More details on just how the NSA collects data: with screenshots!

[Woodsman]

Re: More details on just how the NSA collects data: with screenshots!

I for one give your theory zero credence.

That's certainly understandable as it's WAY out of the box; too far for most.

I think it is worth considering with the understanding that the sort of evidence needed to definitively confirm or refute it is simply not going to materialize. As such, we're left with only what we can discern and impute. Think of how many notions once universally derided as the domain of "crackpots" now seem confirmed daily on the evening news?

The men who during WWII tasted the powers of coercive control would find it impossible to reconcile themselves with a return to the humbler roles they once played in peaceful times. If presented with the possibility of deploying systems as proposed by Reggie, I have every expectation that men such as John and Allen Dulles, McGeorge Bundy, Walt Rostow and the like would be enthusiastic supporters.

And I don't believe anyone has asserted a need for superhuman powers or absolute control. The methods posited are far more subtle and indirect. As I said, my understanding of Reggie's point of view is limited, but if one were inclined one could run through the threads and see for themselves.

I don't see anything requiring superhuman abilities; that is other than a superhuman will to power. The technical, physical, biological, cognitive, and social systems at work are well understood. Surely the inclination is there.

[c1ue]

Re: More details on just how the NSA collects data: with screenshots!

I don't see anything requiring superhuman abilities; that is other than a superhuman will to power. The technical, physical, biological, cognitive, and social systems at work are well understood. Surely the inclination is there.

I disagree. If said systems at work are so well understood, then the rise of such movements like Occupy would never have occurred. Occupy was the latest outburst of populist sentiment as might have been seen with past surges of socialism, feminism, etc etc.

Equally the idea that such capability exists but is unable to create 'stable' democracies or stable anything else in the Middle East, is unable to subdue a once prostrate ex-Soviet Union/Russia, is unable to gain universal support for such unpopular programs as TBTF - this would seem to me to greatly weaken if not destroy the premise.

In this as with all things, some form of validation is required.

Merely citing obscure references is insufficient, especially so since a number of citations made by reggie have been betrayed by a fundamental lack of understanding of the underlying facts by those who do have significant direct expertise in the subject.

Thus while I would fully agree that there are those who would want such capabilities, I don't agree that they exist. Even the invasion of Iraq - after over a decade, the gestalt concerning that endeavor at this point isn't anything close to what was being pushed by the powers that be prior to "liberatin'".

[Woodsman]

Re: More details on just how the NSA collects data: with screenshots!

I appreciate your point regarding Occupy. Why not stop it before it started, unless the distributed nature of the events made preemption too difficult and a plan B was in place. Or maybe letting it occur was a form of pressure release coupled with an opportunity to apply untested methods and seed the public mind with images of what happens to dissenters. No way to know, really, and all speculative.

I've also been thinking about the commitment to "stability" both in terms of the Middle East and the domestic side. No time to do it justice here, but I'm convinced that in lieu of stability, fostering instability is a preferable second choice.

Besides, the posture depends on the target. If you have resources and don't care about your population, you get the strongman/dictator stability, the IMF austerity type of stability. If you have resources and plan to use that to the betterment of your domestic population, you get instability usually leading to a coup. If you're a muscular country or have strong friends (Syria/Iran) and want to go your own way, you get instability in the form of an insurgency. And once your guy is in place, stability magically returns, right?

It's still too early to tell, but it's slowly becoming clear that much of our engagement with Gorbachev/Yeltsin era Russia was intended not to help, but to destabilize. And as for universal support for unpopular programs, popular opposition to the bailouts and Obamacare remains firm as ever yet no one in authority seem to care much.

So no, I don't see any of that as a slam dunk against, but I'm not exactly "all in" either. We could go tit for tat all day and still get nowhere, so let's not! Really, I'm not out to convince anyone about anything. I just look forward to the discussions that usually accompany yours and Reggie's posts.

[c1ue]

Re: More details on just how the NSA collects data: with screenshots!

