work came to mind again. I had certainly been aware of how many post-9/11 “terror” cases against American Muslims rested on the acts and testimony of government informers, who sometimes even provided (fake) weaponry to hapless plotters and the spark to begin plotting in the first place. I began to wonder, however, what we didn’t know about the low-tech side of America’s massive intelligence overreach. So I picked up the phone and called Gitlin. The answer, as his piece today indicates, is one hell of a horrifying lot. Among the few outfits to pay significant attention to spies and informers in the ranks of groups opposed to some aspect of Washington’s policies, the ACLU stands out. In fact, in a map that organization created, “Spying on First Amendment Activity – State by State,” you can take a Mr. Toad’s wild ride through what’s known of the universe of the twenty-first century American informer. TomDispatch is pleased to follow up with a Mr. Todd’s wild ride through the thickets of American intelligence clearly on the march domestically. ~ Tom

Uncategorized

The Rational Market Myth by Paul Craig Roberts

http://lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts400.html

The Rational Market Myth armageddon without nukes

by Paul Craig Roberts
PaulCraigRoberts.org

Recently by Paul Craig Roberts: Stasi in the White House

<img src=”http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif” width=”125″ height=”16″ border=”0″ alt=”” />

One of the myths of economics is that markets are rational. Theories are based on this assumption, and the belief that markets are rational fuels the argument against regulation. The market response to the Federal Reserve’s June 19 statement that it will taper off its bond purchases if its forecast comes true is unequivocal proof that markets are irrational.

The Federal Reserve’s statement that it “currently anticipates that it would be appropriate to moderate the monthly pace of purchases [of bonds] later this year” depends on a very big if. The if is the correctness of the Fed’s forecast of moderate economic growth and employment gains.

The Fed has not stopped purchasing $85 billion of bonds each month. So nothing real has changed. Indeed, there was no new information in the Fed’s statement. It has been known for some time that, according to the Fed, its bond purchases will gradually cease.

In response to this repeat of old information, the stock and bond markets sold off in a major way on June 19-20. This market response to the Fed’s statement indicates that the Fed’s forecast is unlikely to come true. Low interest rates and a high stock market are totally dependent on the liquidity that the Fed is injecting by printing $1,000 billion per year. If this liquidity is not injected, what will sustain the markets? If the markets crash and interest rates rise, how can the Fed expect recovery?

In other words, the participants in the stock and bond markets know that the markets are bubbles created by the printing press. There is no real basis for the high stock and bond prices. The prices are an artificial reality created by the printing press. Rational markets would take into account the printing press element and would price stocks and bonds at a much lower level.

Zero real interest rates mean that there are no risks. But how can there be no risk in Treasury bonds when the debt is growing faster than the economy?

Normally, high stock values mean strong profits from strong consumer income growth and retail sales. But we know that there is no growth in real median family income and real retail sales.

I suspect that the reason the Fed made the announcement, which seems to be derailing the Fed’s forecast of recovery on which the announcement depends, is to relieve pressure on the US dollar. For several years the Fed has been printing 1,000 billion new dollars each year. There is no demand for these dollars. So far these dollars have inflated stock and bond prices instead of consumer prices. But the implication for the dollar’s price or exchange value in currency markets is clear. The supply is increasing faster than the demand. If the dollar falters, the Fed would lose control. Rising import prices would soon drive domestic inflation and interest rates far higher than the Fed’s targets.

Washington has succeeded in getting Japan and the EU to print yen and euros in order to eliminate the likelihood of flight to other large currency alternatives to the dollar. Smaller countries have also had to print in order to protect their export markets. With so many countries printing money, the Fed’s statement implying that the US might stop printing makes the dollar look good, and, indeed, the dollar rose on the currency exchange markets.

Having neutralized the alternative currency threat to the dollar, the Fed and its agents, the bullion banks, the banks too big to fail, are still at work against the gold and silver threats to the dollar. Massive short selling of gold began at the beginning of April. Again on June 20 massive shorts of gold were sold at a time of day chosen to maximize the price decline. Only those who intend to drive down the price would sell in this way.

