Home > Uncategorized > Edward Snowden – HH’s Truth Sayer of 2013

Edward Snowden – HH’s Truth Sayer of 2013

Edward J. Snowden – HH’s Truth Sayer of 2013.

 

Snowden Truth

A man who said Truth, while others did not.

Snowden did not claim to stand for, nor pronounced that he had solutions with, some vaguely noble sounding ideals or philosophies, like Democracy, or Hope.

He just stood up and revealed undeniable facts, secrets that Governments were willing to pay or kill for.

He did not say to the People, You should do this.

He just said to the World, you should KNOW this.

With mere 4 pages, he said what many of us long suspected but either could not say or were afraid to say.

For him, it was 1 simple choice, either say something, or say nothing.

And because he said something, he is the Truth Sayer of 2013.  What followed afterwards does not matter and should not matter.

Governments can lock him up, that would not change the Truth of what Snowden revealed.

He may be a hero or a villain, that would not change the Truth of what Snowden revealed.

If it takes a villain to speak the Truth in this World, then we live in a World of Lies.

 

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. Black Pheonix
    June 25th, 2013 at 15:41 | #1

    Before others pile on me or HH with “why don’t you allow TRUTH” kind of accusations, I give my personal view on “TRUTH”: A little more FACTS, a lots less on self-righteous ideals.

    This is why Snowden’s message is so simple and yet so much more powerful than “Democracy” or “hope”.

    TRUTHS are truly “self-evident”, not deniable (not even by powerful governments).

    Ideals are often just BS propaganda, subject to campaigns and whims of which ever “percent” you are from in society.

    I do not admire Snowden, because he is just a person. I’m sure he has many flaws. But he saw the TRUTH, and he spoke it. And it is the TRUTH that matters. Not the kind of ideals Snowden stood for.

    I am also a person. I have flaws. But it is the TRUTH that matters. I believe that is what we at HH value, more than ideals that people or governments supposedly stand for.

    Because at the end of days, only the simple kind of TRUTH matters. And it is from this kind of TRUTH that all history will be judged from. NOT some vain glorious ideals, NOT some righteous holy laws.

    Throughout history, it is the simple TRUTHS that brought down gods and empires, because they show the true nature of things under all the facade.

    I search for TRUTH, not so much of what so-and-so stands for or believes in. You can be either a hero or a villain, like Snowden, I would not care.

  2. N.M.Cheung
    June 25th, 2013 at 16:56 | #2

    @Black Pheonix
    I have to disagree with you in that I admire Snowden on what he did. It’s true that truth matters, but consider how many people are able to abandon wealth, security, and risk his life in jail for life and did what he did and he’s under 30. Bravo, Snowden , I salute you. I was never very high on Obama although I voted for him the first time, and he’s supposedly a constitutional lawyer.

  3. Black Pheonix
    June 25th, 2013 at 17:31 | #3

    @N.M.Cheung

    Each person can find different things to admire in Snowden, or different things to despise him.

    These are perhaps things we each value individually as ideals.

    But as some have admired Obama or even Bush one time or another, some may turn against them, because admiration of individuals and their ideals are often fleeting.

    Great deeds can be distorted by tainted ideals.

    But a single truth spoken/revealed is ever lasting.

    This is why sometimes Science is so pure and so powerful, because it embodies truth untainted by ideals or biases.

    1+1=2 never fades, even if we don’t remember who first discovered it.

  4. pug_ster
    June 25th, 2013 at 22:30 | #4

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/hillary-clinton-china-edward-snowden_n_3494482.html?utm_hp_ref=china

    I find it funny that Hillary has the gall to say that “China has damaged US relations.” Judging by the comments in that article, there’s not alot of people who are defending Hillary.

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/25/19135685-hunt-for-snowden-upsets-diplomatic-ties-could-ding-us-reputation?lite

    Talking about US’ reputation, ever since the snowden affair, US has basically lost all credibility about the way that they are going after Snowden. I thought the words in the article best sums up how the us is handling this matter.

    Chasing Snowden around the globe makes it worse, he said: “There’s nothing worse than an incompetent hypocritical bully.”

    If China are worried about ‘losing face,’ then the American politicians are pretty shameless in the way they have dealt in this matter, like they have any more face to lose.

  5. Zack
    June 26th, 2013 at 00:34 | #5

    @pug_ster
    i find it fitting that both obama and hilary clinton who were responsible for the ‘pivot to China’ aka ‘China containment 2.0’ are now wringing their hands over the massive propaganda bonanza for the Chinese side with Snowden’s run.

  6. N.M.Cheung
    June 26th, 2013 at 01:51 | #6

    Snowden versus Obama:

    How the narrative has changed. Obama the man with Hope and Change, a so called community organizer, a so called constitutional scholar, a so called Nobel Peace Prize winner, and now to me he’s Darth Vader. Snowden to me symbolize youthful idealism, fighting against evil empire, a quintessential Luke Skywalker, the Man from La Mancha tilting against windmill. Whether the ending will be Hollywood and happy or reality and sad remains to be seen. I wish him well.

  7. June 26th, 2013 at 02:37 | #7

    For someone who doesn’t believe in truth you sure talk like it’s a great thing when said by Snowden.

