The Vile Treatment of Dissenters -- How Any Critical Thinking or Questioning Is Suppressed

The Snowden Thing has given rise to one of those phenomena of the internet and occasionally of print media that I have long objected to and find deplorable in the extreme.

It is the lynch mob mentality that is utilized -- primarily by supposed libertarians without irony -- to suppress any sort of independent or critical thinking or questioning of events taking place, so long as those events are being driven by designated "heroes."

I gave up hero worshiping well before adolescence, so I never really passed through the phase that seems to be so typical of the adolescent mindset. But hero worship has been integral to the Snowden Thing, and once he was designated a Hero by one faction, no question about him or his motivations was allowed. Raising any sort of question or reservation about his actions or his heroism was sufficient to mark one as either an Obamabot or a crackpot, or -- as happened to Naomi Wolf -- as an "NSA operative" (even though in jest) and thus all questions not mediated by Glenn Greenwald could be dismissed outright. The theory was that any questioning of Snowden was a distraction, probably deliberately engineered in the White House to defend the NSA and its surveillance programs and shift attention from the programs to the personalities of the whistleblowers and courageous journalists who were bringing this secret world to light.

Naomi Wolf has long been one of those voices in the dark that have been warning us of the impending or present destruction of our economic, political and social infrastructure and offering her insights about what is going on, who is involved, and what to do about it. I don't think she's always right, but I've never seen her as a dishonest observer or commentator. She says what she sees; take it for what it's worth.

Last week, she posted on some of her reservations and questions about the Snowden Thing. She was, she said, quite familiar with what she called "the whistleblower community," and Snowden didn't fit what she knew to be the common thread among them. He was an outlier, and some of what seemed to be going on with him and the way his revelations were being presented in the media ran directly counter to her understanding of whistleblowers, their motivations, and their actions once they decide to blow the whistle on matters of state.

She put it this way:

Some of Snowden's emphases seem to serve an intelligence/police state objective, rather than to challenge them.

Anyone who does any sort of critical thinking about this ongoing episode recognizes how it can easily serve the interests of the National Security State by making clear to everyday people that they can be and are being watched and that their data can be mined whenever necessary to make a case against them if they dare to get out of line. This is the way police states operate. They want you to know they're watching, and they want you to fear them.

Snowden provided the first documentary evidence we've seen of just how pervasive and potentially intrusive the surveillance we've long been told was going on actually is. And that opened the door for public officials, including the president, to talk about it repeatedly and in surprising detail, something they've always been reluctant to do ...until now.

This serves the interests of the police state, or we would not see it happening at all. If they didn't want us to know, they would clam up. They haven't. I say that's because they do want us to know, and Snowden has performed a useful service to the police state by documenting some of what is going on. I have no idea whether that was his and Greenwald's intent, but that has been the upshot.

Wolf points to Snowden's apparent media savvy as a potential red flag. It is something highly atypical, she says, of the whistleblower community on the one hand, yet almost universally understood and utilized by political operatives on the other. She points rather vaguely to the fact that he arranged for a talented filmmaker to shoot the interview with Greenwald in the Hong Kong hotel, but what she seems to have missed and probably hadn't heard or read when she wrote about it was that Snowden (apparently) went to the filmmaker (Laura Poitras) first, last January, and it was she who did the scut work to make the arrangements with Greenwald at the Guardian and Geller at the WaPo. According to some reports, a film deal has already been reached with Snowden, and Poitras has made clear that she intends to use her cinematic talents to extend the story in her own way and in her own time when she's ready.

Wolf wonders about Snowden's preparation apparent in the video interview in which he seems to be completely on message at all times, something very rare among whistleblowers, even though they may be highly intelligent and articulate. I would point out that staying on message is a political operative skill, one that takes some time to internalize, but one that Snowden has demonstrated in all his purported interviews and online appearances.  (I say 'purported' because some of his appearances -- such as the online chat at the Guardian the other day -- are deliberately impossible to verify.)

Wolf points to Snowden's repeated warnings to journalists that they are literally risking their lives and/or liberty if they are identified (by the state) as the "transmission point" of secret information. She points out that Snowden repeatedly emphasizes how much he is sacrificing to make these state secrets available to the public -- his high salary as a contractor, his home in Hawaii, his girlfriend, his family, ever returning to his country, everything he holds dear is now gone, and he will never get it back. Wolf sees this as a direct warning to other would-be whistleblowers: "Don't do what I'm doing, or you'll lose everything."

