What a blood-soaked summer we're in, and it's not even half over. The slaughters throughout the Middle East crescent go on and on, more and more mountains of bodies piling up, or like that poor man I read about in Gaza, collecting the parts of his exploded child in a plastic shopping bag. I gagged and then I cried. What is the matter with people that allows and requires this to go on?
The Malaysian plane shot down in Ukraine is only a handful of dead compared what I'm hearing are thousands already killed in the conflict, many tens of thousands forced to flee, villages and parts of whole cities left in ruins.
And the bloodletting goes on and on and on while our leaders celebrate it, yes they do, each and every one, gleeful at the spilling of more and ever more blood. It is a passion among them, this thirst for blood.
Victim blaming continues without let up.
The victims are always to blame, the rebels are always to blame, the dead are to blame.
It's insane. And it is becoming more and more universal.
Showing posts with label Summer Season. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Summer Season. Show all posts
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Monday, July 14, 2014
Summer Slaughter Season
 |
| Map of Europe, c. 1940. The Summer Slaughter Season was under way and wouldn't end for years to come... |
[Note: I found the map above in my collection of maps and atlases a couple of weeks ago. The map is in a Rand-McNally Atlas that was published in 1936, but the interesting thing to me was that the owner of the Atlas had taken a pink colored pencil to it and shaded in the then-current conquests of Nazi Germany. They include Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Norway. Albania had been invaded and occupied by Italy in 1939, and it is included in the conquests. Also indicated as partially absorbed into the Fatherland are Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and Finland... We know that the Axis wasn't by any means satisfied... Don't forget Spain and Portugal...]
The sharks are in the water. Have you noticed?
The Summer Slaughter Season is upon us, and the various conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere are in full swing. Bloodlust is catching.
Of course the slaughter in Gaza rivets the attention of many among us -- partly because it is so telegenic, what with the constant exploding shells, the running, screaming Arabs, holding the broken bodies that once were their children, and of course the breathless "terror" of the Israelis dashing to their shelters if by chance one of the Gazan "missiles" gets through the protective Iron Dome. (Actually, according to statistics I've seen, most get through. It's just that they land and explode -- or not -- where they have no effect.)
It's telegenic, too, because of the massive propaganda campaign Israelis undertake when they go to slaughter Arabs, a campaign that has only been matched recently by the coup-regime run by the Freaks in Kiev (h/t Saker) as they go to slaughter in the Donbass and along the Black Sea coast, committing atrocity after atrocity, but none as telegenic recently as the slaughter of Arabs in Gaza.
What became of this Ukrainian slaughter? It's still going on, with sieges under way, villages destroyed, hundreds then thousands of dead, millions made refugees. But the news is practically nil. The businesses that bring us the "news" are almost entirely focused on the slaughter in Gaza, for that's where the real action is.
Word has it that the ethnic cleansing an extermination campaign in Ukraine is perhaps going better than planned -- assuming it was planned, and I'm not sure it was -- partly because "Putin blinked" and refused in the end to send more than token assistance (if that) to his Russian/Russian speaking comrades in the Donbass and southeast. The rebels are on their own.
And so, recognizing that they cannot hold out indefinitely, and there's probably no profit in trying to do so, many residents, targets of the coup-regime run by the Freaks in Kiev, are leaving. By the tens of thousands.
Slaviansk fell to the Kiev coup-regime last week, and reports from there have practically ceased. We don't know how many executions there have been, in other words, but given previous indications, we can rest assured that the wet work is proceeding with all due diligence and speed. The armed rebel faction may have abandoned the city, but their collaborators are everywhere within it, no? And how does a bogus government like the Kiev coup-regime establish its authority over resistant areas and peoples? By killing rebels and their collaborators on a massive scale.
See the coup-regime in Cairo for a not-too-long past example.
The killing goes on in Syria unabated, and now the Syrian slaughter -- they say -- has spread to Iraq with the conquests of the ISIS Caliphate which has abolished the border between Syria and Iraq, and is -- they say -- intent on reestablishing the historic rule of the Caliph from Baghdad where once he held forth.
It's an interesting idea. No, really.
There was a time of relative peace and prosperity throughout Araby. It was much more recent than the Caliphate. It was during Ottoman times. Barely a century ago, within the historical memories of most of those in Arab lands today. Anglo-Euro-Americans have no memories of it, because in their histories, they created the Arab nations out of nothing at all; the Ottoman period barely registers.
The arrangements the Ottomans made among the various Arab peoples (and with the Jews too) seemed to work out fairly well all in all, limiting tribal conflict, resolving disputes, providing a reliable sense of security and safety throughout the region for peoples to do pretty much as they wished.
If that or something like it is what the ISIS Caliphate party is trying to re-establish, who am I to say "no?" Except, from reports, it's not. The Ottomans were progressives compared to the Caliphate. Or so we're told. The Caliphate would be going backwards a thousand years, and it would be terrible for the well-being of the people and the region. No, really.
So we, or rather they, can't have that. Must be crushed. And so the anti-ISIS campaign is supposedly under way to re-take the various cities in Iraq that have fallen...
Deja-vu all over again.
We've done this before, haven't we? Wait, wait. We've been on this road so many times.
Fascism/Nazi-ism back in the day was a means of coordinating/uniting fractious Europe's elites and common herd to oppose the Dreaded Communists of the Soviet Union. A rightist form of populism, if you will, intended to do physical battle with the Soviet Bear, which it did with not a lot to show for it.
The Soviet Union dissolved on its own decades after the disaster of the Fascist/Nazi expansion period (with a nudge or two, to be sure).
But now we're in a political/ideological situation where it seems Our Betters believe that the Fascists and Nazis were too advanced, too progressive. Too organized.
