Author: billywalshe

MOSCOW, Russia – Edward Snowden, the hacker who gained access to every secret corner of the Internet during his tenure at the NSA, has come forward with details of a classified project to alter the world’s climate. The shocking truth, as he says, is that chemtrails are part of a benevolent program aimed at countering global warming. By cooperating in secret with jet fuel manufacturers, government agents have carefully kept the massive chemtrail efforts completely under wraps. Snowden added, “I am only revealing this program because there is no oversight in the scientific community, no public discussion, and little concern for the side-effects which are well known only to a few privileged people interested in continuing the decades-long chemtrail program in secret.”

Because climate change is a threat to U.S. agriculture, it has been labeled a national security issue. With the influence and cooperation of Monsanto, a secret Geoengineering lab dubbed Muad’Dib has been operating since the late 1960s, and the chemtrail program is often referred to by insiders as its “crown jewel.” Muad’Dib has aimed to protect North America’s climate at all costs – even if that means accelerating desertification in Sub-Saharan Africa or spreading trace amounts of carcinogens over lightly populated areas. Other side effects, which scientists at the secret Muad’Dib Geoengineering Lab have predicted, include droughts in the Amazon and powerful windstorms along the East Coast.

Snowden shared decisive documents with The Internet Chronicle, but out of concern for national security, only his testimonial can be published. These documents contain references to scientists who would surely be targeted by foreign counterintelligence, and their knowledge is vital to short-term survival of the United States.

Snowden said, “If this program were to stop, the scientists behind it strongly believe that within just one year the North American climate would spiral out of control, and crop failures would lead to a series of devastating famines that would quickly depopulate urban centers.”

Because the program has been carried out on such a massive scale, skeptics might find Snowden’s story unbelievable. However, Snowden explained that the chemtrail program has been incredibly easy to hide, especially with the cooperation of jet fuel companies, a crucial part of the military-industrial complex. Snowden said, “The chemicals which are released by passenger airplanes have been covertly introduced as ‘additives,’ supposedly to improve efficiency. Only as the plane reaches cruising velocity does the heat and atmospheric pressure cause a chemical reaction that synthesizes the top secret carbon-trapping molecule. This process is imperfect, and many of the by-products are incredibly dangerous even in trace quantities. The most dangerous thing is that although chemtrails are keeping the climate of the U.S. reasonably stable, citizens are bombarded every day with an invisible rain of carbon-laden molecules, and the effect on health is totally unknown.”

INTERNET –  The Snowden case has raged so far out of control that it has many on the Internet scrambling to redefine journalism. In large part, this is because Snowden has been working primarily with Glenn Greenwald, a popular opinion columnist, to publish his leaks.

But that’s OK, writes Benjamin Cosman of Policymic, in an opinion called “Glenn Greenwald: The Made-Up Divide Between Journalists and Activists.”

. . . This sacrosanct sort of objective journalism doesn’t exist. Whether written by activists or journalists, agendas are always present — even if a journalist’s agenda is to sell themselves and copies of the publications for which they write. To think otherwise is naivete that misses the fundamental goals of media.

I would be the first to admit that the ideal of unbiased reporting is merely an ideal, but does this mean it should be discarded altogether? Should we give up eating better because the perfect diet is an ideal that doesn’t exist? Well, maybe there’s a fundamental goal in media that is missing from this picture.

Greenwald himself posits what journalism should be: “to serve as a check on power.” He has certainly played this part well in recent weeks, but he too misses something. Trying to pigeonhole journalism into one packaged definition is useless. For the journalism that pits itself against the empowered establishment, there is also the journalism that seeks to forward and expand that power.

Any long-time listener to Rush Limbaugh would find this view of media’s fundamental goal, a teleology that instantly generates a binary, very familiar. Limbaugh is really the only journalist ready to bring truth to power – much unlike the mainstream media, which through its many attempts at the namby pamby objective ideal (and political correctness) acts as a servile and pathetic institution of the tyrannical other, Liberals.

When Cosman divides journalism into the good kind that decreases established power and the bad kind that solidifies it, he is perhaps a bit like a Limbaugh supporter whining about the Liberal agenda of mainstream media. One might argue that Limbaugh clearly aims to increase the established power of Republicans, but that’s ignoring his entire shtick.

The Liberal agenda is the one of establishment tyranny, and Limbaugh, of course, acts as a check on that power. Greenwald’s analogous narrative pits him against an other which is more ambiguous, “established power.” Compared to Limbaugh, Greenwald’s agenda is much more difficult to make out.

Unbiased pieces should breed more suspicion than clearly opinionated ones, a matter of overt versus covert agendas. At least with slanted journalism there is no pretense of neutrality, it doesn’t try to pretend it’s anything but an argument for what is right. Any journalist is going to have an agenda, so they might as well get it out in the open.

An argument for what is right is something that is of great importance, but why is there such a desperate rush to brand Greenwald’s opinion as
“journalism?” A journalist, at least traditionally, has the privilege of that sacrosanct title because of a commitment to truth and an abandonment of agenda. They write the first draft of history, and even though the project is flawed, it can’t be thrown out with the dirty bath water.

Greenwald supporters, like Cosman, want to place him in the very sacrosanct space they reject as real by inverting or demolishing its boundaries. Thucydides, one of the first historians known to attempt something resembling a scientific and objective narrative of human events, once said:

Civil war ran through the cities; those it struck later heard what the first cities had done and far exceeded them in inventing artful means for attack and bizarre forms of revenge. And they reversed the usual way of using words to evaluate activities. Ill-considered boldness was counted as loyal manliness; prudent hesitation was held to be cowardice in disguise, and moderation merely the cloak of an unmanly nature. A mind that could grasp the good of the whole was considered wholly lazy.

No one but Greenwald had the bravery to rush the story to print within Snowden’s 72-hour deadline. Attempts at unbiased reports on Snowden are suspicious, and any kind of neutrality is often worse than pretentious or cowardly. It’s inhuman not to side with Greenwald.