Speaker 1: From UFOs two, Ghosts and government cover ups. History is
Speaker 1: riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
Speaker 1: learn the stuff they don't want you to now. Hello, everybody,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the show, and thanks for tuning in. This
Speaker 1: is stuff they don't want you to know audio. My
Speaker 1: name is Ben and my name is Matt. And today, Matt,
Speaker 1: you and I are doing something a little bit different. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're gonna hook you up with a bit of an update. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is one of the first times we've been able
Speaker 1: to do an update outside of our Friday blogs. Now,
Speaker 1: we've covered whistleblowing before. Yeah, we covered it in two
Speaker 1: thousand eleven. We made a three part series that we
Speaker 1: recently released on our YouTube and test tube channels and
Speaker 1: on iTunes, and the information contained within is from two
Speaker 1: thousand eleven. So we kind of wanted to give an
Speaker 1: update to a lot of the characters that we talked
Speaker 1: about in that in those stories. Right, and this is
Speaker 1: a situation that can happen to us when we're covering
Speaker 1: something that's still developing or evolving. Case in points. Some
Speaker 1: people may say, but guys, didn't you do an audio
Speaker 1: episode on whistle blowing? Yes, we did. And it's already out. However,
Speaker 1: things have happened so rapidly that we wanted to catch
Speaker 1: everybody up on that information so that you have the
Speaker 1: latest stuff. First question, Matt, I'll pose to you, what's
Speaker 1: going on with Bradley excuse me, Chelsea Manning. Okay. So
Speaker 1: in the show in I believe it was episode maybe
Speaker 1: it was all three episodes, we referred to Bradley Manning
Speaker 1: UM as the whistle blower who talked with Wiki leaks,
Speaker 1: released some a lot of logs, the Afghanan, the Afghanistan
Speaker 1: and the Iraq war logs and the collateral murder video
Speaker 1: that we could Leaks published. At the time, he was
Speaker 1: Bradley Manning UM. And now UM, I believe this story
Speaker 1: broke right around sentencing when he was going to be sentenced,
Speaker 1: that he'd like to be known as Chelsea. Uh, she
Speaker 1: now would like to be known as Chelsea. And and this, uh,
Speaker 1: this is a this is something that for a few
Speaker 1: observers struck struck them as I don't know, suspicious or something,
Speaker 1: because uh, Manning was held in what you could argue
Speaker 1: as an unconstitutional situation, you know, total isolation, not allowed
Speaker 1: depation and not allowed exercise for a time as well.
Speaker 1: And later UM came out and you know, UH wanted
Speaker 1: to complete the transition from male to female and identify
Speaker 1: as Chelsea. So there's been a lot of speculation over
Speaker 1: whether this is related to the leaks. Come to find
Speaker 1: out that UM, before the leak's occurred, UH then known
Speaker 1: as Bradley Manning, had already had some UM identified as
Speaker 1: as someone with a body disorder. UM. And this is
Speaker 1: something that can be This is something that people will
Speaker 1: tell you does occur before somebody does make the decision
Speaker 1: to have some sort of gender transition surgery. We do know, UM.
Speaker 1: Do you know as well that UM at at sentencing
Speaker 1: UM Bratt, despite the cries from the people on the
Speaker 1: far left and the far right, UH, Bradley or Chelsea
Speaker 1: Manning was neither executed on the spot nor let off
Speaker 1: scott free with a parade. Uh. It looks like this
Speaker 1: person is going to be in jail for a while. Yeah,
Speaker 1: at least she was not charged with aiding in eventing
Speaker 1: the enemy or or no, she was not charged with
Speaker 1: the treason and treason, UM. Treason does have a possible
Speaker 1: deaths vnts and UM we've got actually some interesting historical
Speaker 1: anecdotes about people who have been convicted of treason and
Speaker 1: then later found to be innocent or more more more
Speaker 1: likely than not innocent. So, um, well we'll just to
Speaker 1: stay quickly give an update from the two thousand eleven
Speaker 1: videos if you're watching, if you're listening to this after
Speaker 1: watching the videos, Um, it just should be noted this
Speaker 1: was uh an interesting development. Then in two thousand twelve,
Speaker 1: Bradley Manning was voted Person of the Year by The
Speaker 1: Guardians web pole and there was kind of contentious because
Speaker 1: it looked like maybe there was some weirdness going on
Speaker 1: with a bit of hacking. But still either way, Bradley
Speaker 1: Manning at the time, Bradley Manning now Chelsea Manning was
Speaker 1: voted person of the Year, which is pretty crazy, um,
Speaker 1: considering how vilified he was at the time. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: there are there are a couple of things we should
Speaker 1: You're right, there are a couple of things we should
Speaker 1: talk about. We go on just in background context here. Uh.