  8. June 26th, 2013 at 05:04 | #8

    Are you distinguishing between truths and facts? Truth implies a knowledge about universal patterns, insights, etc. What Snowden has revealed are facts. However, as partial facts even with respect to U.S spying activities, I don’t think Snowden spoke truths.

    What Snowden has given us is information to go against the official dominant narrative – that there is a “free world” – that China is a rogue nation. The “free world’ narrative is perpetuated in this Internet age based on China’s alleged fear of freedom – hence they must block internet stewarts such as youtube and google. The rogue narrative comes from the idea that it is China that is hacking and stealing from the rest of the world; hence we need a “code of conduct” with respect to cyberattacks (how quaint, but remember, our own commenter Hong Konger thought with a straight face that it was important China answer those charges)

    What Snowden has revealed is to provide ammunition to push back against those attacks – defamations? – against China. Is there a free internet? Or, now in light of the vast spying cooperation between American internet companies and the government, is the blocking due to China asserting sovereignty? Is China really a threat as a cyber attacker – or just made a bogeyman to hide the true attacker?

    As for Snowden himself, I believe he is idealistic – which is a polite way of me saying he is an ideologue, too. On the American front, he opened a debate about the balance between freedom (via privacy) and national security. But Americans don’t care.

    Remember the hoopla in the press about Chinese government requiring real-name registration on social media platforms (by the way, you can still have a handle to protect your identity while you interact with others online). People were calling that as another poof of China’s evilness. Now, NSA goes further, and no one cares…

    That says volumes, too…

    Still, is this truth? I don’t know. It is insight that I find useful, but I don’t pretend it is truth. I know too little to know truth. In politics, I can spot hypocrisy, but I don’t think I will ever cross the line to claim I stand for truth though…

  9. Black Pheonix
    June 26th, 2013 at 06:05 | #9

    melektaus :

    For someone who doesn’t believe in truth you sure talk like it’s a great thing when said by Snowden.

    I think you are mistaken on my positions. I recognize Truth. But what some claim to be “truth” are merely their own ideologies, not shared by others. Insisting on calling some things “truth” does not make them so.

    Snowden in fact didn’t have to say anything. That Truth is in the very existence of those pages he revealed.

    What more does he need to say? What more could NSA say to explain away the existence of those pages??

    Snowden didn’t even need to prove that PRISM actually exists, or where it is, or anything else.

    4 pages, that’s all it took.

    We can talk about all the ideological implications that come from the 4 pages, i.e. good or bad for America, immorality or morality of leaks, etc., until we are all blue in the face. All of those implications are debatable, and are being debated, and probably never resolved.

    Where is the TRUTH in all of that mess that’s currently ongoing? Only in those 4 pages. That I can recognize. Every thing else is just points of view.

  10. Black Pheonix
    June 26th, 2013 at 06:12 | #10

    @Allen

    I don’t know if I would call these information as “facts”.

    NSA could have certainly tried to deny the whole thing from the start, to cast doubt into the authenticity of the documents from Snowden.

    I think the reason NSA decided NOT to, is because they know people wouldn’t believe their denial.

    Because of this, I think there is a higher level to these information to qualify as Truth, because there is a quality of truthful-ness to it, beyond the mere factual notion of existence.

    *I do not suggest that Snowden’s own conclusions are necessarily truth. But I do think that Snowden spoke the truth of his own stories and experiences.

  11. June 26th, 2013 at 10:09 | #11

    @Black Pheonix

    *I do not suggest that Snowden’s own conclusions are necessarily truth. But I do think that Snowden spoke the truth of his own stories and experiences.

    Subject truth in the bigger scheme of things is not truth. Imagine I diving into the head of a narcotic psycho, while his subject perspective might be interesting, it is of little use to others… as a matter of “truth.”

    The subjective

  12. Black Pheonix
    June 26th, 2013 at 10:58 | #12

    @Allen

    I would agree. Hence, if a Chinese version of Snowden came out revealed some documents on Chinese government spying, that information would be less impactful, perhaps viewed as less truthful. For 1, people would not necessarily believe that China has the capability to do it, and is not in a habit of massive technological cyber snooping. (Human based snooping perhaps).

    But I think there is something about Snowden’s revelation that is not subjective, but rather objectively truthful. Perhaps it is because of all of the recent history of US in slowly eroding personal freedom and privacy.

    It is more like a logical confirmation, rather than another piece of information.

  13. June 26th, 2013 at 11:21 | #13

    @Black Pheonix

    About the “logical confirmation” bit – I would agree and did sort of echoed similar sentiments in comment #8.

  14. Black Pheonix
    June 26th, 2013 at 12:30 | #14

    @Allen

    Yes, perhaps it is like when a lot of people see something wrong, but don’t say any thing, and then 1 guy comes along and says loudly, “Hey, Did you people notice something wrong??”

    He’s not the 1st to see it, just the 1st to say it out loud.

    By the time he says it, it’s more than fact.

    There is a saying, “A truth unspoken is a lie that sleeps.”

    I think, A truth unspoken is not a truth until spoken, it is merely a fact waiting to become truth.

