Den Statliga Ludovico-kuren

Mikko Hyppönen på TED Talk talar om övervakningsstaten:

[…] People who say, -”I have nothing to hide”, simply haven´t thought about this long enough. ‘Cos we have this thing called privacy, and if you think that you really have nothing to hide, please tell me that the first thing you do because then I know that I shouldn´t trust you with any secrets because you can´t obviously keep a secret.

[…] people are more brutally honest with search engines than they are with their own family. A search engine know more about you than your family does.

[…] Privacy is non-negotiable, it should be built in.

[…] Frankly, Kimberly. What I´m sending is none of your business and it shouldn´t be none of your gov´s business either.

– Mikko Hyppönen

De som försvarar staten och deras myndigheters beteende med att det ändå inte är nåt att bry sig om bör därför lämna diskussionen och istället återgå till sitt statligt påbjudna Clockwork Orange-tänk.

[…] Alex represents the unconscious: man in his natural state. After he is given the Ludovico ‘cure’ he has been ‘civilized’, and the sickness that follows may be viewed as the neurosis imposed by society.

[…] The government eventually resorts to the employment of the cruellest and most violent members of the society to control everyone else — not an altogether new or untried idea. […] The Minister, played by Anthony Sharp, is clearly a figure of the Right. The writer, Patrick Magee, is a lunatic of the Left. ‘The common people must be led, driven, pushed!’ he pants into the telephone. ‘They will sell their liberty for an easier life!’

But these could be the very words of a fascist (a right-wing socialist).

Yes, of course. They differ only in their dogma. Their means and ends are hardly distinguishable.

[…] Somehow the prison is the most acceptable place in the whole movie. And the warder, who is a typical British figure, is more appealing than a lot of other characters.

The prison warder, played by the late Michael Bates, is an obsolete servant of the new order. He copes very poorly with the problems around him, understanding neither the criminals nor the reformers. For all his shouting and bullying, though, he is less of a villain than his trendier and more sophisticated masters.

Stanley Kubrick interviewed by Michael Ciment

h/t – henrik alexandersson

USB-minne: NSA: Det mest farliga vapnet i kriget mot terrorismen

Journalisten och författaren Jon Rappoport går i svaromål i sin artikel, ”Rappoport replies to a Salon.com article that he´s a Conspiracist”, på en annan artikel, “Here come the Edward Snowden truthers.”, skriven av Alex Seitz-Wald på Salon.com.

Seitz-Wald skriver högdraget och förlöjligande om Rappoport och ett par andra journalister, debattörer och skribenter som inte okritiskt köper Snowdens och medias bild av händelserna och orsakerna till varför och hur de skett. Seitz-Wald skriver bland annat:

[…] Why would these people find it easier to believe Snowden is an [sic] CIA plant than a whistle-blower? Conspiracists are reflexively skeptical of the ‘official narrative,’ even when it should confirm their worldview. Snowden should be a victory for them, but because the mainstream media and the government are corroborating much of what Snowden leaked, the mainstream account immediately becomes suspicious.

Rappoport menar ironiskt att Seitz-Wald har helt rätt i det han säger. Rappoport är kritisk till all officiell information, alltid, hela tiden:

[…] Let’s see. Seitz-Wald claims I would doubt any mainstream account, right? Well, he’s absolutely on the money. I do. Like clockwork. I get up in the morning, I do 70,000 pushups, check my screen, read a “mainstream account” (of anything), and the pleasure of doubt moves right in. I pour milk on my doubt, a few strawberries, and that’s breakfast.

I doubt medical news, political news, economic news, energy news, military news, intelligence-agency news, and news about media. And that’s just for starters.

[…] Unfortunately, the press and public are conditioned to look at disruptions in the body politic as one-move chess games. The hero (or villain) executes a single powerful play and then all hell breaks loose.

Intelligence work doesn’t operate that way. It never has. It’s about prelude, lead-in, middle strategy, end-move, cover story, false trail, and limited hangout.

