Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Facebook's new restrictions disprove Zuckerberg's "More sharing"

Why Facebook is making it more difficult for its users to share information?

Messages to non friends, and now Recent Posts by others and text-only posts cannot be shared anymore on Facebook Social Pages.


In the past few months, Facebook has introduced a series of restrictions to prevent its 1 billion users from sharing their posts on the social media and in a wider spectrum to freely communicate with each other and with the social pages they like.

The immediate consequence was that many of its users started to question why Facebook introduced this new series of restrictions, given that still at today, its founder Mark Zuckerberg, keeps claiming his personal goal in life is "to bring more people to share and access more information, and help build a “better social fabric".

In fact while Zuckerberg keeps affirming his inclusive attitude, we are witnessing a progressive reduction of freedom within Facebook as a free communication media.

It all started months ago when Facebook limited the possibility of sending messages to people who are not friends..

Before Facebook introduced this restriction, if you didn't like receiving communications from folks you didn't know, you just had to turn off the message button on your profile. Quick, Easy, Freedom.
So if this function was already provided, why you had to completely shut down the possibility of messaging new people? They didn’t shut it down, just made it more difficult for people to make new acquaintances.

Indeed the new settings strongly limited communications among Facebook users and the chance to interact and meet new people through private messages, which was instead the initial purpose of Facebook: making new friends, making more friends, making as many friends as possible!

However Facebook did not completely cut off the chance for its users to contact people outside their network of friends. Another mailbox was added: the "Other Messages" mailbox, which despite being a little bit blurred than the average mailbox, it still gives you the chance of sending and receiving messages to/from people you don't know. (To be frank with you, that's the only mailbox I check as the most interesting messages I receive are dropped from people I don't know in the "other messages" mailbox).

The new layout indeed, discourages people from sending messages to people who are not in your network of friends, because the message goes into a sort of hidden/blurred mailbox, that when you see it, it gives you the idea of undesired messages, like a sort of spam box. So whoever decides to use that mailbox definitely has a bad sensation. If you are the sender you feel like being an annoying stalker, while if you are the recipient you feel your privacy is being almost violated. Although it’s only a psychological barrier, not a real one, but still works out its purpose of discouraging people from contacting “others”.

At the beginning of this "initiative", Facebook made a  promotional campaign affirming this new layout that limited user's communications had in fact a commercial purpose, as famous people like Mark Zuckerberg and other VIPs would have allowed paying users to contact them by paying a petty fee of about 50c. So basically this first restriction was justified as an incentive to make people spending more money on Facebook while having the chance of contacting famous VIPs…

Today, one year or so after this "great initiative" the payment system has been turned off and we are back at square one, with the only difference that Facebook users have to check two mail boxes instead of one...with most of the people completely ignoring the "other messages" mailbox. Mission Accomplished!

Discouraging people from networking.

I am not sure this was Mark Zuckerberg’s initial idea when he made Facebook

Maybe this was the ultimate goal since the beginning? To make it more difficult for Facebook users who are not friends to communicate with each other?

Even today, Zuckerberg's position has not changed: "to enlarge Facebook's possibilities". Maybe Mark Zuckerberg has lost control over Facebook' settings? Indeed it would be very interesting to know who, among the Facebook management had this genius-like intuition of limiting people's interaction and communication. I would love the Facebook CEO to say something about this, although I am completely hopeless he ever will.

But this is just one of the many restrictions Facebook has introduced without you even realize.

After the message restriction, the latest initiatives to decrease Freedom of Speech within Facebook, concerned the user's interaction with social pages, which as we are going to see hereafter, is the very target of all the attacks to freedom of speech on Facebook.

Indeed the most number of restrictions affects the Social Pages, as if someone behind the curtains of Facebook does not like people interacting with pages.

From now on, any Social Page Admin cannot share on the Social page-timeline, text-only content posted by page-users on the page-timeline.

Regarding the text-only posts, Page Admins only have two choices: Like and Comment. These posts  cannot be shared on the page timeline. Not anymore.


The highest numbers of posts that a social page receives are text-only posts. Why Facebook is restricting the chance of a Social Page to share the most common type of user-generated-content on Facebook? Is this happening for real? Why Facebook is making it more difficult for people to share basic information?

It would have made more sense if they restricted the sharing of  posts containing images, maybe for memory saving purpose, but denying a Page admin to share a text-only post can only be considered as "totally meaningless". Again the question is always the same: Why?

There is more: Since April 2013, IOS mobile users started having no more access to the "Recent Posts by others" section, while some social pages have seen their Recent-Posts-by-Others box completely disappearing from their admin panel and the same thing happened to the Page subscribers.

I warmly invite you to search google for: "What happened to "Recent Posts by Others"

Then, it was the escalation: a few social pages started seeing their "Recent Posts by Others" completely disappearing.

Among the pages that underwent such a substantial limitation there is a page called "Support Dr. Steven Greer and the Disclosure Project".

A supporting page of Dr. Steven Greer, a South Carolina Medical Doctor who is also the Director of The Disclosure Project, a nonprofit research project, whose goal is to disclose to the public, the government’s alleged knowledge of Life in the Universe and advanced energy and propulsion systems.

A very sensitive subject, which has been always ridiculed by the traditional media but that thanks to Facebook is taking a new turn because being Facebook a confrontational mechanism and not a one-way megaphone it gives you more chances to understand complex subjects.

Another attempt to seclude Facebook Social Pages was made with a tool called “Graph Search”, which one morning appeared out of the blue on the Facebook layout. The Graph Search was a drop-down menu that took over the old search box. The only difference was the fact that the Graph Search did not include Social Pages in its search results. Would you believe it? Yes because it’s the absolute truth.

I also have published an article on this. Obviously right after the Graph Search kicked in, Facebook Users around the world went absolutely crazy, because it completely screwed the whole searching activity without any apparent reason nor any pre-existing need for change.

The Facebook Help Center was literally filled with questions on how to get rid of that “thing”. Indeed if you are still “trapped” in the Graph Search, you can easily get rid of it by switching the account language from “US English” to “UK English”. Emblematic, isn’t it?

Whose idea was the introduction of the Graph Search? Total mystery.

The problem is most of the people perceives these “initiatives” like “marketing differentiation initiatives”, instead than real attacks to people’s freedom. And they are not going to stop.

Maybe it is a coincidence but if we combine all these restrictions with the major "initiative" that started to decrease Facebook's attractiveness, the whole picture makes more sense. I am talking about Edward Snowden' statement that "NSA violated the privacy of Facebook Users."

That's a normal reaction. When people are told they are under surveillance they start restraining themselves. NSA privacy violations caused people to flee Facebook and about half the people who left Facebook cited Edward Snowden's revelation on privacy concerns.

This also seems to confirm that Edward Snowden's goal was not to reveal something crucial for our lives, but just to spread more fear among Facebook users, so that they would have left the social media or completely restrained themselves.

Here we need to ask ourselves a major question which always matters in these things: Cui Prodest?  "to whose benefit?". Who is going to benefit from a massive escape of users from Facebook?

Is Facebook a nest of dangerous terrorists whose lives have to be constantly eavesdropped?
Well I don’t think any terrorist would use Facebook at all!!! As the main objective of the Facebook user is SHARING. What’s wrong about sharing? Sharing ideas is against the law maybe?

Why would someone be against people sharing ideas? Why Mark Zuckerberg publicly affirms he wants more sharing while putting more restrictions on Facebook sharing mechanisms?

In the past few articles published on this blog, we warmly praised the great importance of Facebook as the first example of global consciousness. Indeed having Facebook 1.15 billion users, it's the largest connected community in world's history and if we consider the fact that these users can exchange ideas, opinion and views in real time, you understand that Facebook looks pretty much like the very same idea of Consciousness, the hugest consciousness in world's history: the World's consciousness.

It doesn’t sound like something bad or dangerous to me. So why restricting human beings from sharing ideas? It doesn't make sense!

Individual consciousness is the fabric that defines human presence and makes us different from animals. It's what defines the dignity of our species and it represents the very meaning of Human Life itself.

For the first time in History we have the chance to achieve a primitive form of a higher level of consciousness: the world's consciousness, which according to the principle of Oneness, it represents the next step in human evolution. (For those who still ignores it, Consciousness is the greatest sign of Evolution).

My spontaneous question is: "Why in the world is someone willing to stop this process to go on with our evolution process?"