  15. pug_ster
    June 26th, 2013 at 16:27 | #15

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/26/nsa-revelations-response-to-smears

    Besides the personal attacks against Snowden, it seems Greenwald is getting a dose legal reprisals as a result of this story coming out. Now Western Propaganda are up making stories about Greenwald’s IRS back taxes, a business venture as well as unpaid student loans.

  16. June 26th, 2013 at 22:14 | #16

    @Black Pheonix
    “I think you are mistaken on my positions. I recognize Truth. But what some claim to be “truth” are merely their own ideologies, not shared by others.”

    And how do you propose getting at the “TRuth”?

    I suggest that reasonable debate and evidence written in clear and sincere style is the best procedure (but there will always be no full guarantee of course). Talking in obfuscating jargon and calling what others say “ideology” even if they are providing you evidence is detrimental in this pursuit.

  17. Zack
    June 27th, 2013 at 05:42 | #17

    http://rt.com/news/inventor-web-government-hypocrisy-305/
    the inventor of the world wide web lashes out at the NSA and the West’s spying, namely the GCHQ’s illegal tapping into undersea cables as well as the PRISM program

  18. June 27th, 2013 at 07:48 | #18
  19. June 27th, 2013 at 07:51 | #19

    @melektaus

    reasonable debate and evidence written in clear and sincere style

    Why is that better? To start. … What’s “reasonable”? REALLY. If you can define that, maybe we can define rationality and objectivity in politics.

    Also what’s “sincere”? what’s “clear”?

    I am not nit-picking, but when opposing view points collide, you can’t mush through that … ideology or not.

  20. June 28th, 2013 at 01:43 | #20

    @Allen

    If you can’t agree on some things than you can look for areas where you do have overlapping agreements of what is reasonable and start from there (Again, that’s where I agree with Rawls). Some methods are also empirically and rationally proven to be more reliable. So it is unreasonable to say, rely on the claims/predictions of crystal balls or astrology over the claims/predictions of science, math or philosophy. The later really are more reasonable.

    Ultimately, sincerity is best assessed internally. Most people can tell when they are or are not being sincere. It’s the ones that can’t that worry me.

  21. Black Pheonix
    June 28th, 2013 at 10:18 | #21

    @melektaus

    I don’t think I have problems with “evidence”, for or against particular arguments.

    Whether your conclusions are logical, that’s an entirely different matter.

  22. Zack
    July 2nd, 2013 at 08:10 | #22

    well, well, looks like the almighty righteous and morally upright Norwegians who awarded Liu Xiaobo with the Nobel Peace Prize have revealed their true colours today by outright rejecting Edward Snowden’s plea for political asylum. Truly, a grand moment for the moral virtues for the Norwegians.

  23. Black Pheonix
    July 3rd, 2013 at 10:39 | #23

    It’s quite sad state of affairs now for US.

    When Obama and Kerry pretend that all the US snooping /bugging are somehow normal, aren’t they also leaking state secrets (by effectively confirming what Snowden has leaked), and also aren’t they basically admitting that Snowden didn’t leak any thing secret??

    If the snooping was no big deal, then why is it such a big deal for Snowden to publicly discuss/mention it?

  24. Black Pheonix
    July 3rd, 2013 at 16:19 | #24

    Western 800lb gorilla tries to exercise “soft power” in dragnet over 1 Snowden, triggers international incident with Bolivia:

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9610C520130703?irpc=932

    This incident may prove to be far more damaging than Snowden could have done with the leak of the secret snooping program.

    Despite all the public vaunted promises that somehow the Yester-years of Western colonialisms are gone forever, this 1 incident managed to rekindle the suspicion among many 3rd world nations that the West is not the “reformed conquerer” it likes to project for its image.

    Indeed, the ONLY thing the West is projecting with this incident is a display of pure colonial power, i.e. Western rules are meant to be imposed upon the World with great inequality, in favor of the West.

    US is suspiciously silent in the aftermath, probably knowing that at this point, no one would believe that France, Portugal, and Austria somehow acted all by their own decisions spontaneously, to force Bolivian President’s plane to land and grounded for a search for 13 hours.

    Frankly, Western powers are less and less believable now, other than among their own brainwashed drones.

    But even among their own brainwashed drones, not many would believe that US had nothing to do with forcing the Bolivian President’s plane to land. Hence, US leaders don’t even bother with any half-assed slogan for excuses this time.

  25. July 4th, 2013 at 14:07 | #25

    So, France, too, has a massive data collections program.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/world/europe/france-too-is-collecting-data-newspaper-reveals.html?hp&_r=0

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-fg-wn-france-prism-spy-network-20130704,0,2687002.story

    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-france-prism-like-spy-network.html

    Oh … India, too has a program.

    http://world.time.com/2013/06/30/in-india-prism-like-surveillance-slips-under-the-radar/

    Prism, the contentious U.S. data-collection surveillance program, has captured the world’s attention ever since whistle-blower Edward Snowden leaked details of global spying to the Guardian and Washington Post. However, it turns out India, the world’s largest democracy, is building its own version to monitor internal communications in the name of national security.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.