Speaker 1: The Guardian is a paper based in the United Kingdom,
Speaker 1: widely considered to be on the left side of politics. Um,
Speaker 1: the and and that's just that's just sort of a
Speaker 1: bias or perception that we need to acknowledge before we
Speaker 1: move on. And then also, um this Person of the
Speaker 1: Year award at the same time as there was uh
Speaker 1: so much vilification. I love that use that word was
Speaker 1: supported by quite a few people and derided by quite
Speaker 1: a few people. Most of the people who said he
Speaker 1: shouldn't be Person of the here we're wait for it,
Speaker 1: oh in the United States. Who's surprised about that? Because
Speaker 1: regardless of how you look at it, whether you support
Speaker 1: the idea of whistle blowing, whether you think it is
Speaker 1: violation of you know, numerous moral standards which you know
Speaker 1: could be argued since he was uh here, she was
Speaker 1: working um for the government at the time, and you
Speaker 1: know what is the nature of a patriot right is
Speaker 1: ultimately with that argument boils down to but regardless way
Speaker 1: you think, UM, huge embarrassment to the United States and
Speaker 1: operational impediment uh in in the most under diplomatic terms possible.
Speaker 1: Uncle Sam got caught with his pants down his his
Speaker 1: so called private Instagram account. I guess I made public well,
Speaker 1: and he thought that was bad, yes, and he thought
Speaker 1: that was bad what the government pants out? However, Yeah,
Speaker 1: somebody had surveillance camera set up in the bathroom in
Speaker 1: all of the dirty places. Sure, and that man was
Speaker 1: Mr Edwards Snowdon, who uh. Readers uh and listeners may
Speaker 1: be either delighted or horrified to find out is still alive.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he's hail and hearty. I don't
Speaker 1: know how excited he is about his day to day life.
Speaker 1: But he does currently live in Russia. He is looking
Speaker 1: for employment. He continues to make waves, rather, his actions
Speaker 1: continue to make waves because the leak's coming out about
Speaker 1: the n ess a um even from just the time
Speaker 1: the story of the reason is this week as recent
Speaker 1: as this week perfect um. They are rocking the foundations
Speaker 1: of a lot of assumptions made both by people in
Speaker 1: the mainstream media and people who would be formally considered paranoid.
Speaker 1: And and it's it's information about the entire international spine community.
Speaker 1: It's not just about the US, right, it's not just
Speaker 1: about Britain. No much in the same way that Chelsea's
Speaker 1: Chelsea Manning's information about the war logs. You know, the
Speaker 1: diplomatic cables were not just US centric, right, touched on
Speaker 1: European countries dealing with it, touched on backdoor agreements and
Speaker 1: What's what's strange about this is that in both of
Speaker 1: these cases there are no I think we said this
Speaker 1: in the earlier video or in the earlier episode. It's
Speaker 1: not as though there are more skeletons in the closets,
Speaker 1: just more people have keys to the closets, and it's
Speaker 1: easier to get the word out. UM. You know, often
Speaker 1: whenever you hear people arguing in diplomatic circles, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of rhetoric. You know, there's a lot of buzzword
Speaker 1: terminology being thrown around. UM. One of my one of
Speaker 1: my favorite examples of this, and this might be a
Speaker 1: little conspiratorial, but hell, that's what the shows about. UM.
