Snowden and the final purpose of the Surveillance State

by Jon Rappoport on Jon Rappoport

This material is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.
The views expressed are solely those of the authors or commentators and may or may not reflect those of canal666.

I've written much about Edward Snowden, his back-story, and the questions that surround him (full archive here). But here, I want to discuss the aftermath, because no matter how you view Snowden and what he has done, he is now being used as a symbol.

Take a hero who has broken through the veil of secrecy, who's stolen the golden eggs from the goose's eyrie, who's escaped...

And put him through the meat grinder of the press.

Raise him up, put him down, praise him, excoriate him, threaten him, isolate him, adore him, and sooner or later he begins to fade from view.

His profile, his public persona has been chopped up so many different ways into so many disparate pieces that, eventually, the symbol of him no longer carries any real force.

Meanwhile, the NSA and the Surveillance State continue on. They weather the storm. Despite the exploding scandal and the fall-out, and even though certain modes of collecting information may be reduced, new strategies emerge.

Therefore, the Surveillance State becomes even more powerful than it was.

Snowden rocked the boat, but the boat has been repaired. It sails on with even greater assurance.

And regardless of how the public responds to Snowden and the NSA, it is only a partial response, because the true aims of the Surveillance State are a mystery to most people.

Surveillance is coming at us from all angles. Chips, drones, TSA checkpoints, smart meters, back-doored electronic products, video cameras, spying home appliances; our phone calls and emails and keystrokes and product purchases are recorded.

The government and its allied corporations will know whatever they want to know about us.

What then?

What happens when all nations are blanketed from stem to stern with surveillance?

Smart meters give us one clue. Public utilities, acting on government orders, will be able to allot electricity in amounts and at times it wishes to. This is leading to an overarching plan for energy distribution to the entire population.

Claiming shortages and limited options, governments will essentially be redistributing wealth, in the form of energy, under a collectivist model.

National health insurance plans (such as Obamacare) offer another clue. Such plans require every citizen to be assigned a medical ID package, which is a de facto identity card. In the medical arena, this means cradle-to-grave tracking.

Surveillance inevitably leads to placing every individual under systems of control. It isn't just "we're watching you" or "we're stamping out dissent." It's "we're directing your participation in life."

As a security analyst in the private sector once told me, "When you can see what every employee is doing, when you have it all at your fingertips, you naturally move on to thinking about how you can control those patterns and flows of movement and activity. It's irresistible. You look at your employees as pieces on a board. The only question is, what game do you want to play with them?"

Every such apparatus is ruled, from the top, by Central Planners. When it's an entire nation, upper-echelon technocrats revel in the idea of blueprinting, mapping, charting, and regulating the flows of all goods and services and people, "for the common good."

Water, food, medicine, land use, transportation—they all become items of a networked system that chooses who gets what and when, and who can travel where, and under what conditions.

This is the wet dream of technocrats. They believe they are saving the world while playing a fascinating game of multidimensional chess.

As new technologies are discovered and come on line, the planners decide how they will be utilized and for whose benefit.

In order to implement such a far-reaching objective, with minimal resistance from the global population, manufactured crises are unleashed which persuade the masses that the planet is under threat and needs "the wise ones" to rescue it and them.

We watch (and fight in) wars and more wars, each one exacerbated and even invented. We see (planned) famine. We are told about desperate shortages and a frying Earth. We are presented with phony epidemics that are falsely promoted as scourges.

The only response, we are led to believe, is more humane control over the population.

On top of that, we are fed an unending stream of propaganda aimed at convincing us that "the great good for the greatest number" is the only humane and acceptable principle of existence. All prior systems of belief are outmoded. We know better now. We must be good and kind and generous to everyone at all times.

Under this quasi-religious banner, which has great emotional appeal, appears The Plan. Our leaders allocate and withhold on the basis of their greater knowledge. We comply. We willingly comply, because we are enlisted in a universal army of altruistic concern.

This is a classic bait and switch. We are taught to believe that service for the greater good is an unchallengeable goal and credo. And then, later, we find out it has been hijacked to institute more power over us, in every way.

The coordinated and networked surveillance of Earth and its people is fed into algorithms that spit out solutions. This much food will go here; that much water will go there; here there will be medical care; there medical care will be severely rationed. These people will be permitted to travel. Those people will be confined to their cities and towns.

Every essential of life—managed with on-off switches, and the consequences will play out.

An incredibly complex system of interlocking decisions will be hailed as messianic.

Surveillance; planning; control.