I appreciate your point regarding Occupy. Why not stop it before it started, unless the distributed nature of the events made preemption too difficult and a plan B was in place. Or maybe letting it occur was a form of pressure release coupled with an opportunity to apply untested methods and seed the public mind with images of what happens to dissenters. No way to know, really, and all speculative.

As you noted - it can be posited in all sorts of ways to justify any existing prejudice. This is, however, the same kind of tactic used by various conspiracy fans of all stripes. Ultimately for me there has to be some form of validation.

The validation I refer to is from my real world experience. It is really tough to even get small groups of people to conform. I'm talking about both in corporate and family matters; if we cannot rule our kids nor our employees, it is really a stretch (to me) that we can rule society in opposition to said society's inherent tendencies.

I've also been thinking about the commitment to "stability" both in terms of the Middle East and the domestic side. No time to do it justice here, but I'm convinced that in lieu of stability, fostering instability is a preferable second choice.

Besides, the posture depends on the target. If you have resources and don't care about your population, you get the strongman/dictator stability, the IMF austerity type of stability. If you have resources and plan to use that to the betterment of your domestic population, you get instability usually leading to a coup. If you're a muscular country or have strong friends (Syria/Iran) and want to go your own way, you get instability in the form of an insurgency. And once your guy is in place, stability magically returns, right?

As noted above, arguments can be phrased from all sorts of viewpoints. However, it is quite safe to say that the Mubarak government in Egypt was more than comfortable for the US and Israel in many ways. The marked slowness of the US recognizing the 'Arab Spring' in Egypt is a prime example.

And in turn, the return to 'military rule' in Egypt via nearly open gunfire bespeaks a very poor case of social control - a model not much different except in tools from what was seen in feudal times.

From my view, there are actors in the Middle East, but the US is not the end-all, be-all by any stretch of the imagination. The masses of money being thrown about both externally and internally by Qatar and Saudi Arabia bespeaks something far different than some technological/sociological/scientific form of control.

It's still too early to tell, but it's slowly becoming clear that much of our engagement with Gorbachev/Yeltsin era Russia was intended not to help, but to destabilize.

In Russia, this has been the view for at least 15 years now.

And as for universal support for unpopular programs, popular opposition to the bailouts and Obamacare remains firm as ever yet no one in authority seem to care much.

Again, something which is abundantly clear. The thing is, the behavior of 'the authorities' is not anything unusual - we all can remember "Let them eat cake".

So no, I don't see any of that as a slam dunk against, but I'm not exactly "all in" either. We could go tit for tat all day and still get nowhere, so let's not! Really, I'm not out to convince anyone about anything. I just look forward to the discussions that usually accompany yours and Reggie's posts.

Fair enough, and duly noted. From my view, I don't bother anymore because there is simply no way to learn anything when the response from the other side is always going to be some tropism or obscure reference with little or no bearing on reality. As I noted previously, those areas which I am well familiar with, the little that is concrete which was talked about betrayed a very poor understanding of actual detail in the field.

[jk]

Re: More details on just how the NSA collects data: with screenshots!

i'm with c1ue here. i think reggie has much too high an opinion of our global elites. i don't think they're nearly as capable as he thinks they are.

[FrankL]

Re: More details on just how the NSA collects data: with screenshots!

I have to agree with that sentiment. That however does not invalidate the hypothesis that various groups do try to influence societal behaviour with varying degrees of success. We should focus on analyzing the methods employed and how to effectively counter or diffuse these tactics. I hope we can all agree on at least that and bury our differences.

[leegs]

Re: More details on just how the NSA collects data: with screenshots!

I for one think that Woodsman's skeptical but open-minded assessment of Reggie's commentary is very sensible.

It strikes me that on the one hand C1ue argues that the control of the sort described by Reggie is entirely too difficult to be achievable, then on the other he argues that its lack of omnipotence (e.g. Occupy) is evidence against the existence of it. Not a compelling way to make the point IMO.