She points out (again) the obvious fact that any vibrant police state wants you to know that it is watching you and how very awful it can be for you to challenge its authority and rule. Of course. The National Surveillance/Security State has been an ongoing topic for more than a decade now. "Anyone who's been paying attention" knew they were being surveilled, but now, with Snowden's documentation, there can be no doubt about it by anyone. Everyone is a target for surveillance. All the stories which have proliferated in the media since the initial ones in the Guardian have hammered that fact home. The president doesn't deny it, but he has made clear that it is all very benign, we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads, and the numerous police state apparatchiks who have so cheerfully been testifying at hearings reinforce the message: "Nothing to worry about, it's for your own good, go on about your business, we're watching over you with the best of intentions, have a nice day!"

She mentions the importance of the sex-angle to maintain media interest, in this case, the somewhat strange business of the pole-dancing poetic girlfriend -- who ought not to be part of the story at all.

Wolf wonders about Snowden's purported disappearance and undisclosed "safe house" location somewhere in Hong Kong, pointing out that the whole concept of universal surveillance makes the idea of "safe houses" quaint to the point of ridiculousness -- especially so in a police/surveillance state like China, of which Hong Kong, yes, is part -- despite all the starry-eyed nonsense about its supposed independence and so-called liberty. (So did Snowden move from his plush hotel to the American CIA bureau he says is down the street? We don't know, but we can be all but certain his "watchers" know exactly where he is.)

She wonders where Snowden's lawyers are, as whistleblowers (typified by Assange, she seems to think) need counsel present at their sides at all times given their legal jeopardy. Apparently she forgot that Greenwald is an attorney, and at least during the Hunt for Assange, he was often acting as an ad hoc legal advisor to the fugitive. But wouldn't it make sense for Snowden to have other lawyers at hand? Some that could actually defend him in court should it come to that? (I think Greenwald said he let his law license lapse, though it could be reactivated, one supposes.) Does Snowden have other attorneys on tap? Who knows? Does he need them?

Wolf wraps up with the following:

But do consider that in Eastern Germany, for instance, it was the fear of a machine of surveillance that people believed watched them at all times — rather than the machine itself — that drove compliance and passivity. From the standpoint of the police state and its interests — why have a giant Big Brother apparatus spying on us at all times — unless we know about it?

Naomi

The almost immediate explosion of condemnation in her comment section is instructive -- and typical.  

One is not to raise questions about Heroes!

After she was savaged in her comment threads, she was subject to any number of condemnations elsewhere, including attacks intended to shut down any kind of critical thinking about the backstory and how it affected the release of secret information.

One was permitted only to take sides, "hero" or "traitor," all other questions about Snowden and his secrets were forbidden.

Naomi did a followup post that explained her perspective a little more fully, but she has been silent about it since, and let's face it, silence from those who question is the objective of those who launch attacks against them.

Almost exactly the same tactics were used against Mark Ames, Yasha Levine and Katrina van den Heuvel when The Nation dared to publish a piece by Ames and Levine that raised questions about the "Don't Touch My Junk" guy (John Tyner) and his connections with various Libertarian causes connected with the Kochs. The internets exploded with vituperation against Ames and Levine, and attacking The Nation and van den Heuvel for their temerity in publishing such a "smear" to the point that van den Heuvel essentially conceded to the screamers and Ames and Levine have never been seen on the pages of The Nation again.

Naomi Wolf, Katrina van den Heuvel and others who point out anomalies and ask questions about Heroes are typically not their enemies. They are trying to engage in and encourage critical thinking about what's going on. They are subjected to smears and vituperation to the point where they often simply give up. It's sad and it shouldn't happen. But it still does.

Meanwhile, Webster Tarpley has weighed in on the topic of "limited hangout." Make of it what you will.

Disturbing

Michael Hastings was killed in a fiery crash on Highland Ave near Melrose in Los Angeles early this Tuesday morning.

Hastings, of course, was a well known Rolling Stone journalist who caused all kinds of trouble for the White House and the Pentagon over the years, and whose dogged determination to get the story was legendary in the field.

Raw Video, taken soon after the crash:



Witnesses reported what sounded like a bomb. The witness quoted in the video above -- though his English is poor (and I wish he were quoted in Spanish instead) -- indicates that he saw the car traveling very fast, maybe 100 miles an hour, on Highland, and that it was on fire as it crossed Melrose.

No wonder there is speculation this was a hit, not an accident.

