Is Edward Snowden and CitizenFour a Psy-Op?

[awakeningmom]

I just watched CitizenFour on HBO last night and am still trying to shake the sickening feeling I got watching it, feeling that the whole thing was a blatant Bread & Circus psy-op. I searched the forum to see if any threads had been written about this already, but was surprised to see only pro-Snowden threads. Am I missing something here? I am puzzled as to why there aren’t any more threads critically analyzing the entire Snowden narrative and this “Oscar winning” documentary supposedly done in real time during Snowden’s time in Hong Kong (right before – and after -- he made his initial disclosures to the world via Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras). I didn’t want to rain on anyone else’s pro-Snowden parade here, so thought I’d start my own thread and see if anyone else has any thoughts about this.

In any event, here are some of the reasons Snowden in general and CitizenFour in particular didn’t sit well with me. I admit I had an uneasy feeling about Snowden since the very beginning, as it coincided with my initial jolt of awakening in 2013, when I fully realized that big events were not as they appeared and that the MSM was just a propaganda arm of the government/corporate controllers. Because of this gut feeling, I didn’t follow Snowden’s story too closely. But after watching the documentary, my unease has grown.

1. First, Edward Snowden – and others in the story – are too good looking. Snowden looks like a geeky version of Ryan Gosling – an intelligence nerd straight out of central casting. His hair is perfectly ruffled, he’s got a very clean and pressed crisp white t-shirt on, and he’s filmed against a very white hotel room background (white knight staging?), which to me seemed very intentionally staged. Young, hip, good-looking – almost an Abercrombe ad. The camera even slowly pans on Snowden’s cooped up in a hotel room reading material –Cory Docterow’s Homeland. Seriously? And how did this good looking 29 year old high school drop-out become such an articulate genius and rebel? How come no one ever discusses his family background or his family at all? He says at the very beginning that he never wanted this to be “about him,” but apparently Laura Poitras did. The film shows several scenes of Snowden combing his hair, shaving, and primping in the mirror, all while the MSM casually (and poignantly?) drones on in the background about his earth shattering revelations. Later, we meet Snowden’s long-time girlfriend, Lindsay, who is also very good looking and straight out of central casting. After setting up some dramatic backstory about Snowden not knowing if he’ll ever see her again after all this, the film gives us a happy romantic ending, with the couple supposedly in a lovely yellow hued Russian home, cooking up a romantic meal together, since Lindsay has chosen to join him in refugee status exile in Russia after all.

2. The pervasive MSM coverage of this story always bothered me. Maybe it’s because I had finally woken up to the truth about 911 around the same time and was horrified to realize that the MSM had done a total black-out of the real 911 story – either ridiculing anyone who dared to question the official one, or basically ignoring the whistleblowers altogether. Back then, I remember reading that television reporter Andrea Mitchell had been the very first TV personality to finger “Osama Bin Laden” as the mastermind behind 911, not even hours after the attack itself. And that she was married to Alan Greenspan. Now, in CitizenFour, I see Andrea Mitchell again, this time telling the “story” of Snowden, along with every other MSM pundit from Wolf Blitzer to Piers Morgan. Why was Snowden getting all this attention from all these liars unless the PTB wanted this story out there? If not officially sanctioned, Snowden’s story would have been buried from the start – not given front page attention in the Washington Post of all places. (I note also that Greenwald hailed from Salon.com – home of the ever-annoying “debunker” Alex Seitz-Wald). Snowden’s entire story about being in exile/running from the U.S. defies credibility too. John Oliver just interviewed him for the Daily Show – the Daily Show? Sorry, but there’s just no other way to see this for me, other than that Snowden is a personality, an actor, and we are being sold another false narrative.

3. Aside from Snowden himself, I question the filmmaker. Sure, she has alternative cred, but the entire documentary just doesn’t ring true. It’s staged from beginning to end for me, from the “texts” supposedly exchanged between Snowden, Poitras, and Greenwald, to the deliberately cinematic camera moves, to the staged settings (the hotel room, the Brazil hearing with lots of good looking actors enjoying close-ups, etc.) , there’s just no real life dirt anywhere in this documentary. Even the ending, with Greenwald putting his messages to Snowden on paper to avoid electronic eavesdropping, then tearing the paper up into hundreds of tiny pieces, then putting them in a pile where one word -- POTUS – miraculously manages to be unscathed for a final closing zoom. I know that documentary filmmakers do want to create a “story” out of the rough footage – but this felt manipulated from beginning to end.

I realize that Snowden has become a hero to many in the alternative community for the disclosures he’s brought to the people - and I want to believe in him myself. I certainly want to believe there are people willing to put their lives on the line and become whistleblowers – and I do believe that there are many out there who ARE genuine whistleblowers and are putting themselves on the line. But not this guy. Yes, he may be revealing some deep truths about our intelligence agencies and their mass surveillance and other insidious programs… but for what purpose? Is it to get us to believe in him so that further disinformation can be spread and believed (the 85/15 rule)? Was it to see how the public would react to the disclosure of the all-pervasive spying? Or was it an in-your-face way to tell all of us that Big Brother is Watching Us, Has Been Forever, and There’s Nothing We Can Do About it anyway?