Re Occupy specifically - I think Woodsman has it exactly right - it served as a release, whether it was a grassroots thing or a manufactured thing. I would in fact say that I were a clever global elite, I can't think of a more perfectly executed bogus resistance than Occupy.

[c1ue]

Re: More details on just how the NSA collects data: with screenshots!

It strikes me that on the one hand C1ue argues that the control of the sort described by Reggie is entirely too difficult to be achievable, then on the other he argues that its lack of omnipotence (e.g. Occupy) is evidence against the existence of it. Not a compelling way to make the point IMO.

If societal control cannot in fact prevent the exact sorts of things the powers that be want to prevent, then I am unclear exactly what actual efficacy it has.

It is like saying there is a cure for cancer when people die of cancer every day.

As for the safety valve - that sounds nice, but ultimately it is unprovable that this safety valve exists, and even if it exists, if it works as it is supposed to. As I noted previously, this is exactly the circular logic employed in conspiracy theories where the lack of evidence is dismissed because "the government covered it up". While certainly that may be true, ultimately this form of argument is worthless because then we're faced with a question of faith. Faith requires only belief.

[reggie]

Re: More details on just how the NSA collects data: with screenshots!

i'm with c1ue here. i think reggie has much too high an opinion of our global elites. i don't think they're nearly as capable as he thinks they are.

One problem here is that no one seems to have done the essential research, nor has anyone had any tangible experience behind the power that steers the front groups like Occupy. One can't see what's going on when one sticks to the mainstream material meant for mass consumption... it's just not possible.

If's all out in the open, and it's all very understandable to anyone with an advance education in the physical sciences. All one has to do is open their eyes and shed their manufactured beleif system, but that is much harder said than done.

I have to agree with that sentiment. That however does not invalidate the hypothesis that various groups do try to influence societal behaviour with varying degrees of success. We should focus on analyzing the methods employed and how to effectively counter or diffuse these tactics. I hope we can all agree on at least that and bury our differences.

Well, that's what I've been attempting to do. But when one refuses to "see" the propaganda and how is orients them in the world, then the techniques remain invisible. I mean, we can all continue to go on and believe that Steve Jobs + Steve Woz + Bill Gates developed the PC for the masses, but that story has no basis in reality and falls downs with the slightest of honest scrutiny.

I for one think that Woodsman's skeptical but open-minded assessment of Reggie's commentary is very sensible.

It strikes me that on the one hand C1ue argues that the control of the sort described by Reggie is entirely too difficult to be achievable, then on the other he argues that its lack of omnipotence (e.g. Occupy) is evidence against the existence of it. Not a compelling way to make the point IMO.

Re Occupy specifically - I think Woodsman has it exactly right - it served as a release, whether it was a grassroots thing or a manufactured thing. I would in fact say that I were a clever global elite, I can't think of a more perfectly executed bogus resistance than Occupy.

Occupy was designed to start a conflict between the 1% and the remainder of society. The purpose of the conflict is to mitigate the strength of anyone financially strong enough to pose a threat to the system. We're now seeing Hollywood fulfill its propagandistic role by releasing films to support the agenda (see Pain & Gain as an example of a recent release).

[c1ue]

Re: More details on just how the NSA collects data: with screenshots!

One problem here is that no one seems to have done the essential research, nor has anyone had any tangible experience behind the power that steers the front groups like Occupy. One can't see what's going on when one sticks to the mainstream material meant for mass consumption... it's just not possible.

Again, wrong. The work that went into the Tea Party movement is fairly well documented. The success of that movement was entirely due to channeling existing anger as opposed to creation of social momentum - and these days the Tea Party tide has largely receded.

Well, that's what I've been attempting to do. But when one refuses to "see" the propaganda and how is orients them in the world, then the techniques remain invisible. I mean, we can all continue to go on and believe that Steve Jobs + Steve Woz + Bill Gates developed the PC for the masses, but that story has no basis in reality and falls downs with the slightest of honest scrutiny.