Disruption and chaos are now the operative principles of global elites. Disruption in the Middle East and South Asia has been going on for many years, the idea apparently being to prevent any sort of comprehensive -- or even localized -- organization among the Arabs and to disrupt/dismantle any organization among the non-Arabs (such as Persians, Afghanis, and so forth).
Chaos and disruption serve the interests of the High and Mighty, but they cannot do so permanently. At least not historically. At some point, a new status quo has to settle in, but for some reason that is not allowed to happen in the Middle East and adjacent lands.
The current slaughter in Gaza is part of Israel's ongoing attempts to maintain chaos and disruption in its almost-conquered dependencies of Gaza and the West Bank. To what object is the question. How are Israeli interests served by such tactics?
But we can ask the same questions about Iraq or Syria or Libya or Ukraine or pretty much anywhere chaos and disruption -- and slaughter -- are the current ruling principles. How is anyone's interest served more than temporarily, indeed more than momentarily?
There have been more than a few suggestions that the ISIS advance in Iraq is a false flag engineered by the United States in order to disrupt/overthrow the corrupt regime of al-Maliki who was previously installed by the US. That would be par for the course given the way the Great Game has been played from the bunkers of the West for some time now, but there's no telling whether it's true -- or even relevant if it were true -- at this point.
The indications are that the Ukraine Thing was engineered by the US and EU over a long period, indeed over decades, and came to fruition by "accident" when Yanukovych said "no" to EU/IMF demands that would have caused domestic chaos and disruption in order meet them. Chaos and disruption ensued anyway.
Much the same can be said for Syria, Libya, and anywhere else the neo-imperial project is being implemented.
There is no escape apparently; there is no way to avoid the impositions and social/political/economic destruction that ensues.
Much the same was the case in Europe and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere in prelude to the American entry into WWII.
While Americans were content to sit back and watch things spiral out of control in 1940 and '41-- at least until the attack on Pearl Harbor -- today, it appears the US Government, or a faction of it, is leading a global campaign of disruption and chaos.
We have become the enemy we once fought against...
Monday, July 7, 2014
While John Cook Vacations...
Once again, things are getting weird at the "Intercept" where, from its launch in February, the hype is not matched by the content and the comments generally provide more actual news -- even if only aggregates from other outlets -- than the rare published items.
John Cook, who claims to be "editor-in-chief", whatever that means, has been on vacation according to reports and cannot be bothered. He's had nothing to say for months about his editorial obligations, assuming there are any.
One doesn't know.
Greenwald made an apparently ill-advised announcement that the long-awaited story he was (he said) "working on" would be published at midnight one day. It wasn't. Instead, there was a breathless announcement that the story would be held until a new government objection was investigated.
OK. So the WaPo publishes an extensive story that doesn't name names but does reveal the kinds of "inadvertent" collections of information the NSA deals with all the time, pretty much stealing Greenwald's thunder in any case. If he ever does publish his grand finale fireworks show -- looking less and less likely by the day -- will anyone care?
Greenwald continues to defend himself and hurl insults and invective via Twitter -- so at least we know he's alive. And according to reports, he's still on book tour and doing teevee appearances, so there is that.
As for the other staff at the "Intercept," with the exception of Ryan Gallagher, they have been mighty quiet since they nestled under the Omidyar wing. They have been remarkably quiet given their prolific output prior to becoming "Intercept" staff. It's almost as if shutting them up was part of the deal. The only one who hasn't been shut up is Marcy Wheeler, who just keeps cranking stories out like sausages, though she's been mighty quiet about why she left the cozy confines of OmidyarLand back in May.
Turns out Omidyar's people have been busy bees at the White House, however.
No surprise there, I suppose, given the Omidyar penchant for global power plays.
It's been my pet theory that someone at the WH called Pierre, just as the missing Jeremy Scahill teasingly suggested might happen, and asked politely that Greenwald's story -- naming names -- be held for the time being. Pierre, being the power player he is, said "Sure, why not?" and had one of his lieutenants convey the message that there might be a "problem" with one or more of the names so... would Glenn kindly look into it? 'Kthnxbai.
Greenwald's defense has largely been one of "protecting the innocent." So he can't name names without revealing the names of innocents, and that would be wrong. Unless they want their names to be named. And then it would be right. So in order to name the names all 10,000 or 100,000 names he has have to be contacted one by one, and that's ever-so-hard, and it takes a long time, and many of them may be indisposed or otherwise unable or unwilling to respond, so what are you going to do? It's such a terrific responsibility, after all. So maybe the best thing is not to name the names, just remark on the categories of those swept up in NSA collections, but we're already pretty certain of what those categories are, so is there even a story here? One that could qualify as fireworks? Maybe so, maybe not. Well, the WaPo thought there was a story, and they managed to get one out, but Greenwald's story is so much better....
-------------------------------------------------
It is Summer Shark and Missing White Woman season once again, and the Missing Greenwald Story fits right in with the season. The Absent Story is a Summer Story its own self, with dozens of mentions over the last week or so. Google it. And then there's Cryptome's cryptic non-announcement that the whole Snowden trove will be revealed by the end of the month. Or not.
It's Summertime...
John Cook, who claims to be "editor-in-chief", whatever that means, has been on vacation according to reports and cannot be bothered. He's had nothing to say for months about his editorial obligations, assuming there are any.
One doesn't know.
Greenwald made an apparently ill-advised announcement that the long-awaited story he was (he said) "working on" would be published at midnight one day. It wasn't. Instead, there was a breathless announcement that the story would be held until a new government objection was investigated.
OK. So the WaPo publishes an extensive story that doesn't name names but does reveal the kinds of "inadvertent" collections of information the NSA deals with all the time, pretty much stealing Greenwald's thunder in any case. If he ever does publish his grand finale fireworks show -- looking less and less likely by the day -- will anyone care?
Greenwald continues to defend himself and hurl insults and invective via Twitter -- so at least we know he's alive. And according to reports, he's still on book tour and doing teevee appearances, so there is that.
