text:
The Inevitable Descent Into Despotic Leftist Insanity
Christopher G. Adamo | Feb 1, 2021 | Commentary | 48
In his January 29 broadcast, Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson showcased the paranoid behavior of leftist Democrats from the Congress, to the White House, to such malignant notables as former CIA chief John Brennan. Only a day prior, radio talk giant Rush Limbaugh pondered the irony of raging anger among leftists, who he asserted should be "happy," now that they hold the reins of power. And of course this psychosis reaches into the echo chambers of Fake News and big tech.
Why are leftists so obviously seething with venom towards the nation that, we are told, just rallied to their cause, not only to put them into the White House in November, but also to give them an unstoppable Senate majority in January? Shouldn't this be their moment to bask in "glory" amid the gathering momentum of a nation that has embraced socialism and the new morality of the counterculture, as both stand ready to remake the nation entirely in their own image? This is, after all, the essence of Obama's promise to "fundamentally transform the nation" being played out as they have always dreamed. One would think they would be bursting with confidence and jubilation. Clearly, they are not.
In truth, one has only to consider the stark contrast between the twisted leftist Democrat vision for America and the surreal manner in which it has ensued, to know that they have good reason for such consuming paranoia. The current situation is the ugliest possible caricature of the time-honored American standard of proper government being established with the "consent of the governed."
The 80 million (and likely more) Americans who voted for President Trump in November, only to see the election stolen from them, know what happened despite incessant Democrat, Fake News, and "social media" efforts to supplant reality with the lie that the Biden cabal actually won. The ruse isn't working. And opponents of this shaky facade of "legitimacy" pose a grave threat to it. Consequently, all who dare deny the Biden "victory" quickly graduate into being "enemies of the state."
The left has no option but to continue with its pretence of unquestioned authenticity, just as it would have done if all of the fraud and chicanery had remained behind closed doors. So the outrages of the hard-left agenda from the Biden cabal must continue unabated, or perhaps even more aggressively, as if daring anyone to challenge either their worthiness or legitimacy. Nevertheless, leftist Democrats are living every moment in abject terror that the people actually may rise up to do so.
Signs of that looming prospect are widespread, and duly noted by the left. The massive outpouring of support for President Trump, particularly after the election theft appeared to be holding, was taken as a direct challenge to the validity of leftist claims of having solidified their hold on power. The willingness of so many of those military people deployed in Washington to blatantly turn their backs on the Biden motorcade as it passed, is seen as a major security breach, not on the nation, but on the presumption of authority by the Biden cabal.
The bluster of leftists from official channels is meant to belie the fact that they are increasingly paranoid, as they face a nation that flatly refuses to regard them as legitimate. In response, they are increasingly iron-fisted in their efforts to thoroughly consolidate that power before their house of cards collapses. Their worst nightmare is that too much of the American spirit remains, in which case their power-grab would ultimately fail.
In an ugly exercise of genuine fascism, a major portion of corporate America is allying with the leftist regime, to help pummel the people on Main Street back to their proper place of submission and compliance. The dirty dealers of digital big tech have been flagrantly trampling on rights and abominating the notion of equality for all, by shutting out and shutting down every voice they perceive as being defiant to the new order, based on the flimsiest of pretexts. Meanwhile, they continue allowing leftist members to spew every venomous threat against those on the right with impunity.
Twitter and Facebook have engaged in this flagrant discrimination against conservative voices, under the pretense of "opposing incitement to violence." Amazon followed their lead, exhibiting its own contempt for free speech, by shutting down its service of Parler.com, where Americans who became disillusioned with the abuses from Twitter and Facebook had begun to gather and reorganize their Patriot networks. Yet Twitter and Facebook were fine with last summer's riots, looting, arson, and even murder from BLM and antifa being coordinated and advanced on their platforms. And for weeks during last year's mayhem, "Amazon Prime" posted a banner above its streamed video home page proclaiming "We Support Black Lives Matter."
So the "blackouts" of free speech continue, while the Fake News crowd enthusiastically applauds. In their twisted worldview, the First Amendment has always been a one-way street in their favor. "Stability" can best be maintained that way. The goal is not to give Americans any real information. Knowledge is power. And for the sake of its own survival, the entrenched authority of the left demands that America be rendered powerless.
Despite hypocritical leftist Democrat squalling and sanctimony, they clearly have no problems with the trampling of the law and the Constitution, as long as they are the ones doing it. But the American people had better not presume to still have the right to petition their government for a redress of grievances. Any suggestion of such constitutes a "treasonous" threat to the new order and will not be tolerated. This current despotic scheme is proceeding inexorably down the precise path of every other throughout history.