Speaker 1: You know how sometimes you'll hear, oh my gosh, a
Speaker 1: dozen terrorists somehow broke out of a prison, you know,
Speaker 1: in Karachi or something. It's entirely possible that they were
Speaker 1: allowed to break out in some kind of quick pro
Speaker 1: quote deal. Because politics away from the headlines can be
Speaker 1: just as Macavellian and ugly as a physical war. The
Speaker 1: difference is that, um, often the diplomats are you know,
Speaker 1: bartering other people's lives rather than their own, Which is
Speaker 1: to be said before I vilify them. Uh, this is
Speaker 1: part and parcel of diplomacy. This is how the game
Speaker 1: is supposed to be played. But the the idea that
Speaker 1: this should all be kept secret, right, it might, it's
Speaker 1: part of the operational integrity, right, and these kind of things. Um,
Speaker 1: but it does show at the very least a disingenuous
Speaker 1: cynical nature when we compare what governments around the world
Speaker 1: have been telling their citizens versus what governments around the
Speaker 1: world are doing to their citizens and to the citizens
Speaker 1: of other states. Do his daddy says not as he does, right,
Speaker 1: And we found, um, you had a great statistic just
Speaker 1: how much of the n Essa leaks from Snowden have
Speaker 1: been published according to one source, and darned if I
Speaker 1: don't know exactly what it is. But they were just
Speaker 1: discus think the amount of information that Snowdon retains in
Speaker 1: his believe they call it his doomsday little vault that
Speaker 1: he has of information insurance policy. And according to I
Speaker 1: think it was on the Guardian, they said only about
Speaker 1: one percent has been leaked thus far. And this is
Speaker 1: a great point because one of one of the things
Speaker 1: that needs to be hammered home. It's a scary number
Speaker 1: to hear one percent, because out of that one percent,
Speaker 1: we've seen some level terrifying stuff. We've we've found out that, uh,
Speaker 1: the n s A not only has the capacity to
Speaker 1: monitor the vast majority of the average person's communication, location
Speaker 1: and social networks, but they also have what amounts to
Speaker 1: no oversight with with some of this stuff. And and
Speaker 1: and when I say that, when I say that, I'm
Speaker 1: saying it carefully because as I am being objective, I'm
Speaker 1: not bringing politics into this. It amounts to no oversight.
Speaker 1: And that's most clearly seen in the fact that an
Speaker 1: essay employees and contractors were able to perform searches on
Speaker 1: like this James Bond supervillain level database on their boyfriends,
Speaker 1: their girlfriends that shouldn't be happening with um, some of
Speaker 1: this most important information. And I don't know, maybe it
Speaker 1: was just maybe it was just one of those rare exceptions,
Speaker 1: but UH, without knowing that, without the transparency, UH that
Speaker 1: would be necessary to know what those searches were about. UM,
Speaker 1: all we can say is that it's enormously troubling. And
Speaker 1: we've also found out that foreign countries are all cooperating
Speaker 1: on spine on each other and all pretending to be
Speaker 1: just appalled when it comes to light. Um, and we're
Speaker 1: talking about hacking people's personals cell phones like angela miracle.
Speaker 1: And we're also talking about taking information provided in you know,
Speaker 1: state level meetings and passing it into corporation saying hey,
Speaker 1: guess what, buddy, which is technically, I'm just gonna say,
Speaker 1: technically illegal in the United States to do if you're
Speaker 1: a person or or you're excuse me, a person who's
Speaker 1: not in Congress, because as we know, insider trading laws
Speaker 1: do not apply to either the House or the Senate.
Speaker 1: But you know what, it strikes me there's going to
Speaker 1: be very soon another uh national debate on corporate personhood.
Speaker 1: And I think it's gonna stem from some of these
Speaker 1: allegations or some of these leaks about what corporations do.
Speaker 1: So if a corporation does this can in The Daily
Speaker 1: Show has been covering this recently. Um, how what the
Speaker 1: heck do we do to a corporation? Is it really
Speaker 1: if it's that much of a person we've got, I
Speaker 1: mean that person needs to be jailed or really reprimanded,
Speaker 1: not just not just find money. Well, yeah, well the
Speaker 1: question is then you know, if it is a business,
Speaker 1: then the business decision is at what threshold does a
Speaker 1: fine need to be set in order to become a
Speaker 1: prohibitive or action? You know, Um, if you and I
Speaker 1: are making a deal, uh in a legal deal for
Speaker 1: eight hundred million dollars, and our fine is two hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars and no one goes to jail, then that's
Speaker 1: just part of the transaction price. That's just another tax,
Speaker 1: and that's you know, I think that's interesting and that's
Speaker 1: a good Um, that's a good subject that we should
Speaker 1: delve in before we go. Though, of that one percent
Speaker 1: that's been leaked, it's very easy to think, oh, these
Speaker 1: massive apocalyptic revelations will come to like like guess, an
Speaker 1: apocalypse just means when things become hidden, things become apparent.