Ironically, from the very beginning of this documentary I kept thinking: this seems just like the whole Daniel Ellsberg Watergate psy-op – the Deep Throat character who was obviously given permission to disclose his info to Bernstein/Washington Post by the PTB. And in CitizenFour, at the 1:44 mark, Mr. Binney likens this current story to Deep Throat – enough said.

I'm sorry if I ruffle some feathers here – this is obviously just my own opinion—but I am curious about what others thought of CitizenFour – and of Snowden in general. Is he the real deal –and if so, why do you think he’s gotten so much attention from the MSM, HBO, etc. anyway?

[crosby]

Hi awakeningmom, just wanted to add that it might be prudent to realize that this is a major distraction.. one meant to keep viewers from focusing on other more important agendas. In the final analysis, he's a player..one way or the other... but do not let the situation play you....
warmest
crosby

[cursichella1]

You bring up some interesting points, and you're not alone in your opinion though you're correct in that you're far from the majority.

Your post is well thought out and some, much or all of your observations may be correct. But I think what's important for you to consider is whether or not debating Snowden's legitimacy is even relevant. Or that of overdramatization in the Poitras documentary or as others have debated whether the Gov't or NGO's have access to this or that and if so, then how much of it.

Your right in that even if Snowden really is as he is portrayed doesn't mean the Gov't wouldn't use it to their advantage by turning it into a psyop. Of course they would. They see every crisis as an opportunity. Or it may be they created the whole thing. Does how the opportunity presented itself really matter?

It's very easy to become caught up in trying to figure out the veracity of this and staging of that. We've all done it. After we wake up we're still stunned by it, looking to validate our worst fears, which is exactly what the Govt hopes we'll do, getting caught up in the details so well miss the bigger picture. And while we were at it, they also hoped Sibel Edmonds would discredit Greenwald. They hoped Snowden's exile in Russia would resurrect the public's image of Russia as the evil Boris and Natasha cold war enemy of the past. They hoped to "out" domestic subversives by driving them to Tor, and to make the less bold too paranoid to speak lest they appear to be subversive. And they hoped to reinforce the fact that they could get away with stripping us of our privacy, just as they've managed to get away with everything else. Because the more we realize what they've gotten away with, the more powerless apathetic we become which is exactly where they want us to be.

It concerns me that pointing out one or two or ten flaws in a story can be enough to make some question or dismiss all of the relevant facts. One of the biggest problems with respect to educating people about 911 was how easily one intentionally bad piece of info would for many discredit the legitimate researchers, as well. A video by a supposed truther about hologram airplanes crashing into the.twin towers was enough to make people.say, "All of these truthers are nuts."

[Anchor]

If you didnt watch it and think "This could be a psyop" and "What is the agenda here" then you are doing it wrong.

Obviously it is absolutely critical that these things are considered.

IMHO, it is a psyop, just not the kind we are used to. I think its a psyop for the "good guys".

I cant think of a single way that Edward Snowden's whistle blowing can have helped the extant PTB.

I agree with all your observations but not with your conclusions. I would simply say that all modern (good) documentary makers who want to take a message to as wider audience and make as big an impact as possible are at liberty to use all the same tricks of media presentation as the bad guys.

As to Edward Snowden being good looking - gene pool lottery win!

As to Edward Snowden being intelligent and articulate - that is kind of important in the job he had.

I'm not saying you are wrong - these days its petty hard to be definite about anything.

[jake gittes]

Why was Snowden getting all this attention from all these liars unless the PTB wanted this story out there? If not officially sanctioned, Snowden’s story would have been buried from the start – not given front page attention in the Washington Post of all places.

Yes, I have suspected psyop for quite a while, for the reason I bolded above. He and Assange both get far too much MSM coverage if they were legit. I don't recall where I read it, but Greenwald was very well-funded by a 'connected' entity as well. There's a reason we're allowed to see Snowden, Assange, Greenwald, etc in the mass media but not real stuff about 911, Sandy Hook, etc.

Good post OP.

[mountain_jim]

As one who has read Greenwald since the earliest day's of his Unclaimed Territory self-published blog, when few had heard of him, proving that those in power were above the laws, with brilliant analysis and writing - I trust his motives and journalistic integrity more than any other journalist.

He was not well funded until the current organization, which was well after Snowden reached out to him as the journalist he also trusted more than any other to get his documents out in a responsible manner.

Firstlook.org has hired or associated with some of the best journalists working in the USA over recent years - in my view if that's funded from a 'connected' entity then it appears to me to be a 'white hat' version of one.

I don't agree with the premise of this thread at all, and I have actively followed and researched conspiracies since the Kennedy killings and Gary Webb-Octopus material on alt.conspiracy.org in the 80's when there were only Usenet groups, not a world-wide web or browsers.

The Snowden documents proved that the NSA working with all of the important data collecting corporations have long since destroyed any semblance of constitutional rights in this country - yet most USA folks appear to be too distracted and/or stupid to realize the significance of what we have lost.