As for the other staff at the "Intercept," with the exception of Ryan Gallagher, they have been mighty quiet since they nestled under the Omidyar wing. They have been remarkably quiet given their prolific output prior to becoming "Intercept" staff. It's almost as if shutting them up was part of the deal. The only one who hasn't been shut up is Marcy Wheeler, who just keeps cranking stories out like sausages, though she's been mighty quiet about why she left the cozy confines of OmidyarLand back in May.
Turns out Omidyar's people have been busy bees at the White House, however.
No surprise there, I suppose, given the Omidyar penchant for global power plays.
It's been my pet theory that someone at the WH called Pierre, just as the missing Jeremy Scahill teasingly suggested might happen, and asked politely that Greenwald's story -- naming names -- be held for the time being. Pierre, being the power player he is, said "Sure, why not?" and had one of his lieutenants convey the message that there might be a "problem" with one or more of the names so... would Glenn kindly look into it? 'Kthnxbai.
Greenwald's defense has largely been one of "protecting the innocent." So he can't name names without revealing the names of innocents, and that would be wrong. Unless they want their names to be named. And then it would be right. So in order to name the names all 10,000 or 100,000 names he has have to be contacted one by one, and that's ever-so-hard, and it takes a long time, and many of them may be indisposed or otherwise unable or unwilling to respond, so what are you going to do? It's such a terrific responsibility, after all. So maybe the best thing is not to name the names, just remark on the categories of those swept up in NSA collections, but we're already pretty certain of what those categories are, so is there even a story here? One that could qualify as fireworks? Maybe so, maybe not. Well, the WaPo thought there was a story, and they managed to get one out, but Greenwald's story is so much better....
-------------------------------------------------
It is Summer Shark and Missing White Woman season once again, and the Missing Greenwald Story fits right in with the season. The Absent Story is a Summer Story its own self, with dozens of mentions over the last week or so. Google it. And then there's Cryptome's cryptic non-announcement that the whole Snowden trove will be revealed by the end of the month. Or not.
It's Summertime...
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
On The Question of Exemptions From Security State Scrutiny
During the past month or so, we've seen an explosion of interest in the National Security/Surveillance State apparatus, and we've learned about its vast reach around the world and its apparent ability to spy on anyone at any time. How such spywork product is used is still somewhat murky, as we really have no idea which Americans have been spied on by the NSA (leave aside for the moment the question of foreign targets) and to what object if any. There have been suggestions, however, that when the NSA "targets" an American it is for the purpose of domestic law enforcement or active terrorist investigation, and that essentially all the NSA provides in such cases is raw digital data that may or may not be useful in the investigation. But we don't know that. We don't know a lot of things about how our rulers keep tabs on us or what they do with the information.
What we do know is that a number of individuals and institutions have demanded to be exempt from the sort of blanket scrutiny everyone else is under, starting with "the press."
There was, after all, something of a trial balloon on the topic of uncalled for domestic surveillance when the AP Thing (ABQ Journal story; if not a subscriber, you will need to answer a marketing question) broke back in May (was it? doG, it seems so long ago.) The issue then was slightly different in that phone calling records of AP reporters were sought and looked at by DoJ in connection with an investigation of a leak of high level information to the press. Sound familiar? Sure. The upshot was that not only was the AP marching around in High Dudgeon over this "Chilling of Freedom of the Press," they would demand and have essentially received an exemption from this kind of surveillance scrutiny going forward. Whoo-hoo!
As I pointed out at the time the story was making headlines, though, EVERYONE was subject to the kind of surveillance AP was demanding an exemption from, and the real issue was the intrusive/invasive that was probing everyone's phone records and doG knows what-all with or without warrants. This was in May, remember, a solid month before the NSA story broke in the Guardian. We knew -- or at least "anyone who was paying attention" knew -- that we rabble and proles were being spied on by Our Betters in both the government and the corporate sectors the government serves, and many of us knew how that information was being used, too. Anyone who was or is involved in Occupy, for example has more direct knowledge of the National Surveillance State than most other Americans by far, but America's Muslim community has had much more ongoing negative experiences with it, and black and brown communities in general have been its targets for generations.
At some point though -- variously dated to 2001 (prior to or almost immediately after the installation of the Bushevik regime) or 2005 (when certain devices were installed) -- the surveillance started including everyone, all phone calls and other telecommunications, at home and abroad, and for a time -- maybe still -- there was someone assigned to surveil every physical address in the country. It was long ago out of control, and the NSA wasn't the chief culprit.
The principal base-line culprit all along has been the corporate entities that collect information on all of us, that analyze and store it, and that share it for a price or in trade with one another and with government agencies. That's where the data-haul comes from for the most part, and quite willingly, too, despite the lies and the denials of many of the corporate culprits.
So comes the AP Thing in May, and AP is demanding an exemption, because of the First Amendment. Never mind the Fourth Amendment because invoking that would mean everyone would be exempt from blanket surveillance, and what's the fun of that?
AP got their exemption in July as the link above describes. After the AP story broke, a FOX "news" reporter was revealed to be under similar surveillance due to another leak investigation, and wah-lah, FOX, too, was given the same exemption as AP. In fact, all "legitimate" so-called news orgs were given the same exemption in the DoJ announcement. Determining who or what is "legitimate" became an issue, but it's clear enough from the announcement that bloggers and independent media are not considered "legitimate" by the corporate media or the DoJ. So at least we know that not everyone who practices journalism is considered "legitimate" -- and we can be pretty sure where that will lead, too.
Needless to say, despite a rather full court press by various media, including much of New Media, Blobosphere and all, the story of surveillance of the AP (and later of FOX) and their demands for exemptions on Constitutional grounds failed to catch the mood of the country, I think because people wondered why should they be exempt while everyone else is being watched all the time? Constitution? Feh.