Speaker 1: But the the point being, uh that it's also quite
Speaker 1: possible that these leaks are curated by Glenn Greenwald to
Speaker 1: make the biggest possible impact, which means that if these
Speaker 1: all came out of a dump, then it's quite possible
Speaker 1: that the other or even are relatively mundane things. Well,
Speaker 1: I am terrified and extremely excited about what will be
Speaker 1: released right around two thousand sixteen. Do you think we'll
Speaker 1: be do you think we'll be in there. Uh yeah,
Speaker 1: no way the scary. Yeah, I'm glad you said, because
Speaker 1: this this revelation, the part about the Snowden update that
Speaker 1: is frightening and and I guess exciting is a fair word. Uh.
Speaker 1: The part about this that's just astonishing is that what
Speaker 1: we have revealed, or what we have had revealed to
Speaker 1: us strongly implies that one of the reasons uh, there
Speaker 1: are fewer people in the federal level or the federal
Speaker 1: apparatus uh seek to curtail this power is that the
Speaker 1: n s A might have the ability to blackmail them. Um, well,
Speaker 1: it would be extremely easy. They can turn the camera
Speaker 1: on or off whenever they want without you knowing on
Speaker 1: your cell phone. That's one of the things that we
Speaker 1: found out they could do. I mean, and they've been
Speaker 1: doing this well before the current administration. These are the
Speaker 1: same things that Thomas Drake and Thomas tam we're fighting
Speaker 1: UM back in the George W. Bush Yer's right. And
Speaker 1: we know that this this practice UM expanded under the
Speaker 1: current administration, but we do not know how. Uh, we
Speaker 1: do not know the degree to which it expanded. We
Speaker 1: just know that it did well and and is this
Speaker 1: is it a self expanding structure. Is it is it
Speaker 1: the thing that continues to grow? Is it being grown
Speaker 1: by the executive branch? Or is it just one of
Speaker 1: those things that's kind of run away. Is it a cancerpen?
Speaker 1: You're right? Is it metastasizing? Well, the the the thing
Speaker 1: going back to our skeleton in the closet thing. It
Speaker 1: turns out that the n Essa might just have all
Speaker 1: the keys yea to all of the closets, which means that,
Speaker 1: um it, it could be political suicide depending on who
Speaker 1: the person is for them to to speak out against this.
Speaker 1: And let's note that although although a vocal majority of
Speaker 1: Americans have a problem with this sort of invasion of privacy, um,
Speaker 1: there is also a sizable faction that says, hey, this
Speaker 1: is working, this is really stopping terrorist attacks, even though
Speaker 1: the even though it is well established that that sometimes
Speaker 1: the line between entrapment and a sting operation is blurring
Speaker 1: and actually increasingly so. Um. But this leads us, I
Speaker 1: I got away from the point you were making, which
Speaker 1: goes to an excellent segue. You were talking about, Um,
Speaker 1: the corporate Shenanigan is uncovered by these leaks. Well, so
Speaker 1: let's let's kind of jump I don't know if it's back.
Speaker 1: Let's jump to November, all right, we've jumped, Okay, so
Speaker 1: now that we're in November. So wiki leaks released part
Speaker 1: of the the Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty TPP or TPP
Speaker 1: and uh, it was essentially a draft version of it.
Speaker 1: And this thing is huge, this this partnership. It's been
Speaker 1: it's been secret for quite a while now, and it
Speaker 1: has to do with copyright laws internationally, has to do
Speaker 1: with a lot of privacy concerns internationally. I P exact
Speaker 1: actual property exactly. Um, and Wiki leaks just dropped it.
Speaker 1: And I'm bringing this up to kind of call back
Speaker 1: to Julian Assange and what the heck is going on
Speaker 1: with Julian Sange. So that was another huge post, another
Speaker 1: huge break that they've that they've given that weekily is given.
Speaker 1: And then on the day that we're recording this, can
Speaker 1: I do you mind that I tell people it's December
Speaker 1: nine when we're recording this. And WikiLeaks has released another
Speaker 1: two documents which are describing the divisions between the US
Speaker 1: and a lot of the other countries that are involved
Speaker 1: in this and how the US is really trying to
Speaker 1: strong arm a lot of the other countries to come
Speaker 1: to their view of how copyright should function. And UH,
Speaker 1: let's let's address this because there is an interesting thing
Speaker 1: about the t p P that people found out. UH.