So that's my opinion.

[Flash]

As one who has read Greenwald since the earliest day's of his Unclaimed Territory self-published blog, when few had heard of him, proving that those in power were above the laws, with brilliant analysis and writing - I trust his motives and journalistic integrity more than any other journalist.

He was not well funded until the current organization, which was well after Snowden reached out to him as the journalist he also trusted more than any other to get his documents out in a responsible manner.

Firstlook.org has hired or associated with some of the best journalists working in the USA over recent years - in my view if that's funded from a 'connected' entity then it appears to me to be a 'white hat' version of one.

I don't agree with the premise of this thread at all, and I have actively followed and researched conspiracies since the Kennedy killings and Gary Webb-Octopus material on alt.conspiracy.org in the 80's when there were only Usenet groups, not a world-wide web or browsers.

The Snowden documents proved that the NSA working with all of the important data collecting corporations have long since destroyed any semblance of constitutional rights in this country - yet most USA folks appear to be too distracted and/or stupid to realize the significance of what we have lost.

So that's my opinion.

I agree with the white hat support. Snowden is now in Russia, misses his country (he would come back if guaranteed a fair trial), has ruined his career and does not seem to have had any money for it. Not many people in this world would go that far for a question of principle around truth.

On the other hand, his timing must have been right for some countries and or politicians/white hats, who knew all of what Snowden has brought to light. For example, Russia must have been happy about these public déclarations and some Europeans countries who just had had enough of the USA bullying and spying on their own communications must have wanted to support Snowden.

[awakeningmom]

Thank you to all who have put forth opinions so far. I appreciate everyone’s perspective, though I obviously agree with some of the responses and not others. Crosby, I agree that some events are simply distractions for what’s really going on. For example, I think the plane “crash” and narrative about the crash over the French Alps was a distraction – a misdirect for what else might have happened to the plane or what other, more important events were taking place around the same time. But other events are both a distraction and a psy-op. To me the distraction aspect is to draw attention away from what the black magicians/PTB are really doing behind the scenes; the psy-op being the intended trauma/dissonance/anticipated reaction after experiencing or being told about the event itself. I think the Snowden event is both a distraction and a psy-op.

It’s now very hard for me to view any event or any personality given widespread MSM attention any credibility. Now, I generally tend to think that the story is 180 degrees from the way it is being spun. I also have a very hard time believing in powerful “white hats” who are able to get a story widespread MSM attention – if they could, 911 Truth would have been everywhere a long time ago. Same for all the other mass trauma events that didn’t happen the way they were sold.

I don’t know enough about Greenwald. I will say that any time I have listened to him, I have liked what he had to say and hope that he really is a “good guy.” Unfortunately, my trust in “good journalists” has also hit an all-time cynical low. For example, many in the alternative community love Matt Taibi from the Rolling Stone because he goes after the banksters, the politicians, etc. But if you read what he’s written about 911 “twoofers” – you’d go white with knowing rage. He’s not a good guy or a legitimate alternative journalist, in my opinion, he is pure Operation Mockingbird. I feel that one in my gut.

As for determining whether Snowden is real or fake, I do think it matters, and that pointing out “one or two” flaws is necessary if we are truly searching for the truth – and I am. If we believe Snowden’s a “hero” and legitimately getting out critical/legitimate information about the PTB , we will all tend to believe the information he “leaks,” even when it rings false for us. For example, after the faux Bin Laden Pakistan bunker raid, where many people were doubting the veracity of the raid (especially after seeing those bogus pictures in the bunker with Clinton and others “reacting” to the purportedly live raid when later it was admitted that there were no cameras!), even mainstream people were demanding DNA proof that the body dumped into the ocean was OBL. Then, what do you know, the MSM comes out with the fact that “Leaked Snowden documents show for the first time that DNA test verified identify of Osama Bin Ladens’s body….”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/leaked-snowden-docs-show-for-first-time-that-dna-test-verified-identity-of-osama-bin-ladens-body-8790831.html

I believe this information was first “leaked” by the Washington Post. So, if anyone here actually thinks that OBL was killed in that Pakistan raid and dumped in the ocean, then I guess this leaked disclosure doesn’t bother them at all. But for anyone who thinks that that was a ridiculous story from the start (as I did, and that was BEFORE my awakening), then how do you reconcile the fact that this information was “leaked from Snowden docs”?

Answer: You either have to decide that the PTB have taken over the Snowden narrative (that might have once been real) to funnel out false information via the MSM (in which case, you can’t trust the “leaked info” anyway), or you come to the conclusion that Snowden was a deliberate psy-op from the get-go – with the intent to make him a “hero” to the alternative crowd and then to slowly drip 85/15 true/false info for whatever purposes. While people here on PA might be able to sift through the 85/15 to get to the nuggets of truth -- more people who like Snowden and his amazing story will simply accept the disinfo as truth because they trust the source.

