As someone whose writings are used both as official "lefty" positions and right-wing propaganda for the 9/11 and 7/7 government reports, he himself may not be capable of answering or allowed to answer.
I have just been going through some of Ahmed's writings lately, after our member kickstones had been digging through it, and found it coming up much more in Google lately — perhaps beyond their willingness to reasonably control, but perhaps for some other reason. For example, if you do searches for the control of information by paid agents of various overreaching alphabet agencies, you are likely now to stumble on things like this:
How the CIA made Google is an interesting read that (relatively) briefly covers some of what we've tried to investigate in our "historical musings" — including CIA/military props MITRE, DARPA and other strange and invasive programs.
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence ... .7tp44wwyc
It's familiar to Simon and I because of some of the companies mentioned. Naturally, no Jesuit, Zionist, Masonic or otherly "Gnostic" cult type connections are drawn by Nafeez. Nor mentioned. I understand that various articles must remain focused on their targets in question. Forgiving that the writings cannot be about literally every power player involved in devising and creating Google, it is still interesting that the religious extreme belief in "divine right" so often cited by military persons as justification could not be drawn out of any particular person. It seems much of his research is merely scraped from sites like ... well, like sites in our sight that we cite — or the other researchers (and perhaps some disinfo artists in our midst) that do the same. Characters like Nico Haupt, who has been directing our attention to CIA's In-Q-Tel and Keyhole program for creating Google Earth — Nico Haupt, the "first no-planer" who was apparently seen being lude, gyrating and yelling at people on the streets of New York discrediting curiosity and/or creativity itself, and making the very idea of considering government lies about 9/11 completely odious to the average person. Certainly as useful to those who perpetrated the hoax as the fake news anchors themselves.
Presently, my review of this article, at first reading, is that it's very good at synthesizing much of the least revealing or discernible of officially available data regarding clandestine activities of the U.S. government — and also incredibly good at posing as an authoritative text that would lead people trying to follow up his research to a number of dead ends like the alleged "P-Tech" red herring that seems to have been set up to explain that al Qaeda "hacked satellites" to cover up 9/11.
Ahmed does not warn anyone about this red herring, even though it's clear when looking at the roles of RAND, MITRE and other efforts that seem to benefit the Jesuit/CIA/Trilateral Commission types of groups that it's quite important to avoid falling into their "information honey traps".
He also seems to act naive in general about the way the CIA sets up names and information about itself to foil public scrutiny. Just a brief scan of the CIA.gov page on In-Q-Tel shows some of the efforts.
In the credits, it can be read:
Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, most recently was Hasboro Interactive’s Chief Creative Officer and General Manager of the Games.com group, responsible for creating Hasboro’s Internet game site. He previously served as Chairman of the Board of MicroPose, CEO and Chairman of Spectrum Holobyte, and CEO of Sphere Inc. He is on the Boards of Directors of numerous software firms.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... /in-q-tel/
(Warning: are shifty CIA pages extremely subject to change — as links from Ahmed's article apparently indicate?)
The thing is, there is no company called "Hasboro". What they mean to obfuscate is the Disney-partnered plastic toy megalith Hasbro. This foils Internet searches that would connect Hasbro to the CIA. Similarly, the entire page reads in generic affirmative statements such that you cannot actually get much real tangible information about the thing itself, including mention of a Norm Augustine — ("average old guy"?) of major defense "contractor" (we might almost say defense sub-wing of the government) Lockheed Martin — being a perfect fit that everyone is excited about for guessable reasons only.
Ahmed seemingly draws such astute connections as tying this "Gilman" (Israel-man?) character to none other than Richard Perle of the PNAC, whom Ahmed credits (even if accurately?) as an "Andrew Marshall acolyte". The punchline?
And so we come full circle. Data-mining programs like ExecuteLocus and projects linked to it, which were developed throughout this period, apparently laid the groundwork for the new NSA programmes eventually disclosed by Edward Snowden.
What is Edward Snowden, really, besides the simulated character he is rendered to be? Who is Nafeez Ahmed, really, besides the character of "citizen journalist" raking from the pile of public information many researchers have already sifted through and identified? Just a compiler meant to file everything under officially sanctioned "whistle blowers"?
Speaking of such, there are two interesting "whistle blowers" that Ahmed does credit, and which we do not hear much about in the news due to the Snowden Show's tendency to out-cartoon the reality. William Binney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_B ... fficial%29) and Thomas Andrews Drake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake) — really worth looking at and reading about from the official standpoint, and judging for ourselves if this is some kind of charade with the perhaps MITRE-observed "Iran Contra" brand on it, or if these people are defending their reputation for another reason, or if they are legitimate. The mystery is left unanswered as Ahmed rushes on to complete his network.