Yves Smith Demolishes Private Sector Protestations of Innocence; Naomi Wolf Takes One in the Shorts For Daring to Raise Questions About Snowden and Teh Revelations

Two (well, three) links to add to the mix:

Yves Smith on the protestations of innocence by the internet and other corporate partners of the National Surveillance State:

Techies’ Efforts to Own #Snowden/NSA Surveillance Narrative = #Fail

Naomi Wolf Dares to Raise Questions:

My creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be ...

Some aspects of Snowden's presentation that I find worth further inquiry - an update

One of her many critics for daring to raise questions about Snowden:

Is Naomi Wolf Working for the NSA?

I may have more to say about this stuff in a follow up post, but one of Naomi's questions -- about where are Snowden's lawyers -- may have been answered by the way he dealt with questions during his live chat with Greenwald at the Guardian this afternoon. Looked to me like he was getting real time legal advice from Glenn given the way he was answering/not answering questions... Just saying.

Americans Haven't Quite Reached This Spot Again...Not Yet

 

Florence Owens Thompson and children, March 1936

Dorothea Lange's iconic photo of Florence Thompson and three of her children will, it seems, forever be imprinted on the psyches of Americans as an image of untellable suffering in this Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. Most people will have little or no idea what was going on or who these people were or even where or when this picture was taken. It is the most singular icon of the Dust Bowl Era/Great Depression, without doubt or dispute. There are other photos from the era that resonate to be sure, but nothing like this one.

First off, I think it is of some note that this picture was taken in 1936, when the Depression, or at least its worst aspects of mass suffering, was perceived to be mostly over. FDR, the New Deal and all that.

It was taken on California's Central Coast, not Dust Bowl Oklahoma, and though Florence and her older children (not these -- her younger children were born in California) were from Oklahoma, they had been in California mostly working in the fields up and down the state since 1931. They were not Dust Bowl refugees -- at least not any more. They were migrant laborers in the fields of California, like tens of thousands of others did then -- and still do.

 Of course in those days, many of the California field hands were white. Nowadays, not so much. Nearly all of the field hands today are Hispanic, mostly from Mexico, though many are from Central America, and not a few were born and raised in California of Mexican or Central American parents.

For a time, and even in Thompson's time, it seemed to be possible to go from the fields in California to a fairly comfortable, fairly middle class lifestyle in one or at most two generations. That passage seems far from certain now. In this country today, if you're born poor, you'll most likely stay poor the rest of your life. Same for any children you might have. There is less social and economic mobility in the United States today than perhaps at any time in its history, less mobility in fact than in most other places in the developed world.

Florence and her children were poor to be sure, but they were not truly destitute at the time of the photo, though that's how they were portrayed by Lange and the press, a press which glommed onto the photo immediately and presented it as a portrait of despair and destitution of unparalleled magnitude in this land of plenty, and this after three years, three years!, of the New Deal.

According to the story Florence told later, what happened was that the family -- which included Jim Hill, her (common-law?) husband at the time, her older children and these younger ones -- were traveling from fields they'd been working in the Imperial Valley toward Watsonville near Salinas, where they hoped to find more work, but the timing chain on their Hudson broke and they coasted into a large ad hoc migrant camp (that held at that time maybe 2,000 or 3,000 hopeful workers) in Nipomo. (I'm very familiar with all these places, having lived and worked in or near California's agricultural areas most of my life. There are also other connections which may come up in other posts.)

The workers were there because they'd heard there was field work to be done picking peas, but when they got there, a freezing rain had ruined the crop and there was no work.

Many of the migrants in the camp were destitute and starving, but Florence's family were not. Comparatively speaking, they were doing OK.

Florence and her children were laying over in the camp while Jim Hill and the older boys were in town getting the car fixed so they could continue their journey north toward Watsonville. While in the camp, Florence said they subsisted on frozen peas they collected from the fields and the few birds the children were able to kill for the cooking pot. Hungry children came by and asked if they could please have a bite. Once the car was fixed, they moved on.

That they had a car and were used to the migrant labor life in California was to their advantage. While they had advantages that many others didn't, their life in the fields could not have been pleasant.

California's field hands were and are terribly exploited, often wretchedly housed and provided for, and frequently treated with feudal levels of abuse. Migrant field workers in California were and are beneath the level of an oppressed underclass; they were frequently seen and treated as disposable slaves by their employers.

Eventually, the Florence and family moved to California's Central Valley, still doing mostly farm labor, but apparently settling down near or in Modesto,  where Florence would meet and marry George Thompson, a hospital administrator, and from 1945 onwards, the family would live in modest financial security.

