Archive for May 2016

How 9/11 and global warming are part of the same global plan

I have spent a lot of time over the last 3 or so years seeking to understand how our world works and why. When you look, the evidence is unmistakeable and overwhelming. But most people either can’t see it because of their beliefs or don’t want to see it because to acknowledge it would have them question so many things they take to be true about life, which brings us back to beliefs. As I’ve said many times, most of us take ourselves to be our beliefs because we have not built a sense of ourselves within that generates an understanding of Self that is beyond our beliefs and our current life experience.

I recently read “Tragedy and Hope 101” by Joseph Plummer (2014), in which he wrote the following:

“If Operation Gladio had been conceived and directed by the Nazis, most people would have no problem believing every despicable detail. Why? Because most people accept that the Nazis were psychotic criminals who engaged in countless violations of human rights and that they had no respect for freedom or “democracy.” Learning of additional crimes wouldn’t disrupt the average person’s world view at all…far from it. Confirmation bias would kick in, and the individual would experience the psychological rewards of having their world view confirmed.

But what happens when, instead of the Nazis, it’s the United States Government that is accused of countless violations of human rights? What happens when the presumed guardian of freedom and democracy is accused of using terrorism and murder to circumvent both? Now, confirmation bias begins working in reverse. The individual’s deeply held beliefs about America’s morality are challenged. There are no psychological rewards for even considering the charges, let alone accepting them. Faced with this threat to their world view, many will immediately reject the accusations as ridiculous. They will angrily defend the good name of America and shower the accuser in hatred and condemnation.

The Network knows this. Countless university studies (along with secret operations like MK Ultra) have provided their experts an understanding of human psychology that exceeds anything we can comfortably imagine.”

End of quote.

This gets it quite well, in my opinion.

And the model I have unfolded is that all the major transformative events and processes of our world for the last several hundred years form part of the same hidden plan. So, I found the following recent article by Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography, to express a very similar understanding of things to my own:

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” – J. Edgar Hoover

I have been trying to understand and expose both the 9/11 and man-caused global warming deceptions for many years. To this end, I have spent countless hours researching, writing articles, and compiling pertinent information on my www.911nwo.com, www.naturalclimatechange.us, and www.waterwatchalliance.us websites. I’ve long suspected that one day it might become obvious that both of these terror-deceptions derive from the same source and serve the same basic ends. I also dared to hoped that someday it might be possible to summarize this research in just a few pages. Voilà! The following is my first attempt to synthesize the most pertinent conclusions from the above websites.

Pertinent Background: Understanding the 9/11, global warming, and many other “false-flag, state-sponsored, synthetic terror” frauds requires some understanding of history and the Judeo-Babylonian “Synagogue of Satan” and its innumerable minions, secret societies, cults, and false religions. It requires some understanding of the modus operandi – that is, the fundamental tricks and lies of the occult Judeo/Babylonian/Satanic system and its main sources of political power, including the Judeo-Babylonian financial system. Those who lack an understanding of these elements may find it difficult, even impossible, to understand the significance and ultimate objectives of the 9/11 and global warming operations…

…That said, overwhelming evidence indicates that the United Nations was/is intended to be the prototypical one-world government; Judeo-Masonic Satanism is to be the one-world religion; and the New World Order capital is to be in Jerusalem. And Satan’s principal tools, now as always, are deception and terror.

The Global Warming Fraud: The man-caused global warming deception, which forms the centerpiece of the phony environmental movement, was initially devised by The Report from Iron Mountain and the Club of Rome think tanks. This fraud provides: 1) a pretext for the United Nations to tax and control all economic activity by controlling usage of hydrocarbon fuels, and thus to become the de facto one-world government; 2) the cover story and funding platform for geoengineering/ chemtrail/ weather warfare depopulation programs now being implemented worldwide by the UN and cooperating governments; and 3) a justification for imposition of UN Agenda 21 (“Agenda for the 21st Century” aka Agenda 2030), which aims to control all aspects of human life and thus usher in the “Jewish Utopia”/ “Jewish World Empire”/ “Tikkun Olam” (Hebrew for “reinvention of the world”), i.e., the one-world Luciferian government/religion system.