On Facebook, people have the chance to confront each other on all kind of issues and to understand subjects much better than with the old media system, because you can see the whole complexity of a subject throughout the mechanism of dialectics, which is the very basis of the Western Culture way of thinking since the beginning of our civilization. Indeed it represents the ancient Agorá, which is Greek for “Square”.

Apparently some people are not happy with Human Evolution as they are willing to stop such a process by putting more restrictions among us to prevent humans from interacting with each other. 

However even if you manage to completely shut down Facebook or make its users leave it because of privacy issues or because you make it more difficult to share information (like they are doing now) and even if you shut down the Internet, history tells us that Human Evolution acts on the very same basis of the communicating vessels principle, that means that if it's not Facebook that embodies the world's consciousness there will be another social media to cover this crucial role for human evolution.

Making people leave Facebook is not just meaningless, it's completely dumb.

E Pluribus Unum

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Dutch King cuts welfare to keep his royal privileges

While the world's major trend is empowering the welfare state and the principle of "Resource Sharing", occasional selfishness pops up here and there. Like for example the GOP's 42nd attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, whilst they are more than aware that Universal Healthcare is a point of no-return. Why? Well simply because the wild unregulated trickle-down economics, the highest symbol of wild capitalism which they still represent has blatantly failed over the years.

Supply-side “trickle-down” economics -- starting with Reagan's giant tax-cuts on the rich, continuing through George W. Bush's tax cuts on the rich, combined with wild deregulation like the subprime mortgage, they led us to the most gigantic economic recession in world's  history and today we are in a situation in which four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives. 

Nonetheless the GOP's agenda keep propping up the Tricky Down Ponzi scheme, which is dragging the Republican Party to its political death, because today people know the voodoo economics is a fairy tale which is only supported by the Republican propaganda machine whose main megaphone is Fox News. 

Although these Republican Con-Artists still struggle to realize that today things have completely changed: we live in a Social Media and the whole world is inside Facebook and Twitter. 

Being everybody in the world within the same room, you inevitably form a giant single Consciousness which obviously can’t hide anything to itself and where the global exchange of ideas, views, facts and opinions can only lead to truth and righteousness, because that’s the human evolution’ spontaneous and most genuine attitude. 

Within this picture there he goes the Dutch King, Willem-Alexander. The total amount of his privileged lifestyle amounts to 40 million euros. Money that he has received from its fellow citizens without working a single day. 

Nonetheless his Royal Highness had the shameless impudence to deliver a message to the Dutch people from the government Tuesday in a nationally televised address: "the welfare state of the 20th century is gone".

In its place a "participation society" is emerging, in which people must take responsibility for their own future and create their own social and financial safety nets, with less help from the national government.”

His Royal Highness had the impudence to call the cut of the welfare state as “participation society” while the truth is he needs to cut the citizen's welfare only to prop up his privileges. 

While the rest of the world, even the United States of America is engaged in implementing the welfare state , this privileged Official wants the government to cut the welfare state to keep his royal privileges and has the impudence to call it “participation society”  

"The shift to a 'participation society' is especially visible in social security and long-term care," the king said, reading out to lawmakers a speech written for him by Prime Minister Mark Rutte's government. The AP reported today.

A series of recent polls have shown that confidence in Rutte's government is at record low levels, and that most Dutch people — along with labor unions, employers' associations and many economists — believe the Cabinet's austerity policies are at least partially to blame as the Dutch economy has worsened even as recoveries are underway in neighboring Germany, France and Britain. 

After several consecutive years of government spending cuts, the Dutch economy is expected to have shrunk by more than 1 percent in 2013, and the agency is forecasting growth of just 0.5 percent next year.

Not much of a surprise the economy kept shrinking. Tax cuts never work but for the rich and the Royals, obviously!

To show his good will to the "participation society" Willem-Alexander's salary will be cut from around 825,000 euros ($1.1 million) this year to 817,000 euros in 2014. Maintaining the Royal House — castles, parades and all — costs the government around 40 million euros annually. So the story's moral is "you guys have to work to pay my lunch and uh...sorry but if I want to keep my Royal Privileges you have to give up your healthcare insurance because we can't afford it anymore!"

It’s already unacceptable and morally questionable the fact that the King of Nederland is fully financially supported by its own citizens while they are struggling with joblessness and poverty, and at the same time he wants to cut the citizens healthcare assistance to sustain his royal privileges. 

E Pluribus Unum

Friday, September 13, 2013

Elisabeth Thieriot: the dark figure who hid evidence of Life in The Universe

           Forces of Darkness: Elizabeth Thieriot claims to be "A Philanthropist" 

What happened to the Mayan documentary called "Revelations of the Mayans 2012 and Beyond"? 

For almost 80 years, the state of Guatemala, like Mexico, home to the ancient-yet-advanced Mayan civilization had kept certain provocative archaeological discoveries classified, but as 2012 was approaching the Governments of Mexico and Guatemala decided that it was time to bring forth this information in a documentary. 

The documentary  was sponsored by the Guatemala Minister of Tourism Guillermo Novielli Quezada and the Minister of Tourism for the Mexican state of Campeche: Luis Augusto García Rosado. The operation had also the blessing of Álvaro Colom Caballeros, then President of Guatemala.

The Documentary was “Revelations of the Mayans 2012 and Beyond,”  and it was produced among others by Raul Julia-Levy, son of Hollywood actor Raul Julia. 

Executive Producer of the Documentary Production was a woman who claimed to be nothing less than the "President of Lions Gate Entertainment" and a San Francisco-based philanthropist Elisabeth Thieriot. As we'll see further on, this woman isn't either the President of Lions Gate nor is she a philanthropist whatsoever. 

In an interview to Wrap Magazine, Producer Raul Julia-Levy said he'd been made aware of the secret Mayan information by former Mexican president Vicente Fox -- a friend of his family -- and that it took four years of phone calls to finally get the OK by then-Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

"This is very important for humanity, not just for Mexico," said Julia-Levy. "This information has been protected for 80 years, and now it's important for people to understand the series of events that are coming, and the consequences for all of us." 

“Mexico will release codices, artifacts and significant documents with evidence of Mayan and extraterrestrial contact, and all of their information will be corroborated by archaeologists,” Julia-Levy said. 

"A new documentary about Mayan civilization will provide evidence of extraterrestrial contact with the ancient culture”, according to a Mexican government official and the film's producer.

It became clear that the documentary Revelations of the Mayans 2012 and Beyond, claimed the Mayans had contact with extraterrestrials supported by undeniable archaeological evidence.

In a release to TheWrap, Luis Augusto Garcia Rosado, the minister of tourism for the Mexican state of Campeche, said new evidence has emerged "of contact between the Mayans and extraterrestrials, supported by translations of certain codices, which the government has kept secure in underground vaults for some time."

To direct the documentary was hired Director Juan Carlos Rulfo, who won the Humanitas Prize for "Those Who Remain" in 2009 and the Sundance Grand Jury Prize for International Documentary for "In the Pit" in 2006. 

Eventually, the crew went to Mexico and Guatemala, they filmed hundreds of hours of footage in both countries, until something happened out of the blue. 

The story detailed that Elisabeth Thieriot literally “stole” the footage from "Revelations of the Mayans 2012 and Beyond," and fled the country right away.

Thieriot was accused of fleeing with two dozen hard drives and 10 computer towers containing the film's footage, according to documents obtained by TheWrap.

The documents are based on complaints filed by the film's producer, Raul Julia-Levy, who also accused three others, Eduardo Vertiz Mascarenas, Emiliano Chaparro Martinez and Eduardo de la Cerda, of stealing footage and equipment.

"She ran away with the footage," Julia-Levy told TheWrap. "She was informed not to leave the country, but she did. We are extremely sad and disappointed that Mrs. Thieriot did this, and we will pursue this with all the arms of the law."

Now the question we ask ourselves is “why an Executive Producer should ever do such a thing like stealing a documentary she financed and executive-produced?”

This series of events was immediately and carefully buried under a cloud of mystery.

What's worse it opened the way to the gratuitous speculation that the artifacts were fake. 

Known disinformation Outlets like View Zone magazine or Abovetopsecret.com immediately exploited the story to put into discussion the authenticity of both the Mexican and the Guatemalan artifacts, because trailers and videos showing the artifacts were already circulating on the Internet.

Now they circulate on the Internet associated with the adjective “fake”. Instead they are absolutely authentic and real. 

