SNOWDEN PRISM HOAX: THE CREDIBILITY GAP IN SOME "ALTERNATIVE" MEDIA 27.01.2014 (UPDATED 31.01.2014).
There is too much time spent "talking", that could better be spent, getting the job done. Saving Lives.
There is an increasing inconsistency in the West, that has become a credibility gap, where what has appeared to be responsible "alternative" media, cannot have it both ways.
Many of the so called "alternative" media in the West, appeared to be caught out repeating the Snowden lie, that the Prism Hoax, was a leak.
Tony Blair: An zealot for the fanatical financial ideology of Zionism.
After all, very basic research tells you that it is a fact, that the legislation to conduct mass surveillance has long been...published, without being successfully challenged.
Published legislation is not a leak.
However maybe the traditional "alternative" media just have a blind spot over...law.
Beyond that bald fact, that there was no leak, the Guardian et al have only selectively disclosed "information", of a dubious veracity, that government and media decide, they will tell you.
Fine if you want to keep believing that the government and mainstream media should decide what you should know, but please don't claim you are an alternative thinker.
In legal terms, the Guardian would not in any event have any right to selectively choose what "disclosures" they may like to make, which just so happen to only be about government and business.
That so many of the long established "alternative" media who claimed to not believe the official version of 9/11, suddenly believed without question, what they were then fed over the Snowden Prism Hoax was interesting.
It was interesting that some long established "alternative" media simply did not bother with something so basic as a little research.
Were some just piggy backing on the 9/11 efforts of others because t was fashionable ?
However the Snowden Prism Hoax also revealed an inconsistency, by some "alternative" media.
After all, the raison d'etre of the "Alternative" media was supposedly that there was a need for credible alternative news to responsibly -challenge- the lies of the mainstream media and government.
This does mean understanding how the mainstream media work, which you would presume those who would call themselves, "alternative" media might understand.
There was therefore an inconsistency where an "alternative" media who challenged the official version of 9/11 for example, suddenly believed that the same mainstream media who lied to: a) murder millions of innocent civilians over illegal sanctions, to then b) commit 9/11 to c) engage in illegal wars of aggression, suddenly -wanted- or -needed- to tell the truth about something that on the face of it, appears less life threatening.
Of course, the legislation behind the Snowden Prism Hoax, is used to violently censor people targeted by the state, because (for example) they properly challenge the state, most importantly over human life.
This is something the "alternative" media did not challenge or address, because being violently targeted, was not something the supremos of the "alternative" media had yet really experienced themselves -because- the state has yet, to feel truly threatened by most "alternative" media.
Clearly the truth is, the mainstream media ran the Snowden Prism Hoax, because they needed to try and stem their failing credibility, which has been going into free fall, particularly while they are ploughing ahead, full steam on brutal wars of aggression.
However -when- the same "alternative" media -still- kept believing the Snowden Prism Hoax, as the mainstream media kept reporting it, while at the very same time, the mainstream media are being widely discredited by...ordinary people, for putting out a dodgy dossier (the British/Qatari Report), over Syria, what was an inconsistency, finally became a...credibility gap.
The "alternative" media who report the Snowden Hoax as fact, cannot remain credible sources of information, while still believing the same mainstream media who are still reporting the Snowden Prism Hoax, at the very same time they are reporting as fact, the British Qatari Report.
The British/Qatari report over Syria, fully -exposes- the mainstream media as agreeing to lie, hand in hand with government, to murder more...people.
A similarly outdated idea that politicians only lie sometimes, has long ago been discredited.
A leopard really does not change his spots, and if he appears to do so, he is only doing it for a reason, which has nothing to do with caring about the people.
This fallibility by sections of the "alternative" media, to fail to act on the fact that the mainstream media always lie, goes beyond a lack of continuous critical thinking, or the need to churn stories as aggregators, to fill space.
Therefore, there is an important line in the sand to be drawn.
Which parts of "alternative" media really want to protect life ?
Below is one example of a report that nearly has the whole truth in the bag, then at the final hurdle, suddenly throws logic out the window.
The reader is invited to believe Snowden was completely ignorant in his own dealings with the mainstream media, of the well known fact, that the mainstream media work with the intelligence agencies, and knowingly employ spies!!
While some of the self describing, "heavy hitters" (below) think Snowden is most probably a lie.
28.01.2014: VETERANS TODAY: SNOWDEN'S SECRET."...carefully vetted by an informal organization that includes among its staff and sources many, if not most, of the world’s intelligence communities “heavy hitters.”
MOTIVES: "But either way, the information he has helped make public can be turned against those whose life’s work is to deceive us.”
31.01.2014 However..."Imagine"...not even considering that the Guardian was not telling the truth over Snowden, while knowing that on the evening of January 21st 2014, the Guardian published the fraudulent British Qatari report.
"UPRISING": What ?? So long as the...Guardian report it ??:)
If you choose to be "alternative" media, and you do want to protect life...
...you either make it your business to (go out and) find out the truth, and be aware of what is really going on, in which case you could only be aware that the mainstream media lie -all the time- to maintain a world view, so big business can murder whoever they like, to maintain their system.