Right, the first PC was Apple.

Not.

[reggie]

Re: More details on just how the NSA collects data: with screenshots!

Moreover, the entire needing-to-spy-on-everyone meme falls down when one realizes that all major threats to the system are manufactured. For example....we know that American Intelligence created the VC in Vietnam, The Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and Al-Qaeda... just to name a few. We also know that virtually all major non-profit organizations and movements are sponsored by extreme-high-net-worth individuals with close ties to major establishment figures and institutions, and/or are managed by establishment insiders.

Hence, when one discovers that the media reported threats are manufactured, one is forced to re-analyze the purpose of intelligence agencies, the objectives of all the recent "spying" media reports, and the goals for the technological techniques that result in the deployment of sensors (ie mobile phones) and output devices (ie internet connected devices) across every facet of our lives.

[c1ue]

Re: More details on just how the NSA collects data: with screenshots!

Occupy was designed to start a conflict between the 1% and the remainder of society. The purpose of the conflict is to mitigate the strength of anyone financially strong enough to pose a threat to the system.

Right, the Occupy movement was all about financially strong people.

I very much doubt you actually spent any time talking to anyone directly involved in Occupy.

[Woodsman]

Re: More details on just how the NSA collects data: with screenshots!

American Intelligence created the VC in Vietnam...

With regard to the Viet Cong, here is a chance for Reggie/C1ue to highlight the sort of evidence that we crave. I know this history fairly well, having wasted my youth in libraries and government document repositories. The documentation on our involvement and escalation in Vietnam is extensive and grows daily (kudos to the archivists at NARA who do this yeoman's work).

The Gravel edition of the Pentagon Papers is a good place to start as it was the DoD's own internal study and never intended to see the light of day save for Ellsberg's doing. It puts the genesis of the NLF around 1954 based on later statements by GVN officials, but admits that it can't pin the date down with any certainty. This proto-NLF was formed out of the 5-10K Viet Minh cadres that stayed behind following the cease fire brokered by the Chinese.

The VM were an organic nationalist movement but did indeed receive material support from the US. OSS was working with the Nationalist Chinese to create a Vietnamese insurgency against the Japanese. When the initial effort proved disappointing, OSS had the Chinese release Ho Chi Mihn from prison and provided him clandestine support. War makes for strange bedfellows, as Mihn was also an agent of the Comintern.

Ho meets with OSS officer Archimedes Patti various times between April and August of '45. He is treated by an OSS doc for malaria, seals a deal to run operations with OSS Deer Teams against the Japanese and to establish an intelligence network feeding info to the Americans, first on the Japanese and then on the French.

According to Patty his orders were not to assist the French in reestablish their colony. The French must have been aware as they refused to provide OSS with requested intelligence support, thus moving OSS all that closer to the Viet Mihn and Ho. The French later expelled Patti, accusing him of fostering revolution. The career of Lucien Conein provides similar insights on the later course of our involvement, if anyone cares.

So is it correct to say that the US helped set up the Viet Cong? Our answer depends on our degree of certainty and that certainty depends on our depth of knowledge, both in terms of the specific history of the First Indochinese War and the general history of covert operations. My training in historiography makes me reluctant to say definitively, yes. The history of intelligence and covert operations would lead me to another conclusion.

The Viet Mihn/Viet Cong were indeed an organic, Vietnamese creation arising from dissatisfaction against the French colonialists and their Vietnamese clients. It nevertheless received significant early support from the Sovs, beyond the aforementioned engagement of Ho, and that support would continue. The French can also be said to have created the Viet Cong inasmuch as in the 30s French intelligence provided Ho with 100K piasters in exchange for betraying a rival. That money was instrumental in firming up Ho's leadership among Vietnamese nationalists. Going back further, it was French socialists who nurtured and politicized Ho and helped him make his way to Russia.