Power of the disinformation machine. 
Sometimes it happens that certain people who lack culture, sensitivity and mostly consciousness, do not realize how much their little stupid actions can affect something far greater than themselves, like for example the goodness of humankind. This is one of those cases in which the action of a single little person like Mrs. Thieriot affected the knowledge and consequently the freedom of the whole population of our planet. 

Mrs. Thieriot who claims to be a “Philantropist” is instead a very dark figure who, claims to be the President of Lions Gate Entertainment while she's not. She's obviously not a philanthropist either because a philanthropist does not snitch the video footage of a documentary video which is crucial for the knowledge of humankind and make it disappear.

So the question is: "who is this woman?"

Maybe this woman works for another kind of Movie Production company, maybe it's something along the line of  “Uncle Sam Productions”, a well known organization which has been fighting with all its means since 1947 to prevent Disclosure of Life in the Universe to happen. Although only a total idiot might think of being able to hide such a huge undeniable phenomenon like Life in the Universe. 

There is no doubt that in the past 70 years all the attempts made to officially acknowledge the existence of Intelligent Life in the Universe have been somehow rejected with great resistance by some dark forces. Although, even a child understands that in the long term you can’t deny the existence of something huge like Life. It’s impossible.

Despite all the attempts made by these "dark forces", disclosure will happen, no question about it. The Mayan artifacts have not been stolen, only the documentary that portrayed them. This brilliant idea of stealing the documentary by Mrs. Thieriot has only increased the people's interest to these Mayans artifacts which sooner or later will be displayed in some other documentary, other than in the national museums of Mexico and Guatemala. 

Indeed all the governments of earth and the whole landscape of world’s media combined, cannot manage to hide such an undeniable force to be seen and acknowledged. Even a mentally disturbed person knows that hiding Life is an impossible task. Simply because Life, together with Love, are the greatest forces in the whole Universe and cannot be stopped nor hidden by anyone, especially a prokaryote like Mrs. Thieriot.  

Mrs. Thieriot pretends to be a philanthropist but she’s just a vile little person who will go down in history as one of those dark figures who prevented, or better tried to prevent, or even better, made every effort to delay the revelation of the archaeological evidence of the historical connection between the ancient Mayans and visitors from somewhere in the Universe. 

She probably did not consider that acting for the Forces of Darkness by denying the whole humankind something like the world most important heritage which also represents our connection to the Universe, isn’t exactly something that will support the credibility of her being a Philantropist. 

Quiet the contrary. From now on, calling Mrs. Thieriot “a philanthropist” will sound like a joke to say the least….  

Life in the Universe can be perceived throughout the Universal consciousness by all the conscious beings who inhabit our Universe. Those who are not able to feel such a huge powerful force are those who are not in touch with themselves and with the very nature of life. 

One of the greatest U.S. President ever elected in history was Abraham Lincoln, one of his most famous say was: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time"

The moral of this story is “You can stop a documentary to be released but you can’t stop history from unfolding, nor consciousness to stop connecting people throughout the Universe”

E Pluribus Unum

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Governor Deval Patrick must immediately end Christopher McCowen' shameful conviction

    Patsy: Christopher McCowen 

Christopher McCowen's wrongful conviction is not just a shame for the State of Massachusetts. It's a shame for America and its entire legal system.

Christa Worthington was stabbed to death at her home in Truro, Massachusetts (on Cape Cod). Her body was found on January 6, 2002, with her two-year-old daughter, Ava, clinging to her body

Cape Cod District Attorney Michael O'Keefe was quoted in Maria Flook's book "Invisible Eden: A Story of Love and Murder on Cape Cod," as saying that Christa Worthington was "an equal opportunity employer as she'd (expletive) the husbands of her female friends. The butcher or the banker." 

The remark outraged Christa's family. Nonetheless, it became increasingly clear that there were a lot of people who "intimately knew" Christa that could have had motive to kill her. 

Not long after her move to Truro, Christa began a relationship with a shellfish constable and married father of six, Tony Jackett, 51. The affair lasted off and on for around two years. Then, in 1998, what Christa would later describe as "a miracle" happened: She learned that she was pregnant.

When Tony was informed about the pregnancy, he was deeply concerned that it would spell doom for his marriage. An article by Franci Richardson in the Boston Herald quoted Tony, who said, "I wasn't looking to end my marriage but I am human. It was her choice to have the baby." Consequently, he ended his relationship with Christa.

Not long afterwards, Christa became involved with book author Tim Arnold who also happened to be her neighbor and the first person who found her body.

Tim was quoted in the Boston Herald saying that he thought she was "really intelligent and sometimes caustic and quick and wittyjust really full of life." However, the relationship did not last, because Christa believed they were incompatible. They remained good friends.

Because the crime scene offered no major lead, Police detectives began interviewing those who knew Christa hoping to find new information that might provide more insight into her death. Persons of Interest in this case were:  Elizabeth Porter  (the mistress of Christa's father), Tony Jackett (the shellfish constable) and Tim Arnold the book author/former lover/neighbor/the person who found her body.

What detectives discovered was a series of complex relationships that put some of the individuals in a more questionable light. Although at the end of the the investigation, the police had no break nor the smallest lead, so they decided to rely upon the only existing physical evidence. Even if it was not the kind of evidence that supported a murder theory albeit a fairy tale of the old west, or better from the old south.

The suspect is a black male.

We don't want to blame the victim here. Not at all. Nor we want to blame the Prosecutor because being himself a politician he represents the will of the local community But the local community is indeed the only place where we have to look for the real guilty party.

Because other than killing Christa, the second major crime committed in Truro, Massachusetts it was the conviction of Christopher McCowen to a life sentence while everybody knew he's absolutely and completely innocent. 

Christa Worthington had a happy sexual life that by adopting an euphemism could have been defined as "libertine". 

Although both the investigators and the family, despite the hyper sexual activity of the victim, they both refused to consider the possibility that McCowen, a black garbage hauler, had a consensual sexual relationship with the white, Vassar-educated victim. 

Basically the whole burden of proof against Christopher McCowen was based upon the impossible scenario that Christa Worthington could ever had sex with an African-American man. Simply because that would mean to put into discussion Newton's principle of gravity and that the sky is blue. 

Christopher McCowen was convicted of murder because a black male with an IQ of 78 cannot have sex with an "educated" white woman. 

The major force propping up the evil black man who rape and kills the white well educated woman was Christa Worthington's family.

That same family that soon after McCowen's arrest, began a lawsuit against Cape Cod Disposal Co. for $10 million, for employing McCowen even though he had a criminal record. 

The same family whose credibility was put in doubt by Christa Worthington's cousin, Jan Worthington, 54, whose testimony was called into question because of the deal she struck up with HBO, who was filming the court proceedings, and Lifetime, that covered the murder in a documentary and teleplay.

In practice Jan Worthington fully exploited her cousin by profiting from her murder. Even though Jan Worthington admitted to profiting, she said that she was mainly trying "to protect Christa's image". 

In addition, it seems that the same Jan Worthington being one of the first persons on the crime scene, not only contaminated the scene but provided different accounts of what she did when she showed up at her cousin's home..

There were contradictory reports made by Jan Worthington: at one time she told a reporter that she touched Christa's body to feel a pulse and an even earlier admission made to police where she said she "'freaked out' upon seeing the body and never touched or even approached it,". Jan Worthington claimed that the accurate version of events was that given to a reporter, an account which had been filmed for an HBO documentary in which she was also professionally involved.

Jan Worthington was the person who pointed the finger towards Christopher McCowen because on her opinion it would have been impossible that her promiscuous cousin would have slept with a man of a different complexion.

The real guilty party here is Christa Worthington's family, the worst example of human beings on this planet.

Christopher McCowen was sentenced to life in prison for first degree murder, sexual assault and robbery.
The only evidence upon which the whole case was based it was the dna found on Christa Worthington body, despite the fact that the medical examiner found no trace of sexual violence whatsoever.

Eventually McCowen defense team obtained a hearing to consider racial bias allegations among jurors during Christopher McCowen's murder trial. that  was held in Barnstable Superior Court. Although the motion requesting a new trial was rejected by the Court.

The village of Truro is 37 miles from John Kennedy's memorial, but the way this trial has been conducted seems more suitable to Birmingham, Alabama.