Since QE began, the Fed has deprived retirees of interest income and has forced retirees to spend down their capital in order to pay living expenses. Judging from the initial market response, the Fed’s latest policy announcement is adversely impacting bond, stock and real estate investors, and the manipulation of the bullion markets continues to wreak destruction on wealth stored in the only known safe haven.

How can a recovery happen when the Fed is destroying wealth?

The Fed’s irrational behavior could be seen as rational if the assumption is that the Fed’s intent is not to save the economy but to save the banks. As the Fed is committed to saving the banks “too big to fail,” it is likely that the banks know of the Fed’s announcements in advance. With inside information, the banks know precisely when to short the stock, bond, and bullion markets. The banks make billions from the inside information. The billions made help to restore the banks’ balance sheets.

Guy Lawson’s book, Octopus (2012), shows that front-running on the basis of inside information has always been the source of financial fortunes. In order to save the banks, the Fed now supplies the inside information.

How is this going to play out? I suspect that the recovery, although officially a weak one, does not really exist. However, thanks to statistical artifacts that understate inflation and unemployment and overstate GDP growth, the Fed and the markets think that a recovery of sorts is in process and that the unprecedented money printing by the Fed will succeed in shifting the economy into high gear.

roberts2.jpg?_cfgetx=img.rx:1091;img.ry:1091;<img src=”roberts2.jpg” width=”120″ height=”165″ align=”left” vspace=”7″ hspace=”15″>No such thing is likely to happen. Instead, as 2013 progresses, a further downturn will become visible through the orchestrated statistics. This time the Fed will have to get the printed money past the banks and into the economy, and inflation will explode. The dollar will collapse, and import prices – as globalism has turned the US into an import-dependent economy – will turn high inflation into hyperinflation. Disruptions in food and energy deliveries will become widespread, and a depreciated currency will cease to be used as a means of exchange.

I wouldn’t bet my life on this prediction, but I think it is as likely as the Fed’s prediction of a full recovery that allows the Fed to terminate its bond purchases and money printing by June 2014.

Americans, who have been on top of the world since the late 1940s, are not prepared for the adjustments that they are likely to have to make. And neither is their government.

June 25, 2013

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House. Visit his website.

Copyright © 2013 Paul Craig Roberts

The Best of Paul Craig Roberts

Uncategorized

Psychological trigger: what’s behind the official rage against leakers? | Jon Rappoport’s Blog

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/psychological-trigger-whats-behind-the-official-rage-against-leakers/

Psychological trigger: what’s behind the official rage against leakers?

Psychological trigger: what’s behind the official rage against leakers?

by Jon Rappoport
June 24, 2013
http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Technocrats, who are obsessed with designing the future for all of us, are Globalists in sheep’s clothing.

Their plans coincide with the intention to direct the world’s economic and political activity from a central-management locus.

“For the greatest good of the greatest number.”

However, there is a glitch. And it is permanent. It appears suddenly, here and there, and it’s the kind of variable that won’t surrender to any sort of programming.

It’s so odd, even the population at large doesn’t notice it.

It’s the “unpredictable function.”

Behavior and thought that fit no pattern.

To go even further, it’s not really a function at all, except from the point of view of the technocrats who are trying to map it.

It’s the result of imagination deployed in such a way that the user experiences “cracks” between items of consensus reality. These cracks are emotions, thoughts, and sensations that are new.

There is no way to assess what such experience might lead to.

No map of behavior or prediction about where it’s going will be accurate or complete.

All maps count on the fact that people keep thinking and feeling along the same paths.

Most people do stay in the same worn grooves. They have no idea they can leave these paths or venture down new ones.

But such people are not all people.

Down through history, artists have imagined their way into non-consensus realities. This is not a trivial circumstance. It is a case of asymmetrical “cause and effect”—which is to say, unknown cause.

Unanticipated social and political response to tyranny can develop from this asymmetry.

The response comes from the root of a person: his creative faculty.

We look back on technical innovations of the past and conclude they are smooth transitions and accretions that are only the result of step-by-step improvements in science. But this is wrong. There are always unexplained gaps that are crucial.

When Gutenberg looked at an old screw press that was used to produce wine and oil, and then realized that other technical processes could be joined to make a printing press for books, he was “in a gap.”

He was changing the world with that inexplicable insight.