Christopher G. Adamo is a lifelong conservative from the American Heartland. He has been involved in grassroots and state-level politics for years. His recently released book Rules for Defeating Radicals, subtitled Countering the Alinsky Strategy in Politics and Culture, is the "Go To" guide for effectively overcoming the dirty tricks of the political left. It is available at Amazon.
PreviousShock: Politico reporter goes to Wyoming for anti-Cheney rally, sees 'huge disconnect'
NextTrump announces new impeachment legal team
Amnesty is no laughing matter
The Witness Wars
6:37 am December 27, 2019
A look back as the FBI reaches a new low
Ben Rhodes Exposes White House Contempt for the Press and Public
6:50 am May 12, 2016
Scruffy_USN_Retired on 7:42 am February 1, 2021 at 7:42 am
The Democrat Party's dishonorable tactics to RULE YOU.
1) Use a tragedy as a crisis, or create a crisis where none exists.
2) Paint the crisis with as much emotion as possible, and throw logical analysis out the window.
3) Propose the one and only solution to the problem, which just happens to coincide with what you've wanted to implement for many years.
4) Paint anyone who opposes your one and only solution as evil, uncaring, not smart enough to understand the nuanced brilliance of your solution, or in the pockets of …. you pick the evil entity.
5) Force the solution on the people by any means, whether legislatively, by executive order, or through the legal system.
6) When the unintended consequences of your solution rear their ugly head, use them as a reason for more brilliant solutions to made up crises."
Pmsjim on 10:03 am February 1, 2021 at 10:03 am
It is the Cloward-Piven Strategy, the DemonRats have been using this playbook since the 1960's and before!!
ltuser on 3:01 pm February 1, 2021 at 3:01 pm
AND NEVER EVER< accept any blame FOR any of those ugly consequences..
Wilddog on 4:53 pm February 1, 2021 at 4:53 pm
Why do all these steps sound like something written in a past publication? Could that publication by Mien Kamph?
Does this look like the tactics of the Democrat Party??
How do you change a country's culture—change it from a capitalist system to a government controlled socialistic society. Here is the playbook, and so far, the socialists appear to be making a lot of progress.
1. Healthcare — Control healthcare and you control the people
2. Welfare — Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
3. Education — Take control of what people read and listen to — take control of what children learn in school.
4. Religion — Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools
5. Class Warfare — Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
6. Debt — Increase the debt to an unsustainable level.
7. Gun Control — Remove the ability for the people to defend themselves from the Government.
8. Poverty — Increase the poverty level as high as possible. Poor people are easier to control and will keep socialists in power if they are providing everything for them to live.
inluminatuo on 9:21 am February 1, 2021 at 9:21 am
"Why are leftists so obviously seething with venom towards the nation that, we are told, just rallied to their cause, not only to put them into the White House in November, but also to give them an unstoppable Senate majority in January?" It is obvious,,, because they know in their hearts the election was stolen and their fear of getting found out is deriving them to extreme measures of anxiety to cling onto that which they have not earned. Classic Freudean response.
Modern day Slavery!! The Government becomes the slave holders!!
AND reward belief in government.
PatriotUSA on 7:51 am February 1, 2021 at 7:51 am
No, the ruse is not working, and if we didn't have a weak spineless party behind us this would never have happened. If the Left think they pulled something off, they are very wrong. They were only able to steal this election due to the spinelessness of the GOP and the incessant lying of the Liberal Media. Without which they would have been exposed and dismissed.
The RINO's are not weak they are part of the game plan!! They have always been "Bed Fellows" with the DemonRats!! this all didn't happen in this last election, this has been a long range plan! Our founding fathers were brilliant when they wrote the constitution and the bill of rights; we were founded on Godly Principles, it was for the people by the people, it was United We Stand, Divided We Fall! The corrupt government over 50 years ago knew that they had to control the collective power of the people otherwise they would lose their power. The only thing that has saved this country from becoming full on communist is the 2nd amendment and religious freedom, but they are going after that next!!