After the trial to Christopher McCowen ended, it was discovered Christa Worthington died in a different time respect to the time assumed by the Medical Examiner. This says all about how the Christa Worthington investigation was conducted.

We warmly invite Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick to take into serious consideration the opportunity to grant his pardon to Christopher McCowen because he's the greatest living sign that American Justice is now more dead than Christa Worthington.

E Pluribus Unum

Friday, September 6, 2013

The huge hole in Edward Snowden' Screenplay

Nobody can dispute the fact that in the past few years the news we have been sold by the media has acquired a more sophisticated and appealing narrative, like in the best Hollywood tradition. 

From Wikileaks to Bradley Manning to Edward Snowden, the mythological pantheon of patriots and heroes we have been presented by the mainstream media is full of legendary characters whose only goal is to save the world, while the price they are ready to pay is sacrificing their own life without any hesitation or doubt.

These reckless heroes once they are introduced to the audience, they immediately establish a direct emotional connection with the segment they want to target: the Armchair Protesters.

Armchair Protesters are Internet users who stand for freedom within their armchair perimeter. They are into Democracy and Justice but they are too busy to get directly involved into the political arena. Not to mention the questioning of a message authenticity. That's way too far from their status of motionless warriors.

Although they feel they must do something to show their political commitment, that's why Snowden and Manning are the perfect marketing products to calm their thirst for truth and justice.
These new government leakers perfectly represent the new fronteer of political activism, without much effort required but a Facebook Like.

Edward Snowden cannot be touched, interviewed nor being questioned on anything by anyone. Crowds of reporters have been chasing him inside the Moscow Airport but none of them was even able to spot him. Only Whistleblower-exclusive-monopolist-controller-(and journalist)-Glenn-"I-know-real-Leakers"-Greenwald is the only human being who ever had the chance to see Snowden in real life.

Like Plato with Socrates, or the holy bishop of Delfi with the Oracle, Greenwald is the Demiurge who is able to translate the divine message into human intelligible language. Thank god.

This aura of mystery and the great distance from the ordinary world, helped to create Snowden's image and characterization as  mythological and legendary.

We certainly don't want to diminish the greatness of these new Gods or their Revelation powers. Indeed we have to acknowledge their ability to establish such an immediate connection with the world's audience is really impressive.

Maybe one of the reason behind such an immediate success is based on the fact they are presented as "government worst opponents". Quiet fair: having the government zero credibility when it's about security matters whoever claims to be a government leaker is absolutely credible.

Then it doesn't matter if eventually what they reveal is just by chance reaffirming in toto the State Department's agenda. Like for example the problem of the Taliban connection within the Pakistani Intelligence.

First it was the State Department that raised the issue with the Pakistani government and that happened when General Pervez Musharraf was still in office. Although the State Department had no meaningful results and certainly the Armchair Protesters suffer of too short-memory to remember a news that was just a small paragraph in a 2008 issue of Foreign Policy Magazine. We are asking them too much!

Then it was the time of Wikileaks, whose revelations have put new emphasis on the issue but once again the message went under-noticed. Now it's the time of Edward Snowden Bond who brought the world's attention back on the problem. Even if the possible outcome is still uncertain.

Like in the (best?) Hollywood movies, this happy company of leakers have inconsistent controvesial backgrounds and lack of characterization to say the least. After having been sentenced to 35 years in prison (of which he will eventually spend only 8 and of these 8 he already spent 3), Bradley Manning decided to become nothing less than a woman and disappeared from the public radar.
The world knew him as a convicted male soldier, but having become Chelsea Manning, we are "not sure" under what name he could be found at the military detention center or in any other government facility. Total darkness.

Let's keep in mind that nobody on this planet has ever seen Bradley Manning in real life. Exactly like in Barry Levinson's movie, Wag the Dog, Bradley Chelsea Manning's story looks every minute like Sergeant William "Old Shoe" Schumann. Hollywood meets Government news. Maybe Bradley Manning is not reachable because he's in a military detention facility, so maybe we are a little bit to much conspiratorial and paranoid.

Ok let's take a look at another interesting character of this comedy show: Sarah Harrison, the assumed former lover/assistant of Julian Assange and one of Wikileaks main contributors. When the echo of State Department's cables and war logs ended, also the enthusiasm of the Wikileaks devoted "Armchair Protesters" fell apart and a blue mood kicked in.

With perfect timing, Edward Snowden jumped on the public stage to shake the Armchair Protesters boredom with his new explosive leak-show. Immediately Wikileaks factotum Mrs.Sarah Harrison, the former creepy assistant of Julian Assange, became Edward Snowden's Personal Assistant and escorted him to China. Voilà! By the way....who is Sarah Harrison? Sarah Harrison is a more fictional character than Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and even of Edward Snowden himself all combined.

First of all Sarah Harrison is a bog-common name like Catherine Fitzpatrick. She has no twitter, no facebook account and all the facts mentioned in her Wikipedia page are all disputed in the talk section one by one by dozens of different users. Although she's the one who managed the High Court of London to release Julian Assange on bail, for which she paid a £5000 bond, which she eventually lost because he did not show up.

After knowing all this, one simple question comes to my mind: Who are these people?

Fantasy characters who prop up each other on the stage in which they play, to make their story credible under the media narrative point of view.

Nonetheless these fantasy characters are very powerful players. They come out of nowhere but they are able to immediately saturate the mainstream media landscape. They get on stage with the sensational news of their defection and their assumed security breaches. But it's just hot air.

The following are the main pre-requisites of these characters:

1) Former government officials who are ready to talk
2) They oppose the government's policy and ethics
3) They are Freedom Fighters who fight for the people's knowledge and freedom
4) Consequently whatever they would tell us is Holy Gospels and we become a world of believers.
5) What they reveal is just a bunch of nonsense that has no value in terms of disclosure

Obviously the audience gets impressed by the initial stunning easy concept, which can be summarized in two words: Swapping Team. Snowden went from working as a private contractor for the Darkest Federal Spy Agency in the world (the NSA) to the Armchair Protesters who oppose the government but they don't know why.

You have to consider Narrative is always composed both by a conscious level and an unconscious one. The emotional connection between the audience and the character on the screen is established thanks to many psychological factors. Indeed the human brain always works on an energy-saving basis which by default relies entirely on its memory. So while processing new information coming in, our brain works on mental associations longing for familiar concepts and images.

Hence on the unconscious level, the first information to process is the Story Premise: Team Swapping.

In the world's public imagery, the most obvious and recent stories that carried such a narrative premise were: Avatar by James Cameron and Dance with the Wolves. In both cases a psychologically battered military changes team and goes helping the Natives who are the highest symbol of Freedom in the American public imagery. The human brain doesn't question nor it is able to process every bit of information to verify the flow's coherence by comparing it to the whole picture. The viewer's brain gets impressed by the emotional connection established with the first piece of information: Swapping Team. That's it. The rest are non-relevant details because once the emotional state kicks in, the brain is ready to buy whatever you want to sell. The emotional situation introduced by the Swapping Team premise completely distracts the audience from the message that is eventually revealed by the character (Snowden) so that you won't be able to recognize that same message was propped up by the State Department and by Wikileaks more than a year before Snowden.

In addition, these "leakers" are not poor underdogs who fight to make ends meet. These people stay at 5 stars hotels and travel in Private jets.

Talking of private jets, another very interesting character orbiting around this comedy show is Ólafur Sigurvinsson, who claims to be an Icelandic Entrepreneur and the owner of DataCell, a Web Hosting farm who offered Edward Snowden the chance of travelling with a private flight from three different locations in China.

The funny thing is in all the official company documents of DataCell, the official owner results to be Andreas Fink and not Mr. Olafur Sigurvisson. Although maybe Mr. Sigurvisson is probably the right man to call if you call Team Swapping, you are stuck in Hong Kong and need a private jet to fly out of trouble.

What's really odd is the fact that on the company's website, under the "system status" section there's an eloquent message that says:

30 April 2013. "We have experienced fibre connection problem on the our international link at the moment. Our cable operator is currently working to fix the problem. The connection will be resumed as soon as the problem is fixed. We will monitor the progress closely. If your have more questions, please do not hesitate to contact us."

Below this improbable message there is another section:

Upcoming planned maintenance: No scheduled maintenance work currently.

In practice, their hosting system is not working but they are not taking any action to solve this little problem. This is kind of weird for a hosting company that wants to stay in business with today's aggressive competition. It seems that DataCell is used as a sort of blank-check bank, a permanent financial support for this happy company of leakers.