Of course, from our vantage point, it’s easy to break down any innovation and place it in context, among a serial and unbroken accumulation of knowledge, but that is an illusion.

At the center, there is always a human innovator with his imagination. From his penetration between the stones of consensus reality, he brings back an idea. He brings back something new.

His insight is unrecorded, because there is nothing to record. There is is only what he subsequently does with the insight. The rest is invisible.

The true account of our history, its major turning points, is rife with these leaps and gaps.

What technocrats of the modern age hope to do is translate the gaps into detectable processes, which can be described as brain activity at a micro l;evel.

The technocrats are of a religious faith in their ability to achieve this result.

But each time they claim to make a breakthrough, they discover, much to their disappointment, that their goal recedes further into the distance. What they discover implies more ignorance, not less.

For every assertion that consciousness is basically a passive process occurring at the level of brain, more unexplained human behavior arises.

The mad prophet of technocracy, Ray Kurzweil, now the director of engineering at Google, is famous for comparing creative capacity to chess.

Pointing out that computers have defeated human chess champions, Kurzweil goes on to conclude that all human activity assumed to be creative will soon be found to be replicable by software programs and algorithms.

Everything we once ascribed to the creative faculty will surrender to computers that can do it better.

But Kurzweil and his colleagues are wrong.

The “unpredictable function” will remain.

Bringing all this down to the human response to tyranny, the implication is vivid. No one can predict how humans who are willing to deploy their imagination will innovate. No one can say how humans, self-propelled by imagination and courage and a riverboat gambler’s sense of of adventure, will turn tyranny on its head.

Tyranny, at the core, is a mechanical organization of life. Imagination isn’t organization. It’s beyond that myth. It will always be beyond that myth.

Strange but true, the overwhelming numbers of humans on Earth are really in the camp of the technocrats. That is to say, they believe that everything ailing our civilization stems from a “bad program.” They believe that some kind of better program will save us all.

Which is exactly what the technocrats assert.

But the real answer to fascism is beyond programs. That is what people find so hard to swallow. They fear the absence of determinism. They want assured process and assured result.

They want pattern. They want symmetry.

However, at bottom, that is not what human life is. Life happens in the gaps, the leaps. In inexplicable creativity.

The creative act is not organized. It isn’t symmetrical or harmonious. It isn’t a mere mimicry of natural laws.

After the fact, many artists will explain their work by referring to nature. But that stems from the fact that these artists don’t understand what they are doing, or how it involves traveling beyond systems.

Imagination is as plain as the nose on your face, when that nose and that face are liberated from the matrix of pedestrian cause and effect.

The creative faculty is liberated.

That is ultimately why fascism and tyranny are ill-equipped to handle their asymmetrical nemesis.

Fascism is organization carried to an extreme. It can’t escape what it is. It tries to reduce and eradicate imaginative penetrations between the stolid pillars of consensus reality. It tries to plug the leaks.

But creative energy appears in unlikely places and with unexpected force.

Technocracy is an approach married to the premise that all human actions can be understood, patterned, placed in context, and mathematically described.

But the creative act deals with contexts as computers deal with data. It shifts them, breaks them apart, reformulates them. It goes even further. It discards them and invents new ones, as desired.

And it can operate without any context whatsoever.

That is the unspoken cardinal sin listed by the Great Church of the Information Age.

A great deal of the official rage against leakers of classified data stems from a basic frustration: the best systems in the world aren’t perfect.

This is the technocrat’s nightmare: “The system has holes. It’s incomplete. It can be picked apart. No matter how well we design it, someone wants to hack it.”

Of course someone does. Because someone doesn’t like air-tight life, which is no life at all.

Build a perfect labyrinth with hundreds of interlocking paths, and someone is going to come along with a lawnmower and cut a new path right out of the prison.

Jon Rappoport
The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

June 24, 2013

Uncategorized

CONSPIRACY: TWA Flight 800 Documentary – Top 10 Facts You Need To Know

http://lewrockwell.com/spl5/twa-800-documentary.html

CONSPIRACY: TWA Flight 800 Documentary – Top 10 Facts You Need To Know

by Sam Prince
Heavy.com

<img src=”http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif” width=”125″ height=”16″ border=”0″ alt=”” />

Many of us remember the terrible tragedy of Trans World Airlines (TWA) Flight 800, which crashed off the coast of East Moriches, Long Island, on July 17, 1996 en route from JFK International Airport to Paris, France, killing all 230 people on-board.

