Home » I spy with my little eye…

Comments

I spy with my little eye… — 8 Comments

  1. Savant idiot, he is.

    As if Cuba and Russia were going to bother over the status of his passport!

    What must have been brought to his attention is that America may very well divert his flight — to get him.

    Or…

    That even Cuba might be loaded with Americans. (Canadian passport holders, no doubt)

    His re-working of the English language is symptomatic of a savant idiot… a combination of arrogance and solipsism.

    He’s a long way from Hawaii, now.

  2. I watched some of his interview with Brian Williams. What a smarmy, creepy guy Snowden is.

    And there seems to be some sort of harmonic convergence going on around the publication of Greenwald’s book — the Snowden interview, Greenwald saying that the names of those spied on by NSA will be revealed shortly. Why is NBC helping in the effort?

  3. That systemic corruption throughout the nation in both the private and public hemispheres should give rise to the likes of Snowden is hardly gasp-worthy. The world governed by ‘the private is political’ is likely to be lived by the same dynamic. Under such agency, the circumstances and actions of Snowden both indict and absolve him. It’s quite likely that no nation can exist as a nation in such an atmosphere. It’s quite likely that that had been the plan from the beginning; no-one may know what is moral or immoral, right or wrong, treason or patriotism, until the Party informs them. Ah well, I’d still awaiting the last word on how I am expected to consider this matter.

  4. Venezuela… Land of no toilet paper. Maybe it’d be nice to send him there…

  5. His use of the word “spy” seems odd to me

    should as his terminology is wrong (but not if its Hollywood)

    Spies usually do either “work with people” and/or steal the secrets of other nations.

    here is where your wrong… the game is anything goes, and for that, anything is what is done or accessed if needed. so a ‘spy’ in the sense of operatives can literally be anything needed from accountants to social engineers that turn people, or electronics experts, physicists, company presidents, etc.

    why? cause those people sometimes have natural access to whatever is needed.

    I have said that most people lack any knowlege of this part of history as if it doesnt exist. they may know here and there and titilating stuff, like the name Mata Hari, but ask them what else, and they cant tell you much at all.

    how about Josephine Baker?
    The Nazi’s let her through, barely checking her. she passed information on written in invisible ink in her sheet music.

    Noor Khan? Hotel Owner Belle Boyd? reporter Nancy Wake?

    i have even pointed out this lack to you, and how the facts from there change the facts elsewhere we believe are true or argue about.

    for the most part, without Snowdens, we would forget this goes on and makes huge differences around us (sometimes).

    I will say that we have no idea that what we are seeing is what we are seeing. i just crack up in the idea that we accept what we think we know face value and work from there with nary a pause to think much about it or about the thing we are watching.

    My use of the word “traitor” is based on previous conclusions of mine, rather than new revelations in the interview.

    maybe he is, maybe he isn’t…
    He is a copy of Vasili Mitrokhin.

    there is no way for us to trust what we have been told that we may base our answers on, as we are looking into a hall of mirrors.

    we are assuming what cant be assumed (well, i am not), and so, believe our conclusions valid. i could go back to neo and point out what she is accepting as valid that may not be given the area that this is about.

    the information Glenn Greenwald published in the Guardian represented only a tiny fraction of the information Snowden actually stole.

    really? did you see it? was Greenwald tapped? is the information that is seen real? is it constructed to be real? is it a mix of real, fake, what we know they already have, and so on?

    before you say, it cant be done, etc… i would point you to the life of Richard Sorge… a journalist… sort of..

    So convincing was his Nazi cover that his captors believed he was working for the German military. Torture didn’t loosen his tongue and the Soviets denied all knowledge of him and he was hanged on November 7, 1944.

    in the country he had saved, he remained unknown until, Nikita Khrushchev saw a film about his exploits and asked the KGB if the story was true — finally, in 1964, a man who had died for the Soviet Union, ‘Stalin’s James Bond’, was given the honours his courage and sacrifice deserved.

    the whole thing in that area plays with the things you trust and believe are ok to trust. things like paper proof, or records, or testimony, etc. the point is that if you rely on that as a signpost, they will fake it to turn you around.

    Why, if it weren’t for that mean old State Department, Snowden would be in grand old Venezuela, living it up.

    read it again… and then ask, what if they wanted him in Moscow? if so, they could not buy him a ticket to there and show up… people do just show up… how do you make him real if he isnt real?

    its tradecraft…

    right now, the thing is hot, and you and i will never know what is going on other than something is going on… the reality of it wont be revealed until the reality of it has no bearing on current reality… ie. most of the people dead, etc.

    there are a hell of a lot of stars on the wall, and those are just the dead ones. there is in those halls history books that are more real than any history books we will ever see, with things in them that would change what we think we know about things we are confident in.

    and that is just how it is, and nuttin gonna change that…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>