Apparently the Casting Director didn't spend much time on the development of secondary characters and extras and this negligence killed the audience suspension of disbelief, which is instead a key factor within the audience identification process. This story of this private jet reminds me of another story, in which another private jet was involved. I am talking about Liverpool FC and Red Sox tycoon Philip Morse who used to make some extra pocket money by renting his private jet out to the CIA for extraordinary renditions or "torture flights". A European Parliament report linked the jet directly to the abduction of Abu Omar.

You realize these Leakers are fictional characters because once they complete their narrative mission, they disappear in that same darkness from where they came from. Like Bradley Manning, who was "killed" in the story by swapping to Chelsea Manning. We have had other leakers in the past but nothing was able to saturate the media like the Edward Snowden Show.

Take Gary McKinnon for example, he was interviewed a couple of times but he did not puke out millions of boring-to-death State Department documents, nor two Pulitzer prize winners rushed to interview him on the other side of the world and certainly no entrepreneur would have provided him a private jet. That's because McKinnon was a real leaker and not a fictional character.

How do you tell a fake leaker from a real one? Very simple: a real leaker is not desperately seeking credibility like Snowden. A real leaker is threatened, he's scared he's confused and certainly is not able to saturate the media with his only presence, certainly he doesn't talk to the media only to scare people with generic stories of government's controlling programs and a vomit of scripted nonsense talk.

This is the main problem for Edward Snowden's credibility: it began when he started revealing his "family jewels", which basically were a bunch of annoying nonsense in the best tradition of disinformation. In fact Edward Snowden's only revelation was that "we are all spied" and "the government controls everyone and everything". Well first of all if the government controls everyone and everything why they were not able to control Edward Snowden boarding a flight to Hong Kong? Why they weren't able to prevent Gary McKinnon from shutting down the United States Army's Military District of Washington network of 2,000 computers for 24 hours?

To tell the truth I expected Edward Snowden to reveal the most kept secrets of the United States government, like some evidence of Life in the Universe (which is the only secret left in the vault of the US government together with some vintage sport model flying discs) or that he would have taken out from his pocket the fourth and fifth bullets that hit JFK's car in Dallas. These could have been considered real revelations. That's why we believe Gary McKinnon is a real leaker, because he testified he saw the picture of a flying disc in the computers of the NASA (other than the little detail that he's been interviewed by the Police three years before releasing his first media interview)

The main problem with the Snowden's screenplay is always the same: characterization, motivation and the extras used in this sort of B movie. Take for example his motive: In real life there is only one major force that can lead a man taking such an overwhelming choice like the one of Snowden. This major force is one of a kind: Consciousness which is fuelled by love.
On a narrative level or better in the screenwriting lexicon, professional screenwriters define such a force as the "lover's energy". Meaning that the enormous energy he received from someone close to him pulled the trigger that led him to become the greatest leaker in world's recent history.

In fact whoever wrote the Snowden story, decided to completely rely on the figure of James Bond, who in the public imagery is always surrounded by beautiful exotic dancers who are more sexual characters than love-energy characters. Hence the energy they carry with them is sexual energy and not love. They are two completely different things because such a characterization completely affects the whole meaning of the story and the protagonist's ethics that consists of his main values. They needed the character of Snowden to have the maximum credibility and as they wanted you to believe he is a spy they choose James Bond as the main imaginative association for our simple brain to buy.

You have to consider that every story you see at the movies it's always the story of a transformation, that carries with it a major psychological change. From bad to good, from weak to strong etc. Hollywood movies always tell the story of a hero who at the end of the day has always changed respect to what he was at the beginning. And in order to change he has to struggle with the worst possible enemy: Himself. Especially in a story like the one of Snowden it is absolutely implicit that he's being undergoing a major transformation because it has been reported that sometimes before his defection, he published a series of comments on Facebook, affirming that "leakers have to be shot in the balls". You don't write such a statement and after six months you go to Hong Kong and call up a couple of Hack writers like Glenn "I know real Leakers" Greenwald and the other guy from the Wash Post and tell them about your disappointment over Obama's agenda. That's not credible.

Where's the inner struggling forces? Where is Snowden's internal conflict? Something must have happened because Snowden completely changed his weltanschauung (Vision of the world). Most important he changed the ethical values he believes in. Although his screenwriter wants us to believe that Snowden was just "disappointed with Obama's policy". This is the screenplay's hugest hole: if you have a James Bond's characterization you can't have that ethical change. Why? Well simply because James Bond is a superhero and superheroes do not enter any transformation or psychological change because they never lose. Snowden has a James Bond characterization but they want us to buy the fact he was able to enter a psychological transformation without undergoing any psychological injury nor any sentimental involvement with anyone. It doesn't work this way,

Team swapping is not a simple game that happens like that. You need a psychological injury, you need an inciting incident, you need the lover's energy. But the Snowden's screenwriters forgot to put this on the screen, because they thought the audience wouldn't go that in depth in analyzing his background story! Indeed in the media it was reported that Snowden went out with an Hawaian pole dancer, who knew absolutely nothing about him and his job and who was not involved in his choice.

Lindsay Mills, (the Pole Exotic dancer who Snowden used to date) doesn’t look exactly like someone who carries such powerful energy to transform a grey bureaucrat into a popular hero. She doesn't work for Amnesty International, nor did she follow him to Russia and she did not escort him to Hong Kong nor she did reveal anything meaningful about Snowden's personality or about their love-story. She's just part of his scenery because in all of its movies James Bond hangs out with an exotic lonely dancer.(See Bond Girls for all the character's references) One of the main psychological traits of the Bond girls there's her loneliness and just by chance the only statement made by Lindsay Mills was "you are leaving me lost at see without a compass". That's it. That's the big love energy of Lindsay Mills.

In his video interview with Whistleblowers monopolist controller Glenn "I know real leakers" Greenwald, when Snowden spoke about his job, his voice suddenly broke and that happens when you feel extremely happy and proud of what you're saying and you have an emotional breakdown like when you see a movie and you start crying. Or it can happen when you are very very proud of something you did, which is objectively acclaimed and acknowledged by others. This particular voice-tune-behavior is caused by the most secure of feelings that is the one of "being comfortably home". The voice breaks into an emotional state that reveals an almost narcissistic self-accomplishment, because you know you did the right thing and you re surrounded by friends and loved ones who fill your life with unconditional love and compensation of all kind. That sensation can be summarized in "A great brilliant future is waiting ahead of you, tomorrow will be Christmas and all of your family and your friends will be here with you and you just won a million dollars at the lottery.." Certainly that's not the way I would feel while interviewed for the first time by the major world's newspapers to let them know I am a government leaker who wants to denounce the evil conduct of the largest and most secretive spy agency in the world.

Nor was the same attitude that real leaker Gary McKinnon had when he first met the press. Also because Gary McKinnon did not need to be interviewed by two Pulizer prize winners to acquire credibility. The Federal government went immediately after Gary McKinnon as he's been interviewed by Police on March 19 2002 while the first interview McKinnon released to the media was three years and four months after he was interviewed by authorities.

McKinnon released his first interview on July 9, 2005 to Guardian reporter Jon Ronson who hasn't won a Pulitzer yet. Instead Snowden became a media sensation right away, he requested the presence of two Pulizer winning reporters and completely saturated the world's media with the only news of his team swapping, while being escorted by a team of fictional characters like Sarah Harrison and Travel Agent Olafur "Sharky" Sigurvisson.

My only comment regarding the whole Edward Snowden story can be summarized in one single expression: "wow!". This guy is Harry Thomas Anderson "Neo" Potter. I have no problem in admitting I would never ever had the guts to do what he did. Never Ever. Only if my life was threatened maybe or if I had no other choice or if Kate Moss had promised me her eternal love in exchange for becoming a leaker...but being Italian I'd rather deceive her than choosing of being haunted by the devil in person or by Joubert from the three days of Condor.

In any case the only circumstance under which a rational average human being would have done what he did, would be an incredible unprecedented pressure exercised over him by an external or internal entity which left him no choice but to come forward and step on the world stage.

This "entity" though will never be revealed to the public simply because it doesn't exist as Snowden's characterization does not fit that picture.

Who in the world would risk his own life for something like "Obama's disappointed me".