Florence claimed to be a full-blood Cherokee, born ("in a teepee") and raised outside of Tahlequah, OK. Her blood father was a Christie, and so could have been full-blood Cherokee, but he abandoned Florence's mother (of the Cobb family, and thus likely not full-blood Cherokee) before she was born. Her mother then married Charles Akman, of Choctaw descent. (All this, according to the Wiki...)

The other day, I was in the company of a genealogist out of Tahlequah who is a Christie descendant on his mother's side, and he said he'd been trying to trace Florence's Cherokee ancestry and was coming up short. Of course Cherokee lineages can be complicated. Just ask anyone who's tried to demonstrate their blood quantum to the satisfaction of the authorities of the Cherokee Nation. It can be quite a complex and drawn out process, even for full-bloods.

Of course Florence, even if a full-blood Cherokee (which is unlikely in any case), would not have been born "in a teepee" as teepees were not used by Cherokee people (nor by Choctaw) at any time.  But then, people tell tales...

The Cherokee Christies were and are based around Wauhillau, OK, not far from Tahlequah, and Florence's biological father was said to be Jackson Christie, who appears on the Dawes Rolls from Wauhillau as a full-blood. Her mother, a Cobb, however, is the more problematical ancestor, as there is no Mary Jane Cobb listed on the Dawes Rolls, and the only Mary Cobbs listed are of 1/4th and less Cherokee blood quantum. Of course, there were plenty of Cherokee of all blood quantums who were never listed on the rolls, so nothing conclusive can be said about Florence's mother's Cherokee ancestry -- or lack thereof.

That a Cherokee genealogist cannot trace her with any certainty is interesting but not unusual, given the fact that Florence's biological father (apparently a full-blood Cherokee) ran off before she was born, and she was raised by a (supposed) Choctaw adoptive father. Well, in Indian culture, she wouldn't have been raised by either father but instead would have been brought up in her mother's matrilineal household, with slight contact with "fathers." But if Florence's mother was a Cobb (there's no reason to doubt it), it's quite possible she was less culturally Cherokee, and so she might not have raised her daughter in the culture. On the other hand, she just as well might have.

Florence kept company with several men and (officially) married two of them though both died before she did. She had six or seven children, all of whom seem to have had great admiration for her. She appears to have engaged in field work in California for as long as she had to and was physically able to, but when the opportunity arose, she left the fields to work in hospitals, and by 1945 she had settled down in Modesto with her last husband, a hospital administrator -- which no doubt relieved her of any obligation to work the fields of California again.

When Dorothea Lange took that iconic picture, Florence's situation was not as dire as it was made out to be in the press, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking it was somehow "good" just because she and her children weren't actually stranded and starving, and she hadn't actually sold the tires on her car to buy food. The family's car would be repaired, and they would move on. But that didn't mean their situation was much better than miserable.

The status of the thousands of others at the Nipomo camp really was dire, though, and some actually were starving. The "Migrant Mother" picture of Florence and her younger kids led to the transport of tens of thousands of pounds of food to the camp to help succor those still trapped there. The fact that Americans could still be in such appalling circumstances, years after the advent of the New Deal under Roosevelt, came as a shock to many who had convinced themselves the New Deal had eliminated this level of destitution and desperation.

It did not. It wasn't until the 1960s and the Great Society programs of the Johnson Era that "Freedom from Want" was actually made a social and political principle in this country, a principle that we may note is being dismantled as our governing representatives seek ways to cut benefits for the masses, including Social Security and food stamps, while continuing to increase rewards and benefits for the highest of the mighty.

This is why the National Surveillance/Security State has become so essential to those few who are accumulating such remarkable rewards during a period of such economic decline and hardship for so many. As we see the identity of "terrorist" re-defined over and over and over again to include more and more individuals and groups that might one day prove problematical to the rule by the very few and the unfettered exploitation and impoverishment of the masses, we see the true nature of the Security fetish of Our Rulers. We see the "why" being answered with action.

We are all, ultimately, potential suspects and thus we all must be surveilled. This is essential for the survival and continued prosperity of Our Betters. Uppitiness must be channeled and controlled, revolt must be suppressed.

I find it interesting that some people who point out that this is the way it has been for a long time are being denounced as "Obots" and whatnot, when they are trying to get across the notion that some people have been yelling about the Surveillance State and the Security Fetish of the Ruling Class for many years and have generally been ignored or shushed, on the fictional basis that it's not really happening, or if it is, it isn't really all that worrisome, or if it is worrisome, it's better to keep quiet about it. Instead of taking it seriously when something might have been done about it, too many of those with prominent platforms in the media and on the internet were either silent or extra cautious, fearing that if too much was said or made of it, or if objections actually led to action, the Stasi would be on their tails like white on rice.