This includes lying by omission, whereby the mainstream media put out some facts, within the context of managing or maintaining their world view, where business interests take precedence over human life.
(Looking at the SCOTT TRUST BOARD (& Anthony Sulz) along with the law over legal disclosures, is instructive.)
OR you are in "alternative" media to make money for your own agenda, which is your own...business, in every sense of the word, (and there is nothing really "alternative" about your media at all).
INFOWARS:(despite the fact I quite like and agree with some of their content, I recognize they are) an "alternative"...business.
There is of course, a middle ground, that falls into the category of the unreliable, who perhaps does not have the confidence to say that the Emperor has no clothes, or compromise because they prefer some arrangement with the mainstream media, whereby they can report ...selected truths.
I have long been incredulous that there is an element within the "alternative" media whose CV's include they provide/d reports for blah di blah mainstream media outlet, (because it benefits, both), as though that is somehow...a good thing (that even worse they think, lends them some "credibility" as goodness knows what I cannot imagine).
The point is an "alternative" media which is compromised, is no different to any campaigner who becomes compromised. They cannot change any system. They become just part of, prolonging the system.
An important lesson we lived ourselves, time and again in Parliament Square, was this.
When all really is a matter of life & death, you do not knowingly leave anyone’s -life- in the hands of any comfortable fence-sitter or worse.
The fence sitter or "alternative" business, who -choose- to believe that sometimes the same mainstream media who lied when it was the mass murder of war, will then splash the truth all over their front pages, over something that is potentially less life threatening -because- they have to, still chooses to slumber for whatever reason, that progresses nothing for...everyone.
Most importantly, they will not really be protecting...life, when someone else's -life- is still a convenience and trade-able commodity, to them.
1. Many in the "alternative media" continue to -speculate- over what made the British government back down over open military intervention in the war in Syria. Perhaps this is because they are not really in the thick of the battle, so they do not understand the dynamics at play.
2. At the same time, many in the "alternative" media are not even aware that the starting point was the Snowden Prism Hoax could not be a leak, because their blind spot is...law.
The fact that many of the big hitters in the "alternative" media do not understand that the Snowden Prism Hoax is trying to manage the transformational change the internet offers, ordinary people, is just incredible.
3. Many "alternative" media have not addressed the importance of the one word -evidence- in the British/Qatari report, which ordinary people in their droves, recognized, thus irrevocably destroying a massive propaganda lie over Syria.
I can think of no valid reason to -trust- or -respect- the wilfully ignorant, sections of the "alternative" media.
It is obvious that the continuing Snowden Prism Hoax and the Dodgy Dossier on Syria, first went out through the Guardian gatekeepers, because those readers are the target group of people, that the business state are most concerned over.
If we as a small group can, against the odds, continually adapt to challenge a state over many years, the self styled "big hitters" sitting at their computer screens, should at the very least be able to properly understand, and act upon, what is before their very eyes.
Our years in Parliament Square taught us that ordinary people from around the world think like we do, without the "assistance" of much of the white noise out there across the mainstream media and internet. Most ordinary people know what is decent and civilized, and therefore what is right or wrong.
The government despise our campaign, because they see us as a Clapham Omnibus with attitude, who does our bit to challenge them.
The litmus test.
We act, they bite.
We want to make it safer for -everyone- to participate, in various ways, without getting bitten.
(In fact, the criminal U.K state, use the police to violently assault, kidnap and attempt to murder genuine campaigners)
"Tool - Right in Two (HQ)"
(Video background found in Google Graphics.
Fools Road by Michael Faber)
Greenwald: British spies, snoop on You Tube etc.
Of course on September 28th 2012, our -website- exposed that the U.K Attorney General (who laid an egg about what I said on September 27th 2012) was not only snooping around, but getting You Tube to illegally delete court records being shown in the U.K, on You Tube, of U.K government corruption, that involves very serious state violence.
(When the U.K State uniquely needed to invent legislation in late 2011, specifically to try and make our existing groundbreaking High Court civil actions, that grew into many, "disappear", by any means, you know our claims are capable of -legally- bringing down the U.K State)
Like war, the Snowden Prism Hoax, continues with supposed leaks involving the circle of media and government, not the ordinary people who are always the underlying...economic targets.
In the longer term, the system understands that people will try to re-invent the mainstream media model, in a way that genuinely involves the people, and challenges the inane "celebrity" of the mainstream, including those who want to be labelled..."journalists".
Tony Blair & the mainstream media get that.
25.01.2014 TONY BLAIR: THE HARBINGER OF TECHNOLOGY.
(A hit piece from the man who had me kidnapped numerous times, so the business state could continue to murder whoever they wanted)
17.01.2014: BABS TUCKER: THE HARBINGER OF TECHNOLOGY.
Encouragingly, increasing numbers of people, just like you and me, do know what is going on.
"Religious difference, not ideology, will fuel this century's epic battles
it didn't take an official "label" for the people to understand who the....mass murderers of innocent civilians, are.