Operation 9/11: The 9/11 false-flag terror attacks were contrived and executed by think tanks and military/intelligence forces on behalf of Israel and other elements of the “Synagogue of Satan.” Major roles were/are played by the Jewish-American “neo-conservatives”/ Project for the New American Century (PNAC) group, which has dictated policy to the Bush II and Obama White Houses, as well as high-ranking members of Congress/ military/ intelligence and other treasonous elements within the U.S. government. 9/11 is still being covered up by the Jew-controlled media and American government. Operation 9/11 serves as a pretext for: 1) the phony and endless “war on terrorism” at home and abroad, which is bankrupting America financially, politically, culturally, and spiritually; 2) prosecuting a series of wars of aggression, on behalf of Israel, to destroy Arab nations in order to create “greater Israel”; and 3) imposition of a global counterintelligence Cheka/Gestapo police state that targets innocent civilians (Christians, dissidents, etc.) for elimination in worldwide gang-stalking operations. This global police state is backed by almost limitless funding, and is being implemented by innumerable organizations (Dept. of Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, military intelligence agencies, and local police LEIUs) and vast networks of citizen spies, secret-society spies, sayanim spies, and spies from certain religions, cults, etc. The global mind-control/ gang-stalking programs employ sophisticated electronic weapons (HAARP, GWEN towers, “non-lethal weapons,” etc.). These systems and technologies comprise other powerful means for mass genocide/depopulation.

It is especially important for citizens to understand that Anglo–American–Israeli elites have long created and controlled their designated “enemy,” “terrorist groups,” etc., including the Nazis, the Mujahideen, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and now ISIS. It is also essential to understand that there have been many other state-sponsored, synthetic, false-flag terror events and “war triggers” in addition to Operation 9/11, including the sinking of the USS Maine (Spanish–American War trigger), the sinking of the RMS Lusitania (World War I trigger), the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident (Vietnam War trigger), the 7/7 London bombings, the Oklahoma City bombings, Sandy Hook, the Boston Marathon bombings, the recent Paris and Belgium terrorist attacks, as well as many other staged incidents designed to create fear at home, and direct war policies and “counterterrorism” against designated enemies at home and abroad.

End of quote.

Not everything that Karlstrom has written do I agree with, but the broad thrust of his article is completely in alignment with my understanding of how our world has been directed if you have but eyes to see. And some of you reading this do not, for the reasons I spell out above. And until more do, nothing will change.

I commend the rest of this article to you.

The hidden Jewish agenda, Darwinism and Soros nailed in one article…

This is a long article by Jonas Alexis, but it covers very well some key hidden truths of our world:

We have argued earlier that Darwin’s project is consistently compatible with the essentially Talmudic ideology, which states that the Goyim are beasts. Darwin argued that the “imbeciles” and the “weak” ought to be eliminated; the Talmud teaches that the Goyim were created essentially to serve Jews.[1]

This point was articulated by the late Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef back in 2010. “Why are Gentiles needed?,” he asked, “They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why Gentiles were created.”[2] Yosef continued:

“In Israel, death has no dominion over them… With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew. Gentiles were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”[3]

Yosef also said of Arabs: “How can you make peace with a snake? Those evildoers, the Arabs — it says in the Gemara [Talmud] that God is sorry he ever created those sons of Ishmael.”[4]

Of course, Benjamin Netanyahu quickly distanced himself from Yosef when he uttered those wonderful words. He issued a statement saying that Yosef’s sermons “do not reflect my approach or the stand of the Israeli government.” So far, so good.

But when Yosef died in 2013, Netanyahu declared: “The Jewish People have lost one of the wisest men of his generation.”[5] One of the wisest men?

