Why the NSA-scandal is another fake like Benghazi

After the Benghazi fake scandal, the AP eavesdropping, the IRS, the Umbrellagate, the war on Facebook and the government shutdown, Republican's terrorist strategy is back on stage with this Astroturfed-NSA-Spying story.

This is a story about a bunch of loose wingnuts exploiting their knowledge of Intelligence reports for domestic political interests, like smearing the current President whilst trying to keep people away from social media and politics.

Although this story started long time ago:

June 17 1972, five former CIA operatives get arrested for breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate complex. The burglary was aimed at installing a wiretapping system and it eventually led to the President's resignation.

May 2013, former CIA employee and NSA contractor Edward Snowden disclosed classified details of several top-secret United States, Israeli, and British government mass surveillance programs to the press.

History repeating, same modus operandi, same pattern: an eavesdropping operation is being exposed to the world only to discredit the incumbent President.

At this very historical moment, President Obama is probably the most popular President in the whole history of the United States. Even though Forbes two days ago ranked him only as the second most powerful figure after Vladimir Putin.

It's always the same old story, once the White House lodger gets too much popular or too much unpopular, some people tend to get nervous about it.

In 1972 Richard Nixon had become a dead horse and it had been decided to get rid of his presence at the White House by sending a bunch of five unaware brave men to a dead-end mission. Those men's lives and careers were sacrificed on the altar of politics.

Today those same people who made Nixon resign are exploiting their narrow knowledge of Intelligence programs and reports for the only purpose of discrediting President Obama.

Two days ago, General Keith Alexander, the NSA Director, told a congressional hearing that the phone call data in question had not involved European citizens. President Obama affirmed he had no knowledge about the NSA spying over European leaders. And I completely trust them both because nor Admiral Alexander nor President Obama were dancing the Washington ballet back in 1972.

Why in the world the biggest spying agency on the planet would need to expose itself by revealing "we are spying on everyone"? It does not make any sense. A spying agency doesn't have public exposure as its business goal, quiet the contrary. Although since last May the NSA has been on the news headlines almost every day and their latest exposure of these days is the second promotional wave of this fictional movie called "let's put the President down."

Ask yourself the Roman question: Cui Prodest?

Whom does it benefit?

Who gets the more benefits from discrediting the current administration?

In the past few months Republican's "Holocaust on the Poor" agenda has been aggressively attacked by the public opinion especially through Social Media. They lost their pathetic effort to defund Obamacare, they lost their $40 bn food stamps cut, and they failed big time with the government shutdown.

They just got off the "shutdown bandwagon" while they already jumped on the NSA fake scandal's train.
This is their last train though. Thing is, if they don't get this train wreck running, they are going to lose and
lose big time.

They already lost huge chunks of consent but they still have two options: they can leave the scene with honor or they can leave the scene being humiliated.

For sure they have another genius-like Plan after this, but I don't want to even think about it, because if they are ready to shut down the government and exploiting the major spy-agency, God only knows what we have to expect from their last hour of life.

Lately I couldn't help but think to Pat Buchanan's last rant when the shutdown failed to stop the Patient Care Act: "better to destroy the country like Samson than to pass Obamacare". This is their attitude: If we don't get it, we'll destroy America.

In the meanwhile their 1960's South-American propaganda keeps going through their bunch of fake-Christian Conservatives who keep vomiting nonsense with the only purpose to nauseate people about Politics. Same old tactics, same old story.

Unfortunately we are not in the 1960s anymore nor are we in Latin America.

Things for the Grand Old Party have become extremely serious since the political debate moved to the social media environment, where they have absolutely no control over the people's opinion. The worst nightmare of the Republican Party has become real once the one-way-only media era was over.

Now we are living in the Interactive Era, where people are able to reply to the media they make comments and every single person on the planet is entitled to express his/her own opinion. It's understandable that these dinosaurs are in great distress, because the propaganda bible they are equipped with, was written in the 1950 and it doesn't say anything about social media and its sabotage.

So in response to this desperate situation they went back to the same old trick they already used dozens of times in the past 40 years:

- 1973: Watergate - the five “plumbers” who have been hired to protect the White House from possible leaks are instead being exploited with a fake wiretapping op. They have been framed to expose the eavesdropping scandal and to make President Nixon resign.

- 1981: Jimmy Carter - GOPs negotiate the delay of the Iran’s hostages release on Reagan's inauguration's day.

- 2003: Republican Richard Armitage publicly exposed CIA operative Valerie Plame as a CIA asset

- In May 2013 someone reveals that the Associated Press in Washington has been under surveillance by the NSA. President Obama affirms he has “no hand” in it.