You give up your life, your relatives, your friends, your home, your job, your money, your homeland, your security for what? Public acknowledgement? Gratitude? Fame? No my friend. A person who choose to give up his whole material life to change the world for better is the highest moral example in the ethical scheme. His ethics and moral can be compared to those of Saint Francis (who just by chance is the new Pope's inspirational figure) or Jesus Christ but these Historical Freedom fighters have been struggling for real both inner daemons and external enemies. Snowden's only struggle was deciding what five star hotel he would check in. Nor he showed any real motivation in exposing what he knew. He sounded like reading the White Pages. A real freedom warrior doesn't behave that way. A real freedom warrior is fueled by an overwhelming force that is called PASSION. Something that Edward Snowden will never have because he's got no guts being just a fake puppet.

We have to realize that in a world made of media, narratives is the main form under which historical events are told to the public. This way it would be easier for the lazy audience to receive the message in the clearest and quickest way possible. For the same reasons, narratives is the only key to crack what you see in today's world, which is undoubtedly a media world. Although at the same time someone can use the narrative tools to deceive the audience. Someone who is able to saturate the media, create fake characters and borrow private jets.

One way or another Narrative has become the King of today's new reality. Take for example the September 11 attacks, when reality reached the peak of its narrative power. Even the day that the terrorists chose for the attack is a story in itself as it can be summarized in the emergency number: 911. Under the narrative point of view this is defined as "perfection". That's Narratives at its top level. Indeed in the past ten years we have seen major changes occurring in everyone's lives and even criminals started to adapt themselves to this new scheme of things. Middle East terrorists started video recording their attacks and suicide bombers they redacted their will in form of video message. It's like if you are not into the media narrative scheme of things, your actions won't ever exist, because the only reality is the one you see on the screen of your PC or your tv set. And the best the narrative the more powerful the message. Whoever made up the Snowden story did not put enough effort in filling up the narrative holes in Snowden's character. The Swapping Team was not justified by an external pressure or by an  internal one

His James Bond's superficial characterization with his exotic Pole-dancer is the major contradiction in this whole story, because it completely destroys the chance that he's a freedom warrior who is fueled by the most powerful energy in the universe: Love. The Snowden story is a typical Redemption Plot, where the story arcs on a moral change within the protagonist (Snowden) from bad to good. because he turned from working as a "dark grey" government contractor employee to becoming a whistleblower whose only goal in life is to free the world from the darkness of ignorance.

Although what's missing in Snowden's background is the event that justifies such a major change to happen. The "turning point". When, where and what pulled Edward Snowden to turn himself to the major world's media to reveal he worked for the NSA and we all are spied by the government? Nothing. Zero. An exotic pole dancer means sex and not eternal love. Besides, with all due respect, Edward Snowden is not the playboy kind of guy. He looks more like a nerd who learned sex through porn movies rather than walking naked in the woods with Mary Jane and Peggy Sue.

Like all this B-movie dark creepy-sneaky characters, from Sarah Harrison to Ólafur Sigurvinsson, Edward Snowden is a fake science fiction character like the rest of his happy company. These people showed no emotional side and a major lack about their real motivation, other than a huge contradiction within their own behavior.

Nothing in his life or in his professional background or in his recent history is consistent with his life-changing decision.

Nor he did reveal to Whistleblower scientist Glenn Greenwald what pulled him to take such a mind-blowing decision that completely destroyed his bourgeois-lifestyle.

Snowden just puked a salad of meaningless words, like "I felt this was not the world I wanted to live in, I was disappointed by Obama". This means nothing. A lot of talk and a badge.

This is where the professional narratives kicks in and amateurs get kicked out.

E Pluribus Unum

Monday, September 2, 2013

Wikileaks:the State Department megaphone that won't go away

    The State Department biggest megaphone:  Julian Assange|  Photo by Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

Wikileaks, the propaganda machine that helped the State Department in transforming boring-to-death daily reports and irrelevant war-logs into sensational front page news of unprecedented interest is not going to go off the radar any soon.

The Wikileaks comedy is now entering into the Saga gender mode, like Star Wars or Harry Potter.

Certainly it has passed its initial narrative structure à la "Wag the Dog" by Barry Levinson, despite the plot being exactly the same.

Bradley Manning, aka Chelsea Elizabeth Manning aka Wag the Dog  Private "Old Shoe" Schumann, decided to change his sexual gender and she's now a woman.

Like Sergeant William "Old Shoe"Schumann in Barry Levinson's conspiratorial movie "Wag the Dog" nobody on this planet has ever had the chance of seeing Bradley Manning in real life, nor talking to him with the exception of an Internet chat with hacker turned FBI informant Adrian Lamo, who was the only connection between Manning and the rest of the world. Although that thin line of connection was able to change the world as we know it.

The man/woman (transgender?) who was the main and only source of the whole Wikileaks phenomenon, a creature who changed the lives of millions, has never been seen by anyone and he's now going to go off the scenes under a new identity. Hollywood at its best!

In Barry Levinson's Wag the Dog, Sergeant "Old Shoe" Schumann dies heroically under the fire of his rape victim's father while in our hyper-reality show, Old Shoe becomes a woman. A different final but same story. In both cases both characters vanished from the screen.

It seems that 2014 is not going to stop the Information Disclosure flow, after Wikileaks, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, who knows what the Propaganda Machine is preparing to put on stage next for the delight of our infotainment?

To increase and to consolidate the interest and the credibility of this giant vaudeville, a series of movies about Wikileaks, Manning, Snowden and the happy company are going to hit the screen next fall so that the world's attention on this giant comedy show won't get any lesser soon!

In the meanwhile, the real Disclosure goes always more unnoticed and hidden under this massive noise of leaks, leakers and clowns.

On September 28, 2010 six USAF retired officers including a former base commander, stated they had UFO encounters that possibly have completely compromised in more than one occasion the national nuclear defence systems of both US and UK.

Although, despite the unprecedented relevance, this news never reached the mainstream media with the same impact of the Wikileaks comedy show.

It took almost 15 years of enormous work to Disclosure Project Director Dr. Steven Greer to gather more than 800 alive witnesses among former NASA employees, Military Intelligence, Armed Forces, former Government officials and scientists. Every government witness signed an affidavit that they are ready to testify under oath before Congress of their direct knowledge of Life in the Universe. Their knowledge was based on direct work experience on the matter but what they received from the mainstream media was just complete indifference: they were left alone with their knowledge like trash in a dumpster.

Despite the hot topic, the credibility of the witnesses and the solid evidence, the Press Conference held at the Washington Press Building back in 2001 did not receive a single headline in the news media, just some short feature story that included contradicting debunking versions by assumed "ufologists" hired for the occasion by tv networks who were given the exact same amount of time to express their completely divergent opinion on the matter and who completely derided and ridiculed 15 years of meticulous work.

On the contrary when Wikileaks released 400.000 boring-to-death State Department cables and war-logs, the mainstream media and government officials were absolutely delighted to find out how daily reports of absolutely no relevance in terms of secrecy were so interesting and life-changing.

The cables released by Wikileaks were State Department cables, that means they were communications between the US Embassies around the globe and the Headquarters of the US foreign policy. Usually these communications between embassies and the State Department describe 1) the local political situation as seen by US officials 2) the US interests to promote in the area and the embassy goals 3) the strategy to reach those goals.

Obviously, the description of the local situation redacted by State Department officials, represents the very subjective point of view of the redacting officer, so it does not represent the real  state of things but a very creative interpretation of the local reality related to the US interests.

What Wikileaks managed to do, with the complicity of the world's most important newspapers like The Guardian, The New York Times, Der Spiegel, El Pais and Le Monde, was to launch the biggest advertising campaign of the State Department's agenda on the world's situation and feed it to the the world's audience as if it was the new Gospel or the revelation of the millennium.

In practice in the past few years the world's mainstream media became the biggest megaphone of the State Department vision over world's politics.

It was like if the State Department's daily press releases went directly on the front page of the largest media outlets on the planet, and once on these media, the State Department's opinions on the world's politics became the opinion of those media too and consequently the world's opinion on the world itself.

If George Orwell would have lived in today's world he would be simply horrified, because today's reality went far beyond the nightmare he created on his "1984".

What is really unbelievable is the largest media outlets on the planet fell into this dumb trap like lambs in a hole. How it could have possibly happened? Were the media aware of what they were doing? The thing is in both cases, we will never know, because after such a debacle, those media's reputation is going to sink like the Titanic.