Well, according to this logic, Yosef taught the Jewish people, including Benjamin Netanyahu, that the Goyim are donkeys. How else would the Israeli government, under Netanyahu’s watch, continue to slaughter, maim, and mercilessly exterminate the Palestinians?[6] How else would they continue to expand the settlement?[7] How else would “A large majority of US Senators, both Republican and Democratic, ask President Obama to increase military aid to Israel”?[8]

… It is often said that “Social Darwinism” was a movement that had little or nothing to do with Darwin’s public or private beliefs, but as biographers Adrian Desmond and James Moore point out, Darwin’s own notebooks “make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start—‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.”[12]

In other words, the Social Darwinists were more consistent in following Darwin’s reductionism than Darwin consistently following the extension of his own weltanschauung. In fact, Darwin was confronted with this dilemma right after the publication of the Origin of Species.

A Manchester newspaper quickly realized that he was implicitly and subtly advertising the idea that “might is right” and that “every cheating tradesman is also right.” Like his intellectual children, Darwin disagreed with no serious justification. Yet one year before he died, Charles Darwin proved that his critics were right all along. He said,

“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is!

“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”[13]

Darwin, as it turns out, was intellectually dishonest, largely because he deliberately excluded practical reason from his project. His intellectual children have never been able to recover from that intellectual dishonesty.

In fact, some of them (like Marc Hauser of Harvard) have deliberately forged lies and complete fabrications to propound their ideas. And no one wants to talk about the so-called Piltdown Man anymore because the story is now too embarrassing.[14] Ernst Haeckel’s fake drawings seems to have fallen into the same category.

The deduction we are trying to make here is that when practical reason is excluded from any intellectual project, then contradiction, blatant dishonesty, illogical leaps, and sometimes deliberate deceptions would be the end result.

Immanuel Kant quickly realized this and immediately put practical reason back into the intellectual firmament, which inevitably allowed him to come up with a much more rigorous and intellectually satisfying system known as the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative prohibits contradiction and irrationality precisely because it is based on the moral law itself. It states:

“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”[15]

That obviously throws Darwin out the window because there is no Darwinian maxim that can logically become a universal or moral law. In fact, Darwin denied a universal and moral law. Keep in mind that this universal law does not depend on how you and I feel on a given day. It also is not contingent upon what we may think is right. This universal law is independent of our appetite and preference. In other words, we obviously did not make this universal law; we just happen to discover it…

… In fact, it can easily be argued that intellectual and scientific dishonesty is largely the hinge upon which Darwinism is built in academe. If you do not think so, then call immunologist Caroline Crocker, a former professor at George Mason University, evolutionary biologist Richard Stenberg, formerly of the Smithsonian Institute, neurosurgeon Michael Ignor of Stony Brook University, Dean Canyon of San Francisco State University, etc.

If you don’t get fired for criticizing Darwin, then rest assured that your arguments will be either ignored, ridiculed, dismissed without serious thought, or politically castrated.

For years, philosopher Thomas Nagel of New York University maintained that Darwinian evolution provides the best explanation for life.[17] But Nagel dropped that position in his recent book Mind and Cosmos, in which he cogently argues that “the materialist Neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false.”[18]

The academic community obviously owes Nagel a serious response, but no one has ever bothered to formulate a cogent counter-argument. It was really funny to watch how so-called thinking people were all interested in talking about Nagel as a person and not about the arguments he presents in the book—a classic example of a straw-man and ad hominem attack.[19] The same thing happened to mathematician and philosopher David Berlinski, who criticized some of the central tenets of Neo-Darwinism. In response, Daniel Dennett said:

I love it: another hilarious demonstration that you can publish bullshit at will—just so long as you say what an editorial board wants to hear in a style it favors.”