Uncategorized

Heroes, fake hope, and real hope in the Matrix | Jon Rappoport’s Blog

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/06/22/heroes-fake-hope-and-real-hope-in-the-matrix/

Heroes, fake hope, and real hope in the Matrix

Heroes, fake hope, and real hope in the Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

June 22, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The occasion for this article is the controversy swirling around Edward Snowden, who recently exposed secret programs of the National Security Agency.

It’s about one corner of that controversy: should we accept him as a hero even if the possibility exists that he isn’t?

The Matrix is designed to stimulate certain emotions.

For example: “We had a hero. Then he was taken down. Now we will feel sadness, desolation, and eventually nostalgia for what might have been.”

For example: “We have a hero. Let’s not look too closely at what he is. Now we will feel hope, a joy at his victories, and a confirmation of our deepest dreams.”

In both examples, the vast majority of people are an Audience. They experience a vicarious sequence of emotions, by proxy.

Proxy equals passivity at the core of consciousness. It is in that deep passivity that the labyrinthine Matrix maintains its hold.

And to disturb the passivity in any way brings out complaints and protests. Their ultimate translation is: “Don’t bother me, I’m sleeping. I’m the Audience.”

Understand that we’re not talking about a person who, inspired by a hero, takes stock, and then swings into powerful action. No, we’re talking about spectatorship.

True inspiration leads to action.

The Matrix is about a round of feelings that dead-end.

Whereas real hope rides on the back of action.

But for most people, action is out of the question, because they can’t imagine what it would be. Nor can they find within themselves a profound and stirring desire that ignites imagination.

Working in toward the center of themselves from either desire or imagination, they draw a blank. The motor spins, but there is no traction, no signal that takes them out into the world.

They settle for fake hope, and when the source of that hope (a hero) is impugned, they boil and rage. Then they stifle those feelings.

They settle on: “Don’t bother me, I’m sleeping.”

If you tell them the world is being run by criminals, they say you are promoting futility. But what they really mean is, their pipe dreams that keep them in a hopeful state of suspended animation are being disturbed.

They are in a quiet war with themselves over the question: Can I create something powerful and meaningful?

Up until now, the only thing they’ve been able to create is a reaction against anyone who intrudes on their core trance-sleep.

Uncategorized

The CDC is lying to you again: flu fiction vs. flu reality | Jon Rappoport’s Blog

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/the-cdc-is-lying-to-you-again-flu-fiction-vs-flu-reality/

The CDC is lying to you again: flu fiction vs. flu reality

The CDC is lying to you again: flu reality vs. flu fiction

by Jon Rappoport

June 20, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

I now have the official CDC flu-death statistics for the year 2010.

They were provided to me by Martin Maloney, who, some years ago, contacted me to show how the CDC was lying all the way along the line about numbers of flu deaths. Many thanks, Martin, for your good work.

2010 is apparently the most recent year for which the CDC has issued a final report. It was released on May 13 of this year.

The report comes through a sub-agency of the CDC, the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS).

On page 89 of the report, “Deaths: Final Data for 2010,” in Table 10, we find the following:

Influenza and Pneumonia [deaths]: 50,097.

Influenza [deaths]: 500.

Pneumonia [deaths]: 49,597.

In 2010, the CDC reports 500 deaths from the flu.

But the CDC PR people have trumpeted, over and over, that 36,000 people die every year in the US from the flu.

They’ve hyped this number, to emphasize how dangerous the flu is. They use the 36,000 number as a way to promote the flu vaccine. They use it to work for their pimps in the pharmaceutical industy.

Yet, their own numbers show 500 deaths in 2010, not 36,000.

Actually, if you dig below the surface of their PR, the CDC states in their literature that annual deaths from the flu range from about 3000 to 49,000.

This is obviously nowhere near the low 500-death figure for 2010.

And it isn’t only 2010 that’s at issue. In a recent article, I laid out how the CDC routinely reports, in the fine print, far fewer than 3000 flu deaths in a given year.