[…] Has he asked the question with any degree of heat, and has he followed up, and has he stuck to his guns to press the issue further and further to a resolution or a meltdown?

No. And why not? Because those media stars know how far they can go, before the kind of official access they need to keep their jobs would evaporate in a wind of ill-will. To put it another way, they’re cowards.

[…] For another even greater miracle, suppose Alexander finally, after heavy grilling, finally jumped out of his chair and said, “Okay, you want the story? Here it is. It wasn’t our fault. We’re not bumblers. We have security that would make an ant squirm to get through, and even he wouldn’t make it past first base. Somebody with far more skill than Snowden penetrated us, and it’s a heavy blow, and we’re working on it!”

Then, all bets would be off.

Varför anses det av vissa typer av människor (som gärna själva hävdar att de har ett öppet sinne och spänstigt intellekt) att all information som transpirerar via statens egna nyhetsorgan (Rapport och Aktuellt) rätt in i folks vardagsrum är korrekt, välmenande och helt sanningsenlig och att de som kritiserar och ifrågasätter den statliga informationens riktighet, de som är skeptiska och frågvisa till alla officiella berättelser om hur verkligheten är förskaffad reflexmässigt anses vara lögnare och paranoida, löjliga och aningslösa ”konspirationsteoretiker” som fantiserar ihop fantastiska historier då de tycker verkligheten är så tråkig?

Är det så enkelt att vissa inte bryr sig eftersom de accepterar att de är maktlösa och stolt bär denna insikt som en ordensutmärkelse på bröstet och vill skryta för omvärlden om det?

Ligger det inte i själva det journalistiska och vetenskapliga och undersökande värvet att vända och vrida på samhällsinformationen, att granska, undersöka och att vara obekväm, att ställa upp hypoteser och teorier för att se om de håller? Tydligen inte. I den demokratiska konsensuskulturens korthus duger det inte med alternativa verklighetsberättelser, då riskerar nämligen allt att rasa.

Är det inte journalistiskens uppgift att plocka isär och granska påståenden och ställa myndighetspersoner och andra ansvariga makthavare mot väggen, ”trampa dem på tårna” och dissekera deras verksamhet istället för att blint acceptera alla officiella berättelser och servera dem likt processad statlig och näringslös snabbmats-information?

Edward Snowden: A Limited Hangout Operation …

Manipulation på en helt annan nivå än den som beskrivs av Ryan Holiday i föregående inlägg handlar om vilka som har intresse av att manipulera oss till att tro att allt det Edward Snowden sagt är helt och hållet sant.

Daily Bell (R.I.P.) har sina spekulationer i artikeln, ”Is Snowden for Real? Doubts Set In”, om hur slipstenen vevats i detta fall:

[…] One idea floated by a feedbacker is that the powers-that-be, panicked by the Internet, have decided to sacrifice the ultimate dominant social theme, that government knows best. This never occurred to us, but it does make a kind of hazy sense. If the idea is to introduce chaos into the Western world (and so create a more globalist state), what better way to do it then to undermine the legitimacy of the nation-state itself?

Vad kan vara bättre än att skapa kaos och misstro mot själva Nationalstaten och Centralmaktskonceptet som helhet. För att få slut på oroligheterna och rädda alla från undergång så måste alla stater och centralmakter i världen föra ”krig mot kaoset och orosstiftarna” genom mer tvingande åtgärder som ännu mer kringskär den genomsnittlige medborgarens rörelsefrihet och andra trevliga friheter.

[…] Again, we are not accusing Snowden or any of the others around him of deliberately creating something other than what it seems to be. We are merely speculating that at the very top of these enterprises, there is a level of control not easily analyzed but nonetheless present.

The Guardian is a leftist newspaper, the executive branch of which is staffed at the top by a former Morgan Stanley alum. It is a mainstream publication. The idea that this episode continues even now, days later, and is charted in detail by the mainstream media is simply puzzling to us. We’ve seen plenty of instances where compelling articles about regulatory democracy have been snuffed out simply by a lack of media coverage. This scandal has legs. Why?

