If you’re cynical like me, you don’t swallow the myth Snowden and Wikileaks are anything other than intel ops in progress. The easiest way to direct social reform is capturing the center of gravity on the reform movement, something easily accomplished by creating fake whistleblowers. Of course, these ops always begin with the release of some exciting information that turns out real—done to establish bona fides before diving off into a designated rabbit hole. If Snowden and Wikileaks were real, they’d have released incriminating evidence on 9/11, and we’d be following that trail into Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, England and Israel, as well as our own Pentagon and CIA.
Trust me, if a whistleblower ends up on the cover of Time, they were an op from day one because very little in politics happens until it’s “made to happen.”
Unless you are using massive encryption, nothing posted online or sent via email is safe from the prying eyes of the Pentagon, no matter what they tell you. And they can probably read much of the encrypted stuff as well and climb into your computer and smart phone anytime they please. Keep in mind, radical pro-violent sects on both sides of the political divide are amongst the most heavily watched websites. The only thing attracting more attention may be the flow of money, arms and illegal drugs, which means there are more spooks on radical pro-violent websites than real, organic people. And most of the true believers have low IQ’s and low self esteem, which fuels their racism and manifests a desire to inflict discomfort on others who don’t have the same background. When the FBI wanted to create a myth of a jihad movement, they lured impoverished ghetto folk into get-rich-quick schemes involving bombing Jewish targets. None of these people were jihadists, just poor people being offered some crazy amount of money to drop off a package. And all these patsies are now serving long prison sentences with little hope of parole. Just watch the documentary on the Newburgh sting if you don’t believe me and realize it represents the tip of the iceberg on entrapment.
Which brings me around to this Charleston shooter who executed a prominent state senator and eight of his congregation. Neither his actions nor words fit into a plausible scenario, but seemed stretched over a propaganda screed. If he was despondent because some black youth captured the girl he loved, it’s far more likely he’d have executed that youth or the girl, or both, or someone in his hometown who pissed him off, and not driven hundreds of miles to kill strangers in a church.
Based on the selfies and the manifesto that appeared online only hours before he committed his massacre, it seems likely others may have been involved in directing this mission, because it seems to have been committed to achieve maximum psychological impact for polarizing blacks and whites. And if anyone was communicating to the shooter online and encouraging this mission, the Pentagon would have been well aware of the conversation early in the game. And buying a gun shortly before committing this act should have set off the appropriate alarm bells.
And even if the Pentagon had no prior knowledge and somehow fell asleep at their crucial job of protecting us from terrorists by monitoring terror suspects, they certainly have the ability to examine all contacts who could have been influencing the shooter. So I find it strange zero information along these lines is being pursued and the media is universally preoccupied with portraying this case as just another lone assassin, a la Oswald, Sirhan, Chapman, Hinckley.