Finally, I just don’t believe in “good genes” when it comes to personalities given celebrity status. Why aren’t there any fat, old, ugly whistleblowers receiving widespread MSM attention? The teenage Boston Bombing ‘perpetrator’ got on the cover of Rolling Stone because we were being sold the story – and the public was fascinated by this good-looking kid who looked like a rock star. It helped keep the story going. Snowden’s the IT geek rock star in this fictional narrative, and his looks are critical to the buy-in for many.

[mountain_jim]

To see on a daily basis where Greenwald is coming from, read his twitter feed and articles he links to:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald

[awakeningmom]

Thank you, Mountain Jim. I took a look at the twitter feeds and a few articles written by Greenwald on his new website – the Intercept. The problem I have with Greenwald -- and with all left-gatekeepers really (e.g., Robert Parry, Chris Hedges, Amy Goodman, etc.) -- is that they intentionally tell their stories within the false official narrative. Greenwald does a great job presenting a liberal-progressive position. I applaud him for pointing out the horrific deaths to innocent Muslims done by U.S drone strikes, the bigotry and corruption in both parties, etc... But when it comes to the major psy-ops --911, the Boston Bombing, etc. from what I've read so far, Greenwald writes his stories/opinions from the perspective that these official narratives are true (for the most part). So while he might advocate for compassion for Tsarnaev, he doesn’t dare suggest that the whole thing might be false from the get-go....

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/23/power-dzhokhar-tsarnaevs-middle-finger/

In fact, the only mainstream journalist who I have ever heard suggest that some of these events are actually staged psy-ops has been Naomi Wolf - and she's treading lightly too.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K7LmxyZXMw0

Yes, I understand that these journalists rightfully fear for their lives and know that they can't go that far down the rabbit hole if they want to stay in the mainstream view (and perhaps alive) -- and maybe their partial truths are doing some good by poking some holes in the MSM narrative or getting people to see other perspectives (e.g. seeing the anti-Muslim propaganda campaign for what it really is). On the other hand, who and what can you really trust when you know that even the journalists you like begin their stories from within obvious official narrative falsehoods?

[Bingo]

Jon Rappoport is the only journalist I trust currently. If I recall correctly his reaction to Snowden was that no one walks out of the NSA with a flash drive in his pocket. Thanks for this post Awakening Mom. I couldn't agree more with your intuitions, and have been very surprised that this psyop has been so widely accepted.

[Zionbrion]

I agree that this may well be a psyops. If it is I think the important questions to ask is who and why.
I think we can rule out our direct governent, because I think most are just pawns in the dark. I do think it could be the shadow government, and other people we have probably never heard of. It is probably the same people behind the federal reserve, the war on terror and the new BRICS bank. Much of the alternative media then spins things like the BRICS alliance and Snowden as our heros and saviors from tyranical governence. Then the question becomes why.
This one is harder, but the first thoughts while reading your analysis is to weaken trust of the US government to assist in its inevitable collapse and to help usher in a one world government. These jokesters err gangster um I mean bankster love playing both sides of the coin in their maniuplation of us. You are right in saying why would this get so much MSM attention if they didn't want us to know all of these things. Also if Snowden got access to so much information where is the real juicy stuff? David Wilcock has mentioned that more juicy Snowden revelations are coming, but can we really trust Wilcock anymore when he praises the idea of a new world with no money and a world government? And still no juicy revelations, that was over half a year ago he said that.
Also other than public awareness his revelations have changed nothing really. They are still spying and collecting meta-data on everybody.

[Tyy1907]

It seems to me like they're trying to set an example with Snowden. All you people out there, if you spill the beans on what out government does behind closed doors you're a traitor to your country and we'll go after you! Just more fear porn is all.

[lizfrench]

I just watched CitizenFour on HBO last night and am still trying to shake the sickening feeling I got watching it, feeling that the whole thing was a blatant Bread & Circus psy-op. I searched the forum to see if any threads had been written about this already, but was surprised to see only pro-Snowden threads. Am I missing something here? I am puzzled as to why there aren’t any more threads critically analyzing the entire Snowden narrative and this “Oscar winning” documentary supposedly done in real time during Snowden’s time in Hong Kong (right before – and after -- he made his initial disclosures to the world via Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras). I didn’t want to rain on anyone else’s pro-Snowden parade here, so thought I’d start my own thread and see if anyone else has any thoughts about this.

In any event, here are some of the reasons Snowden in general and CitizenFour in particular didn’t sit well with me. I admit I had an uneasy feeling about Snowden since the very beginning, as it coincided with my initial jolt of awakening in 2013, when I fully realized that big events were not as they appeared and that the MSM was just a propaganda arm of the government/corporate controllers. Because of this gut feeling, I didn’t follow Snowden’s story too closely. But after watching the documentary, my unease has grown.