Well, if it is “bullshit,” then the case is closed. No evidence needs to be provided; no counter-argument is required; no logical or scientific or empirical evidence ought to be presented. Bullshit is bullshit, and that is the end of the story. Berlinski humorously responded,

We lost something in the literary and intellectual culture that’s no longer accessible. You get a guy like Daniel Dennett, whose greatest intellectual achievement was growing that stupid beard of his, masquerading as a scientific expert on Darwinian theory, staring at the camera, and no one is dousing him with a bucket of water. It’s incredible to me….It should be sad.”

We are constantly told over and over that “science” is self-correcting and that scientists are always open to constructive criticism. According to Crocker, you simply cannot criticize Darwinism without being fired.[20]

Why did she get fired? Well, Crocker was demonstrating that the Miller-Urey experiment, among other frauds, was almost certainly “irrelevant” to the tenets of Darwinism.[21] In fact, if the experiment were successful, Darwinism would have once again received a low blow precisely because it would have proven that it takes intelligence (namely Miller and Urey) to create life!

Once Crocker announced that there are some frauds in the biology textbooks, the Washington Post itself declared that “Gasps and giggles burst out” in the classroom. In other words, Crocker was an intellectual terrorist who ought to be expunged. But there were some good reactions.

One student by the name of Carolyn Flitcroft who thought she was getting a decent education declared: “So far, we have only learned that evolution is true. This is the first time I have ever heard it isn’t.”[22] Another student declared, “If science is the pursuit of truth, why is evolution not questioned?”[23]

Well, that was the end of Crocker’s academic career.[24] She said: “I lost my job at George Mason University for teaching the problems with evolution. Lots of scientists question evolution, but they would lose their jobs if they spoke out.”[25]

But then some scientists would run around and declare things like, “Darwinism is true because nearly all the major scientists believe it.” This is a vacuous statement precisely because serious scientists are not allowed to touch the theory without being politically castrated.

End of quote.

Most people accept the teaching they have received that science is sacrosanct and everything in the “Scientific World View” got there through the application of the scientific method. That happens to be pure propaganda and is well illustrated by the fact that work conducted areas that do not support the principles of the Scientific World View are either actively destroyed as described above or studiously ignored, such as the work of Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin, who have both rigorously applied the scientific method to what would be considered by the mainstream to be the paranormal.

But it seems more and more people are waking up. My writing of this was interrupted by a phone call from a guy who, it turned out (not the reason for the call), discovered GcMAF and got his prostate cancer under control after the Allopathic medical diagnosis (a Rockefeller creation) of “two years to live”.

May the waking up continue.

 

 

Whistleblowing Is Not Just Leaking — It’s an Act of Political Resistance – Ed Snowden

I am sharing this article in full:

May 03, 2016 “Information Clearing House” – “The Intercept” – “I’ve been waiting 40 years for someone like you.” Those were the first words Daniel Ellsberg spoke to me when we met last year. Dan and I felt an immediate kinship; we both knew what it meant to risk so much — and to be irrevocably changed — by revealing secret truths.

One of the challenges of being a whistleblower is living with the knowledge that people continue to sit, just as you did, at those desks, in that unit, throughout the agency, who see what you saw and comply in silence, without resistance or complaint. They learn to live not just with untruths but with unnecessary untruths, dangerous untruths, corrosive untruths. It is a double tragedy: What begins as a survival strategy ends with the compromise of the human being it sought to preserve and the diminishing of the democracy meant to justify the sacrifice.

But unlike Dan Ellsberg, I didn’t have to wait 40 years to witness other citizens breaking that silence with documents. Ellsberg gave the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and other newspapers in 1971; Chelsea Manning provided the Iraq and Afghan War logs and the Cablegate materials to WikiLeaks in 2010. I came forward in 2013. Now here we are in 2016, and another person of courage and conscience has made available the set of extraordinary documents that are published in The Assassination Complex, the new book out today by Jeremy Scahill and the staff of The Intercept. (The documents were originally published last October 15 in The Drone Papers.)