Naturally, it's good that Ahmed names the names:
In sum, the investment firm responsible for creating the billion dollar fortunes of the tech sensations of the 21st century, from Google to Facebook, is intimately linked to the US military intelligence community; with [Goldman Sachs senior partner Philip J.] Venables, [Facebook valuator, sponsor of the Forum’s MIIS Cysec, George] Lee and [former CEO and chairman of Goldman Sachs, founding board member of In-Q-Tel Stephen] Friedman either directly connected to the Pentagon Highlands Forum, or to senior members of the Forum.
And echoes public concerns with mass manipulation:
Sadly, this was not a form of trying to keep busy in retirement. Wells’ move underscored that the Pentagon’s conception of information warfare is not just about surveillance, but about the exploitation of surveillance to influence both government and public opinion.
Though which names in particular and how those names frequently act evasive when they could be clearer is sometimes a bit odd. Just to give context for what will become the article-important name of Richard O'Neill (also sharing the last name of Bush’s treasury secretary Paul O’Neill but aren't these things always family affairs, even when it involves made up family members?) :
The MIIS CySec initiative is now formally partnered with the Pentagon Highlands Forum through a Memorandum of Understanding signed with MIIS provost Dr Amy Sands, who sits on the Secretary of State’s International Security Advisory Board. The MIIS CySec website states that the MoU signed with Richard O’Neill ...
The last name O'Neill is a name connected to another red herring of 9/11, the intelligence-group created (my allegation) "Who Killed John O'Neill?" distraction — which was used to capture public attention on 9/11 investigations and run it into the ground as a way of "venting" public curiosity and turn it into unhealthy "hyperventilating in mom's basement" kind of conspiracy theory associations. Again it's not reasonable to expect that Ahmed closes all gaps or distinguishes all characters/personalities (I want to give that typical book opening warning: "all connection to names, fictitious or real, are a coincidence ...") but if the CIA's tendency is to deliberately conflate words in order to foil searches and research attempts (Hasboro/Hasbro), it would be nice if the very well-funded Ahmed had at least attempted to point out the possibility that many of the names given may not be real, may not be leads, or may be connected to fronts and shifting smoke/mirror games deliberately set up to foil further investigations. Even if those games are not all effective, some of them — and they could be critical ones — may be.
To be finicky about typos when Ahmed apparently draws massive connections into a somewhat traceable mass may seem like grasping, and excuse me if that is mistaken for some kind of conclusive reason to dismiss his writings; that isn't what I claim or what I'm attempting to do.
My point is that it seems too often, even those we are being led to believe are "on our side" act as though it's a big deal to simply state the true deceptions we are subject to, the true level of mass unavailability of information or how easy it is for people to act deceptively without ever being caught, as if that were a deep cultural taboo.
Of course, the theme of his whole writing omnibus (Part 1 and 2 and much of Ahmed's other paid meanderings included) has to do with the inequality of information. But what is he doing to empower people to research for themselves? To advocate the public right not to be simply "turned away" or "avoided" by these people that wage so much negative influence on our lives? Why is Ahmed content, like a sheepish person invited into the hallowed grounds of those 'religiony' Presidential press conferences, to simply receive shrugs and denials from those he is supposedly interested in?
To his credit, regardless of the poor contextualizing, his gritty stuff is as keen as a soap opera drama:
The ONA was not about sober threat analysis, but about paranoid threat projection justifying military expansionism. Foreign Policy’s Jeffrey Lewis points out that far from offering a voice of reason calling for a more balanced assessment of Soviet military capabilities, Marshall tried to downplay ONA findings that rejected the hype around an imminent Soviet threat. Having commissioned a study concluding that the US had overestimated Soviet aggressiveness, Marshall circulated it with a cover note declaring himself “unpersuaded” by its findings. Lewis charts how Marshall’s threat projection mind-set extended to commissioning absurd research supporting staple neocon narratives about the (non-existent) Saddam-al-Qaeda link, and even the notorious report by a RAND consultant calling for re-drawing the map of the Middle East, presented to the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board on the invitation of Richard Perle in 2002.
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence ... .4suok96e6
But without explaining the critical fact that al Qaeda doesn't even fucking exist outside its military intelligence origin his readers may continue to fall into the audience of the elaborately staged show of any restraint of the military expansionism being examined.
We could be more transparent than this. And we should not have to demand that government is more transparent than this. Who are our real and true unabashed allies "out there"? Articles like Ahmed's seem to make it very unclear.