Dont' forget cause of THEIR UTTER control over all media, social media, and a LOT OF THE COURTS…
disqus_3cDicYnCy2 on 5:33 pm February 1, 2021 at 5:33 pm
The "game" was, has been and will be rigged. The mask is off. The cat is out of the bag. The smog screen is gone. They don't pretend anymore. They hate and despise us all especially anyone with free will. They will move quickly before anyone react,. The only infrastructure the Democrats have in mind is the construction of the reeducation camps. Think I'm kidding? Don't bet against it. No lie is too big. Using Misery and suffering will be expanded to get their way. Nothing is off the table just ask the head of the KGB Brennen.
ltuser on 12:42 am February 2, 2021 at 12:42 am
They already HAVE those camps built.. FEMA Camps, prisons that they cleared out of criminals..
baitfish on 8:45 am February 1, 2021 at 8:45 am
Look for executive orders for the confiscation of firearms in the near future. Now that they have a foothold on the power they desperately crave, they will stop at NOTHING to turn America into a communist state.
Absolutely 100%; I hear the very same people say they won't take my guns away from me while wearing their mask from the very same Government that told them that they have to wear a mask! This whole thing has become the adult version of "Simon Says" and everyone follows with the marching orders!!
Lemmings. That's what they've become.
pick your battles wisely. Passive resistance is harder to defeat.
backpacker on 8:47 am February 1, 2021 at 8:47 am
Why are Democrats "seething with venom"? The Democrats are communists! Communists do not believe in the Constitution.
AND they are seething with venon, CAUSE THEY ARE SO filled with rabid hate…
they always need a scapegoat or imaginary enemy to blame for their own failures. They take responsibility for nothing. In 4 years after they put the economy in the crapper they will still be blaming Trump. My suggestion; confiscate Kerry's company. break it up, sell it off and let him make solar panels in his basement.
IIRC, even MID 2nd term of Obozo, they were STILL blaming Bush.
tsgtmoon on 9:23 am February 1, 2021 at 9:23 am
Excellent article and Right On, however, some Conservative writers are stressing the premise that Piglosi may have inserted her foot into her mouth by including President Trump's continuous declaration that the election was fraudulently stolen in her Articles of Impeachment. They feel this opens the doors for his defense to present the massive amounts of evidence to prove his allegations are fact based. Under normal [Constitutional] conditions where the Supreme Court Justice would be judging the trial, and President Trump was still in office, the evidence would be allowed. Since Chief Justice Roberts said he would not preside over the impeachment of a Former President, DemocRATS placed a partner in crime, Senator Patrick Leahey, in the Judges chair. Does anyone actually think he will allow the defense to enter into evidence the VAST amount of proof the election was fraudulent? I think NOT! The only consolation will be that the American Public will see the Disgusting efforts Marxist Communist DemocRATS will use to silence the TRUTH.
AND as we've seen through out 50+ LAWSUITS< these commucrats in charge, do not want ANY EVIDENCE TO BE SEEN anywhere in this nation. PERIOD.
dleiland on 9:24 am February 1, 2021 at 9:24 am
The Left has run into this huge wall of spilled blood upon this soil from 3 wars to obtain our freedom from Great Britain, retain our freedom from Great Britain and to maintain sovereignty of the United States of America. In case you don't remember: Revolutionary War (War of Independence), War of 1812 & Civil War. In addition, there were two world wars we participated in to keep our Allies free; and ourselves: WW1 & WW2.
These soldiers' blood cries out from the ground upon which it was spilled. Its cry echoes through the halls of our institutions, Courts, bureaucracy and in the backroom "deals" that are an attempt to nullify our freedoms. These fraudulent "leaders" ran from the draft and to this day have never sacrificed their blood for freedom. Rather, they put up sham roadblocks because they want to dictate a form of government of control – not freedom – of thought, activities and religion. The last is their real objective.
However, just as the wizard in the Wizard of Oz, all is pulled back for the world to see. Wake Up, fellow tax-paying, hard-working Americans. Research, vote & pray!
IMO voting, and praying has done NOTHING…
Libertarian58 on 9:35 am February 1, 2021 at 9:35 am
The left will never be happy until they have TOTAL COMMUNISM . Then they'll even be more unhappy when they realize how that communism has totally destroyed their lives…
Twitter and Facebook have engaged in this flagrant discrimination against conservative voices, under the pretense of "opposing incitement to violence." Amazon followed their lead, exhibiting its own contempt for free speech, by shutting down its service of Parler.com, where Americans who became disillusioned with the abuses from Twitter and Facebook had begun to gather and reorganize their Patriot networks.