Now, interestingly, they aren't afraid, nor do they hesitate to accuse those who were calling for action years ago of being tacit supporters of universal surveillance and the security state all along. It is very much a through-the-looking-glass and down-the-rabbit-hole situation, by no means the first in these realms.

Now it's an all-important issue, but what's to be done about it -- apart from arguing and debating in endless circles?

In 1936, Americans discovered to their shock and horror that the New Deal hadn't really accomplished what they thought it had set out to do, and many millions of Americans, symbolized by Dorothea Lange's portrait of Florence Thompson, were still suffering severely. They would be reminded again in the 1960s with exposés of economic and social hardships  all over the country. In those days, Americans and their representatives in Congress assembled were empowered to and capable of doing something to alleviate that suffering.

Now? Not so much. No, let's be honest: not at all. Our Rulers are actively instituting programs of impoverishment and suffering for the masses, and the public is advised to acquiesce quietly or be subjected to the tender ministrations of or brutal suppression by the bloated National Security State -- as has been demonstrated against various groups and individuals for years. We are well past the point where the People might have intervened to halt or reverse our collective disempowerment.

Now the options for reversing what's been under way for so many years are highly constrained. Lawsuits are among the options available. But when the courts are part of the problem...

Congressional agitation is potentially useful, but when congress itself is part of the problem...

Popular outrage is hard to sustain when the Ruling Classes really don't give a shit about what the People want any more...

It's another fine mess we've got ourselves into...

Connecting the Dots: Why This? Why Now?

I initially asked the "Why this? Why now?" questions in connection with the motives for the release of a tiny bit of the NSA domestic surveillance info in the Guardian. While it is still something to consider -- I see a factional political motive -- it's far from the most important consideration.

More important is the question of what "this" really is, and why "this" is happening now.

I would simply refer the reader to Professor James Petras's  post over at 99GetSmart.

It may not be the complete story, but it is as complete an analysis of what's really going on -- and why, and why now -- as I've seen.

Along those lines, I also recommend Nafeez Ahmed's dot-connecting Guardian post entitled

Pentagon bracing for public dissent over climate and energy shocks

which explores the redefinition of environmental activists as "eco-terrorists" and the present authorities and powers of the US military to suppress domestic dissent. NSA, don't forget, is a military surveillance agency.

"2+2=5"

2 + 2 = 5. "The arithmetic of an industrial-financial counter-plan plus enthusiasm of workers."  (1931) From

We are duly informed that we are not to worry our pretty little heads about this Domestic Surveillance Thing because of all the "dozens" of Terror Plots Thwarted, dontchaknow: It's Keeping Us Safe!

Of course we needn't ask "Who is us?" That would be rude in any case, and lord knows, we mustn't be rude. Not in Times Like These.

Besides, everyone's on Facebook and Teh Goggle, so everyone is already sharing all their personal information with the whole wide world anyway. As long as you're not a Muslim-terrorist or leftish-anarchist activist, you have nothing to worry about. As long as you're not a druggie. Or a whistle-blower. Or anybody else we don't like.

See how this works? Institute universal surveillance "for your safety" and use it (carefully, of course) to go after targeted out groups only -- while spying on everyone fully. Keep mistakes to a minimum and no one is the wiser.

Since nobody really knows whether or when they will become a target, everyone tends to moderate their behavior so as to keep as low and inconspicuous a profile as possible. Nothing outspoken, nothing out of the ordinary. Conformity is key.

It works surprisingly well -- until it doesn't. And when it doesn't, it's when the society itself is self-destructing. Ask the Soviets.

It works so well I think because humans are hard-wired to be social animals, to be suspicious of outsiders, and to conform to social norms whatever they may be. Constant subtle cues tell us how we are supposed to behave, what we are supposed to believe, who we are supposed to obey, and so on. In a typical small social circle or society all these cues are given through personal interactions moment to moment, day to day, almost subconsciously. In a huge society like that of the United States or any other imperial power past or present, the cues come both from the social circle in which one finds oneself and from the implicit threat of state action against non-conformists through legal and extra-legal means, and through knowledge that the state know what you're doing (and thinking) or can know.

Though your neighbor is encouraged to report the untoward activities and behaviors you engage in (which surprisingly often they do, busy-bodies being a constant among human social groups), the neighbor's report is no longer necessary. Technology has made it possible for people to be surveilled without the intervention of neighbors and others close at hand. Their internet and communications activities are being scooped up and stored, as well as being scored for potentials. Their public activities, particularly demonstrating for or against particular polices, are being witnessed and video-recorded for later review. All sorts of every day common activities are being recorded as well. All of it is being stored and can be retrieved (unless doing so is inconvenient to those in power, which is a whole other topic) whenever circumstances warrant.