Despite having access to sensitive data these Neanderthal really have a huge lack in terms of imagination. Exploiting their knowledge of Intelligence operations and use it for political purpose is something that even my dog can do. Then it depends HOW you do it. Do you realize this fake NSA spying thing is not only not working but it's going to crumble like a house of cards and be completely debunked while once again you are going to get exposed as the usual spoil-sports?

You have to consider that within the field of Intelligence, imagination is everything, while these loose cannons are acting like those Zoolander models who shoot gasoline on each other and then they light up a cigarette.

How can you be so mentally disabled to expect today’s audience being ready to buy the same story twice after forty years? Do you think you're dealing with a bunch of assholes?

Indeed I personally think that the U.S Attorney General should look into these series of abuses made over Federal premises and resources to investigate and find out those who are responsible of these heinous crimes against the American People, the Federal Government and the credibility of the US Government worldwide.

How in the world a bunch of crooks can be allowed to handle sensitive data and abuse the Federal Government for their own personal mischievous interest? Besides by perpetuating this NSA fake spying operation, the NSA is losing its credibility and this will inevitably lead the political debate to question the legitimacy of spying, in a world where people are instead willing to share content through Social Media.

Schizophrenic contradictions are another distinctive mark of the GOP's strategy. They don't consider what the current trends are, they head straight to the ditch. Pull the Vet's electrical wheelchair with one hand while cutting their healthcare with the other.

This whole NSA thing has the typical GOP's Neanderthal style: Aggressive news headlines aimed at spreading terror and fear in full 1950's South American propaganda style.

This brilliant project is certainly part of that same strategy that led to the government shutdown. In practice this is their R-Plan to discredit President Obama. Their dream it would be to make the President resign.

Although being these people just amateurs, they make mistakes, especially when they are too much secure of themselves. For example Rush Limbaugh yesterday compared President Obama to Richard Nixon claiming "he's a worse liar than Nixon".

First big mistake: if you conduct an Intelligence operation and you are on the field to publicly expose someone, you must never ever even mentioning or comparing a current operation with another one unless it's a third party to do so. The fact that Limbo made such a huge mistake it means they do not have enough consent and the operation is not taking off as they were expecting or at least they are too anxious to make it work. Huge mistake.

As a matter of fact this is the second launch of the NSA-commercial, having the first happened in May. This NSA thing is not working because people is not buying it like the other phony scandals and what's worse this is going to expose the wild bunch to public humiliation because narcissism when applied to Intelligence is absolutely lethal.

They made a similar mistake (probably their biggest) when they arranged the release of the American hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Teheran. Their will to discredit Jimmy Carter was so strong that they let the hostages for two more months in the hands of the terrorists, (while they could have been already be freed) just because they wanted the release to happen when Ronald Reagan swore-in on January 21, 1981.

This is narcissism and narcissism shows your weakness, it exposes your modus operandi, which is your signature and this can be a problem for any organization that wants to stay behind the scenes.

If you have a narcissist within your ranks you'd better have him fired or shift him to another position. Certainly when you work on such an important operation like freeing American Hostages in a foreign country you can't shift the release-day to please your team and your President, because you are going to get burned.

Also, I don't think the public opinion today would approve playing with people's lives only to please yourself and your pals. I do remember when Mr. Frank Carlucci on a vintage documentary he was asked if the release of the hostages was scheduled on purpose to please Mr. Reagan he denied it with a smirk.
I simply Loved it!

Unfortunately all these people are very old and they are stuck in the 1950s mentality, they think that people are still in front of their tv-set ready to buy their old school propaganda but people are not buying it because their trash is recognizable anywhere they dump it. Once you read something on the news that aims at spreading fear and terror that's the GOP signature.

You can't propose the same eavesdropping fake scandal twice after 40 years. Only the brainless follows the same route twice.

I really feel a lot of sympathy for both Admiral Alexander and President Obama at this very moment because they have been fingered for being responsible of something they do not have any control over it nor they know anything about it.

Besides they have no clues to identify who's responsible of this trash because being the NSA procedures classified material you cannot invite journalists to come over for a tea, nor you can show them logs or anything along that line. I mean how can you demonstrate a federal agency did not spy on someone? It's impossible.

Although this is the major weakness of this whole story, because Republicans cannot demonstrate either that NSA spied on European Citizens. They just hired the usual giant propaganda machine paying it with their huge amount of money. Business as usual: it doesn't matter how much would it cost. It has to be done.

We are here to stand with our bravest men like President Obama and Admiral Alexander because they need to be defended by this smearing campaign which has absolutely no reason to go on.

Because the NSA did not spy on any Foreign leader whatsoever.

E Pluribus Unum

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.

Why?

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

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

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