We are witnessing a compression of the working period in which bad policy shelters in the shadows, the time frame in which unconstitutional activities can continue before they are exposed by acts of conscience. And this temporal compression has a significance beyond the immediate headlines; it permits the people of this country to learn about critical government actions, not as part of the historical record but in a way that allows direct action through voting — in other words, in a way that empowers an informed citizenry to defend the democracy that “state secrets” are nominally intended to support. When I see individuals who are able to bring information forward, it gives me hope that we won’t always be required to curtail the illegal activities of our government as if it were a constant task, to uproot official lawbreaking as routinely as we mow the grass. (Interestingly enough, that is how some have begun to describe remote killing operations, as “cutting the grass.”)

A single act of whistleblowing doesn’t change the reality that there are significant portions of the government that operate below the waterline, beneath the visibility of the public. Those secret activities will continue, despite reforms. But those who perform these actions now have to live with the fear that if they engage in activities contrary to the spirit of society — if even a single citizen is catalyzed to halt the machinery of that injustice — they might still be held to account. The thread by which good governance hangs is this equality before the law, for the only fear of the man who turns the gears is that he may find himself upon them.

Hope lies beyond, when we move from extraordinary acts of revelation to a collective culture of accountability within the intelligence community. Here we will have taken a meaningful step toward solving a problem that has existed for as long as our government.

Not all leaks are alike, nor are their makers. Gen. David Petraeus, for instance, provided his illicit lover and favorable biographer information so secret it defied classification, including the names of covert operatives and the president’s private thoughts on matters of strategic concern. Petraeus was not charged with a felony, as the Justice Department had initially recommended, but was instead permitted to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. Had an enlisted soldier of modest rank pulled out a stack of highly classified notebooks and handed them to his girlfriend to secure so much as a smile, he’d be looking at many decades in prison, not a pile of character references from a Who’s Who of the Deep State.

There are authorized leaks and also permitted disclosures. It is rare for senior administration officials to explicitly ask a subordinate to leak a CIA officer’s name to retaliate against her husband, as appears to have been the case with Valerie Plame. It is equally rare for a month to go by in which some senior official does not disclose some protected information that is beneficial to the political efforts of the parties but clearly “damaging to national security” under the definitions of our law.

This dynamic can be seen quite clearly in the al Qaeda “conference call of doom” story, in which intelligence officials, likely seeking to inflate the threat of terrorism and deflect criticism of mass surveillance, revealed to a neoconservative website extraordinarily detailed accounts of specific communications they had intercepted, including locations of the participating parties and the precise contents of the discussions. If the officials’ claims were to be believed, they irrevocably burned an extraordinary means of learning the precise plans and intentions of terrorist leadership for the sake of a short-lived political advantage in a news cycle. Not a single person seems to have been so much as disciplined as a result of the story that cost us the ability to listen to the alleged al Qaeda hotline.

If harmfulness and authorization make no difference, what explains the distinction between the permissible and the impermissible disclosure?

The answer is control. A leak is acceptable if it’s not seen as a threat, as a challenge to the prerogatives of the institution. But if all of the disparate components of the institution — not just its head but its hands and feet, every part of its body — must be assumed to have the same power to discuss matters of concern, that is an existential threat to the modern political monopoly of information control, particularly if we’re talking about disclosures of serious wrongdoing, fraudulent activity, unlawful activities. If you can’t guarantee that you alone can exploit the flow of controlled information, then the aggregation of all the world’s unmentionables — including your own — begins to look more like a liability than an asset.

Truly unauthorized disclosures are necessarily an act of resistance — that is, if they’re not done simply for press consumption, to fluff up the public appearance or reputation of an institution. However, that doesn’t mean they all come from the lowest working level. Sometimes the individuals who step forward happen to be near the pinnacle of power. Ellsberg was in the top tier; he was briefing the secretary of defense. You can’t get much higher, unless you are the secretary of defense, and the incentives simply aren’t there for such a high-ranking official to be involved in public interest disclosures because that person already wields the influence to change the policy directly.