1. First, Edward Snowden – and others in the story – are too good looking. Snowden looks like a geeky version of Ryan Gosling – an intelligence nerd straight out of central casting. His hair is perfectly ruffled, he’s got a very clean and pressed crisp white t-shirt on, and he’s filmed against a very white hotel room background (white knight staging?), which to me seemed very intentionally staged. Young, hip, good-looking – almost an Abercrombe ad. The camera even slowly pans on Snowden’s cooped up in a hotel room reading material –Cory Docterow’s Homeland. Seriously? And how did this good looking 29 year old high school drop-out become such an articulate genius and rebel? How come no one ever discusses his family background or his family at all? He says at the very beginning that he never wanted this to be “about him,” but apparently Laura Poitras did. The film shows several scenes of Snowden combing his hair, shaving, and primping in the mirror, all while the MSM casually (and poignantly?) drones on in the background about his earth shattering revelations. Later, we meet Snowden’s long-time girlfriend, Lindsay, who is also very good looking and straight out of central casting. After setting up some dramatic backstory about Snowden not knowing if he’ll ever see her again after all this, the film gives us a happy romantic ending, with the couple supposedly in a lovely yellow hued Russian home, cooking up a romantic meal together, since Lindsay has chosen to join him in refugee status exile in Russia after all.

2. The pervasive MSM coverage of this story always bothered me. Maybe it’s because I had finally woken up to the truth about 911 around the same time and was horrified to realize that the MSM had done a total black-out of the real 911 story – either ridiculing anyone who dared to question the official one, or basically ignoring the whistleblowers altogether. Back then, I remember reading that television reporter Andrea Mitchell had been the very first TV personality to finger “Osama Bin Laden” as the mastermind behind 911, not even hours after the attack itself. And that she was married to Alan Greenspan. Now, in CitizenFour, I see Andrea Mitchell again, this time telling the “story” of Snowden, along with every other MSM pundit from Wolf Blitzer to Piers Morgan. Why was Snowden getting all this attention from all these liars unless the PTB wanted this story out there? If not officially sanctioned, Snowden’s story would have been buried from the start – not given front page attention in the Washington Post of all places. (I note also that Greenwald hailed from Salon.com – home of the ever-annoying “debunker” Alex Seitz-Wald). Snowden’s entire story about being in exile/running from the U.S. defies credibility too. John Oliver just interviewed him for the Daily Show – the Daily Show? Sorry, but there’s just no other way to see this for me, other than that Snowden is a personality, an actor, and we are being sold another false narrative.

3. Aside from Snowden himself, I question the filmmaker. Sure, she has alternative cred, but the entire documentary just doesn’t ring true. It’s staged from beginning to end for me, from the “texts” supposedly exchanged between Snowden, Poitras, and Greenwald, to the deliberately cinematic camera moves, to the staged settings (the hotel room, the Brazil hearing with lots of good looking actors enjoying close-ups, etc.) , there’s just no real life dirt anywhere in this documentary. Even the ending, with Greenwald putting his messages to Snowden on paper to avoid electronic eavesdropping, then tearing the paper up into hundreds of tiny pieces, then putting them in a pile where one word -- POTUS – miraculously manages to be unscathed for a final closing zoom. I know that documentary filmmakers do want to create a “story” out of the rough footage – but this felt manipulated from beginning to end.

I realize that Snowden has become a hero to many in the alternative community for the disclosures he’s brought to the people - and I want to believe in him myself. I certainly want to believe there are people willing to put their lives on the line and become whistleblowers – and I do believe that there are many out there who ARE genuine whistleblowers and are putting themselves on the line. But not this guy. Yes, he may be revealing some deep truths about our intelligence agencies and their mass surveillance and other insidious programs… but for what purpose? Is it to get us to believe in him so that further disinformation can be spread and believed (the 85/15 rule)? Was it to see how the public would react to the disclosure of the all-pervasive spying? Or was it an in-your-face way to tell all of us that Big Brother is Watching Us, Has Been Forever, and There’s Nothing We Can Do About it anyway?

Ironically, from the very beginning of this documentary I kept thinking: this seems just like the whole Daniel Ellsberg Watergate psy-op – the Deep Throat character who was obviously given permission to disclose his info to Bernstein/Washington Post by the PTB. And in CitizenFour, at the 1:44 mark, Mr. Binney likens this current story to Deep Throat – enough said.

I'm sorry if I ruffle some feathers here – this is obviously just my own opinion—but I am curious about what others thought of CitizenFour – and of Snowden in general. Is he the real deal –and if so, why do you think he’s gotten so much attention from the MSM, HBO, etc. anyway?
Yes there was a thread about Edward Snowden. As a matter of fact I responded on the thread about how contrived the whole HBO thing was here http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?59919-Edward-Snowden-the-whistleblower-behind-the-NSA-surveillance-revelations&p=936325#post936325

[grannyfranny100]

I feel that the information revealed is extremely important. I don't see how the PTB would find its public exposure valuable to themselves.

[cursichella1]

I feel that the information revealed is extremely important. I don't see how the PTB would find its public exposure valuable to themselves.

Easily, just look at this thread. Trying to "figure it out" has become the new equivalent of gossip. It would be funny if it weren't such a waste of energy and playing into their hands. While everyone is busy unravelling the psyop, Congress is getting ready to renew the Patriot Act, which is what made eavesdropping on everybody legal in the first place.