Speaker 1: One of the biggest economies in the world it's not
Speaker 1: a part of the t p P, and that is China.
Speaker 1: And if you think about it, you can see how
Speaker 1: that would be an obstacle to say the least, because UH,
Speaker 1: the Chinese economy is one of the primary driving forces
Speaker 1: in the world, are in global international economics and has
Speaker 1: just a horrible track record with copyright I P or
Speaker 1: anything like that. They're like thirty different Harry Potter spinoff books,
Speaker 1: you know, UM in China, and they're wildly popular and
Speaker 1: they're there. Yeah, well I'm you know, I'm pulling a
Speaker 1: number out of my elbow, I'll say, since it's a
Speaker 1: family show. But the the point being, now, as the
Speaker 1: TPP negotiations are closing in UM, we have to wonder
Speaker 1: how much would the average non UH, non corporate executive
Speaker 1: or non international lawyer know about this if it hadn't
Speaker 1: been for those leaks. The question now is do these leaks, UM,
Speaker 1: do these serve a purpose? Do they help more than
Speaker 1: they hurt, because there's no denying, there's no denying that
Speaker 1: there is harm done um to definitely to their national
Speaker 1: status quo right when these are leaked. And I guess
Speaker 1: that depends on how you feel about the international status quo.
Speaker 1: M all right, and uh, there's you know, it's tough
Speaker 1: to be it's tough to say that leaks about military
Speaker 1: activity don't compromise um people's lives. But the question again,
Speaker 1: do they help more than they hurt? Did they hurt
Speaker 1: more than they help in this situation? I think transparency
Speaker 1: always helps. Yes, however, right exactly exactly, And and that's
Speaker 1: the wonderful the debate that this creates. How how important
Speaker 1: is our privacy? And I don't want to get too
Speaker 1: much into your kind of uh your thoughts been that
Speaker 1: you've been talking about this, but one day we're gonna
Speaker 1: have a conversation really that it's really going to tackle
Speaker 1: privacy in the modern day. Yeah, well yeah, if we
Speaker 1: if we make it, Um, I'm kidding. Well, so let's
Speaker 1: I'm gonna jump right back into back into just I'm
Speaker 1: throwing pot shots at you guys. You never know what
Speaker 1: math's gonna say. And it's it's crazy, but we're gonna
Speaker 1: continue on wiki leaks really fast. Just to just to
Speaker 1: note that it was a story I read in the
Speaker 1: Washington Post on November and it was discussing how uh
Speaker 1: the justin Justice Department concluded, not officially, uh, this is
Speaker 1: not official, this is not a legal thing, but they
Speaker 1: decided that they wouldn't be able to charge Julian assange um.
Speaker 1: And that's only because they would if they wanted to
Speaker 1: do that, they'd also have to prosecute journalists and news
Speaker 1: organizations organizations in the US. However, with what we're seeing
Speaker 1: going on in the UK with The Guardian, it seems
Speaker 1: like we may be moving pretty soon to a future
Speaker 1: where news organizations are going to be culpable for this
Speaker 1: kind of stuff. Well, we may be returning to a situation.
Speaker 1: But the because right because as um as a lot
Speaker 1: of our listeners probably know to the the historical situation
Speaker 1: has been such that the current freedom of the press
Speaker 1: is more of an anomaly than it is um a rule.
Speaker 1: But uh, great point. I'm so glad you in that
Speaker 1: Washington Post story because I'll be honest with you, I
Speaker 1: am not buying it. I'm not buying it even if
Speaker 1: it's on sale. Julian Ossang is still hold up in
Speaker 1: that embassy in London, and uh the minute that he
Speaker 1: walks out, unless something changes, the minute he walks out,
Speaker 1: he is in some deep Uh yeah, he's in some
Speaker 1: deep situations. Uh, deeper perhaps than that sound that I
Speaker 1: just made. That was a pretty deep sound. But also, um,
Speaker 1: it's important for us to note that if you look
Speaker 1: at the language that the Justice Department used in that statement,
Speaker 1: what they essentially said was that it wasn't a priority.
Speaker 1: And they said it in such a way that it
Speaker 1: could be taken by an optimistic or gullible person to
Speaker 1: mean that they were done trying to fight that fight.