Anyone's life can be turned upside down at any time, and in many cases, a highly negative picture of anyone targeted can be built from available records, whether collected surreptitiously or openly. And quite frankly, we are supposed to fear it.

That's one reason why there is so much public airing of the supposed reality of the NSA and other domestic spying apparatus in the United States these days.

I'm not sure that Snowden and Greenwald -- and the Guardian -- set out to inspire a sense of permanent and universal dread among the non-conformist community, but that's been the effect of what they have publicized about the surveillance apparatus to date.

Activists within the community have known for many years that they are under perpetual surveillance and that they can be rounded up at any time and subjected to untold persecutions and prosecutions simply because they dissent. But until now, "ordinary people" and non-activist sympathizers with dissenters weren't sure that they could be targeted too, but they are being surveilled as well, and their data is scooped up with all the rest of it and can be retrieved whenever required by Power to make a case against them.

In fact, if the minimal information about domestic surveillance that Snowden and Greenwald released last week is taken solely at face value and extrapolated across the digital spectrum, there is little that the surveilleurs wouldn't be able to know about any individual, and there is very little or nothing the individual would be able to do about it -- unless they made it their full time occupation to avoid society and thus the scrutiny that goes with it.

Consequently, the upshot is to accept it rather than to resist it. Since there is really no practical way around it for most people, they can rail against it all they want, but ultimately they have no choice but to submit.

"2+2=5," comrade.

One submits and believes or one risks the consequences -- which, as we are well aware, can be quite dire.

Depending, of course, on who one is and what sort of example Power wishes to make of one.

Because, let's be clear, not everyone who dissents is actually subject to the consequences of their thoughts, speech, and actions. Glenn Greenwald and Medea Benjamin come immediately to mind as examples. Glenn travels the world -- and the United States -- freely and frequently, he abides in Brazil without molestation despite its long and frequently gory reputation as a police state, and his broadsides against politicians and media figures have long been noted for their intensity and verbosity. Were he considered a threat to The Powers That Be, he could have been targeted and eliminated (or more likely contained) long ago, but he hasn't been. When this simple fact is pointed out, his fans claim that Power dast not mess with Glenzilla because he is a high-profile public figure, and doing anything to him would trigger... well, something.

Much the same argument is presented to explain why Medea still has full and perpetual access to congressional offices and hearing rooms and other official spaces despite her long years of disruption and reputation for outspoken dissent. She is, they say, such a high profile public figure that Power cannot mess with her -- or there would be...something.

In my view, Power utilizes certain figures, such as Greenwald and Medea, to defuse objections to policies that are or will be in effect, much as Chomsky has long been used to argue against this or that public (or more often now, secret) policy without providing any means to reverse the policy being objected to.

During the Occupy heyday, for example, Chomsky was going around to groups in Boston saying essentially, "Do not rise up, do not speak of 'revolution.'" Greenwald has said that all he wants from the spate of NSA leaks in the Guardian is for the American people to be informed enough of what is going on to be able to have a debate about it. Medea engages in what amounts to clowning -- to make a point to be sure -- but one that is deliberately as non-threatening to Power as possible.

Managed dissent, you see.

Which brings me around to Arthur Silber's recent ruminations about his uneasiness with the way the NSA material is being presented through its various gate keepers. (h/t teri49 in comments). It is all being carefully filtered by Snowden, Glenn, and apparently the Guardian, so as not to -- they say -- jeopardize any individuals or the security apparat itself. And Silber raises a pertinent point: "WTFF?" If they have information that can bring down the "Death State" as he calls it, then present it. Nothing is more important.

But of course, they don't. I haven't checked in the last hour or so, but there hasn't been any new revelation in the Guardian for a week now and counting. Glenn has been doing plenty of teevee and twittering his various pissing matches, but there is nothing new in it. Snowden, for his part, has gone to the Hong Kong English language press with tales of NSA intrigue and spying on Chinese companies and his announcement that he wants to be tried in Hong Kong courts -- but for what isn't exactly clear. Supposedly, there is a "global manhunt" for Snowden -- who is said to still be in Hong Kong, so the "global hunt" is kind of ridiculous overkill -- and various politicians are calling for his head on a pike, again for what is not entirely clear. "Treason" being a bit of a stretch.