We still have freedoms and choices to make and each and every time we jump on FB or Twitter or buy from Amazon we "Feed the Monster", the best thing to do is lose these platforms and stay away from them like the plague!! They are poison to the soul!! In fact every time you are compelled to jump on one of these platforms (FB, Twitter) read a verse in the bible!
hopemccloud on 1:15 pm February 1, 2021 at 1:15 pm
I deactivated my Facebook. To help me remember not to login I also changed my password to Prov. 6:16-19.
Pmsjim on 2:15 pm February 1, 2021 at 2:15 pm
Another verse to keep in mind when thinking about returning to FB or any social media is Proverbs 26:11!
JUST Don't THINK about not returning. DON'T return to Farcebook period!
Or another one:
"A fool vents all his feelings, But a wise man holds them back."
Proverbs 29:11 NKJV
gunbb on 10:29 am February 1, 2021 at 10:29 am
The Biden wrecking ball will soon come home to wreck some if not all of those morons who voted for him because they didn't like Trump. He is like a thrashing elephant is a glass store. He now admits he can do nothing to stop or prevent the virus from infecting all of us. Meanwhile he is destroying the economy with no provisions for any recovery. He has a checklist of fringe groups that he has to satisfy and so you see this flurry of executive orders , catering to them . In 2 years , if we still have a country, he will go down hard , and be nothing more than a lame duck , with no friends anywhere and no power left.
In two years VP Harris will invoke the 25th amendment and the Biden cabinet will go along.
2 Years, I give it 6-8 months in the first year!! Joe does not have it in him to last long 78 Y.O.!!
I don't even think he'll last six months. 4 at most.
they don't need to invoke anything. They will just do it.
chazooo on 10:49 am February 1, 2021 at 10:49 am
We are watching the Left choke on its own vomit – that is better than kid's Christmas morning. Enjoy!
wizzid0 on 1:07 pm February 1, 2021 at 1:07 pm
It's looking more and more likely the only recourse is civil war! I pray it doesn't come to that.
I agree with you. As Rush said a few weeks ago, secession may be the only way to go with so much of the country having opposite political ideas. If you read history, especially the Civil War, that's what this country was like before the war started. We are now back to that but who knows where the borders will be drawn. Secession may start peaceful but it will end up in a shooting war. It's too bad this is looking more and more like the future of this country, but trying to vote these Marxist out isn't happening and with the stolen presidential election, one wonders how many state elections were stolen over the years? Notice California, Oregon, Washington, and the New England states are dummycrat with no chance of ever having a republican in any office with any real power. Then with the RINOs showing their true colors that they really are dummycrats pretending to be republicans, it's becoming more apparent that the United States of America is only a distant dream.
THe way it's loooking, the ENTIRE west coast, except alaska, is firmly in their hands, so is Coloradiostan, new mexico, most of arizona, and nevada.. LUCKY THEY have yet to take over montanna! As far as the East coast goes, other than Florida and maybe Georgia, it seems they have every other state, includin both carolinas..
We're having a civil war right now and guess who is winning? The Government (a.k.a. the Deep State, the shadow government, the unelected bureaucrats) have declared war on the American voters who don't like being shut out and the **** they're ramming down everyone's throat.
Grant on 2:08 pm February 1, 2021 at 2:08 pm
Not quite sure if left wing ideology is simply a mental disorder or they're just pretending to be crazy to gain power. Either way these are destructive and dangerous people that no freedom loving American should want in charge of garbage collection much less the entire country. All of this will not end well for anyone. The leftist elites are determined to control it all and have no intention of allowing a for the people by the people government to survive. As for conservative patriots, eventually, and probably very soon, they will hit the boiling point and the push back will be massive and aggressive.
Pretending?? IMO THE left's been totally and utterly crazy for DECADES.. ITS not an act.
disqus_3cDicYnCy2 on 4:45 am February 2, 2021 at 4:45 am
The Republican Party enabled the MEDIA and let the Democrats get away with lies and deception for years. There was no push back. They were happy to forsake their voters. How can anyone be surprised that everyone is feed up with the theft, racism, false accusations and crooked judges. It was inevitable it would come to this. The double-talking Republicans and pay-to-play racists, crooked Democrats got Trump elected and they are too stupid and blind to understand they brought this on themselves.
IMO ITS NOT stupidity, on their part, for why they are 'not understanding why WE HATE THEM SO MUCH.. ITS outright willful denial.
elderal on 2:38 pm February 2, 2021 at 2:38 pm
The horrific rage and hate exploding from the Democrats like a volcano must find a final outlet to avoid an absolute destruction of all America. So, in order to blow off stream, Democrats should exhume Republican president (from Lincoln forward) and hold an impeachment trial post-mortum followed by the desecration of their remains. The one living Republican ex-president GW Bush, should be publically excorreated with every false charge the Democrats can imagine.