On the other hand, when the NSA story broke in June, just about a month after the AP story broke, all holy hell broke loose because, surprise, the upshot of the initial few stories was that EVERYONE was under surveillance by the NSA, and there was really nothing anybody could do about it -- that is if they chose to live in the Modern World.
Oh. Well. What a surprise. "We didn't know..." And we demand....? Going from knowledge of surveillance to the Ask has been something of a rocky road to say the least. Just what is it Snowden, Greenwald and the rest have in mind as the goal as it were? We don't know. They initially said all they wanted was a "debate" about the surveillance they were revealing; then Greenwald the other day in his Argentine interview said that they wanted people to know that certain software was being employed to hoover up all phone and other electronic communications pretty much everywhere and suggested that by knowing this people could take precautions and even elude the hoover. But whatever the case, at no point have Greenwald or Snowden suggested ending the Surveillance State. They haven't even called for the repeal of the legal underpinnings (like AUMF, NDAA, PA, and FAA) that have enabled it and encouraged its metastasis.
I find that rather curious myself. No, all they say they want is the "debate" and for people to have knowledge that they are being surveilled.
All righty then. Implied is the notion that some people should be exempt from blanket surveillance, starting with technically adept people, for example, who know what to do to elude the surveillance bots through strategic technical gamesmanship. I've seen some of them post instructions on how to do it, and it's mostly gobbledygook, useless for everyday people, and probably non-functional in any case due to coding and other errors, whether accidental or deliberate. The fact is many geeks are not inclined to ensure that you are free of surveillance, only that they themselves are. Liberty!
Meanwhile, when the NSA domestic surveillance story was still somewhat new, Congresscritters held hearings and demanded of the spooks giving testimony that they, sitting Congresscritters, be exempted from surveillance, and they were assured that they were indeed exempt. I don't think many of them believed it though, as some of their colleagues had been clearly and obviously surveilled over the past many years, and some of them seem to be convinced that prosecution and blackmail are not unheard of in the Hallowed Halls due to findings of the surveillance bots.
Of course the press and media (well, that part which is "legitimate") demanded -- and got -- their exemption.
Anybody else seeking exemption from general surveillance? You would think the corporate board rooms and bankers' counting rooms would be automatically exempt. That is where Power is concentrated, yes? Can't have random spooks snooping around among the Highest of the Mighty, can we? In fact, corporate board rooms and bankers' counting rooms are where much of the snoopery of the rest of us originates, or at least where the plots and plans for it are laid and implemented. Let's not fool ourselves into believing it's any other way.
Of course, people in Greenwald's somewhat... interesting... position would naturally want their own exemption (albeit, he hasn't asked for one specifically for his ownself, not that I know of anyway). Expat world traveler journalist/polemicist/propagandist/provocateurs such as he might actually want to avoid the security/surveillance state for some reason, I don't know what, but he has never indicated that he's suffered personally in any particular or general way from the surveillance he must -- I mean MUST -- be under... hm. How does that work, I wonder? Is he surveilled but exempted from consequences? Or is he not surveilled at all? Or...? Is it something else?
Well, we don't know, and we're unlikely to ever find out, either. Wheels within wheels, don'tchaknow. It is quite an interesting game being played by individuals and institutions seeking to perfect their power relationships with one another, if you will. That much is obvious to me. Their rivalries and controversies have little to do with us, after all. This is a reason why the NSA/Snowden Thing strikes me as a bit overwrought given their apparently top-level at 40,000 feet overlook position, not generally one that affects individuals, nor necessarily does it affect contending institutions in their power plays. Or does it?
What exactly does the NSA do that interferes with the machinations of the Highest of the Mighty? We get some clue now and then when we hear dark rumblings of intellectual property piracy and unauthorized sharing of corporate marketing and other plans through some sort of spy network, but it is a murky tale at best and rarely told with any clarity at all. Is the NSA the lead agency in these matters? Mmm. Could be.
If as may be the corporate boardrooms and the R&D departments are the real playgrounds of the NSA and other spooks, despite denials (who really believes them, anyway?) then the demands for exemption that are background noise right now may have more to do with the nature of the NSA controversy/"scandal" than we know, and once that's worked out to mutual satisfaction, this Thing will settle right down.
We've been living in an era of institutional failure and collapse. Practically everything we've relied on for social, political, and economic stability in our lifetimes has proved to be worthless or has collapsed in failure. Yet wealth and power are ever more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and more and more authoritarian and exploitative rule is being imposed on the masses. In the overall context of institutional collapse and failure and the general imposition of authority and exploitation of the masses, the spook stories and consequent impotent rage they inspire is very useful for the interests who seek to consolidate power over the rest of us.
To me, that's the reason why the NSA story is being played to such a high level of public exposure this Shark Season. Nothing will be done about curbing domestic/international surveillance of the masses, though the masses will be whipped to a frenzy of anger about it. As Naomi Wolf pointed out, the Surveillance State is useless for controlling the masses if they don't know about it. Now they know. They have had an opportunity to vent about it, but their venting results in nothing. Nothing changes. It's the way of the world.
Behind the curtain, however, in that Deep State which actually rules us (oh yes, the Turks have nothing on US), there are many adjustments going on, both here and abroad, and fierce contests are under way over which surviving institutions will hold the primary reins of power. Make no mistake, Greenwald, the Guardian, and more than likely Snowden, are Players in that game. What role they have on the chessboard is an open question, but they are clearly not uninvolved observers and dispassionate Truth Tellers. They are obviously working on behalf of something greater than themselves, but exactly what that might be is still murky -- I have called them Corporate Libertarians, but that doesn't describe their actual roles and goals.
Nor does it reveal where all this is headed. On the surface, it's just another summer shark story, another missing white woman, for the rabble to fret over. But go a bit deeper, and ponder who and what is being "exempted," from scrutiny by the surveillance state, as power is consolidated on behalf of surviving institutions in this era of institutional collapse, and we can start forming a pretty good picture of how the story may play out.