The surveillance is expanded, not because we are constantly under threat and must be protected from terrorists, but because we can then be labeled and entered on to 10 billion squares of the game board, to be moved around or held in place.

This is the vision.

It isn't ours. It never was. But we are not consulted.

Instead we are made witness to watershed events: the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center; the 2001 assault on the Trade Center and the Pentagon. These ops paralleled the unleashing of better and more far-ranging methods of surveillance.

We are profiled down to the threads on our clothing and DNA in our cells. But what is our profile of the technocrats and their bosses?

They are divorced from human life. They live in a vacuum. They take pleasure from that vacuum.

In 1982, I interviewed Bill Perry, who had just left his job as PR chief at Lawrence Livermore Labs, where scientists design nuclear weapons. Perry had been given the kind of job PR people long for. But one day, when he passed the desk of a researcher and listened to his complaints about budget limitations, Perry said, "Listen, America already has the means to blow up the whole planet eight times. What more do you need?"

The researcher looked up at him with a genuinely puzzled expression. He said, "You don't understand, Bill. This is a problem in physics."

In the same detached sense, the technocrats who want to calculate and direct our future, move by move, minute by minute, see us as components of a complex and very interesting problem.

Yes, they indeed expect to exercise power and control. But they also live in an abstraction. They deal their answers from that realm. They exercise cool passion. They see, for example, that not every single twitch of thought of every person on earth is yet mapped, so they want to finish constructing the means by which they can chart those "missing elements." They want to complete the formula.

They view their research as a wholly natural implication of the mathematics they can manipulate. They swim in technology and they want to extend its architecture. To abandon the program would be tantamount to denying their own intelligence. They climb the mountain because it is there.

They do perceive that one factor does not fit their algorithms: the free individual. It's the wild card.

Therefore, they are compelled to analyze freedom and break it down into DNA functions and brain processes. They assume, because they must, that the free individual is an illusory idea that flows from some older configuration of synaptic transmission, at a time in our evolution when we needed it. But now, they suppose, the engineering of human activity and thought has superseded such quaint notions. Now we all can be tracked, traced, and studied on a different and wider scale. Now we can be seen for what we really are: a hive.

Therefore, we must be instructed, within tight limits, about our various functions.

I'm reminded of a statement attributed to Nobel Laureate, Alfred Szent-Giorgi: "In my search for the secret of life, I have ended up with atoms and electrons, which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am retracing my steps..."

Today's technocrats will admit no such disappointment or existential crisis. They flourish with great optimism as they design the future world and its single society. If they run out of pieces of their puzzle to study, they'll try to track the motion of every atom and electron and quark in the universe. They'll delight in it.

Knowing all this, we know the terms of the war we are in.

The Central Planners have an equation: "free=uncontrolled=dangerous."

By the gross terms of that equation, they lump us in with thugs and murderers and terrorists. They even see the normal functioning of the brain as a threat, as an intrinsically defective process, and they have long since decided that organ must be corrected with drugs and electromagnetic interventions.

We, on the other hand, must assert, in every way possible, that freedom is real and inviolable, and we must back that up with our actions.

When individual freedom is no longer discussed in great depth by people who should know better, when it is left to wither on the vine, many programs and structures are built to take its place. But if freedom seems like a weak response to the Surveillance State and its goals, remember this: all the State power I've been enumerating is organized to curtail freedom, stop it, end it, make it obsolete. That enormous effort wouldn't be necessary if freedom were merely a passing fancy. It isn't. It's an eternal force.

    last comments from Jon Rappoport
    mike Mon, 08 Dec 2014 04:03:49 +0000

    You're overwritten.

    The Mirror World, Mass Surveillance, and What We Can Do to Change It | Shaking Reality Sat, 01 Feb 2014 18:29:58 +0000

    […] "Snowden and the final purpose of the surveillance state" by Jon Rappaport:… […]

    mikecorbeil Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:52:05 +0000

    New video interview with Edward Snowden and the German ARD 1, and ARD is "a joint organization of Germany's regional public-service broadcasters", according to Wikipedia.

    Runtime is 30:28.

    To obtain the video look for the following entry in the home page of :

    " Edward Snowden 30-Minute Video 13-0126 (EN) January 27, 2014 (82MB)"

    The .zip file contains the .MP4 video file.

    Some thoughts about the interview:

    Firstly, not impressed; not well anyway. Snowden speaks like a "nice guy". Ok. But, I'm not well impressed by the answers he provided.

    While Snowden may be accurately responding when he's willing to answer questions, I get an impression that he may be just a student of what others have already said about the NSA and its 4 principal partner agencies in Canada, Britain, Australia and N.Z. He doesn't leave me with any degree of impression that he's said anything really new in this interview.

