As the psywar against Edward Snowden and Wikileaks steps up I want to offer my perspective on some aspects of the situation.
Firstly, we have to recognise that in situations where the powers that
be are powerless to directly control outcomes, they often resort to
indirect means, specifically: innuendo, slurs and rumours which they
inject into mainstream media news coverage of their enemies' activities.
In the case of Snowden and Wikileaks, the effect of all these
innuendos, slurs and rumours is to destroy the public perception that
whistleblowers and their facilitators are good people. They work on the
basis that perception equals reality.
Another way of saying this is: if you throw enough mud, some will stick.
These factors should be considered when you read this and this.
Of course, the powers that be have been trying to discredit Assange
with innuendos for years, so it's not surprising that they are resorting
once again to attacks on his character in order to cloud our perception
of Edward Snowden's bid for asylum in Ecuador.
I am thus sceptical of press reports which insinuate, without any direct quotes, that Ecuador is angry with Julian Assange.
I am equally sceptical about claims which have been floated by Webster Tarpley and Naomi Wolf
that Snowden is a double agent or a government stooge, and I suggest to
you that this is another meme which may have been DELIBERATELY
introduced into the alternative media to erode our confidence in this
man.
In saying that, am I accusing Ms Wolf or Mr Tarpley of being agents of government disinformation?
Well, yes, I suppose I am - you have to call a spade a spade - but that
doesn't mean I am hinting that they are conscious government
operatives. They could just be fools. Perhaps they were seeded with
these thoughts and their egos did the rest of the work.
Webster Tarpley has a long record of twisting facts and denouncing
people with zero evidence. I have zero respect for his opinion
generally.
As for Naomi, I am surprised and disappointed. I think at the very
least it was extremely irresponsible of her to arouse suspicion about a
whistleblower who has risked his life to expose egregious crimes of
State - and even worse to do so within a few days of his appearence and
without any evidence against him!
Something bothers me about this, because she should have known better.
Maybe I do have a nagging, niggling concern about Naomi Wolf's authenticity...As the psywar against Edward Snowden and Wikileaks steps up I want to offer my perspective on some aspects of the situation.
Firstly, we have to recognise that in situations where the powers that
be are powerless to directly control outcomes, they often resort to
indirect means, specifically: innuendo, slurs and rumours which they
inject into mainstream media news coverage of their enemies' activities.
In the case of Snowden and Wikileaks, the effect of all these
innuendos, slurs and rumours is to destroy the public perception that
whistleblowers and their facilitators are good people. They work on the
basis that perception equals reality.
Another way of saying this is: if you throw enough mud, some will stick.
These factors should be considered when you read this and this.
Of course, the powers that be have been trying to discredit Assange
with innuendos for years, so it's not surprising that they are resorting
once again to attacks on his character in order to cloud our perception
of Edward Snowden's bid for asylum in Ecuador.
I am thus sceptical of press reports which insinuate, without any direct quotes, that Ecuador is angry with Julian Assange.
I am equally sceptical about claims which have been floated by Webster Tarpley and Naomi Wolf
that Snowden is a double agent or a government stooge, and I suggest to
you that this is another meme which may have been DELIBERATELY
introduced into the alternative media to erode our confidence in this
man.
In saying that, am I accusing Ms Wolf or Mr Tarpley of being agents of government disinformation?
Well, yes, I suppose I am - you have to call a spade a spade - but that
doesn't mean I am hinting that they are conscious government
operatives. They could just be fools. Perhaps they were seeded with
these thoughts and their egos did the rest of the work.
Webster Tarpley has a long record of twisting facts and denouncing
people with zero evidence. I have zero respect for his opinion
generally.
As for Naomi, I am surprised and disappointed. I think at the very
least it was extremely irresponsible of her to arouse suspicion about a
whistleblower who has risked his life to expose egregious crimes of
State - and even worse to do so within a few days of his appearence and
without any evidence against him!
Something bothers me about this, because she should have known better.
Maybe I do have a nagging, niggling concern about Naomi Wolf's authenticity...
As the psywar against Edward Snowden and Wikileaks steps up I want to offer my perspective on some aspects of the situation.
Firstly, we have to recognise that in situations where the powers that
be are powerless to directly control outcomes, they often resort to
indirect means, specifically: innuendo, slurs and rumours which they
inject into mainstream media news coverage of their enemies' activities.
In the case of Snowden and Wikileaks, the effect of all these
innuendos, slurs and rumours is to destroy the public perception that
whistleblowers and their facilitators are good people. They work on the
basis that perception equals reality.
Another way of saying this is: if you throw enough mud, some will stick.
These factors should be considered when you read this and this.
Of course, the powers that be have been trying to discredit Assange
with innuendos for years, so it's not surprising that they are resorting
once again to attacks on his character in order to cloud our perception
of Edward Snowden's bid for asylum in Ecuador.
I am thus sceptical of press reports which insinuate, without any direct quotes, that Ecuador is angry with Julian Assange.
I am equally sceptical about claims which have been floated by Webster Tarpley and Naomi Wolf
that Snowden is a double agent or a government stooge, and I suggest to
you that this is another meme which may have been DELIBERATELY
introduced into the alternative media to erode our confidence in this
man.
In saying that, am I accusing Ms Wolf or Mr Tarpley of being agents of government disinformation?
Well, yes, I suppose I am - you have to call a spade a spade - but that
doesn't mean I am hinting that they are conscious government
operatives. They could just be fools. Perhaps they were seeded with
these thoughts and their egos did the rest of the work.
Webster Tarpley has a long record of twisting facts and denouncing
people with zero evidence. I have zero respect for his opinion
generally.
As for Naomi, I am surprised and disappointed. I think at the very
least it was extremely irresponsible of her to arouse suspicion about a
whistleblower who has risked his life to expose egregious crimes of
State - and even worse to do so within a few days of his appearence and
without any evidence against him!
Something bothers me about this, because she should have known better.
Maybe I do have a nagging, niggling concern about Naomi Wolf's authenticity...