Uncategorized

NSA scandal: the deepest secret of the Ed Snowden operation | Jon Rappoport’s Blog

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/nsa-scandal-the-deepest-secret-of-the-ed-snowden-operation/

NSA scandal: the deepest secret of the Ed Snowden operation

NSA scandal: the deepest secret of the Ed Snowden operation

by Jon Rappoport

June 18, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Everyone wants to see a hero.

When that hero emerges from the shadows and says all the right things, and when he exposes a monolithic monster, he’s irresistible.

However, that doesn’t automatically make him who he says he is.

That doesn’t automatically exempt him from doubts.

Because he’s doing the right thing, people quickly make him into a spokesman for their own hopes. If he’s finally blasting a hole in the dark enemy’s fortress, he has to be accepted at face value. He has to be elevated.

When dealing with the intelligence community and their spooks and methods, this can be a mistake. Deception is the currency of that community. Layers of motives and covert ops are business as usual.

In previous articles, I’ve raised a number of specific doubts about Ed Snowden.

Here I want to replay four statements Snowden made and examine them.

“When you see everything, you see them on a more frequent basis and you recognize that some of these things are actually abuses, and when you talk about them in a place like this [NSA]…over time that awareness of wrongdoing sorts of builds up and you feel compelled to talk about it, and the more you talk about it, the more you’re ignored, the more you’re told it’s not a problem…”

This statement describes Snowden, an analyst working at NSA, chatting regularly to colleagues about his growing doubts over the morality of NSA spying. This is quite hard to believe.

As Steve Kinney, writing at the Centre for Research on Globalisation points out, Snowden would have raised all sorts of red flags about himself.

If he hadn’t been fired outright, he certainly would have come under serious scrutiny, which, at the very least, would have reduced his ability to hack documents out of NSA’s most secret recesses.

And yet, Snowden, an analyst, claims he had access to “full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community and undercover assets all around the world, the locations of every station we have, what their missions are and so forth.”

Really?

That stretches doubt far beyond the point of credulity.

Both The Guardian and the Washington Post supposedly vetted Snowden carefully. I’d really like to see the results of that vetting.

“Rosters of everyone working at the NSA [and] the entire intelligence community…” That’s untold thousands of people. That’s referring to many separate agencies.

Snowden doesn’t stop there. He maintains the security of NSA is not just a sieve, it’s also thousands of separate hunting parties, undertaken at the whim of any analyst:

“Any analyst at any time can target anyone. Any selector, anywhere… I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President…”

Sure. NSA just opens the door to their own analysts, who can, on their own hook, launch spying episodes on anyone in the US. Boom. No operational plans, no coordination. A free-for-all.

“Hey, dig this. Nancy Pelosi was just talking to her hairdresser. I’m going to follow up on her. Think I’ll spy on Nancy and her husband, see what they’re up to. I’ll file reports as I go along…”

“A guy at Los Alamos just wrote to his boss about a new weapons system. Want to see what they’re planning?”

Finally, Snowden claimed he could “shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that’s not my intention.”

Not just spy on everybody in the US. Snowden asserts he could do that. But he could also make the entire spying apparatus of NSA (and even all other intelligence agencies?) go dark with a few hours of work—and he’d evade notice of his NSA bosses as he performed this herculean task.

No. Ridiculous. The very first thing an agency like NSA does is set up a labyrinth to prevent itself from being taken down.

Consider these four Snowden statements together, back up and think. These are propositions that cast the man into a deep pit of doubt.

Who is he?

What is his mission? Is that mission his own, or is he working for someone who wants to punch a hole in the NSA?

In another article, I’ve developed the hypothesis that Snowden is still actually operating for his former bosses at the CIA; people at the CIA, long engaged in a turf war with the NSA, are running him in this op.

Snowden didn’t steal anything from NSA. He couldn’t. People at the CIA could and did steal, and they handed him documents to use in his assigned op.

There are other possible explanations. None of them exonerates the NSA or what it is doing. Let’s be clear about that.

But how far would the CIA go in exposing the guts of the NSA? It’s clear that these intelligence agencies overlap in their efforts (crimes). Therefore, the CIA would be satisfied to smear the NSA without exposing too much.

If so, Snowden’s cache of documents won’t “go all the way.”

