Show #20: NSA PRISM - Neither Privacy Nor Security

[Redrock12]

Another high-quality discussion on a very important topic from Sott Radio.
Thanks guys.
And as for "Joe from Montana," he definitely walked into the wrong bar.

 

[ggen]

I swear I've heard Joe from Montana call in at least 2 or 3 other times before. I wonder if he's trying to 'handle' SOTT. Nice job SOTT Crew on countering this manipulative, lying, and pathological individual.

The show was informative as always. Thank you!

 

[Gawan]

I swear I've heard Joe from Montana call in at least 2 or 3 other times before. I wonder if he's trying to 'handle' SOTT. Nice job SOTT Crew on countering this manipulative, lying, and pathological individual.

I thought so too at times remembering the voice.

Something I want to add is that the NSA, or NASA as I seem to prefer calling them, like all 'intelligence agencies', come out of these 'scandals' smelling like roses. This underlying assumption always goes unchallenged, even when they are being criticised in the mainstream media; that they actually have some useful, productive function in society.

Yeah, and news reports push this "scent": They have done it for your protection

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

Joe from Montana lied consciously, so Joe from Montana's contributions are no longer welcome.

Something I want to add is that the NSA, or NASA as I seem to prefer calling them, like all 'intelligence agencies', come out of these 'scandals' smelling like roses. This underlying assumption always goes unchallenged, even when they are being criticised in the mainstream media; that they actually have some useful, productive function in society.

They don't. Their bread-and-butter is drug running, money laundering, protection rackets, child prostitution, blowing people up, starting wars, consciously lying to people, consciously manipulating people, and generally presenting a pretty hefty obstacle in the way of human evolution.

They are, in short, the scum of the earth. The very idea that populations surrogate their intelligence to cliques of psychopaths in power and their military lapdogs is absurd. They're neither intelligent nor are they doing what they do for anyone's benefit other than their own. There's a reason why they need all these super-duper technology aids (that we the people create, by the way) to compete with humanity: they're fundamentally unintelligent.

That's why Marchetti called the CIA the 'Cult of Intelligence'. Intelligence agencies really are cults. While they present an exterior that is sober, militarily-structured, and the perfect picture of 'scientific rationality', what they're really doing with those bottomless black budgets is chasing the black arts, 'communing with the beast', so to speak. We know that because of everything that came out - albeit largely sanitised - about their programs involving PSI, remote viewing, mind control, channeling (yup, though you can guess what entities they are channelling...)

Actor and activist John Cusack says 'Be your own media'. I say be your own intelligence agency. Or better yet, network with your own intel agency, which is pretty much what we have with this network.

Great Kniall and another great show! Thank you!
I still think the people who say "I have no fear, I have nothing to hide" is pretty naive. The ptb does not act as the supposed democratic justice, In which the innocent will be recognized and protected. For pathological elite are all guilty in advance, and then work on getting public opinion to see any individual, or groups -or entire countries!-As guilty through manipulation. Perhaps they would like some day to openly accuse normal people of the crime of be normal people (not being psychopaths like them).
By this I say yes, we must keep talking, communicate all information that we can, not allow them silence everyone with fear. But also keep in mind that the ptb can do and will do everything in their power to silence the truth. Therefore, we must continue to learn from the enemies and their plans to prevent future damage. As another obvious example: the most normal people who have United States must recognize that they are ruling by a elite of psychopaths, and therefore recognize that instilled nationalism is limiting to see the reality. And that can be very painfu for many.

 

[Sol Logos]

Great show guys. Just a thought on Joe's hypothetical. There's an ethical conundrum he's presenting. If you want people to accept surveillance by a government agency, then that same government agency would ethical speaking, have to accept surveillance upon themselves. Its the same under any hypothetical situation. Obviously if these organisations ever where fully transparent, they'd fall apart as it would be obvious they are the biggest security threat to our world.

 

[Don Genaro]

Thanks again guys for a great show. You shared some great ideas on this one. I especially liked the end where you talked about exactly that: sharing - about how it's our nature and psychopaths just don't get that.

Running against that (psychopathic worldview) there's something that is fundamentally different. Human beings share information; by our nature we share, by our nature we are open source, by our nature we program each other and our computers to be open source because we understand that all the gifts that we have are built on the gifts of our ancestors before us....

Wonderful stuff!

 

[Voyageur]

What you said above Kniall re NSA/CIA, gets to the nuts and bolts of their inner circle cult. The leaders in the house on the news today, with all their platitudes of thank goodness for them, reeks of their own fear should they say otherwise or their misguided belief and political ponerization.

Good piece you did by the way http://www.sott.net/article/262928-PRISM-for-your-Mind-NSA-WikiLeaks-and-Israel

 

[Sol Logos]

Great show guys. Just a thought on Joe's hypothetical. There's an ethical conundrum he's presenting. If you want people to accept surveillance by a government agency, then that same government agency would ethical speaking, have to accept surveillance upon themselves. Its the same under any hypothetical situation. Obviously if these organisations ever where fully transparent, they'd fall apart as it would be obvious they are the biggest security threat to our world.