En sak är säker i alla fall. The Guardians finansiella problem försvann lika fort som en löning i juletid i och med Snowden-affären.

Riches to rags as Guardian bleeds £33m in a year

¤   ¤   ¤   ¤   ¤

Jon Rappoport: Who is Edward Snowden?

[…] If you can’t separate Snowden’s minor revelations from the question of who he is, if you can’t entertain the notion that covert ops and intelligence-agency games are reeking with cover stories, false trails, and limited hangouts, you need more fun in your life. […] If you buy that without further inquiry, I have condos for sale on the dark side of the moon.

NSA? CIA? These guys live for high-level bullshit. They get down on their knees and worship it. They fall into a suicidal funk if they aren’t lying on at least three or four levels at once.

[…] Here is a more likely scenario:

Snowden never saw any of those thousands of documents on an NSA computer. Never happened. He didn’t hack in. He didn’t steal anything.

He was working an op, either as a dupe or knowingly. He was working for…well, let’s see, who would that be?

Who was he working for before he entered the private sector and wound up at NSA?

The CIA.

Would that be the same CIA who hates the NSA with a venomous fervor?

Would that be the same CIA who’s been engaged in a turf war with NSA for decades?

The same CIA who’s watched their own prestige and funding diminish, as human intelligence has given way to electronic snooping?

Yes, it would be. CIA just can’t match the NSA when it comes to gathering signals intel.

Så oavsett om Snowden är verklig eller inte så kommer makthavare, globalister och alla andra étatister inom de ekonomiska och politiska sfärerna att använda det här ”avslöjandet” för att vilja expandera Staten och det de anser bör rymmas inom de gränser som satts upp för staten, om de anser att några gränser alls behövs för vad Staten får göra och skall ha rätt att få göra … gentemot sina medborgare.

Tillägg,130825: De som på allvar tror att allt som står i tidningen är sant och att Edward Snowden var en ensam kille som plötsligt utvecklade ett samvete på grund av alla avskyvärdheter han sett genom åren i den branch han jobbat i, bör läsa följande artikel på Daily Bell, ”Edward Snowden: Limited Hangout or a Globalist Step-Back?:

[…] Like Julian Assange and Occupy Wall Street, Edward Snowden is likely part of a larger dominant social theme, a manipulation created and supported by globalists who have created the world’s mega-surveillance state and now want to publicly enshrine it.

[…] Snowden may not know he is being manipulated. The courageous Glenn Greenwald who used him as a source may not know, either. But the Snowden affair is being blown up for one reason or another.

That is surely a cynical way of viewing the situation but, unfortunately, it is probably also the correct one. Additionally, while this sounds like a grim assessment, it is not one necessarily. More about that at the end of this article.

Let’s speculate about the forces motivating a Snowden gambit. First of all, the surveillance state is so big that those behind its creation cannot deny it anymore. Second, it is has been exposed constantly by the alternative media, making mainstream media look even less credible than usual.

What to do? They used to call what is going on a ”limited hangout.” What we call the Internet Reformation has perhaps forced the hands of those behind the surveillance state. Under pressure to acknowledge what is clearly taking place, they have created a great and dramatic show.

How do you do something like that? With an argument. Creating the argument is simple enough, as is the solution. With so much information available on Intel spying, the powers-that-be have apparently decided it is time to create a public discourse. Thesis (there is surveillance state) plus anti-thesis (it shouldn’t exist) yields to synthesis: Some of it is necessary.

This is how freedoms are eroded in the modern day. The initial effort is a fait accompli and then discussion occurs after its emplacement. Excesses are derided, laws are passed and people are to feel satisfied that the demos ”worked.” Lost in the whole artificial exercise is who erected the initial structure.

Vidare läsning: The Week pekar på 5 saker i Snowdens berättelse som väcker misstänksamhet.

Joshua Fost på Medium.com skriver om Unanswered Questions in NSA Disclosures – Could the real problem be Edward Snowden?.