We'll see.
What we do know is that a number of individuals and institutions have demanded to be exempt from the sort of blanket scrutiny everyone else is under, starting with "the press."
There was, after all, something of a trial balloon on the topic of uncalled for domestic surveillance when the AP Thing (ABQ Journal story; if not a subscriber, you will need to answer a marketing question) broke back in May (was it? doG, it seems so long ago.) The issue then was slightly different in that phone calling records of AP reporters were sought and looked at by DoJ in connection with an investigation of a leak of high level information to the press. Sound familiar? Sure. The upshot was that not only was the AP marching around in High Dudgeon over this "Chilling of Freedom of the Press," they would demand and have essentially received an exemption from this kind of surveillance scrutiny going forward. Whoo-hoo!
As I pointed out at the time the story was making headlines, though, EVERYONE was subject to the kind of surveillance AP was demanding an exemption from, and the real issue was the intrusive/invasive that was probing everyone's phone records and doG knows what-all with or without warrants. This was in May, remember, a solid month before the NSA story broke in the Guardian. We knew -- or at least "anyone who was paying attention" knew -- that we rabble and proles were being spied on by Our Betters in both the government and the corporate sectors the government serves, and many of us knew how that information was being used, too. Anyone who was or is involved in Occupy, for example has more direct knowledge of the National Surveillance State than most other Americans by far, but America's Muslim community has had much more ongoing negative experiences with it, and black and brown communities in general have been its targets for generations.
At some point though -- variously dated to 2001 (prior to or almost immediately after the installation of the Bushevik regime) or 2005 (when certain devices were installed) -- the surveillance started including everyone, all phone calls and other telecommunications, at home and abroad, and for a time -- maybe still -- there was someone assigned to surveil every physical address in the country. It was long ago out of control, and the NSA wasn't the chief culprit.
The principal base-line culprit all along has been the corporate entities that collect information on all of us, that analyze and store it, and that share it for a price or in trade with one another and with government agencies. That's where the data-haul comes from for the most part, and quite willingly, too, despite the lies and the denials of many of the corporate culprits.
So comes the AP Thing in May, and AP is demanding an exemption, because of the First Amendment. Never mind the Fourth Amendment because invoking that would mean everyone would be exempt from blanket surveillance, and what's the fun of that?
AP got their exemption in July as the link above describes. After the AP story broke, a FOX "news" reporter was revealed to be under similar surveillance due to another leak investigation, and wah-lah, FOX, too, was given the same exemption as AP. In fact, all "legitimate" so-called news orgs were given the same exemption in the DoJ announcement. Determining who or what is "legitimate" became an issue, but it's clear enough from the announcement that bloggers and independent media are not considered "legitimate" by the corporate media or the DoJ. So at least we know that not everyone who practices journalism is considered "legitimate" -- and we can be pretty sure where that will lead, too.
Needless to say, despite a rather full court press by various media, including much of New Media, Blobosphere and all, the story of surveillance of the AP (and later of FOX) and their demands for exemptions on Constitutional grounds failed to catch the mood of the country, I think because people wondered why should they be exempt while everyone else is being watched all the time? Constitution? Feh.
On the other hand, when the NSA story broke in June, just about a month after the AP story broke, all holy hell broke loose because, surprise, the upshot of the initial few stories was that EVERYONE was under surveillance by the NSA, and there was really nothing anybody could do about it -- that is if they chose to live in the Modern World.
Oh. Well. What a surprise. "We didn't know..." And we demand....? Going from knowledge of surveillance to the Ask has been something of a rocky road to say the least. Just what is it Snowden, Greenwald and the rest have in mind as the goal as it were? We don't know. They initially said all they wanted was a "debate" about the surveillance they were revealing; then Greenwald the other day in his Argentine interview said that they wanted people to know that certain software was being employed to hoover up all phone and other electronic communications pretty much everywhere and suggested that by knowing this people could take precautions and even elude the hoover. But whatever the case, at no point have Greenwald or Snowden suggested ending the Surveillance State. They haven't even called for the repeal of the legal underpinnings (like AUMF, NDAA, PA, and FAA) that have enabled it and encouraged its metastasis.
I find that rather curious myself. No, all they say they want is the "debate" and for people to have knowledge that they are being surveilled.
All righty then. Implied is the notion that some people should be exempt from blanket surveillance, starting with technically adept people, for example, who know what to do to elude the surveillance bots through strategic technical gamesmanship. I've seen some of them post instructions on how to do it, and it's mostly gobbledygook, useless for everyday people, and probably non-functional in any case due to coding and other errors, whether accidental or deliberate. The fact is many geeks are not inclined to ensure that you are free of surveillance, only that they themselves are. Liberty!
Meanwhile, when the NSA domestic surveillance story was still somewhat new, Congresscritters held hearings and demanded of the spooks giving testimony that they, sitting Congresscritters, be exempted from surveillance, and they were assured that they were indeed exempt. I don't think many of them believed it though, as some of their colleagues had been clearly and obviously surveilled over the past many years, and some of them seem to be convinced that prosecution and blackmail are not unheard of in the Hallowed Halls due to findings of the surveillance bots.
Of course the press and media (well, that part which is "legitimate") demanded -- and got -- their exemption.
Anybody else seeking exemption from general surveillance? You would think the corporate board rooms and bankers' counting rooms would be automatically exempt. That is where Power is concentrated, yes? Can't have random spooks snooping around among the Highest of the Mighty, can we? In fact, corporate board rooms and bankers' counting rooms are where much of the snoopery of the rest of us originates, or at least where the plots and plans for it are laid and implemented. Let's not fool ourselves into believing it's any other way.