His documents won’t yield the longed-for holy grail, though Snowden implies he could unwrap it. I’m talking about the entire interlocking system of US and global surveillance and how it isbuilt.

More than piecemeal exposures about PRISM, US hacks of China, and the G20 meeting in England, an account of the technical “architecture,” as John Young of Cryptome rightly calls it, would torpedo the underlying global Surveillance State.

If Snowden can do that, he hasn’t shown it so far. Right now, he’s put his work in the hands of several journalists, who will dole it out on their own inexplicable timetables.

Why make that move? Why hasn’t Snowden put up a dozen sites and laid everything he has on the line? Before those sites could be taken down, the material would have been copied and sent around the world thousands of times.

Snowden has already said he won’t endanger specific spies or operations that could actually prevent terrorists’ missions.

All right. Then give us everything else. Give us the whole shooting match. Let’s see how the watchers have built their edifice.

But so far, Snowden has shown himself to be a different kind of person, someone who makes claims that far exceed his reach.

Read his four statements again. The sub-text is:

I could complain, raise doubts, and criticize NSA openly at work. No one cared. It was a typical office you’d find in any company. It certainly wasn’t a super-controlled environment. Things were so loose, I could access the complete map of the entire NSA network. Names, places, operations. On a whim, any analyst could spy on anyone in the US. If I wanted to, I could shut down all of US intelligence in a few hours. Forget the popular image of NSA as a fortress with dozens of layers of protection. Forget the notion that I’d have to be granted elite privilege to all sorts of secret keys to get into the inner sanctum, or that, while navigating my way in, I’d be setting off alarm bells all over the place. It was a piece of cake.

Smear.

“NSA is an open book. A book written by idiots. It cost a trillion dollars, but anyone could waltz in there and read the whole thing. Use a thumb drive, and you can also walk out with the whole thing.”

If you set aside Snowden’s remarks about his motives, his morality, and his high mission, his explanation falls apart. It makes no sense.

His CIA handlers would now be telling him that. “Hey Ed, tone down the ‘child’s-play’ angle, okay? You’re making it sound too easy. Remember? You’re the ‘whiz kid genius.’ Yeah, we want to smear NSA, but it’s got to be credible. People have to think it took at least some ingenuity to access the most heavily protected data in the world. Get it?”

A common man of the people, serving the greater good, exposing ongoing crimes that threaten the very lifeblood of the Republic? Is Ed Snowden that hero?

Or is he an operator, an agent?

So far, he’s made himself seem like the agent.

Executives at the NSA are well aware of this. Sitting down with their counterparts at the CIA, they’d be getting an earful. CIA people would be saying:

“Of course Snowden is our boy. He worked for us in Geneva, and he’s working for us now. We told you, after 9/11, we didn’t like you clowns at NSA throwing all the blame on CIA for the Trade Center attacks. We didn’t like that at all. And in the intervening years, we haven’t liked you cutting us out of the spying game. We warned you. So now we’ve given you a taste of what we can do. We can do more. Either we play ball together, or we’ll put NSA in the dumper. Get it?”

Playing ball together. Harmonization.

A sharp reader has just pointed out to me that this is the op behind the op. The fallout from Snowden will be used as the reason for more and better global sharing of spying and surveillance data.

Separate Surveillance States, which already share mountains of data, will come together to coordinate their efforts in an even tighter Surveillance Planet.

The US NSA won’t be tolerated as the pompous king of the hill any longer. It will have to play well with others.

After all, Globalism means the whole globe.

And “we’re all in this together.”

“We” meaning the elites who want to track every move made by every person on Earth, 24/7, in order to predict and control in the new paradise, where the sun rises every day on …compliance.

That’s the takeaway from the Snowden affair. That’s why the secret surveillance/spying at the G20 meeting in England was exposed.

“Gentlemen, we’re all rational here at the table. This is ridiculous. We’re all spying on each other. This can’t go on. It’s counterproductive. We want to work together. So let’s do it. We all want the same thing. A planet under control. The way to achieve that goal is to cooperate. We’ll spy on those who need to be spied on: the population of the planet. We’ll do it together. The primary violator of cooperation is that cowboy outfit in America, the NSA. They have to be brought into line. They have to learn they’re only part of the Whole. Agreed?”