    A few particular points I noted in an associated notes file are the following:

    1) There're several or more questions Snowden says he shouldn't answer and one question he does answer, in what I consider to be a furtive manner, is how he was able to gain adequate IT skills and knowledge. He says nothing about any academic courses or on-the-job training and just goes with the interviewer suggesting, say, that he just learned all of the necessary skills and knowledge on his own beginning during young teen years.

    2) A question he says he believes he shouldn't answer is when he began working for the CIA.

    What's the problem with answering this question? According to the June 10th or 11th Talking Points Memo (TPM) article by Eric Lach, Snowden worked for the NSA as a security guard for maybe a year and then went to work at the CIA. Lach was citing what Snowden had said and I'm not sure if it was in The Guardian interview Snowden gave to Greenwald and which The Guardian published the video for on June 9th, or from what he said at another time, but Lach definitely refers to (without providing the link) this interview when citing what Snowden claimed for IT job titles he supposedly had.

    3) He continues to say that he believes it's journalists who should decide what should and shouldn't be published of the NSA documents he provided, but then he also says that the documents belong to the public and he subsequently repeats that it's journalists who should decide; that is, that they should "lord" over the public's rights. Snowden does say it's the public's rights.

    He's being self-contradictory and awfully ignorant. Either he's playing some sort of game trying to deceive naive people in the public, or he's extremely ignorant about the fact that journalists aren't the public and are well known for lying for Washington and The Establishment, lying by omission, etc.; that is, well known for their Yellow Journalism.

    This self-contradiction of his is absurd and darkly hilarious.

    4) He speaks as if being a real inside expert on what US military special forces are used for when sent on missions or operations, say; but he was only in the Army from May 7, 2004 until discharge on Sept. 28, 2004 and the discharge was supposed to be because he broke both of his legs.

    Those start and discharge dates are from Eric Lach's June 11th or 10th piece and it's clear that Snowden didn't even complete bootcamp. So, he never participated in any special forces operations and should eat some humble pie before pretending that he can expertly speak about what they really do during foreign ops.

    Pretending to have expert knowledge when the person definitely and clearly doesn't is extremely idiotic, dumb; unless the person is trying to deceive naive people. That's still dumb to do, for it's definitely a wrong thing to do; but it's a different kind of stupidity.

    If Snowden isn't aiming to try to to deceive naive, gullible people, then he clearly needs to seriously work on logic skills. After all, people completing military bootcamp haven't yet learned half of what they'll learn from subsequent experience when serving in foreign operations, for then those with real conscience and intelligence will realize that Washington and military chiefs, etc., lie so often that it can be nearly referred to as being constant. Snowden either is naive, very ignorant, or he's up to some mischief.

    Theory courses during bootcamp are nothing compared to real-life experience during foreign operations. Snowden seems to wholly ignore this fact. He seems to have never learned anything from the thousands of US military war veterans against Washington's warring, etc.; as well as accounts from CIA operations officers John Stockwell, Phil(ip) Agee and Ralph McGehee, among others; Michael Levine, former DEA officer; etc.

    For crying out loud, it's now 2014 and he's still this extremely ignorant about such well known topics and information, but pretends to be expert on US special forces and NSA, et al, spying, while speaking of the latter as if he only learned the material from what others had already written and provided interviews about.

    There's something that seems simply not quite right about Snowden's story and I'm reminded of Jon Rappoport's piece presenting the hypothesis or theory that Snowden might actually still be working for the CIA.

    I wonder if he'd accept to answer the question if he was asked whether he's actually still working for the CIA, or not. He'd say no, rather than saying that he thinks it's (yet another) question that he shouldn't answer. But, it might be interesting to watch him answer the question. After all, body language is significant.

    Additional comments about 1 or more of these points, above:

    Point 1:

    IT security skills and knowledge to be able to professionally work in higher than junior, entry-level positions in environments with large systems isn't going to be gained well when using only a tiny home PC LAN, local area network, and reading some books!

    Computer systems engineering isn't going to be learned this way and requires both computer science as well as electrical engineering. People can read up on these subjects, but it won't make them qualified for computer SE jobs. Those require successfully passed courses with good grades. Without those, only the dumbest of employers would be fooled into believing that someone like him is qualified for computer SE.

    Even professional systems administrators but who've worked only in environments with relatively small networks normally won't be considered for SA jobs in environments with many computers and various peripherals. Normally, employers in such environments will require SA experience in environments with similar scope, largesse, say, for number of computers and peripherals.