What I know about the history of intelligence and covert operations is necessarily thinner than the overt diplomatic and military history I studied. But from what I've learned in open sources available to all, I'd say "sure they did" and point to the various contacts and relationships above as the merest hint of what might lie beneath. They did similar work in the past elsewhere and would continue create "opposition groups" and insurgencies of one form or another into the present day (cf. "Free Syrian Army").

And while the memoirs and oral histories of men like Patti are priceless, they are intelligence officers first and always. Because of confidentiality agreements (and culture, generally) they cannot be relied upon to tell the "whole truth" even 70 years after the events. Clandestine agents live in an alternate moral universe. I’ve always found it hard to accept that after a lifetime of practicing tradecraft, one simply could turn it off. And everyone knows the old "once an agent..." trope (see postscript).

I think this is what it comes down to, in terms of how one views this specific claim or the larger ones we discuss here, especially when definitive proof is scarce. As a (one time) historian, I'm bound to limit my assertions only to those things where I have a document or some such evidence. This is true even if I "know" there is more to the story because I can connect dots and make inferences using other similar instances and events. It's tempting to do it, it's often helpful to do it, but it's not "History." I can take that history and make inferences and deductions in other areas where historical evidence is thinner, but that's "intelligent speculation." We can use both tools to help us make good judgments; bad ones, too.

More than two cents, but maybe it will help some iTulipers gain a little clarity. Not looking to convince anyone or change minds here, but to encourage debate and a healthy skepticism.


Postscript:
I recently attended my great grandmother's 90th birthday celebrations. In WWII she served at the Pentagon as a "secretary" with a group ("lawyers from New York" she called them - could be "Sullivan & Cromwell" or "Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine") charged with developing the final intelligence product that would end up on George Marshall and Franklin Roosevelt's desks.

Grandmother is the unofficial family historian and she can remember trivial and important events far into the past. Her cognitive abilities are still very sharp and she's not the sort to forget things. But when I ask her questions about her wartime experiences, she apologies and tells me she just can't remember. Old habits die hard.

[c1ue]

Re: More details on just how the NSA collects data: with screenshots!

I think this is what it comes down to, in terms of how one views this specific claim or the larger ones we discuss here, especially when definitive proof is scarce. As a (one time) historian, I'm bound to limit my assertions only to those things where I have a document or some such evidence. This is true even if I "know" there is more to the story because I can connect dots and make inferences using other similar instances and events. It's tempting to do it, it's often helpful to do it, but it's not "History." I can take that history and make inferences and deductions in other areas where historical evidence is thinner, but that's "intelligent speculation." We can use both tools to help us make good judgments; bad ones, too.

More than two cents, but maybe it will help some iTulipers gain a little clarity. Not looking to convince anyone or change minds here, but to encourage debate and a healthy skepticism.

Thank you for the exposition. I definitely learned something.

From my view - I do not see the US as having created the Viet Cong. Sure, money and support did flow at some point from the US to Ho Chih Minh - much as money and support did flow from the US to Osama at some point.

Osama, however, was on a clear path long before the US interaction and well after the US interaction.

I would distinguish this activity from that of say, the 'Free Syrian Army' - which apparently is not in the least bit free (tons of money spent by Qatar), nor Syrian (dozens of nations' worth of Salafist recruits), or even an Army (really, a collection of local militias with a few Salafist BBs thrown in).

The anti-foreigner fighters in Vietnam, however, were there fighting the Japanese. Then they fought the French. Then they fought the South Vietnamese. Then they fought the Americans. Yes, the Soviet Union and China contributed a lot to their effort, but it was the Vietnamese who contributed literally millions of lives.

To say that these millions were just finger puppets for this or that outside power is incorrect.

[reggie]

Re: More details on just how the NSA collects data: with screenshots!

Woodsman, what happens when you orient the data, and knowledge you've garnered, within the frame that the Vietnam war was part of a system of levers employed to open China to the globalists, with Kissinger as the lead "public" facing string puller from the US?

This frame becomes even more interesting if one views the Sino-Soviet conflict as a larger part of this system of levers.