Of course, people in Greenwald's somewhat... interesting... position would naturally want their own exemption (albeit, he hasn't asked for one specifically for his ownself, not that I know of anyway). Expat world traveler journalist/polemicist/propagandist/provocateurs such as he might actually want to avoid the security/surveillance state for some reason, I don't know what, but he has never indicated that he's suffered personally in any particular or general way from the surveillance he must -- I mean MUST -- be under... hm. How does that work, I wonder? Is he surveilled but exempted from consequences? Or is he not surveilled at all? Or...? Is it something else?
Well, we don't know, and we're unlikely to ever find out, either. Wheels within wheels, don'tchaknow. It is quite an interesting game being played by individuals and institutions seeking to perfect their power relationships with one another, if you will. That much is obvious to me. Their rivalries and controversies have little to do with us, after all. This is a reason why the NSA/Snowden Thing strikes me as a bit overwrought given their apparently top-level at 40,000 feet overlook position, not generally one that affects individuals, nor necessarily does it affect contending institutions in their power plays. Or does it?
What exactly does the NSA do that interferes with the machinations of the Highest of the Mighty? We get some clue now and then when we hear dark rumblings of intellectual property piracy and unauthorized sharing of corporate marketing and other plans through some sort of spy network, but it is a murky tale at best and rarely told with any clarity at all. Is the NSA the lead agency in these matters? Mmm. Could be.
If as may be the corporate boardrooms and the R&D departments are the real playgrounds of the NSA and other spooks, despite denials (who really believes them, anyway?) then the demands for exemption that are background noise right now may have more to do with the nature of the NSA controversy/"scandal" than we know, and once that's worked out to mutual satisfaction, this Thing will settle right down.
We've been living in an era of institutional failure and collapse. Practically everything we've relied on for social, political, and economic stability in our lifetimes has proved to be worthless or has collapsed in failure. Yet wealth and power are ever more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and more and more authoritarian and exploitative rule is being imposed on the masses. In the overall context of institutional collapse and failure and the general imposition of authority and exploitation of the masses, the spook stories and consequent impotent rage they inspire is very useful for the interests who seek to consolidate power over the rest of us.
To me, that's the reason why the NSA story is being played to such a high level of public exposure this Shark Season. Nothing will be done about curbing domestic/international surveillance of the masses, though the masses will be whipped to a frenzy of anger about it. As Naomi Wolf pointed out, the Surveillance State is useless for controlling the masses if they don't know about it. Now they know. They have had an opportunity to vent about it, but their venting results in nothing. Nothing changes. It's the way of the world.
Behind the curtain, however, in that Deep State which actually rules us (oh yes, the Turks have nothing on US), there are many adjustments going on, both here and abroad, and fierce contests are under way over which surviving institutions will hold the primary reins of power. Make no mistake, Greenwald, the Guardian, and more than likely Snowden, are Players in that game. What role they have on the chessboard is an open question, but they are clearly not uninvolved observers and dispassionate Truth Tellers. They are obviously working on behalf of something greater than themselves, but exactly what that might be is still murky -- I have called them Corporate Libertarians, but that doesn't describe their actual roles and goals.
Nor does it reveal where all this is headed. On the surface, it's just another summer shark story, another missing white woman, for the rabble to fret over. But go a bit deeper, and ponder who and what is being "exempted," from scrutiny by the surveillance state, as power is consolidated on behalf of surviving institutions in this era of institutional collapse, and we can start forming a pretty good picture of how the story may play out.
We'll see.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Meaning to add...
[There would have been more, but we spent yesterday adventuring in town with some Indians (aka "Induns") determined to engage the Powers That Be, and later with a long treasured teller of tales, Nasario Garcia, whose books and stories open many avenues of unique insight into what was not so long ago a strong and surprising cultural survival hidden in plain sight. It's one of the aspects of New Mexico's past and present I'm eager to learn more about. This is the world you are joining...]
The Silly Season is fully upon us now.
So somehow Greenwald managed to make the Snowden story about him again when he gave an interview to La Nacion in Argentina. I don't know whether the interview was conducted in Spanish or English, but of course, it was published in Spanish, and as picked up and reported by Reuters, it's a doozy in that Greenwald goes far beyond any previous demands and threats and denunciations into realms that are either playing to an audience or meant to raise eyebrows and hackles in the United States, and not merely the hackles of government drones (which has taken on quite a new meaning of late, hasn't it?) and agents.
In the interview, Greenwald is quoted by Reuters as saying:
Yes. Well. Greenwald is nothing if not a hyperbolic polemicist and propagandist on behalf of his cause. In this instance, he appears to be deliberately offering up a direct threat to the United States Government. There might-could be some repercussions. Ya think?
Well, some of Greenwald's critics started storming around and ranting about Greenwald's contempt and his implied and direct threats in this interview shortly after the Reuters article appeared.
Of course, it wouldn't be unusual for NSA's and other interested parties' scourbots to alert on the story for inspection and review for potential further action. I mean this is how your government and its many corporate partners work, and it's not pretty. Step out of line, the man come and take you away. More to the point, however, the man will make your life a living hell beforehand. The fact that Greenwald has been able to do his thing on an international basis without molestation (that we know of anyway) for all these years despite his, shall we say, provocations, is one of the indications that he is an asset on one of the teams contending for power over us, and until and unless he actually goes rogue, they're not going to do anything to him. Nor is the Evil, Perfidious, and All-Powerful Government going to do so. He's too valuable as a contrarian thorn in the side. (Yes, actually, there is value for the Powers That Be in having people like Greenwald around; it's a form of channeling and managing dissent, the more hyperbolically the better. After all, I go back to the days of Jerry Rubin.
While I loved Jerry's antics and theatrics and I saw him as a brilliant agitator and critic of the Establishment (and happened to meet him a couple of times -- he was so tiny!) he was also adopted by that Establishment, and his seamless transition from firebrand to multi-level marketeer was all but foregone. When he had a product -- like his books or his radicalism -- he packaged, marketed and sold them like liver sausage. Why not? This is America. The Marketeers' Paradise.
