axisflip cryptofinancial


Snowden’s five “red flags”


On Christmas day of 2011, Chronicle.SU was first to raise massive public suspicion about a very influential Anonymous “Leader,” Sabu. Fans of Anonymous, including Barrett Brown, denied and laughed off these claims with vicious accusations of “trolling.” Sabu was later outed as an agent of the FBI by Fox News in March of 2012, and his cooperation led directly to the arrests of Jeremy Hammond and Jake Davis.

In the past week, the story of Joseph Snowden has unraveled in ways which are much different than the tale of Sabu and even more bombastic, despite the fact that stories about similar wiretapping date as far back as 1988.

In my already very inflated opinion, the story of Snowden is far more suspicious and full of more horrifying “red flags” (Dramatic headline?) than the case of Sabu. Skeptics such as Naomi Wolf have been mocked and labeled conspiracy theorists by Snowden supporters for saying similar things.

  1. Snowden has made very few documents available to the public, unlike Bradley Manning. He has said this is because he doesn’t want to threaten the security of the United States, despite the fact that one of his latest disclosures revealed vital details of American espionage operations in China, something which is arguably far more damaging for U.S. security than anything Manning leaked.
  2. Snowden, unlike most other leakers, acted against his own interests and didn’t remain anonymous. Snowden responded to questioning with boggling statements, “I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model. When you are subverting the power of government, that’s a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy. And if you you do that in secret consistently, y’know, as the government does when it wants to benefit from a secret action that it took, it’ll kind of give its officials a mandate to tell the press about this thing and that thing, so the press is on our side.” (Video) While hiding from prosecution in Hong Kong, Snowden also said, “I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong.”
  3. Snowden first approached the Washington Post before contacting Glenn Greenwald, the much-loved internet pundit known for lionizing WikiLeaks — certainly not someone who is known for reporting on anything but his own opinion (not that he isn’t perfectly capable of reporting). Snowden refused to work with the Washington Post because his contact there could not publish the first story within 72 hours.
  4. Snowden is taking a world tour of the most hated enemies of America still present in popular memory. Joe Sixpack makes no distinction between Hong Kong and China or between Russia and the Soviet Union.
  5. Snowden claimed that he got the job at Booz Allen with the intent of leaking documents, which conflicts with his narrative that he was just a concerned guy who saw some bad stuff. Before working at Booz Allen, Snowden worked for the CIA.

Whether or not you believe any of this points to a false-flag triple-agent mindfuck conspiracy scenario, I have little doubt that Snowden has brought forth enormous boons — for a government that is ever in search of new demons to sacrifice for internet control.

6 replies on “Snowden’s five “red flags””

Before the NSA leak, the US government came out and accused China of hacking our shit, saying there are spy games which are okay to play, and those which aren’t. China’s out of line. I think that is why Snowden dropped the shit on American hacks into China.

“Chinese hackers” were a huge technophobic preying point for the U.S. government to prop up as enemies in order to recruit young minds that would rather be working as high-frequency trading programmers on wall street, making the big ones, essentially. Instead, we have a government so hell-bent on disgusting nationalism that the wall street job creators are now going to work for the mega-industrial spy-complex.

No more trickle down effect thanks to blowblahma.

I asked Jacob Applebaum what we should think of the Stratfor “leaks” now that it was known to be released with DOJ approval. What I got in return was a link, this at his Tweet feed #ioerror, that was a phishing attempt.

The Stratfor disinformation dump contained NO references to the biggest names in internet censorship and surveillance (Mitre and Booz Allen) and for being the biggest set of leaks of all time, this was extremely suspicious to any intelligence buff. It also bears mentioning that the Stratfor episode of WikiOps is the one alleging that a secret indictment against Assange was being prepared. In other words, the DOJ released a “data dump” that deliberately revealed a secret indictment and Applebaum considers any questioning of this matter to be fighting words.

Remember, Jacob made Manning’s leaks (which hardly anyone can name) and the subsequent example that was made of them possible.

I knew Jacob when he was a teenager on the streets of Santa Rosa. I know the crowd that took him in VERY well and they are NOT what they seem.

Leave a comment (or don't)