“Agreed.”

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

June 18, 2013 Leave a reply

Uncategorized

NSA scandal: the deepest secret of the Ed Snowden operation

NSA scandal: the deepest secret of the Ed Snowden operation

by Jon Rappoport

June 18, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Everyone wants to see a hero.

When that hero emerges from the shadows and says all the right things, and when he exposes a monolithic monster, he’s irresistible.

However, that doesn’t automatically make him who he says he is.

That doesn’t automatically exempt him from doubts.

Because he’s doing the right thing, people quickly make him into a spokesman for their own hopes. If he’s finally blasting a hole in the dark enemy’s fortress, he has to be accepted at face value. He has to be elevated.

When dealing with the intelligence community and their spooks and methods, this can be a mistake. Deception is the currency of that community. Layers of motives and covert ops are business as usual.

In previous articles, I’ve raised a number of specific doubts about Ed Snowden.

Here I want to replay four statements Snowden made and examine them.

“When you see everything, you see them on a more frequent basis and you recognize that some of these things are actually abuses, and when you talk about them in a place like this [NSA]…over time that awareness of wrongdoing sorts of builds up and you feel compelled to talk about it, and the more you talk about it, the more you’re ignored, the more you’re told it’s not a problem…”

This statement describes Snowden, an analyst working at NSA, chatting regularly to colleagues about his growing doubts over the morality of NSA spying. This is quite hard to believe.

As Steve Kinney, writing at the Centre for Research on Globalisation points out, Snowden would have raised all sorts of red flags about himself.

If he hadn’t been fired outright, he certainly would have come under serious scrutiny, which, at the very least, would have reduced his ability to hack documents out of NSA’s most secret recesses.

And yet, Snowden, an analyst, claims he had access to “full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community and undercover assets all around the world, the locations of every station we have, what their missions are and so forth.”

Really?

That stretches doubt far beyond the point of credulity.

Both The Guardian and the Washington Post supposedly vetted Snowden carefully. I’d really like to see the results of that vetting.

“Rosters of everyone working at the NSA [and] the entire intelligence community…” That’s untold thousands of people. That’s referring to many separate agencies.

Snowden doesn’t stop there. He maintains the security of NSA is not just a sieve, it’s also thousands of separate hunting parties, undertaken at the whim of any analyst:

“Any analyst at any time can target anyone. Any selector, anywhere… I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President…”

Sure. NSA just opens the door to their own analysts, who can, on their own hook, launch spying episodes on anyone in the US. Boom. No operational plans, no coordination. A free-for-all.

“Hey, dig this. Nancy Pelosi was just talking to her hairdresser. I’m going to follow up on her. Think I’ll spy on Nancy and her husband, see what they’re up to. I’ll file reports as I go along…”

“A guy at Los Alamos just wrote to his boss about a new weapons system. Want to see what they’re planning?”

Finally, Snowden claimed he could “shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that’s not my intention.”

Not just spy on everybody in the US. Snowden asserts he could do that. But he could also make the entire spying apparatus of NSA (and even all other intelligence agencies?) go dark with a few hours of work—and he’d evade notice of his NSA bosses as he performed this herculean task.

No. Ridiculous. The very first thing an agency like NSA does is set up a labyrinth to prevent itself from being taken down.

Consider these four Snowden statements together, back up and think. These are propositions that cast the man into a deep pit of doubt.

Who is he?

What is his mission? Is that mission his own, or is he working for someone who wants to punch a hole in the NSA?

In another article, I’ve developed the hypothesis that Snowden is still actually operating for his former bosses at the CIA; people at the CIA, long engaged in a turf war with the NSA, are running him in this op.

Snowden didn’t steal anything from NSA. He couldn’t. People at the CIA could and did steal, and they handed him documents to use in his assigned op.

There are other possible explanations. None of them exonerates the NSA or what it is doing. Let’s be clear about that.

But how far would the CIA go in exposing the guts of the NSA? It’s clear that these intelligence agencies overlap in their efforts (crimes). Therefore, the CIA would be satisfied to smear the NSA without exposing too much.

If so, Snowden’s cache of documents won’t “go all the way.”