Also they will never admit they were aware of what they were doing because it would mean they were willingly cooperating in a propaganda (PSYOP) campaign to deceive the world's audience. On the other hand, if they admit they were fooled by a disturbed character like Julian Assange they would reveal their total naiveness (which I don't believe it for a second).

The Wikileaks scheme was also a government test that clearly showed how much the public opinion can be easily manipulated and millions of people can be deceived by governments with the complicity of mass media.

The question is, what's the purpose of the government? why it needs to set up such a giant complex scheme to share its foreign policy agenda?

The answer is in one word: Credibility.

If the State Department would have released those cables through their Media Relations office or its Spokesperson, nobody would never ever bought it nor had ever printed a word of it. Those cables and war logs were absolutely of no interest for anyone. 

Then there was the credibility problem: First of all they came out from the State Department. So the information would have been considered as total propaganda but before even considering such a thing, being war logs and diplomatic cables confidential material, they could have not released such material into the form of a press kit!

They needed an unexpected third party for doing the job.Someone who was on the other side of the barricade.

Indeed when those cables were "leaked" to a group of independent hackers, they magically gained instant credibility and the top newsworthiness.

Kudos for the magics.

Why the US government has a credibility problem? Why they need a bunch of hackers to grab the audience attention for their material to become credible?

Well, just think to the fact the British Parliament last week rejected the military intervention in Syria proposed by the USA. They rejected it because the last time the British Parliament approved a similar motion, they eventually found out that the evidence upon which the motion was based, it resulted to be a complete fraud as Iraq had no chemical or nuclear weapons whatsoever.

The world has no trust in the American government because in many occasions a veil of mystery and secrecy was shred over American history key issues.

From the Roswell incident to the killing of JFK, to the Watergate Scandal, until the 9/11 attacks, for some reasons the US government is perceived by the general audience to be the most secretive and conspiratorial machine on earth and consequently not very credible.

The world doesn't trust the government but they are ready to kill to defend Wikileaks, the biggest communication branch the State Department ever had the chance to have.

Wikileaks was the perfect tool to solve the US government's credibility problem. How? well because it had all the requirements to be considered credible in today's distrusted world.

First of all Wikileaks was "a third party", and an "independent" group of activists whose statement is to crack government's secrets and publish them on their website.

The main assumption is the fact that after the Iraq's lack of Weapons of Mass destruction, the government credibility was like zero. So who can we absolutely trust? the opponents of the government itself: The Leakers! It sounds like a Rock band. The Leakers!

So what the government did was actually very simple: as the world's audience started to distrust the government and believe the leakers and whistleblowers, they did what the best American business tradition does: they hired the best leakers on the market: Wikileaks!

It was just perfect!

In practice the State Department exploited Wikileaks like any other Intelligence asset on the Information Operation field. They exploited Assange's narcissistic personality, whose desire of fame was simply the perfect match for their communication goals.

According to what CNBC journalist Eamon Javers reports in his book "Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy" every Intelligence agency manual describes as the best asset to recruit as "a male in his 30's who is somewhat bored, has a propensity to party hard, needs cash, enjoys risk, likes women, is disrespectful of his managers, fiddles his expenses but is patriotic." This personality profile perfectly matched the one of Julian Assange, with the addition that according to what David Leigh told in the Documentary "Wikileaks, War, lies and videotape" he's also a pathological paranoid, which increases his credibility to an unexpected level of trust by the unaware audience.

You could not have wished any better.

However I am not saying here what Wikileaks has done was morally or politically despicable, in fact I am deeply convinced being the State Department megaphone, it helped to change certain political situations that had to change. For example it helped starting the movement that led to the Arab Spring in North Africa that has been the US Foreign policy main objective since the Bush Presidency, and that's something we are ready to acknowledge. Indeed Wikileaks managed to reach a goal that the Bush administration wasn't able to reach by itself.

What people still struggle to understand is the fact that today's foreign policy as well as any political or social change you want to convey, they all take place in one single battlefield: The media. From Social Media to traditional media, what goes on the media is what's perceived by the audience as REAL.

What happens in the media it happened for real, even if it's completely staged or it's a manipulation of the real scenario.It doesn't matter.Wag the dog docet!

"The whole war is based on deception" said Chinese general Sun Tzu. America made of Sun Tzu philosophy its main attitude, without making a distinction between war or peace time. Deception is absolutely crucial for the survival of the American dream. The problem is with today's increased complexity of the media landscape the government propaganda (or PSYOP) has to stage always more and more complex virtual reality to deceive its enemies. Even if the Wikileaks comedy was kind of simplistic trick.

According to the JP 1-02 DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms:

Psychological operations (PSYOPs) or, officially since 2010, Military Information Support Operations (MISO) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of United States psychological operations is to induce or reinforce behavior favorable to US objectives. If we change the words MISO or PSYOP with Wikileaks, the description even make more sense.

The problem with this discipline is the fact that living in a world of global media, if you want to deceive your enemies, you cannot create a different reality segment specifically for those people you want to target, because every single bit of information today is shared instantly with the whole world. This means that any deception strategy focused on a certain specific region of the world or group of people it has to go global anyway and the people who got deceived are even those who are not included as the main target. I call it Collateral Mind Damages.

Wikileaks cables and war logs were supposed to help the US Foreign Policy in restoring a political balance in the Middle East region, by helping or causing a regime change in some hostile Arab governments that did not want to cooperate with the State Department. Like Tunisia for example.

One of the U.S. government cables released by WikiLeaks exposed the corruption of Tunisia's President's Ben Ali's family, its reach into business in the country, and ability to transcend the rule of law. The Wikileaks cable about Tunisia was like a spark in a storage of black powder. Indeed in the three years before the Tunisian spring, the US Mission in Tunis tried to offer greater cooperation to the Tunisians and they said they wanted it, but not shied from making plain the need for change. The US mission has been blocked by the Foreign Ministry that managed to control all its contacts in the government and many other organizations. Although when the Wikileaks cable on Tunisian President Ben Ali went public, everything changed: the Arab Spring started and for the US Embassy in Tunis was like a dream coming true.

That's absolutely legitimate and the US government has being conducting propaganda operations on a massive scale since World War II when they used flyers, radio broadcasting and other means to convince the Germans that Hitler would have been defeated.

I am not disputing the good intentions of the US foreign policy nor the trick of using a narcissistic asset to become the knight of modern freedom in the public imagery. The problem is that Wikileaks has been elected by the unaware masses to the example of democratic virtue and the landmark of freedom. While in reality was just an asset exploited to do the dirty job for the Middle East PSYOP campaign.

The glorification of Wikileaks could be compared to the exaltation of propaganda as a way to freedom and that's certainly not a good thing, because the government or other outlets could be able to exploit Wikileaks credibility for other purposes which go against the interests of the American government or of its allies.
In practice I think it's time to terminate the Wikileaks asset. Should we hire Joubert for the job?

In addition there are a number of other practical problems which are related to these new generation of staged government leakers like Assange or Snowden. And it's represented by the fact that people tend to investigate in depth what they're being told, more than in any other era. Sooner or later someone will find out these leakers are just poor people being exploited for government's purpose and this will definitely end the trust of the very same concept of government and traditional media.

At the end of the day, being secretive in 2013 means being not trusted. Indeed if you claim to be the greatest democracy on earth, secrecy finds no place. In today's world, made of social media, people throughout the world are able to communicate each other, exchange ideas and opinions in real time and by doing so they are forming a global single consciousness.

In such a world, secrecy is completely out of place and if you keep trying to deceive people by using the new technology, you create more distrust because, in a world of social media, truth will always out. No question about it.

The government must become more aware that the world has changed and the deception era is over.
When the world's audience will learn what Wikileaks was really meant for, they would realize they cannot trust any communication that somehow involves the government or the media. At that point, the game would be completely over.

E Pluribus Unum


Sunday, September 1, 2013

Why Oliver Stone is the King of Deception

     King of Deception: Oliver Stone embraced dark figures like Government sponsored Wikileaks and the NSA 

Politics is not the art of possible said Jean Paul Sartre, and certainly politics is not for children, especially if they are incurable daydreamers like American Director Oliver Stone

I am talking about Stone's recent comment on President Obama whom he openly insulted by calling him "a snake".