Speaker 1: That's not what it means. Come on, step out yet,
Speaker 1: you want to get out of that embassy just for
Speaker 1: a second. That's all we need, right And you know,
Speaker 1: I I hate anecdotal comparisons. You hear them all the
Speaker 1: time when somebody doesn't have facts to back up their story.
Speaker 1: When someone says, you know, well I believe in X,
Speaker 1: because think about if you have a boat and some fish,
Speaker 1: and you know you're out fishing, and what would you
Speaker 1: do with that fish? That doesn't mean anything. I really
Speaker 1: don't know what I do with that fish, well, you
Speaker 1: know the whole like when people fall back on some
Speaker 1: kind of anecdote that's tailored to their cause and hypothetical.
Speaker 1: That being said, this is just like in a horror
Speaker 1: movie when someone's pounding on the door and pounding on
Speaker 1: the door and saying they're gonna kill you, and then
Speaker 1: they stopped and they go, Okay, I've calmed down. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: You should open the door. Just come out, let's talk. Julian,
Speaker 1: come outside. Oh god, that's creepy, Ben, I've brought you
Speaker 1: some corn nuts. Alright. I like it. I really like it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it is creepy. But and also it's not in any way, um,
Speaker 1: anything but a funny riff because we don't know the situation.
Speaker 1: And it's the troubling thing. Going back to your earlier
Speaker 1: point about the transparency there, there is only transparency in
Speaker 1: these programs because these people have committed what are legally
Speaker 1: crimes too, because they they found their conscience and they
Speaker 1: thought that there was something bigger, or there was you know,
Speaker 1: there's a reason. There's a larger reason for me to
Speaker 1: tell other people about this. Sure, that's what they say. Um,
Speaker 1: but now we're in this massive situation where we have
Speaker 1: facts that we're not supposed to come to light, and
Speaker 1: we have different people saying different things. Um, let's see,
Speaker 1: where do you want to go? Oh, we need to
Speaker 1: talk about we need to talk and even thrown colpro
Speaker 1: in there yet or you know disinformation or well we
Speaker 1: have shows on that too, and I guess our time
Speaker 1: is running a little long, Matt. Is it true? Is
Speaker 1: it true that you can find the n essay in
Speaker 1: your favorite online games? Some recent revelations have let us
Speaker 1: know that yes, World of Warcraft and Second Life have
Speaker 1: been infiltrated by agents, uh literal actual physical agents playing
Speaker 1: World Warcraft. I'm guessing there there or characters running around
Speaker 1: just listening in, just kind of walking up the other
Speaker 1: characters in PCs. No, no, no, like player player characters.
Speaker 1: Man just walking around. I don't know. I don't know
Speaker 1: what version they're playing, which the latest one, Bernie Crusade,
Speaker 1: who knows, But they're just sneaking around in the dungeons
Speaker 1: going and in Second Life as well. And in Second
Speaker 1: Life yes, well you know logically there, logically you have
Speaker 1: to you have to admit if you were the leadership
Speaker 1: you would want for the leadership of an organization that
Speaker 1: wants to know everything. Then of course you want to
Speaker 1: go online because that's where that's another channel where people
Speaker 1: can meet without much super Yeah, isn't that a weird thing?
Speaker 1: And I hadn't ever fathomed that idea or had that
Speaker 1: idea that, well, I want to have a clandestine meeting.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna hop in the second life and go
Speaker 1: into my apartment building on whatever street and talk with
Speaker 1: this other person. Yeah, that's that's scary. And um, the
Speaker 1: idea that that could happen makes me wonder if it
Speaker 1: already has happened. Maybe who knows. Maybe it's preemptive because
Speaker 1: that's that's federal money that you're spending to make that happen.
Speaker 1: And that's that's both the n s A and the
Speaker 1: g h Q. So that's UK n U S Yeah,
Speaker 1: you g c h Q is the UK version of
Speaker 1: the n s A, right, and they worked pretty closely. Um, now,
Speaker 1: when when we close out, we've got to go to
Speaker 1: a quotation that you have found. Yes, this is a
Speaker 1: quotation from the Swampland blog from Time magazine. Um, it's
Speaker 1: kind of old, but it's it's something really to think about.