His documents won’t yield the longed-for holy grail, though Snowden implies he could unwrap it. I’m talking about the entire interlocking system of US and global surveillance and how it isbuilt.

More than piecemeal exposures about PRISM, US hacks of China, and the G20 meeting in England, an account of the technical “architecture,” as John Young of Cryptome rightly calls it, would torpedo the underlying global Surveillance State.

If Snowden can do that, he hasn’t shown it so far. Right now, he’s put his work in the hands of several journalists, who will dole it out on their own inexplicable timetables.

Why make that move? Why hasn’t Snowden put up a dozen sites and laid everything he has on the line? Before those sites could be taken down, the material would have been copied and sent around the world thousands of times.

Snowden has already said he won’t endanger specific spies or operations that could actually prevent terrorists’ missions.

All right. Then give us everything else. Give us the whole shooting match. Let’s see how the watchers have built their edifice.

But so far, Snowden has shown himself to be a different kind of person, someone who makes claims that far exceed his reach.

Read his four statements again. The sub-text is:

I could complain, raise doubts, and criticize NSA openly at work. No one cared. It was a typical office you’d find in any company. It certainly wasn’t a super-controlled environment. Things were so loose, I could access the complete map of the entire NSA network. Names, places, operations. On a whim, any analyst could spy on anyone in the US. If I wanted to, I could shut down all of US intelligence in a few hours. Forget the popular image of NSA as a fortress with dozens of layers of protection. Forget the notion that I’d have to be granted elite privilege to all sorts of secret keys to get into the inner sanctum, or that, while navigating my way in, I’d be setting off alarm bells all over the place. It was a piece of cake.

Smear.

“NSA is an open book. A book written by idiots. It cost a trillion dollars, but anyone could waltz in there and read the whole thing. Use a thumb drive, and you can also walk out with the whole thing.”

If you set aside Snowden’s remarks about his motives, his morality, and his high mission, his explanation falls apart. It makes no sense.

His CIA handlers would now be telling him that. “Hey Ed, tone down the ‘child’s-play’ angle, okay? You’re making it sound too easy. Remember? You’re the ‘whiz kid genius.’ Yeah, we want to smear NSA, but it’s got to be credible. People have to think it took at least some ingenuity to access the most heavily protected data in the world. Get it?”

A common man of the people, serving the greater good, exposing ongoing crimes that threaten the very lifeblood of the Republic? Is Ed Snowden that hero?

Or is he an operator, an agent?

So far, he’s made himself seem like the agent.

Executives at the NSA are well aware of this. Sitting down with their counterparts at the CIA, they’d be getting an earful. CIA people would be saying:

“Of course Snowden is our boy. He worked for us in Geneva, and he’s working for us now. We told you, after 9/11, we didn’t like you clowns at NSA throwing all the blame on CIA for the Trade Center attacks. We didn’t like that at all. And in the intervening years, we haven’t liked you cutting us out of the spying game. We warned you. So now we’ve given you a taste of what we can do. We can do more. Either we play ball together, or we’ll put NSA in the dumper. Get it?”

Playing ball together. Harmonization.

A sharp reader has just pointed out to me that this is the op behind the op. The fallout from Snowden will be used as the reason for more and better global sharing of spying and surveillance data.

Separate Surveillance States, which already share mountains of data, will come together to coordinate their efforts in an even tighter Surveillance Planet.

The US NSA won’t be tolerated as the pompous king of the hill any longer. It will have to play well with others.

After all, Globalism means the whole globe.

And “we’re all in this together.”

“We” meaning the elites who want to track every move made by every person on Earth,24/7, in order to predict and control in the new paradise, where the sun rises every day on …compliance.

That’s the takeaway from the Snowden affair. That’s why the secret surveillance/spying at the G20 meeting in England was exposed.

“Gentlemen, we’re all rational here at the table. This is ridiculous. We’re all spying on each other. This can’t go on. It’s counterproductive. We want to work together. So let’s do it. We all want the same thing. A planet under control. The way to achieve that goal is to cooperate. We’ll spy on those who need to be spied on: the population of the planet. We’ll do it together. The primary violator of cooperation is that cowboy outfit in America, the NSA. They have to be brought into line. They have to learn they’re only part of the Whole. Agreed?”

“Agreed.”