The reason behind Oliver Stone's comment, relies on his frustration over his mockumentary series "The untold history of the United States" which not only was a complete bomb but led him to the desperate attempt of insulting the President of the United States. Probably Mr. Stone found inspiration from Conservative pundit Anne Coulter, a disturbed woman who called President Obama "A retard" just to attract public attention.

Certainly we did not expect Mr. Stone to reach such a low point, as he really made some amazing Presidential movies in the past, like Nixon (1995) and JFK (1992).

However it's not just the comment he made but the reason behind his indignation that deserve to be investigated. The total failure of his latest documentary series, together with his gratuitous support to ambiguous organizations like Wikileaks and dark figures like Assange and Edward Snowden, they are all clear signs that he's now an old man, whose weakness for investigative journalism led him to buy the worst form of  propaganda.

What's worst is the fact that his maverick instinct for truth and justice is well buried in his past.

First of all, we would like to examine the reasons why Mr. Stone wants us "to turn on President Obama" and what led him to insult the President:

Stone said assumed NSA leaker Edward Snowden "sacrificed himself for the good of the country" and Mr. Oliver Stone praised Russia for giving Snowden asylum: "I think (Russian President Vladimir) Putin did the right thing, and I'm proud of him for doing it," he said.

What is really amazing is Oliver Stone praising "the sacrifice" of (former?) NSA employer/leaker Edward Snowden although what is really hard to understand is what was Edward Snowden' sacrifice? Travelling to Hong Kong? Or staying in a four star hotel for more than a month?

I respect Mr. Stone's past work as screenwriter and as director of some great Hollywood movies of the past but how Mr. Stone could possibly swear that Mr. Edward Snowden is not still working for the NSA? How do you know Mr. Snowden's commitment as a leaker is not part of a larger intelligence plan? What kind of evidence you can provide Mr. Snowden is not still on duty?  

Another famous public stance of Mr. Stone is his unconditional support of Wikileaks as the new Democracy beacon which lightened up the world of secrecy. 

My question is: what's the great contribution of Wikileaks to increase world's freedom and awareness?

I want to remind you what Wikileaks contribution really did consist of: 

One of the major accomplishment of Wikileaks was to increase the UN sanctions against Iran. Indeed some of the most advertised leaks were that Iran was supplying new forms of suicide vests for Al-Qaeda and that the revolutionary guard's al Quds force were training Iraqi Shia militants on Iranian soil. This was exactly what the US government was affirming since long time but no media outlets were interested. When the cable was released by Wikileaks it was welcomed as the Gospel and acclaimed as the news of the year!

These revelations made the basis for the new sanctions to Iran by the United Nations.

Another important (Wiki)Leak, suggested that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allowed representatives of its Intelligence service to meet directly with the Taliban, implying that the Pakistani intelligence was entangled with the Talibans in Afghanistan and this is exactly what the US government was affirming since long time but no media outlets were interested in the news.

Another leaked diplomatic cable from U.S. Embassy in The Hague revealed that Dutch Oil company Shell exported oil to Iran, yet pressed for imposing broader UN trade sanctions on Iran and forcing Chinese and Russian firms to comply, so as to “level the playing field”. In practice Wikileaks helped the American Oil industry in stopping his major competitors (Shell, BP and the Chinese companies) from doing business in Iran.  

In 2009, the top U.S. diplomat in Damascus disclosed that Syria had begun delivery of ballistic missiles to Hezbollah, according to official cables leaked to and published by WikiLeaks.

One of the U.S. government cables released by WikiLeaks exposed the corruption of Tunisia's President's Ben Ali's family, its reach into business in the country, and ability to transcend the rule of law. The Wikileaks cable about Tunisia was like a spark in a storage of black powder. Indeed in the three years before the Tunisian spring, the US Mission in Tunis tried to offer greater cooperation to the Tunisians and they said they wanted it, but not shied from making plain the need for change. The US mission has been blocked by the Foreign Ministry that managed to control all its contacts in the government and many other organizations. Although when the Wikileaks cable on Tunisian President Ben Ali went public, everything changed: the Arab Spring started and for the US Embassy in Tunis was like a dream coming true.

Another well advertised (Wiki) leak was that the Italian secret serviceman Nicola Calipari got killed at the US checkpoint because his car had lights switched off. This leak just by chance confirmed the Pentagon´s official position and contributed to completely vaporize this hot diplomatic potato that put at risk once again the relations between the US and Italy. 

Also Wikileaks obtained the names of 2000 Swiss Bank account holders, whose names were eventually handed over to the IRS who seized the accounts and prosecuted the bank customers. 

From the Arab Spring to the U.N Sanctions against Iran and Syria, to the release of 2000 Swiss Bank account holders, in practice Wikileaks helped the US government in achieving all its goals in a timing that would had been impossible if Wikileaks did not help them with their Public Relations machine.

In practice it seems that the Wikileaks objectives were perfectly matching those of the State Department, the CIA and the IRS. Congratulations! Now there is another supporter of the dark bureaucratic forces: Oliver Stone. The old director completely embraced  the Wikileaks cause. Wow! this guy is a Freedom genius! 

It doesn't matter if Wikileaks dark figure is obviously a megaphone of the darker government outlets, the American director is completely blinded with the great contribution to freedom of Wikileaks and the great charisma of Julian Assange, the propaganda officer who is now running for Senate in Australia only to find a way out from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where he lives like in an XIX penny dreadful. 

In the meanwhile Private "Old Shoe" Bradley Maninng goes for a sex-change operation to become Chelsea Manning. Compared to the movie Wag the Dog, the Wikileaks saga is a Greek Tragedy.  

What is really appalling is the world's audience not only got fooled by Wikileaks but it also became a huge brand for Truth, Justice and mostly credibility. No doubt about it. Wikileaks is the most credible source in the world, except for the fact that Wikileaks does not accept public solicitations for its leaks, you can't send your leaks, neither if you are an industry or government insider because they don't accept unsolicited leaks.
If Wikileaks doesn't accept unsolicited leaks, where do they get their leaks from?

The cables released by Wikileaks were just daily field intelligence reports that the Pentagon releases thousands of times a day. These cable were just boring to death reports that nobody wanted to read and no tv network would ever mention on their news headlines neither if you would pay them for. Although because the great Wikileaks organization released them, these "leaks" were able to provoke an outrageous reaction from almost any institution while saturating the media news headlines other than creating an iron alliance between The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel. In practice the world's most important media.

It's like if Wikileaks is a giant recycler of those daily field intelligence reports that otherwise won´t find their way to the audience because they´re so boring nobody would ever read it even in the john.

What is really weird is that Wikileaks with its cables, Snowden with his revelations (what revelation?) and Oliver Stone with his Untold History of the United States did not reveal any untold truth nor any relevant secret. What they did is just creating a cloud of smoke in their followers eyes. 

On September 28, 2010 six USAF retired officers including a former base commander, stated they had UFO encounters that possibly have completely compromised in more than one occasion the national nuclear defence systems of both US and UK.

After such an explosive statement, the reactions from both mainstream media, the US government and the British government was: absolutely nothing. Zero. Vice versa the week after Wikileaks published those "pentagon papers" on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on their website, the reactions from mainstream media and governments were enormous in volumes and indignation. 

Strangely, no Wikileaks cable ever mentioned nor confirmed such an explosive news, nor Edward Snowden revealed anything on this subject and there's no trace of this in Mr. Oliver Stone's "Untold history of the United States". Why? Because these people are propaganda officers whose only objective is diminishing people's awareness, spread disinformation and keep up with the truth embargo on a key issue like life in the Universe.

Snowden is defined "the greatest breach in the US security", Wikileaks is an organization whose goal is to reveal secret government information, while Oliver Stone made a documentary series called "The Untold history of the United States".

According to Dr. Steven Greer, the Director of the Disclosure Project, Life in the Universe is the most kept secret of the United States (probably the only one too) more than the Hydrogen bomb. But not Edward Snowden, not Wikileaks and nor the Untold History of U.S. by Oliver Stone ever even mentioned a single word over Life in the Universe. Why? Because they are false flag disinformation outlets, whose only objective is to deceive public opinion. My words and judgement might sound weird, conspiratorial or even crazy at this time but I warmly invite you to reflect on all this and see what's coming. I only ask you to check the facts, of the past and of the future.

In the meanwhile, if President Obama is a snake, we can affirm without the trace of a doubt that Oliver Stone is the King of Deception.

E Pluribus Unum