Just to extend what I mean't more - knowing this would basically crumble their own organisations, they wouldn't ever accept external surveillance on themselves. So ethically, they are not ever in the position to expect us to accept surveillance until they can demonstrate the same.

In my opinion, if an organisation is fully accountable for everything they do, and fully transparent about all they do too, if their intent is actually to help people generally (not just the vested interests of a select few) , I'm personally, OK with them monitoring me, they'll find nothing of any major interest I suspect in any case.

It's a good point though that we'd be kind of naive to think that putting things on the internet will be private, it's basically public domain and knowing that, it's a great place to voice our opinions free from fear of reprimand or what not. What I mean is we're contributing to a pool of data, that's potentially going to stick around and in public view for a very long time, so it's a good thing to inject that pool with as much fearless input as possible.

 

[LQB]

Just to extend what I mean't more - knowing this would basically crumble their own organisations, they wouldn't ever accept external surveillance on themselves. So ethically, they are not ever in the position to expect us to accept surveillance until they can demonstrate the same.

The security systems associated with the covert organizations are monolithic to the core of that onion. Outer layers are subject to surveillance from inner layers - outer layers are generally unaware of the existence of inner layers. You are right, the onion, as a whole, would never accept independent surveillance since it is really the only surveillance "game in town".

 

[Sol Logos]

Just to extend what I mean't more - knowing this would basically crumble their own organisations, they wouldn't ever accept external surveillance on themselves. So ethically, they are not ever in the position to expect us to accept surveillance until they can demonstrate the same.

The security systems associated with the covert organizations are monolithic to the core of that onion. Outer layers are subject to surveillance from inner layers - outer layers are generally unaware of the existence of inner layers. You are right, the onion, as a whole, would never accept independent surveillance since it is really the only surveillance "game in town".

Yeah so its funny and completely contradictory they, like Joe plays the (hypothetical) moral card when in fact they demonstrate a complete lack of basic ethics (ie they're incapable of practicing what they preach etc.). So asking us to accept what is completely unacceptable to them under any condition is basically a deluded proposition. Not that I figured there was a great deal of sense in what they do, but just saying.

 

[LQB]

Just to extend what I mean't more - knowing this would basically crumble their own organisations, they wouldn't ever accept external surveillance on themselves. So ethically, they are not ever in the position to expect us to accept surveillance until they can demonstrate the same.

The security systems associated with the covert organizations are monolithic to the core of that onion. Outer layers are subject to surveillance from inner layers - outer layers are generally unaware of the existence of inner layers. You are right, the onion, as a whole, would never accept independent surveillance since it is really the only surveillance "game in town".

Yeah so its funny and completely contradictory they, like Joe plays the (hypothetical) moral card when in fact they demonstrate a complete lack of basic ethics (ie they're incapable of practicing what they preach etc.). So asking us to accept what is completely unacceptable to them under any condition is basically a deluded proposition. Not that I figured there was a great deal of sense in what they do, but just saying.

Yes, in a sense he is asking us to accept the "front" as legitimate - a core element of the deception.

 

[Sol Logos]

Just to extend what I mean't more - knowing this would basically crumble their own organisations, they wouldn't ever accept external surveillance on themselves. So ethically, they are not ever in the position to expect us to accept surveillance until they can demonstrate the same.

The security systems associated with the covert organizations are monolithic to the core of that onion. Outer layers are subject to surveillance from inner layers - outer layers are generally unaware of the existence of inner layers. You are right, the onion, as a whole, would never accept independent surveillance since it is really the only surveillance "game in town".

Yeah so its funny and completely contradictory they, like Joe plays the (hypothetical) moral card when in fact they demonstrate a complete lack of basic ethics (ie they're incapable of practicing what they preach etc.). So asking us to accept what is completely unacceptable to them under any condition is basically a deluded proposition. Not that I figured there was a great deal of sense in what they do, but just saying.

Yes, in a sense he is asking us to accept the "front" as legitimate - a core element of the deception.

Was just reading this quote by a guy called Frank O Collins which I thought was apt:

the last refuge of the coward, the traitor, the assassin is to wrap themselves in the flag and say that what they did was for national security, what they did was for justice.

 

[MK Scarlett]

I do not know if this following is relevant, but I am reading the Stephen King's last book, 11/22/63, a novel about a time traveler who attempts to prevent the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
This book was given to me on last month, and I saw there an opportunity to discover the accurately portray of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Get the context in a way to try to better understand the connection between Julius Caesar's and JFK's assassinations.

This reading gave me the opportunity to discover at first that Oswald had had a journey in Russia (he married a Russian at this time) and after, to think maybe it could get a sort of common "history" between Oswald and Snowden. I do not know if this has already been talked elsewhere in the forum, and if it does, do not hesitate to put this input in the right thread.