Or at least it used to be. For some, it still is.
I've read Greenwald's interview in both Spanish and auto-translate versions, and it seems to me that his critics are pointing to legitimate factors in the interview which appear to be intended to play to his Argentine audience and to raise hackles in the USofA -- while at the same time his critics are falling into the trap of the provocateur. This is among the reasons why he thinks his critics are teh stoopit. They are so often so easily waylayed by Greenwald's polemics and provocations. Too bad, suckers! (Rubin did this too; he was a master at it. Much better, in my view, than Greenwald.)
The issue is supposedly wanting "the United States on its knees" and threats that if anything (untoward) happens to Snowden, all his scary revelations about the Surveillance State will be released in a torrent. Yes, well. Sure.
Greenwald put up a post at the Guardian shortly after the alert went out about the Reuters piece, deflecting, denouncing and falsely denying the way he does, accusing his critics of stupidity and political revanchism and whatnot, as if any of that mattered. It doesn't, not really.
All that really matters in this latest hoohah is keeping the argument alive, because ultimately it's all about the argument and one-upping and besting one's opponent in the argument.
The odd thing is that this uproar was generated immediately after Snowden's appearance at Sheremetyevo, an appearance that had been orchestrated by WikiLeaks and the Russian government -- eagerly, almost desperately awaited by the global media -- in which Snowden essentially pleaded with Russian human rights representatives to intervene with the Putin regime to obtain temporary political asylum in Russia while he awaits safe passage assurances from Unnamed Western European and North American governments so that he may travel to his exile in Latin America.
Greenwald accuses Reuters of being a tool of the US Government, but good doG, Reuters is an international news agency, and it was Reuters journalists who were slaughtered in the infamous Collateral Murder gun camera video. Reuters reported on the interview in La Nacion because it's an international story of interest, and Reuters did not mischaracterize what Greenwald said.
The Greenwald attack on Reuters is uncalled for in any rational sense, but it takes attention away from Snowden's plight in Russia, a plight which seems to be genuine. He can't move. He's trapped at the airport, and as far as I can tell, that wasn't part of the Plan. His WikiLeaks handlers seem to be somewhat at a loss.
At any rate, the saga will continue for as long as it does.
That summertime news-hole has got to be filled with something.
The Silly Season is fully upon us now.
So somehow Greenwald managed to make the Snowden story about him again when he gave an interview to La Nacion in Argentina. I don't know whether the interview was conducted in Spanish or English, but of course, it was published in Spanish, and as picked up and reported by Reuters, it's a doozy in that Greenwald goes far beyond any previous demands and threats and denunciations into realms that are either playing to an audience or meant to raise eyebrows and hackles in the United States, and not merely the hackles of government drones (which has taken on quite a new meaning of late, hasn't it?) and agents.
In the interview, Greenwald is quoted by Reuters as saying:
"Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S. government in a single minute than any other person has ever had," Greenwald said in an interview in Rio de Janeiro with the Argentinean daily La Nacion.
This is the original Spanish of the passages in question:
"The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare."
"Snowden tiene suficiente información como para causar más daño al gobierno estadounidense él solo en un minuto del que cualquier otra persona haya tenido jamás en la historia de Estados Unidos"...
El gobierno estadounidense debe estar de rodillas todos los días rogando que nada le ocurra a Snowden, porque si algo le llega a suceder, toda la información será revelada y ésa sería su peor pesadilla.
Yes. Well. Greenwald is nothing if not a hyperbolic polemicist and propagandist on behalf of his cause. In this instance, he appears to be deliberately offering up a direct threat to the United States Government. There might-could be some repercussions. Ya think?
Well, some of Greenwald's critics started storming around and ranting about Greenwald's contempt and his implied and direct threats in this interview shortly after the Reuters article appeared.
Of course, it wouldn't be unusual for NSA's and other interested parties' scourbots to alert on the story for inspection and review for potential further action. I mean this is how your government and its many corporate partners work, and it's not pretty. Step out of line, the man come and take you away. More to the point, however, the man will make your life a living hell beforehand. The fact that Greenwald has been able to do his thing on an international basis without molestation (that we know of anyway) for all these years despite his, shall we say, provocations, is one of the indications that he is an asset on one of the teams contending for power over us, and until and unless he actually goes rogue, they're not going to do anything to him. Nor is the Evil, Perfidious, and All-Powerful Government going to do so. He's too valuable as a contrarian thorn in the side. (Yes, actually, there is value for the Powers That Be in having people like Greenwald around; it's a form of channeling and managing dissent, the more hyperbolically the better. After all, I go back to the days of Jerry Rubin.
While I loved Jerry's antics and theatrics and I saw him as a brilliant agitator and critic of the Establishment (and happened to meet him a couple of times -- he was so tiny!) he was also adopted by that Establishment, and his seamless transition from firebrand to multi-level marketeer was all but foregone. When he had a product -- like his books or his radicalism -- he packaged, marketed and sold them like liver sausage. Why not? This is America. The Marketeers' Paradise.
Or at least it used to be. For some, it still is.
I've read Greenwald's interview in both Spanish and auto-translate versions, and it seems to me that his critics are pointing to legitimate factors in the interview which appear to be intended to play to his Argentine audience and to raise hackles in the USofA -- while at the same time his critics are falling into the trap of the provocateur. This is among the reasons why he thinks his critics are teh stoopit. They are so often so easily waylayed by Greenwald's polemics and provocations. Too bad, suckers! (Rubin did this too; he was a master at it. Much better, in my view, than Greenwald.)
The issue is supposedly wanting "the United States on its knees" and threats that if anything (untoward) happens to Snowden, all his scary revelations about the Surveillance State will be released in a torrent. Yes, well. Sure.
