The Guardian and The Washington Post have been awarded The Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for their work with and on Ed Snowden and his 'revelations' of mass surveillance by the NSA and GCHQ.
This is a mockery of journalism.
The Pulitzer Board should hang their heads in shame.
And here is why.
First, we knew about Echelon in 1999. We knew/suspected that surveillance would have evolved with, if not dictated, social media. Elements of US and British law contain paragraphs which virtually state that we are being spied on and we can't do anything about it, and that all our 'liberating' technology, such as smartphones and system software, were designed with backdoors for the spies to listen in and control.
But the second reason is much more nefarious.
On September 11th 2001 four passenger planes were allegedly hijacked and flew unimpeded for nearly 2 hours before flying into the WTC and even the HQ of the alleged most powerful military in the world, The Pentagon!
Shortly after that murdered September day, the former Commander of NATO Forces in Europe General Wesley Clark was told of a plan for war on seven nations in five years. Clark is on Youtube revealing this plan.
Here he is.
And here he is again, in a different interview/speech.
Clark also described this plan in his book Winning Modern Wars.
We invaded Afghanistan because we were told that Osama bin Laden was the culprit behind 9/11. We were told that an extensive dossier proving his guilt was being compiled. But it was never released. The FBI page on bin Laden did not explicitly list 9/11 as a crime of which bin Laden was accused. Bin Laden was allegedly hiding out in Afghanistan, so we went into Afghanistan to bring peace and democracy and prosperity. Instead we restored opium production to record levels, while the Taliban have become more of a threat. Our ruling families have been running the opium trade for centuries. Bin Laden died from Marfan Syndrome years ago.
So with opium production restored, it was on with the plan revealed to General Wesley Clark.
Iraq in 2003.
Lebanon in 2006.
But by 2007 the plan was moribund so Plan B was implemented which involved unleashing cutthroat Jihadis sponsored by Saudi Arabia onto some of the nations named to Clark. But to provide them with cover as 'freedom fighters' The Arab Spring was engineered by American NGOs and the CIA.
The Jihadis were first unleashed onto Libya in 2011.
And since 2011 the Jihadis have been in Syria, butchering their way in a vain and futile attempt to crush the indefatigable spirit of the Syrian people and their Syrian Arab Army.
The major nation supporting Syria against this illegal aggression and invasion is Russia. Last summer Prince Bandar went to Russia and made a lovely, heartwarming threat to Putin: dump Assad and Saudi Arabia would buy multi billions of dollars of Russian weapons and allow Russia to operate in the Middle East; or else Bandar would attack the Sochi Winter Olympics and unleash hell in Syria.
Putin rejected this offer.
A few weeks after this threat was issued there was a horrific use of chemical weapons at Ghouta.
Now, throughout last summer The Washington Post was demanding war on Syria, and would issue editorials, sometimes several times per week, demanding that Obama bomb Syria. This was because the Saudi-backed Jihadis were being annihilated. This is why Bandar went to Russia to threaten Putin.
But what was the response of The Guardian?
Along with the rest of the Bilderberg/NATO media, The Guardian immediately and consistently accused Assad of Ghouta, despite abundant and overwhelming evidence and logic that the rebels had chemical weapons, had tested them on live rabbits, and had issued threats on video of using chemical weapons, and they needed something spectacular to provoke an intervention on their behalf.
The whole point of Ghouta was to provoke an overt large scale military intervention by NATO on behalf of the rebels because the rebels were being destroyed by the SAA.
The Guardian played its part in this warmongering by consistently accusing Assad and suggesting, and still suggests, that there should be war on Syria due to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
So we have to ask:
1. why do The Guardian and The Washington Post demand war on Syria and not publish all this information regarding the plan revealed to General Wesley Clark and the subsequent wars, the unleashing of cutthroat Jihadis, The (fake) Arab Spring and evidence that the rebels did Ghouta?
2. yet publish the 'revelations' of Ed Snowden about mass surveillance?
3. and why the Pulitzer Board, some of whom are journalists themselves, have not bothered to piece all this together, and if they have then why has it not been published?
And what makes this an even bigger mockery of journalism is that some of the above information came from and has been corroborated by the intrepid journalism of a Pulitzer Prize winner, Seymour Hersh.
I also ask: what exactly have the revelations of Ed Snowden done?
As I detailed yesterday, last weekend I observed the general public and their reaction to a small group of people trying to bring attention to Palestine. Very few people showed any concern. Some even laughed and tutted.
But there wasn't any group protesting mass state surveillance. On the contrary, I would bet that most were thankful for it. Because of al Qaeda.
YET MI5 ALLOWED PREACHERS LIKE MICHAEL ADEBALAJO TO ENCOURAGE MUSLIMS TO JOIN THE JIHAD IN SYRIA AGAINST ASSAD, where they are now being trained by and are fighting alongside al Qaeda in Syria, MI5 having a Covenant of Security with the Islamic extremists.
What was a headline last week? MI5 are concerned that British Jihadis in Syria will return to continue the Jihad in and on Great Britain!!
WHAT A FUCKING CRUEL JOKE IS BEING PLAYED ON THE BRITISH PEOPLE!!
All that Snowden has done has conditioned the British people to ever increasing intrusion in and surveillance of their daily lives by the state. And they are thankful for it because of the boogeyman al Qaeda, that we created and have allied with in Libya and Syria.
What a mockery of journalism.
And of our fathers and grandfathers who risked their lives for freedom and democracy in WW1 and WW2.