Edward Snowden—Good/Bad?Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American computer professional who—reportedly—leaked classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA), starting in June 2013. A subject of controversy, Snowden has been variously called a hero, a whistleblower, a dissident, a patriot, and a traitor. His disclosures have fueled debates over mass surveillance, government secrecy, and the balance between national security and information privacy. Two court rulings since the initial leaks have split on the constitutionality of the NSA's bulk collection of telephone metadata. —Wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
Unacknowledged beliefs (beliefs you may have that you are not fully aware of having) about Edward can generate certain undesirable consequences in your personal relationships; specifically, as pertains to reporting rape or abuse or any perpetration. If for example you judge Snowden to be a traitor then your philosophy is communicated non-verbally to everyone, especially children. Others around you might assume that reporting abuse might not be OK with you. It communicates that there are some circumstances in which you might considered another a traitor if they report an abusive person to the authorities. In other words, you believe that some withholding is necessary—as opposed to open and honest and spontaneous communication, zero thoughts withheld.
Withholders always attract withholders. If you are withholding a thought from a loved one it means that they are withholding an equally upsetting thought from you. And, that you began the deceit at the very beginning of the relationship which automatically, non-verbally, granted them permission to withhold their thoughts of choice from you. There are no exceptions to this phenomenon.
I'm unaware of any protocol for communicating/reporting perpetrations against a government agency except that I must be willing to experience invalidation and disastrous repercussions. All whistleblowers imagine that a problem not only exists, but persists, because most everyone is complicit, that no one can be trusted to act effectively on the problem.
I.E. Everyone knows that police conduct stings to cause a perpetration that would not have taken place except for the combined intentions of the officer and the perpetrator–yet no Police Commissioners have hired a police chief who announces that they would eliminate stings in their department. In other words, an officer who refuses to practice deceit must compromise his/her integrity thereby reducing their communication effectiveness with everyone.
* We all non-verbally support our police in being deceptive, as though law and order is dependent upon deceit.
More to come
* Premise: A person who rationalizes deceit causes all who relate with him/her to mirror their integrity. When a citizen is in communication with a police officer they have no choice whatsoever but to mirrror the integrity of the leader, the officer; ergo many being questioned by an officer find themselves trying to deceive and lie to the officer (a person who is in-integrity inspires integrity). Read
Military Scandals