Greenwald put up a post at the Guardian shortly after the alert went out about the Reuters piece, deflecting, denouncing and falsely denying the way he does, accusing his critics of stupidity and political revanchism and whatnot, as if any of that mattered. It doesn't, not really.
All that really matters in this latest hoohah is keeping the argument alive, because ultimately it's all about the argument and one-upping and besting one's opponent in the argument.
The odd thing is that this uproar was generated immediately after Snowden's appearance at Sheremetyevo, an appearance that had been orchestrated by WikiLeaks and the Russian government -- eagerly, almost desperately awaited by the global media -- in which Snowden essentially pleaded with Russian human rights representatives to intervene with the Putin regime to obtain temporary political asylum in Russia while he awaits safe passage assurances from Unnamed Western European and North American governments so that he may travel to his exile in Latin America.
Greenwald accuses Reuters of being a tool of the US Government, but good doG, Reuters is an international news agency, and it was Reuters journalists who were slaughtered in the infamous Collateral Murder gun camera video. Reuters reported on the interview in La Nacion because it's an international story of interest, and Reuters did not mischaracterize what Greenwald said.
The Greenwald attack on Reuters is uncalled for in any rational sense, but it takes attention away from Snowden's plight in Russia, a plight which seems to be genuine. He can't move. He's trapped at the airport, and as far as I can tell, that wasn't part of the Plan. His WikiLeaks handlers seem to be somewhat at a loss.
At any rate, the saga will continue for as long as it does.
That summertime news-hole has got to be filled with something.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Wrapup on the Summer
Of course, it isn't over yet, but I think we've got the picture: there hasn't been a summer this tumultuous since the 1970's, and there are signs that civil unrest (as well as a number of civil wars still raging) will easily continue into the fall and through the wintertime into next year.
People are refusing, in their multitudes, to sit down and shut up while their lives are being turned upside down (that is, when they don't lose their lives), and what little they've had is being sucked up into the maw of Matt Taibbi's Vampire Squid that actually rules us.
Dylan Ratigan's "Extractive" Rant the other day incoherently encapsulates the fright and the frustration so many middle level "left-behinds" feel.
"Extractive" has become the new "Uncertainty." Extracting wealth is the current economic principle at the Top, "takings" as it were. I suppose "looting" would be an understatement for what The Gods Who Walk Among Us® are doing to the rest of us -- and to one another.
So when we see young people looting stores for cell phones and sneakers in Britain, burning down their neighborhoods in the process, what we're seeing is a minor-league street-side version of what the Highest of the High and the Mighty have been up to for quite a while now, on a titanic scale, globally, "extracting" -- or shall we say "looting" -- all the wealth that they can pillage from entire nations, one by one and in batches, while we look on in horror, just as Decent Brits looked on in horror at the riots and the wilding young in the streets.
Some of them even made the connection between behavio[u]r at the Top of the Heap and what the Young were doing in the streets. Some of the young were even able to make that connection. "It's all the same, man, innit?" The "takings" might be on a different scale -- and what is looted is certainly different -- but the destruction and despair left in the wake of the pillage, the fear and dread injected into the hearts of individuals and communities (and entire nations), the sense of widespread powerlessness and the inability or unwillingness of Authority to intervene appropriately on behalf of the People, all are the same.
In the United States, despite protest demonstrations in numbers we haven't seen in quite a long time, nothing like The UK Riots have yet emerged. They might, and because they might, many people are on edge. But in the United States the Austerity Program is still being debated in the marble halls of our Government Palaces, only so much of it has yet been instituted, and in most cases, the immediate effects have been mitigated through various means in order to keep the People calm in the face of what is to be done to them. So far, it has mostly worked.
In the meantime, though, the Highest of the High and the Mighty have been busy sucking out every bit of wealth they can find in an "extractive" frenzy the like of which I don't think we have ever seen. We see it in the Wall Street gyrations, where every Up and every Down provides yet more profit opportunities, we see it in massive commodity price run ups due to speculation, we see it in endless wage cuts and price increases, constantly high unemployment, ridiculous and ravenous bank policies, endless foreclosures and plans to essentially give the homes away to investors "if they promise to rent them out," and on and on and on and on.
There is no attempt to hide any of it, nor really is there any effort to sugar-coat it. It is what it is. We are being robbed blind, right out in the open, with the full on and very active complicity of Our Public Servants, who only seem capable of serving their constituents at the feed trough and not the Public at all.
We've watched this go on for years, and I for one am fed up with it. And yet, so far, the only popular unrest over what's been happening has focused either on protesting political actions by captive governments (the Austerity fetish in Europe, for example, or the mass protests in Wisconsin and elsewhere), or in Riots -- which aren't so much popular as they are focused expressions of rage and opportunism.
And all of a sudden, Marxist theory -- and actual Marxists (!) -- are being trotted out to explain what's going on. Well of course! Marx was right. Yes! His trenchant analysis of Capitalism is as true today as it was 150 years ago, and we are living through yet another of the inevitable Crises of Capitalism that are basically built in to the economic system and cannot be entirely escaped from so long as the system is in place. (Not that any other System known to man doesn't have its own set of built-in crises.)
"We're all Marxists now!" Well, in an inverted sense, yes, even the Kochs are Marxists. They and their ilk know that Marx was right and they are all about taking advantage of both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Capitalist system. And they know how to squeeze its teats on behalf of themselves.
And it is hugely frustrating for so many of us in the Lesser 99% to know full well what is wrong and what to do about it and to see just the opposite being enacted by Our Rulers, repeating and compounding the same mistakes over and over, making things worse for the many, better and better for the few, and expressing such amazement that this is happening.
Being right too soon doesn't do you any good at all.
http://libcom.org/library/1844-manuscripts-karl-marx
---------------------------------------
At least there have only been a few sharks and missing white women in the news this summer. So there is that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)