You're right, the information revealed IS important and probably not the half of it. We should all be doing everything possible to ensure the Patriot Act isn't renewed next month (May!), even if it means taking a half hour off of Avalon to write a couple of letters to your representatives in D.C., and that's the bare minimum IMO. They want everyone distracted so we'll be too busy to notice what legislation is getting passed. We all must stop worrying about the "messengers". Pay attention to the facts and act!

[grannyfranny100]

cursichella1 you are right: The Patriot Act and also the TPP Fast Track!

[Snoweagle]

Super thread @awakeningmom, quite agree with you. Snowden was a false flag.

There has been no information released that was anywhere damaging in real terms to anybody or anything. Greenwald had the hard drive for how long and he hadn't made copies and distributed . . . ? wtf
There just wasn't any real damage done by anything that Greenwald published. It was an elaborate scam imo.

However the outcome overall of the "Snowden Affair" was the need to invest in even more secure systems being sold by the same people that handled Snowden.

[awakeningmom]

I feel that the information revealed is extremely important. I don't see how the PTB would find its public exposure valuable to themselves.

Well, I think there are many ways that the PTB would find Snowden and his release of information valuable to themselves. First, as stated above, there's the possibility that the PTB wants the public (and the dissidents and/or so-called "conspiracy theorists") to know just how pervasive their spying is on all of us. This disclosure likely had the desired effect of having more people be more careful of what they write or say about the government, no matter how legitimate the criticism. It also made more people feel even less powerful/significant in the face of such a sophisticated and pervasive Big Brother. Second, perhaps the information about the spying and drone strikes was disclosed to see just how passive/apathetic we have all become, even when abuses of power are revealed so dramatically. I certainly do not see any mass protests about the spying or the drone strikes or the insidious programs such as PRISM, etc. -- other than from small, essentially politically powerless factions. The fact that there is pervasive spying and a stunning loss of privacy has been seemingly accepted and integrated into their realities by most mainstream members of the public, even if they don't like it on principle.

But for me, the most obvious reason to launch someone like Snowden is to funnel disinformation. As I stated in my Post #8 above and as further evidenced by this link below, telling the world that Snowden (and now Greenwald, etc.) have all these secret documents/files presents loads of opportunities for the PTB to “disclose” loads of disinformation, and they seem to have done so already, such as using the Snowden documents to get the story out that Osama Bin Laden was really killed in Pakistan with the Seal Team 6 raid…..(please read the article before you respond).

http://rt.com/usa/snowden-leak-obl-dna-219/

I have to believe that there are not many people out there (and particularly on PA) who believe this story about OBL or the DNA “proof.” So, for anyone who believes that Snowden is a legitimate whistleblower, please tell me what you make of the fact that this blatantly false information is being provided to us via the “Snowden docs”? Are you comfortable that he (via his journalists) is revealing partial truths and partial falsehoods? Or that the PTB can, will, and have likely already use(d) these still largely undisclosed secret documents to drip out even further disinformation? Do you feel that everyone will be able to sift out the truth from the lies?

[DarMar]

THIS:

It seems to me like they're trying to set an example with Snowden. All you people out there, if you spill the beans on what out government does behind closed doors you're a traitor to your country and we'll go after you! Just more fear porn is all.

is exactly how i sense it too..
taking in consideration also:
Edward is an English given name. It is derived from the Anglo-Saxon form Ēadweard, composed of the elements ead "wealth, fortune; prosperous" and weard "guardian, protector".

Snow-den leaks ... heh, how blatant is that?

[Wind]

I'm still not sure about this issue, but I'd like to believe that Snowden is a good guy. He seems sincere to me.

However, even if the majority public now knows about the spying, no one except for us seems to really care. Even after all the media attention.

When Dick Cheney said that Snowden is a traitor then it made me think that perhaps Snowden actually is a really good guy.

[triquetra]

There is a beneficial effect, the chilling effect shot up considerably since 2013. It ties together as a logical chain after initiating 9/11 and then using that aftermath as justification for diverting much more $ to developing the infrastructure to put the systems in place. I had mentioned once here that the new data center was specifically for global profiling. It doesn't take infinite storage space to attribute all activity to all selectors (this can be understood as data tokens like an IP address or MAC address which could be attributed to several people but usually just one).

You work with the flow of data in certain ways to get rid of all the uninteresting traffic and what's left is very easy to organize. The idea is to gradually broaden the sense of what it means to be a "terrorist" to eventually have it define anyone who goes against the gradually imposing system in any way, or begins to make plans to do so.

So what you have is a perfect example of "subtle engineering". This kind of operation usually has many people involved thinking what they are doing is within a smaller scope of involvement than it actually is. Mathematically speaking, the odds of him gathering all that information and walking away without anyone noticing until it was too late is extremely small.

No, it's the sort of thing that was time-sensitive but by 2013 things are far enough along that it doesn't matter either way. As you can see, nothing has changed as a result so far, and nothing will. On the other hand, much more of the public will behave much more in line as they now know for a fact that any online interaction they have is likely to be recorded unless it's the most mundane small-talk or video watching or whatever else.