At the other end of the spectrum is Manning, a junior enlisted soldier, who was much nearer to the bottom of the hierarchy. I was midway in the professional career path. I sat down at the table with the chief information officer of the CIA, and I was briefing him and his chief technology officer when they were publicly making statements like “We try to collect everything and hang on to it forever,” and everybody still thought that was a cute business slogan. Meanwhile I was designing the systems they would use to do precisely that. I wasn’t briefing the policy side, the secretary of defense, but I was briefing the operations side, the National Security Agency’s director of technology. Official wrongdoing can catalyze all levels of insiders to reveal information, even at great risk to themselves, so long as they can be convinced that it is necessary to do so.

Reaching those individuals, helping them realize that their first allegiance as a public servant is to the public rather than to the government, is the challenge. That’s a significant shift in cultural thinking for a government worker today.

I’ve argued that whistleblowers are elected by circumstance. It’s not a virtue of who you are or your background. It’s a question of what you are exposed to, what you witness. At that point the question becomes Do you honestly believe that you have the capability to remediate the problem, to influence policy? I would not encourage individuals to reveal information, even about wrongdoing, if they do not believe they can be effective in doing so, because the right moment can be as rare as the will to act.

This is simply a pragmatic, strategic consideration. Whistleblowers are outliers of probability, and if they are to be effective as a political force, it’s critical that they maximize the amount of public good produced from scarce seed. When I was making my decision, I came to understand how one strategic consideration, such as waiting until the month before a domestic election, could become overwhelmed by another, such as the moral imperative to provide an opportunity to arrest a global trend that had already gone too far. I was focused on what I saw and on my sense of overwhelming disenfranchisement that the government, in which I had believed for my entire life, was engaged in such an extraordinary act of deception.

Change has to flow from the bottom to the top.

At the heart of this evolution is that whistleblowing is a radicalizing event — and by “radical” I don’t mean “extreme”; I mean it in the traditional sense of radix, the root of the issue. At some point you recognize that you can’t just move a few letters around on a page and hope for the best. You can’t simply report this problem to your supervisor, as I tried to do, because inevitably supervisors get nervous. They think about the structural risk to their career. They’re concerned about rocking the boat and “getting a reputation.” The incentives aren’t there to produce meaningful reform. Fundamentally, in an open society, change has to flow from the bottom to the top.

As someone who works in the intelligence community, you’ve given up a lot to do this work. You’ve happily committed yourself to tyrannical restrictions. You voluntarily undergo polygraphs; you tell the government everything about your life. You waive a lot of rights because you believe the fundamental goodness of your mission justifies the sacrifice of even the sacred. It’s a just cause.

And when you’re confronted with evidence — not in an edge case, not in a peculiarity, but as a core consequence of the program — that the government is subverting the Constitution and violating the ideals you so fervently believe in, you have to make a decision. When you see that the program or policy is inconsistent with the oaths and obligations that you’ve sworn to your society and yourself, then that oath and that obligation cannot be reconciled with the program. To which do you owe a greater loyalty?

One of the extraordinary things about the revelations of the past several years, and their accelerating pace, is that they have occurred in the context of the United States as the “uncontested hyperpower.” We now have the largest unchallenged military machine in the history of the world, and it’s backed by a political system that is increasingly willing to authorize any use of force in response to practically any justification. In today’s context that justification is terrorism, but not necessarily because our leaders are particularly concerned about terrorism in itself or because they think it’s an existential threat to society. They recognize that even if we had a 9/11 attack every year, we would still be losing more people to car accidents and heart disease, and we don’t see the same expenditure of resources to respond to those more significant threats.

What it really comes down to is the political reality that we have a political class that feels it must inoculate itself against allegations of weakness. Our politicians are more fearful of the politics of terrorism — of the charge that they do not take terrorism seriously — than they are of the crime itself.