"We must encourage education and tolerance if we are to bring about peace in the Middle East and the rest of the world
Technology – so much the harbinger of opportunity – can also be used to disseminate lessons of hate and division.
The last weeks have seen a ghastly roll call of terror attacks in the obvious places: Syria, Libya, Iraq and Lebanon, as well as Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia and Pakistan. Also suffering are places where we have only in recent years seen such violence: Nigeria, and in many parts of central Africa, in Russia and across central Asia, and in Burma, Thailand and the Philippines. We can either see all of these acts of killing as separate – produced by various political contexts – or we can start to see the clear common theme and start to produce a genuine global strategy to deal with it.
The fact is that, though of course there are individual grievances or reasons for the violence in each country, there is one thing self-evidently in common: the acts of terrorism are perpetrated by people motivated by an abuse of religion. It is a perversion of faith. But there is no doubt that those who commit the violence often do so by reference to their faith and the sectarian nature of the conflict is a sectarianism based on religion. There is no doubt either that this phenomenon is growing, not abating.
We have to be prepared to take the security measures necessary for our immediate protection. Since 9/11, the cost of those measures, and their burden, has been huge. However, security action alone, even military action, will not deal with the root cause. This extremism comes from a source. It is not innate. It is taught. It is taught sometimes in the formal education system; sometimes in the informal religious schools; sometimes in places of worship and it is promoted by a vast network of internet communications.
Technology, so much the harbinger of opportunity, can also be used by those who want to disseminate lessons of hate and division.
Today's world is connected as never before. This has seen enormous advances. It means there is a kind of global conversation being conducted. This is exciting and often liberating. But it comes with the inevitable ability for those who want to get across a message that is extreme to do so. This has to be countered.
At present, our screens are dominated by the hideous slaughter in Syria. We have to hope that the peace negotiations succeed. But with more than 130,000 dead – and, on some accounts, the total is nearer 200,000 – millions displaced and the country in a state of disintegration, it is hard to see how there can be a lasting agreement for peace unless it is based on a clear recognition that the Syria arising from this has to be one in which all people are treated equally, regardless of which faith they practise or which part within a faith they belong to. That will never work while either a minority religious group rules the country whose majority has a different adherence, or where those fighting the regime have powerful elements that also want to rule on the basis of religious difference – and are prepared to use terrorism to get their way.
This is not just a matter of what any new constitution says. Democracy is not only a way of voting. It is a way of thinking. People have to feel equal, not just be regarded by the law as such. Such religious tolerance has to be taught and argued for. Those who oppose it have to be taken on and defeated not only by arms but by ideas.
All over the region, and including in Iraq, where exactly the same sectarianism threatens the right of the people to a democratic future, such a campaign has to be actively waged. It is one reason why the Middle East matters so much and why any attempt to disengage is so wrong and short-sighted. It is here in the centre of Islam that so many of the issues around how religion and politics coexist peacefully will be determined.
But this issue of extremism is not limited to Islam. There are also many examples the world over where Muslims are the victims of religiously motivated violence from those of other religious faiths.
So the challenge is clear. And it is one that could define the nature of peace and conflict in the first half of the 21st century. The battles of this century are less likely to be the product of extreme political ideology – like those of the 20th century – but they could easily be fought around the questions of cultural or religious difference.
The answer is to promote views that are open-minded and tolerant towards those who are different, and to fight the formal, informal and internet propagation of closed-minded intolerance. In the 21st century, education is a security issue.
For that reason, when I left office, and in part based on my experience post-9/11 of how countries whose people were freed from dictatorship have then had democratic aspirations thwarted by religious extremism, I established a foundation whose aim is to promote greater knowledge and understanding between people of different faiths. This is not a call to faith – it is a call to respect those of all faiths and not to allow faith to divide us but instead to embody the true values of compassion and humanity common to all faiths.
The foundation is now active in more than 20 countries, including some of those most affected by sectarianism, with a multimillion-pound budget, full-time and part-time staff, and expanding rapidly. We focus on practical programmes. The schools programme, accredited to the international GCSE and recognised by the international baccalaureate, uses video conferencing and online interaction to link classes of students from different countries across the world to learn about each other and to learn to live with each other.
There is a university programme, which we are building into a minor degree course, that began at Yale but is now in more than 20 universities, including in China and Latin America, where students study faith and globalisation – essentially the place of religion in modern society. And an action programme, pioneered in Sierra Leone but now being extended, where we help deliver the anti-malaria campaign of the UN by using the faith infrastructure of the churches and the mosques.
Later this year, in collaboration with Harvard Divinity School, we will launch a new website that will provide up-to-date analysis of what is happening in the field of religion and conflict; in-depth analysis of religion and its impact on countries where this is a major challenge; and basic facts about the religious make-up and trends in every country worldwide.
Evidently, we can reach only parts of the world and be a small part of fighting a huge problem. But the purpose is to change the policy of governments: to start to treat this issue of religious extremism as an issue that is about religion as well as politics, to go to the roots of where a false view of religion is being promulgated, and to make it a major item on the agenda of world leaders to combine effectively to combat it. This is a struggle that is only just beginning."