And there are hearings, many, many hearings. All of which tell us not to worry our pretty little heads about it. Adequate information will be provided in due time. We can all go on about our business secure in the knowledge that the designated out groups are being fully harried and harassed to the ends of the Earth... all in order to Keep Us Safe.

Hate to say it, but this is the exact argument used for every form of security/surveillance/totalitarian state I'm aware of. It's also the argument used for any number of deadly persecutions we all should be familiar with -- including a wide variety of recent and historical genocides. Let's not fool ourselves, that's where this security/surveillance fetish could easily lead. The USA has had plenty of experience.

"2+2=5" is benign compared to what's going on now. The electric signs and posters that once decorated Moscow with this apparently blatant falsehood -- which would be later utilized by Orwell to demonstrate the depths to which totalitarianism could sink -- were propaganda to encourage greater worker effort on behalf of Stalin's First Five Year Plan. The Five Year Plan could be realized in four. And it was.

Propaganda is one thing. Surveillance for control is something else again. They do go hand in hand, however...

Building A Better Future In A Surveillance State

We don't know -- and I doubt we'll ever find out -- just how pervasive, universal and intrusive government and private sector surveillance is, at least for ordinary people. But based on the rather sketchy stories so far posted regarding some of the NSA programs, it's clear that we are meant to understand that surveillance of our communications and online activities is essentially total, and more importantly, that the information derived from that surveillance can (and probably will?) be used against us at any time.

I watched some of the Appropriations Committee grilling of NSA head Alexander yesterday, and his repeated statement that the public should know more -- in fact everything possible -- about what is going on was striking. So was his repeated statement that the congress and administration have continually debated the programs under consideration and they should absolutely continue to do so. These are, of course, the twin issues that the domestic surveillance revelations raised: the public was not informed and could not challenge surveillance because everything about the programs was secret, and again because of pervasive government secrecy, there could not be a thorough or public debate on the topic of domestic surveillance.

So the issues raised by the revelations are being aired extensively and publicly. Domestic surveillance is topic #1 nearly everywhere. Now that it is officially out in the open, everybody is talking about it, and it even seems like the government is being far more open about it than ever before. Where there is hesitation to discuss it is in the private sector, which to me is a very interesting situation, since according to some of the stories about domestic surveillance, by far the majority of it is conducted by the private sector, on their own behalf and on behalf of the government. As far as can be sussed out from the information available so far, it appears that the government itself actually conducts very little of the surveillance under consideration (though it stores information), and -- to the extent these matters have been revealed to date -- direct surveillance by the government is conducted "pursuant to law." That isn't necessarily reassuring, given the flexibility in the surveillance laws, especially since the abrogation of the 4th and 5th Amendments after 9/11, but at least there is some ritual acknowledgement of "law" in the conduct of government surveillance.

It is not so clear in connection with private sector surveillance and how their data is shared with the government. The private sector has taken the tack that they don't surveil and they can't talk about it if they did. The government, in contrast, seems to be saying, "Yeah we keep tabs ('to keep you safe!'). So?"

During my federal employment it was routine for us to utilize a variety of private sector data resources on individuals and organizations, resources which were not generally available to the public but which had been purchased by the government from the private sector. I should point out that the information in these private sector resources was often wrong or useless, and that Teh Goggle was typically more accurate, up to date and useful. That gives you some idea of how much information on everyone is "out there" and how the government has essentially complete access to all of it without any restrictions that I'm aware of.

I think it was Ian Welsh who opined that the earliest surveillance state he was aware of was the latter Roman Empire, and that surveillance was necessary due to its social and political fossilization in its later stages.

I would suggest that surveillance states are necessary any time a small and shrinking Overclass seeks to perpetuate rule over a large subject class.

Take Sparta and their helots, for example. Surveillance by the elite of the Lower Orders was required, and anyone among the helots who appeared to be or was suspected of getting uppity was supposed to be murdered and disposed of forthwith. Thus, social order was maintained.

There can be no doubt at this point that we -- all of us -- live in a surveillance state that has made considerable progress toward becoming a full on police state, in no particular way different than police states of the past.

Surveillance states and police states are rarely interested in building a better future -- at least not for the masses. The Soviet Union and modern China appear to be exceptions to that rule, a case could even be made that the European Fascist states were, at least initially, dedicated to improving the lot of the masses -- who were, of course, under constant surveillance and routine active/deadly policing.

Domestic surveillance and policing are intended, after all, to suppress dissent of any kind.

At least until they fail, they tend to be very successful, remarkably stable, and almost perpetually enduring.