As a result we have arrived at this unmatched capability, unrestrained by policy. We have become reliant upon what was intended to be the limitation of last resort: the courts. Judges, realizing that their decisions are suddenly charged with much greater political importance and impact than was originally intended, have gone to great lengths in the post-9/11 period to avoid reviewing the laws or the operations of the executive in the national security context and setting restrictive precedents that, even if entirely proper, would impose limits on government for decades or more. That means the most powerful institution that humanity has ever witnessed has also become the least restrained. Yet that same institution was never designed to operate in such a manner, having instead been explicitly founded on the principle of checks and balances. Our founding impulse was to say, “Though we are mighty, we are voluntarily restrained.”

When you first go on duty at CIA headquarters, you raise your hand and swear an oath — not to government, not to the agency, not to secrecy. You swear an oath to the Constitution. So there’s this friction, this emerging contest between the obligations and values that the government asks you to uphold, and the actual activities that you’re asked to participate in.

These disclosures about the Obama administration’s killing program reveal that there’s a part of the American character that is deeply concerned with the unrestrained, unchecked exercise of power. And there is no greater or clearer manifestation of unchecked power than assuming for oneself the authority to execute an individual outside of a battlefield context and without the involvement of any sort of judicial process.

Traditionally, in the context of military affairs, we’ve always understood that lethal force in battle could not be subjected to ex ante judicial constraints. When armies are shooting at each other, there’s no room for a judge on that battlefield. But now the government has decided — without the public’s participation, without our knowledge and consent — that the battlefield is everywhere. Individuals who don’t represent an imminent threat in any meaningful sense of those words are redefined, through the subversion of language, to meet that definition.

Inevitably that conceptual subversion finds its way home, along with the technology that enables officials to promote comfortable illusions about surgical killing and nonintrusive surveillance. Take, for instance, the Holy Grail of drone persistence, a capability that the United States has been pursuing forever. The goal is to deploy solar-powered drones that can loiter in the air for weeks without coming down. Once you can do that, and you put any typical signals collection device on the bottom of it to monitor, unblinkingly, the emanations of, for example, the different network addresses of every laptop, smartphone, and iPod, you know not just where a particular device is in what city, but you know what apartment each device lives in, where it goes at any particular time, and by what route. Once you know the devices, you know their owners. When you start doing this over several cities, you’re tracking the movements not just of individuals but of whole populations.

Unrestrained power may be many things, but it’s not American.

By preying on the modern necessity to stay connected, governments can reduce our dignity to something like that of tagged animals, the primary difference being that we paid for the tags and they’re in our pockets. It sounds like fantasist paranoia, but on the technical level it’s so trivial to implement that I cannot imagine a future in which it won’t be attempted. It will be limited to the war zones at first, in accordance with our customs, but surveillance technology has a tendency to follow us home.

Here we see the double edge of our uniquely American brand of nationalism. We are raised to be exceptionalists, to think we are the better nation with the manifest destiny to rule. The danger is that some people will actually believe this claim, and some of those will expect the manifestation of our national identity, that is, our government, to comport itself accordingly.

Unrestrained power may be many things, but it’s not American. It is in this sense that the act of whistleblowing increasingly has become an act of political resistance. The whistleblower raises the alarm and lifts the lamp, inheriting the legacy of a line of Americans that begins with Paul Revere.

The individuals who make these disclosures feel so strongly about what they have seen that they’re willing to risk their lives and their freedom. They know that we, the people, are ultimately the strongest and most reliable check on the power of government. The insiders at the highest levels of government have extraordinary capability, extraordinary resources, tremendous access to influence, and a monopoly on violence, but in the final calculus there is but one figure that matters: the individual citizen.

And there are more of us than there are of them.

From The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government’s Secret Drone Warfare Program by Jeremy Scahill and the staff of The Intercept, with a foreword by Edward Snowden and afterword by Glenn Greenwald, published by Simon & Schuster.

WP Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Follow Me
Get every new post delivered to your inbox
Join lots of other followers
Powered By WPFruits.com