At this moment, we have Snowden in Russia, and Oswald also was in Russia before to come back in United-States to do finally what we all do know he did. I was wondering if this can have any cosmic connection.

The story of Oswald in Russia, according to Wikipedia:

In October 1959, just before turning 20, Oswald traveled to the Soviet Union, the trip planned well in advance. On September 11, 1959, he received a hardship discharge from active service, claiming his mother needed care, and was put on reserve.[15][34][35] Along with his self-taught Russian, he had saved $1,500 of his Marine Corps salary,[n 3] obtained a passport, and submitted several fictional applications to foreign universities in order to obtain a student visa.[clarification needed] Oswald spent two days with his mother in Fort Worth, then embarked by ship from New Orleans on September 20 to Le Havre, France, then immediately proceeded to the United Kingdom. Arriving in Southampton on October 9, he told officials he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for one week before proceeding to a school in Switzerland. However, on the same day, he flew to Helsinki, where he was issued a Soviet visa on October 14. Oswald left Helsinki by train on the following day, crossed the Soviet border at Vainikkala, and arrived in Moscow on October 16.[36] His visa, valid only for a week, was due for expiry on October 21.[37]

Almost immediately after arriving, Oswald told his Intourist guide of his desire to become a Soviet citizen. When asked why by the various Soviet officials he encountered—all of whom, by Oswald's account, found his wish incomprehensible—he said that he was a communist, and gave what he described in his diary as "vauge [sic] answers about 'Great Soviet Union'".[37] On October 21, the day his visa was due to expire, he was told that his citizenship application had been refused, and that he had to leave the Soviet Union that evening. Distraught, Oswald inflicted a minor but bloody wound to his left wrist in his hotel room bathtub soon before his Intourist guide was due to arrive to escort him from the country, according to his diary because he wished to kill himself in a way that would shock her.[37] Delaying Oswald's departure because of his self-inflicted injury, the Soviets kept him in a Moscow hospital under psychiatric observation until October 28, 1959.[38]

According to Oswald, he met with four more Soviet officials that same day, who asked if he wanted to return to the United States; he insisted to them that he wanted to live in the Soviet Union as a Soviet national. When pressed for identification papers, he provided his Marine Corps discharge papers.[39]

On October 31, Oswald appeared at the United States embassy in Moscow, declaring a desire to renounce his U.S. citizenship.[40][41] "I have made up my mind," he said; "I'm through."[42] He told the U.S. embassy interviewing officer, Richard Snyder, "...that he had been a radar operator in the Marine Corps and that he had voluntarily stated to unnamed Soviet officials that as a Soviet citizen he would make known to them such information concerning the Marine Corps and his specialty as he possessed. He intimated that he might know something of special interest."[43] (Such statements led to Oswald's hardship/honorable military discharge being changed to undesirable.)[44] The Associated Press story of the defection of a U.S. Marine to the Soviet Union was reported on the front pages of some newspapers in 1959.[42]

Though Oswald had wanted to attend Moscow University, he was sent to Minsk to work as a lathe operator at the Gorizont Electronics Factory, which produced radios, televisions, and military and space electronics. Stanislau Shushkevich, who later became independent Belarus's first head of state, was also engaged by Gorizont at the time, and was assigned to teach Oswald Russian.[45] Oswald received a government subsidized, fully furnished studio apartment in a prestigious building and an additional supplement to his factory pay—all in all, an idyllic existence by working-class Soviet standards,[46] though he was kept under constant surveillance.[47]

But Oswald grew bored in Minsk.[48] He wrote in his diary in January 1961: "I am starting to reconsider my desire about staying. The work is drab, the money I get has nowhere to be spent. No nightclubs or bowling alleys, no places of recreation except the trade union dances. I have had enough."[49] Shortly afterwards, Oswald (who had never formally renounced his U.S. citizenship) wrote to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow requesting return of his American passport, and proposing to return to the U.S. if any charges against him would be dropped.[50]

In March 1961, Oswald met Marina Nikolayevna Prusakova, a 19-year-old pharmacology student; they married less than six weeks later in April.[n 4][51] The Oswalds' first child, June, was born on February 15, 1962. On May 24, 1962, Oswald and Marina applied at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow for documents enabling her to immigrate to the U.S. and, on June 1, the U.S. Embassy gave Oswald a repatriation loan of $435.71.[52] Oswald, Marina, and their infant daughter left for the United States, where they received no attention from the press, much to Oswald's disappointment.[53]

I just wanted to share the thought with you guys...

And I also tried to search if they was any connection between the names of Oswald and Snowden in an etymological sens, but I am not enough good in English to do so.

According to Wikipedia:

Oswald is an Anglo-Saxon name meaning "divine ruler", from "os" (god) and "weald" (rule). Oswald of Northumbria (604–642) of Northumbria is famous king name of England.