Speaker 1: Because it's again, I'm always torn on these issues because
Speaker 1: I I want to believe that there are there's somebody
Speaker 1: out there who wants to protect my country or whatever
Speaker 1: it's for me to say country, who wants to protect humans,
Speaker 1: right that it. I want to believe that there are
Speaker 1: good people running the countries around the world somewhere, that
Speaker 1: they are good people. Um. And then if you think
Speaker 1: about what the n s A really is supposed to do,
Speaker 1: is it's too supposed to protect be one of the
Speaker 1: highest levels of protection by gaining information and controlling it. Okay,
Speaker 1: So this is a quote from Joel Brenner, who was
Speaker 1: the n s A Inspector General from two thousand two
Speaker 1: to two thousand six. So he's retired. He's retired. Um,
Speaker 1: but this is this is just a quick quote, and
Speaker 1: I just want to hear what you think and please
Speaker 1: tell us about it in the comments. What you think
Speaker 1: about this quote. The agency, from top to bottom, leadership
Speaker 1: to rank and file, feels that it's had no support
Speaker 1: from the White House, even though it's been trying to
Speaker 1: carry out publicly approved intelligence missions. So just the idea
Speaker 1: that we've all decided that these at least our fit
Speaker 1: our elected officials have decided that these are the missions
Speaker 1: that need to be carried out. These are the people
Speaker 1: who we vote for. They're just trying to do their jobs,
Speaker 1: is what he's saying. And we're not getting support from
Speaker 1: the head. Okay, so that goes back to your earlier
Speaker 1: point with the um with asking whether or not the
Speaker 1: an essay or the current intelligence gathering apparatus is a
Speaker 1: self sustaining organism. Yeah, for lack of a better word,
Speaker 1: exactly to me that It's exactly what I'm hearing in
Speaker 1: my head. We're not getting support even though we are.
Speaker 1: It's almost like the it's so weird, it feels I
Speaker 1: don't want to say coo. It doesn't feel like a coup,
Speaker 1: an adversarial relationship, it really does. And and as though
Speaker 1: they may have more power than perhaps the executive branch does,
Speaker 1: like they've got them by the you know, right by
Speaker 1: the elbows, by the albums. But the the this is
Speaker 1: this is an interesting thing because we do know that
Speaker 1: it is fairly common for different parts of countries government
Speaker 1: to have adversarial relationships with one another, you know, like
Speaker 1: the E p A will probably have a contentious relationship
Speaker 1: with some other agencies. But the e p A doesn't
Speaker 1: have an ear to every single cell phone in the
Speaker 1: entire world. Yeah, well we'll see. And uh, this is
Speaker 1: not this is not at all something unique to the
Speaker 1: United States. I think that's important to say. It doesn't
Speaker 1: make it right, but it's not unique. Um, the n
Speaker 1: s A is not some uh precious little snowflake. It
Speaker 1: is a massive glacier and we're just finding out that
Speaker 1: other countries are part of that glacier too. And now
Speaker 1: the question is what happens in what happens in what
Speaker 1: new things were going to learn from the other of
Speaker 1: the Snowden leaks, what's going to happen to Chelsea Manning
Speaker 1: well Julian Assange ever get out of the embassy. Um
Speaker 1: to find those answers, we're all gonna have to stay tuned.
Speaker 1: We hope that you enjoyed this episode. If you'd like
Speaker 1: to talk about it more, we'd love to hear your opinion,
Speaker 1: especially I want to hear from people who uh support
Speaker 1: this idea. Yeah, I really want to hear. I want
Speaker 1: to hear what that. I want to hear arguments for
Speaker 1: and against. I've heard a lot of arguments against. I mean, heck,
Speaker 1: I've made a lot of arguments against UM, but I
Speaker 1: really want to hear the arguments for I'd like to
Speaker 1: see some evidence that this has stopped some sort of war,
Speaker 1: or that this has saved uh hundreds of thousands of lives. UM.
Speaker 1: You know, the question here is a question that's very
Speaker 1: difficult to answer because there's so many variables that they
Speaker 1: don't want us to know. Or is this just the
Speaker 1: inevitable reality of the globalized earth? Yeah? Right? Is this
Speaker 1: just a step on the way uh so right to us?
Speaker 1: Let us know what you think. You can find us
Speaker 1: as you said, men, and then find us on YouTube
Speaker 1: and test too. You can also send us an email directly.
Speaker 1: We are conspiracy at Discovery dot com. From more on
Speaker 1: this topic another unexplained phenomenon, visit test tube dot com
Speaker 1: slash conspiracy stuff. You can also get in touch on
Speaker 1: Twitter at the handle at conspiracy stuff.