boutons_deux
06-19-2013, 02:17 PM
But what most US media have not adjusted to — and neither have most US readers, it appears — is the great change post-9/11: the things that spies were tasked with doing overseas, to destabilize ‘enemies’ in foreign countries through various kinds of hidden interventions and fake identities — are now legal to direct against ‘enemies’ of the government, or of the police state, or of the intelligence services, here at home. (Or are made legal, as we see, through secret law).
What do we think spies do abroad? They create false identities, build fake companies, influence real media with fake stories, create distractions or demonizations in the local news that advance US policies, bug (technologically) and harass the opposition, disrupt and infiltrate the meetings and communications of factions that the US does not wish to see in power. It is not ‘tin hat theorizing’ to acknowledge this, when it is done elsewhere.
So why is it considered ‘conspiracy theorizing’– a phrase with an echo of eccentric mythologizing — to raise questions based on being aware of the obvious — that now this same kind of activity is highly funded here at home?
This is something you can’t not see if you spend time around people who are senior in both the political establishment and the intelligence and state department establishments. You also can’t avoid seeing it if you interview principled defectors from those systems, as I have done since 2007′s The End of America, my book that warned Americans about exactly this rise of the police state in ‘the Homeland’.
The fact that now the same kinds of surveillance, infiltration, influence on news stories, overt identities that mask covert identities, and so on, that are very basic to intelligence work overseas — are now legal to engage in here at home, and are very heavily funded.
Many of these forms of disruption of domestic political and news events — from the fake Occupy protesters who were really DHS or NYPD operatives, to the confirmed history of FBI disruption of grassroots groups, and so on — have been fully documented.
Why should it be seen as bizarre to wonder, if there are some potential red flags — the key term is ‘wonder’ — if a former NSA spy turned apparent whistleblower might possibly still be — working for the same people he was working for before?
The questions may be reasonable or may turn out to be groundless; but given the vast explicit intention of DHS to intervene in outcomes in domestic life in America — why would it not be sensible to remain alert to all possibilities,especially in evaluating every news story that relates to this all-important issue of vast surveillance?
https://www.facebook.com/notes/naomi-wolf/some-aspects-of-snowdens-presentation-that-i-find-worth-further-inquiry-an-updat/10151561401552949
What do we think spies do abroad? They create false identities, build fake companies, influence real media with fake stories, create distractions or demonizations in the local news that advance US policies, bug (technologically) and harass the opposition, disrupt and infiltrate the meetings and communications of factions that the US does not wish to see in power. It is not ‘tin hat theorizing’ to acknowledge this, when it is done elsewhere.
So why is it considered ‘conspiracy theorizing’– a phrase with an echo of eccentric mythologizing — to raise questions based on being aware of the obvious — that now this same kind of activity is highly funded here at home?
This is something you can’t not see if you spend time around people who are senior in both the political establishment and the intelligence and state department establishments. You also can’t avoid seeing it if you interview principled defectors from those systems, as I have done since 2007′s The End of America, my book that warned Americans about exactly this rise of the police state in ‘the Homeland’.
The fact that now the same kinds of surveillance, infiltration, influence on news stories, overt identities that mask covert identities, and so on, that are very basic to intelligence work overseas — are now legal to engage in here at home, and are very heavily funded.
Many of these forms of disruption of domestic political and news events — from the fake Occupy protesters who were really DHS or NYPD operatives, to the confirmed history of FBI disruption of grassroots groups, and so on — have been fully documented.
Why should it be seen as bizarre to wonder, if there are some potential red flags — the key term is ‘wonder’ — if a former NSA spy turned apparent whistleblower might possibly still be — working for the same people he was working for before?
The questions may be reasonable or may turn out to be groundless; but given the vast explicit intention of DHS to intervene in outcomes in domestic life in America — why would it not be sensible to remain alert to all possibilities,especially in evaluating every news story that relates to this all-important issue of vast surveillance?
https://www.facebook.com/notes/naomi-wolf/some-aspects-of-snowdens-presentation-that-i-find-worth-further-inquiry-an-updat/10151561401552949