I noted with interest that Young Snowden and Glenn Greenwald both claimed that what they wanted from their surveillance revelations was The Debate; it seems, at least from news reports, that's what they've got. And from news reports, The Debate seems to be leading to a remarkable level of acceptance of extensive surveillance by the government and the private sector. This acceptance would track with the acceptance in many previous surveillance/police states. If it is marketed properly -- as a means of "keeping you safe" -- most people will say they have little or no problem with extensive domestic surveillance and active policing. They are the price you have to pay to live in a peaceful, prosperous -- and safe -- society. No big.

Once a surveillance state is instituted, it never really goes away. Its targets may change over time, but the surveillance of dissenters is always ongoing. Criminals, of course, are identified and targeted via surveillance, but what constitutes criminality is hardly immutable. Certain classes may be officially exempted from surveillance, but there is no way to enforce that exemption once a surveillance state is institutionalized.

We should recognize that aspects of the Surveillance State were part of the foundations of the nation; there was no way, for example, to maintain a slave society in large parts of the nascent United States without the active and constant surveillance of said slaves. So it would be with labor in general as the slave society was officially emancipated.

Certainly since World War I, active surveillance of political dissenters by federal and state officials has been routine, often leading to episodes of public witch hunting and oppression.

Yet despite the many impediments imposed by surveillance states, the American People have periodically been able to build a better future, and the question is whether it is still possible under the metastasizing present day surveillance state.

I would say it is so long as that Better Future is not perceived to jeopardize the primacy and position of the Ruling Class.

For the ultimate purpose of surveillance states is to preserve, protect, and defend the elite from the masses while exploiting them to the fullest extent possible.

So long as the Better Future for the masses does not appear to include any threat to the elites, there is no problem with building a better future in a surveillance state.

Let a threat be perceived, however, and all bets are off....

Tidbit

The Guardian's Bombshell Revelations commenced last week, but here's a tidbit that appeared on a blog a week before the Guardian's Great Scoop:

Bumblehive

It lays out (in different terms) pretty much what would be revealed by the Guardian a week later; a key phrase:

Before you destroy your enemy, you must tell him what you are going to do to him.

It's supposedly from a parody site:  http://nsa.gov1.info/index.html 

But you know what? Like The Onion, it is a parody that rings far too true.

Am I Missing Something?

Not only has Snowden apparently disappeared (though he is apparently still giving interviews) but so far as I can tell,  Greenwald has apparently gone missing, at least from the pages of the Guardian (I saw him on the teevee as recently as last night) despite his repeated claims that there will be many more leak revelations from him in the Guardian. The Guardian has not published any new leak since last week. Have we reached a turning point in this story?

Interesting Data Point on the Snowden Thing

According to this interview in Salon -- which people following the Snowden Saga in the Guardian may not have seen -- Snowden initially contacted filmmaker Laura Poitras anonymously by email in January regarding... something he had in mind. Initially, it was not clear at all what that... something... was. But in additional emails, Snowden clarified that he had intelligence information and documentation and that it wouldn't be a waste of her time.

He had contacted her due to the fact that she had been "selected" -- which meant that her every movement and action was being "watched" by... someone. And it was a story he thought she could tell.

Then, apparently, he contacted Glenn Greenwald, also anonymously, in February, with apparently a similar story of having intelligence information and documentation. At some point ("probably February"), Poitras says she contacted Bart Gellman at the Washington Post, and together they came to the conclusion that 1) this person was probably legit, and 2) there was probably a story here. Apparently she was also in touch with Glenn about Snowden at the same time. Of course, nobody knew who he was.

Poitras is quite mysterious about the whole thing, in part she says, because she wants to tell the story in her own words and in her own way when she is ready. For now, she is not inclined to get into many of the details.

But just the fact that she was contacted by Snowden in January regarding intelligence information and documentation he said he had at that time is interesting for the simple fact that, according to Booz, when he went to Hong Kong -- in May -- he had been their employee for "less than three months." You do the math. The information and documentation he said he had in January could not have come from Booz if he didn't start working for them until March or April.

Whether Snowden was in prior contact with Greenwald before he contacted Poitras is one of those mysteries that may be revealed in time. But if he went to Poitras first, that's interesting in and of itself, as that suggests he might then have initially thought his story would make a good film rather than being something suited to print media.

More and more people are questioning aspects of the story Snowden has told to date, particularly with regard to his rather remarkable biography and his continuing work with the very agencies or their contractors he claims to despise. There are many other questions about him and his leaks to the media.

Whether any of them will ever be resolved remains to be seen. The man has apparently disappeared. Speculation is that he may have left Hong Kong for the mainland.

Interesting...