The internet is completely defused of any potential to unite people against a subtly oppressive system.

But when all that is said and done, for someone like me it's no matter as there is a completely different way of dealing with the situation. It doesn't need to involve any kind of real resistance, it simply involves building in a different direction, building the kind of things that will start to obviously separate out the people on different levels of vibration.

As much as this side of science was repressed it will suddenly burst through when people can now turn their attention more wholly towards it. Eliminating the "stasis-like" aspect of the internet where so many people are talking and talking but not really doing anything about anything is a good thing all around.

People may not know what to do but that information will all be provided in short order. With a lot of the noise of the internet falling away, this kind of new information will have a much clearer slate to stand upon, upon a foundation of the usual things people use the internet for.

So the first part is going to be the hardest. Convincing others there is a way out of this that requires no conflict. It needs a lot of evidence, and it's taking a lot of time to prepare that evidence. But it will start getting out there this year.

[awakeningmom]

Here an interesting article that may help to explain more of why some believe Snowden is a psy-op -- and what the agenda behind the psy-op might be (Hint: The USA Freedom Act). Blogger Willy Loman has been arguing that Snowden has been a psy-op from the very start. I'll try to post some of his other articles shortly.

https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/the-snowden-psyop-is-nearly-complete-patriot-act-to-be-replaced-by-freedom-act-written-by-the-same-guy/

[awakeningmom]

This is an article by Willy Loman about Jon Oliver, who interviewed Snowden a month ago....I watched the interview and it felt staged and surreal. Isn't this guy hiding from the authorities in some undisclosed location in Russia -- but is able to be interviewed and make jokes on the Daily Show?

https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/john-oliver-shilling-for-discussion-of-giving-up-constitutional-rights-fastestselloutever/

Doesn't pass the smell test to me.

[awakeningmom]

Jon Rappoport is the only journalist I trust currently. If I recall correctly his reaction to Snowden was that no one walks out of the NSA with a flash drive in his pocket. Thanks for this post Awakening Mom. I couldn't agree more with your intuitions, and have been very surprised that this psyop has been so widely accepted.

I agree Bingo. Here is Willy Loman's (Scott Creighton's) article in support of Jon Rappoport....

Jon Rappoport Reminds US We Need the "Snowden Truthers" Now More Than Ever.

https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/jon-rappoport-reminds-us-we-need-the-snowden-truthers-now-more-than-ever/

I'm not sure how to embed the stories themselves, so I hope these links are useful to those interested.

[Flash]

Jon Rappoport is the only journalist I trust currently. If I recall correctly his reaction to Snowden was that no one walks out of the NSA with a flash drive in his pocket. Thanks for this post Awakening Mom. I couldn't agree more with your intuitions, and have been very surprised that this psyop has been so widely accepted.

I agree Bingo. Here is Willy Loman's (Scott Creighton's) article in support of Jon Rappoport....

Jon Rappoport Reminds US We Need the "Snowden Truthers" Now More Than Ever.

https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/jon-rappoport-reminds-us-we-need-the-snowden-truthers-now-more-than-ever/

I'm not sure how to embed the stories themselves, so I hope these links are useful to those interested.

I sincerely do not see how a guy who is Young, have a good career, comfortable revenus, and a country he loves, would let all that go to live in another country, always spied on, always checked on, and not able to move away from it.

Unless he is a MKUltra completely brainswashed and manipulated sponge, or a clone, tell me please which are his personal advantages to have done what he did? I just can't see it. Maybe because I have lived abroad and I know it is difficult in the best circumstances.

[happyuk]

There is a beneficial effect, the chilling effect shot up considerably since 2013. It ties together as a logical chain after initiating 9/11 and then using that aftermath as justification for diverting much more $ to developing the infrastructure to put the systems in place. I had mentioned once here that the new data center was specifically for global profiling. It doesn't take infinite storage space to attribute all activity to all selectors (this can be understood as data tokens like an IP address or MAC address which could be attributed to several people but usually just one).

You work with the flow of data in certain ways to get rid of all the uninteresting traffic and what's left is very easy to organize. The idea is to gradually broaden the sense of what it means to be a "terrorist" to eventually have it define anyone who goes against the gradually imposing system in any way, or begins to make plans to do so.

So what you have is a perfect example of "subtle engineering". This kind of operation usually has many people involved thinking what they are doing is within a smaller scope of involvement than it actually is. Mathematically speaking, the odds of him gathering all that information and walking away without anyone noticing until it was too late is extremely small.

No, it's the sort of thing that was time-sensitive but by 2013 things are far enough along that it doesn't matter either way. As you can see, nothing has changed as a result so far, and nothing will. On the other hand, much more of the public will behave much more in line as they now know for a fact that any online interaction they have is likely to be recorded unless it's the most mundane small-talk or video watching or whatever else.

The internet is completely defused of any potential to unite people against a subtly oppressive system.

But when all that is said and done, for someone like me it's no matter as there is a completely different way of dealing with the situation. It doesn't need to involve any kind of real resistance, it simply involves building in a different direction, building the kind of things that will start to obviously separate out the people on different levels of vibration.