    Senior advisor to a solutions consultant for any serious organization is going to require serious professional experience and plenty of years of it.


    Let someone like him try to get a job in an IT company where the employer truly requires qualified people and he'll have ZERO chance. It'd be very exceptional if he even got one, single interview. He was hired by Dell, an IT company, but this was for working at some NSA or CIA facility, on contract; not Dell hiring him to be a computer SE or SA for the company itself, its own systems and products. He'd be working only on CIA or NSA systems. And it isn't Dell that'd be paying him, for Dell would be paying him because of being paid by the government, which always has taxpayers "foot the bills". So, "it was no skin off of Dell's nose".

    The … For Dummies series of computer books aren't for real and serious professionals.

    Lastly, he should've answered the questions he refused to answer and could've answered. There may possibly be 1 or 2 he was right to withhold answers for, but I definitely don't believe that this is true for several of them. And, again, he seems to have gained more from reading rather than from real experience.

    musicis2words Thu, 30 Jan 2014 20:24:47 +0000

    I know the feeling!

    Thank you for the info there… yes… I stopped listening to Alan Watt precisely for those reasons.
    Yet, those evil things happening in our world still happen… to people like myself… so how does one fix that, I wonder?

    The Mirror World, Mass Surveillance, and What We Can Do to Change It - Waking Times Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:14:44 +0000

    […] "Snowden and the final purpose of the surveillance state" by Jon Rappaport:… […]

    Alananda Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:39:10 +0000

    D & G — not D & D (Dungeons & Dragons), not P & G (Proctor & Gamble), which incorporated D & G in their product line, in my opinion — stands for DOOM & GLOOM, as my wife termed it. As I referenced, Jeff Rense provides a concentrated dose of D & G each day; for addicts (I still find myself in recovery, many of the 12 steps to go) one might choose Activist Post, unalloyed D & G.

    D & G, which Jon Rappoport also dishes out, more often than not, seems a great challenge for those who want to become the change they envision and/or advocate. How can we create the beauty, bliss, and bountifulness offered by this planet we call home? How do we maintain awareness of all that seems evil, destructive, murderous, debilitating — and still hold the vision of WHAT IS?

    I strive for answers for my Self, people like Michael on this thread apparently not getting my vibe on the same wavelength I transmit, so I think.

    musicis2words Tue, 28 Jan 2014 02:04:02 +0000

    What is "D & G"?

    musicis2words Tue, 28 Jan 2014 02:02:52 +0000

    Well… it IS all about distraction, isn't it? Distraction from the real truth that is actually plain to see if people will only look for it.

    mikecorbeil Sat, 25 Jan 2014 11:39:02 +0000

    From what I've gathered, by far most Americans are against this pervasive, nearly limitless spying, and that this may cause people to try to put pressure on their political representatives to work on correcting the abuses. This reaction is certainly possible, but I won't make any predictions.

    As for people ceasing to want to seek and tell the truth, those who were really serious about this, before, will likely realize that they can continue as they were previously doing. After all, the NSA will have already captured copies of the communications of electronic kind for several or more years. So, why not continue to do as before? It's not like the NSA is going to learn something seriously new about the serious truth seekers and sayers, the critics of governement and Establishment, ….

    Anyway, the near future will permit an assessment based on activity or lack thereof that can be measured or quantified. F.e., people will be able to determine if truth seeker, sayer and analyst A continues to publish as much as before and if it's less, then quantify this; f.e., only a little less, a lot less, or ceasing altogether. Any of those results could be to health problems and total cessation could be because the person has died or fallen into a coma, f.e. Iow, being able to measure that analyst author A has decreased activity for truth, so activism, wouldn't necessarily mean that the Snowden revelations are the cause and it'd be necessary to avoid jumping to such conclusions without careful verification. It could be that the person has only taken a vacation, which could be a couple of weeks or months, but will continue publishing truth … pieces thereafter. There are these types of factors to keep in mind when doing the quantification for comparitive analysis, say.

    If they're real, true activists for truth and against government abuses, then they'll probably continue as before; I believe.

    The Snowden Inoculation as the Surveillance State Thrives | Alternative News Alert! Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:28:16 +0000

    […] MORE>> […]

  • write comment
Text to Speech by: ResponsiveVoice-NonCommercial licensed under 95x15
website no use cookies, no spying, no tracking
to use the website, we check:
country: PL · city: · ip:
device: computer · browser: CCBot 2 · platform:
counter: 1 · online: 666
created and powered by: - Professional Responsive Websites
 please wait loading data...