As much as this side of science was repressed it will suddenly burst through when people can now turn their attention more wholly towards it. Eliminating the "stasis-like" aspect of the internet where so many people are talking and talking but not really doing anything about anything is a good thing all around.

People may not know what to do but that information will all be provided in short order. With a lot of the noise of the internet falling away, this kind of new information will have a much clearer slate to stand upon, upon a foundation of the usual things people use the internet for.

So the first part is going to be the hardest. Convincing others there is a way out of this that requires no conflict. It needs a lot of evidence, and it's taking a lot of time to prepare that evidence. But it will start getting out there this year.

I think that is actually a superb analysis.

[awakeningmom]

Jon Rappoport is the only journalist I trust currently. If I recall correctly his reaction to Snowden was that no one walks out of the NSA with a flash drive in his pocket. Thanks for this post Awakening Mom. I couldn't agree more with your intuitions, and have been very surprised that this psyop has been so widely accepted.

I agree Bingo. Here is Willy Loman's (Scott Creighton's) article in support of Jon Rappoport....

Jon Rappoport Reminds US We Need the "Snowden Truthers" Now More Than Ever.

https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/jon-rappoport-reminds-us-we-need-the-snowden-truthers-now-more-than-ever/

I'm not sure how to embed the stories themselves, so I hope these links are useful to those interested.

I sincerely do not see how a guy who is Young, have a good career, comfortable revenus, and a country he loves, would let all that go to live in another country, always spied on, always checked on, and not able to move away from it.

Unless he is a MKUltra completely brainswashed and manipulated sponge, or a clone, tell me please which are his personal advantages to have done what he did? I just can't see it. Maybe because I have lived abroad and I know it is difficult in the best circumstances.

That's just it, Flash. I simply do not believe that narrative - to me, it is a fairytale and one that the MSM has more than willingly spread. If you believe, like I do, that the MSM is nothing more than a propaganda arm of the government, then any story that gets that much airtime is suspect. And when a story is set-up so dramatically, with Snowden in hiding and spending 30 plus days in a Russian airport (how/where did he sleep? shower? Did he just park himself on a bench for 30 days? - and yet still go undetected by all the CIA operatives working in Russia?). I don't believe he gave up a "good career, comfortable revenues, or a country he loves" -- and I don't believe he is actually in Russia anyway. This is the narrative we've been sold -- but where is the proof of that? Instead, I believe he is still working for his employer, the CIA, and carrying out his duties to perpetuate a major psy-op on the rest of us -- a psy-op that includes (a) funneling disinformation through his leaks -- as I've tried to show by links in previous posts -- and (b) making us very aware that everything we do is captured by Big Brother.

Of course we are all entitled to our own opinions. And I certainly have some friends who still think he is some kind of a hero. I just have never bought into this Snowden narrative -- and the CitizenFour documentary made me more sure that the whole thing is and was a psy-op.

As for Greenwald, while I have enjoyed what he has written in the past, I still wonder - would someone that intelligent really bite off on Snowden wholesale? Wouldn't he too have his doubts about this 29 year old guy who pops up out of nowhere, with so much stolen data from our top intelligence agency? Hard to swallow IMO.

[norman]

United States Obtains Final Judgement and Permanent Injunction Against Edward Snowden


https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-obtains-final-judgement-and-permanent-injunction-against-edward-snowden

[norman]

Rapid Climate Change advocate and Freak! Guy McPherson sits down in his lovely Belize garden to make a short youtube announcement that "chemtrails" are not real. His case reinforcement is a snippet of an interview with Edward Snowden.

3gzdBC1DkaM


I found McPherson while doing a bit of research into Carol Rosin the Disclosure Project witness who told us of Von Braun's list of enemies that would be created to fool us all into the end game of the elite.

After suddenly realising that she never mentioned anything to do with viruses, I became curious enough to do a bit of digging. It's been more interesting than I might have expected. Rosin had her own radio program on American Freedom Radio for 4 years which ended in March 2019 with her last show interview being with McPherson. She'd interviewed him 8 times in those four years. Finally she was gone from the network and the network added an extra bit to it's sub banner headline - "No Fear of Doom". Carol Rosin was obsessed with McPherson's Hospice Earth extinction of humans conviction.

In 2017 Rosin stated that she was no longer the slightest bit interested in conspiracy theories and only wanted to focus on reality as described by Dr Guy McPherson. A reality of almost immediate human extinction through rapid climate change.

Whatever the conceptualisation in the guy's head, his 'energy' is awful.

[ExomatrixTV]

U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nsa-spying/u-s-court-mass-surveillance-program-exposed-by-snowden-was-illegal-idUSKBN25T3CK) was illegal

[TomKat]

Unless he is a MKUltra completely brainswashed and manipulated sponge, or a clone, tell me please which are his personal advantages to have done what he did? I just can't see it. Maybe because I have lived abroad and I know it is difficult in the best circumstances.

Spies are routinely betrayed by their employers.

[Airelle77]

THX I just thought it was me who had this feeling about Snowden, one of the most convincing actors ever!