The anniversary of this event should become a federal holiday in perpetuity as constant reminder to all the world of the boundless unforgiving bile and disgust of the Democrats.
Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats might begin to calm down after a few decades but until then their immaturity and open hostility should be on constant display.
WHat's next. BLOW UP mount rushmore, to get RID OF THOSE conservative presidents on it?
Sad4theUS on 6:52 pm February 2, 2021 at 6:52 pm
This venomous hatred from the Left is really demonic in nature. It's the only thing that explains the intense insanity that's directed towards anything good, decent, righteous and honest. Why else would they reverse ALL of the good things Trump did in such a short amount of time? Good is a threat to Evil!
ltuser on Rep. Adam Schiff Announces 2024 Senate Run in California: "IF either were still alive, would they RECOGNIZE their home state?" Jan 27, 00:09
minaka on Rep. Adam Schiff Announces 2024 Senate Run in California: "How much more shame and embarrassment can Californians elect? Is there no limit?" Jan 26, 22:49


FRASER Coast Mayor Chris Loft faces the prospect of being sacked or suspended by the State Government if he doesn't improve his conduct.
A letter from Local Government Minister Mark Furner to Cr Loft advising him of remedial action being taken against him was tabled in parliament yesterday.
But Cr Loft hit back on his Facebook page yesterday, saying he would be releasing a statement in response to the letter and telling his supporters "I will not be bullied for standing up for what's right".
He later removed the post.
On Friday morning, Cr Loft wrote in a Facebook post that while his "methods might be unorthodox and sometimes put me at odds with rules and regulations", he was motivated to make Fraser Coast the best council in Queensland.
In the letter Mr Furner outlined a series of inappropriate conduct and misconduct findings against Cr Loft.
The latest misconduct complaint was sustained by the tribunal on September 1, which found Cr Loft had improperly disclosed confidential information to third parties.
He has been ordered to pay a monetary penalty of $1000 and to make an apology at the next council meeting.
It will be the third time Cr Loft has been ordered to apologise at a council meeting.
In addition Cr Loft has been directed to review the responsibilities of councillors and mayors and the provisions of the council's Councillor Code of Conduct.
Within a month, Cr Loft is required to provide a written conduct plan to Mr Furner detailing the steps he intends to take to comply with local government principles, his responsibilities as a councillor and mayor and the Councillor Code of Conduct.
Every month for the next six months, Cr Loft is required to meet with the Director-General of DILGP Frankie Carroll and a report will be provided to Mr Furner outlining how and the extent to which the mayor has complied with the conduct plan.
"I sincerely hope that the orders made against you and the above directions will ensure that there is no repeat of the conduct you have found to be engaged in," Mr Furner wrote in the letter.
"Any repeat of such conduct will not be tolerated.
"In the event such conduct was to continue in contravention or my direction, or you are the subject of further adverse findings, I will consider exercising powers available to me under section 122 of the Act to recommend to the Governor-in-Council that a mayor or councillor be suspended or removed if he or she has 'seriously or continuously breached the local government principles' or is 'incapable of performing their responsibilities'.


text:
Elio Grieco
Elio has been writing software and designing systems for over two decades
professionally. He's always put an emphasis on reliability and usability of
technology and how it can better meet the needs of users and customers.
Over the last decade, he's donated his time and leadership to various
educational initiatives in the Phoenix Metro area and across the state of
Arizona with the goal of helping more effectively find and develop talent
from communities not traditionally tapped by the tech industry.
Caitlin Derr
Caitlin has worked as a programmer for Amazon and Microsoft and brings a
passion for computer science, guided by its real world application. She's
also served as a regional manager for TEALS, a Microsoft funded
philanthropic effort to bring computer scientists and programmers into the
classroom to share their expertise with students and teachers alike.
For the past several years, Caitlin has been volunteering with efforts to
bring computer science and cyber security to students around Arizona,
including far flung communities like Page and Kayenta. Recently, she has
taken over as lead organizer for CodeDay Phoenix and is continuing to build
on the impressive legacy of Kristin Romaine and Alex Kremer.
Anthony Dezilva
Anthony has worked in cyber security and education with both private sector
and government collaborative groups. Always quick to volunteer and support
or mentor the work of others in this space, he has played an integral role
in helping the Arizona cyber security flourish.
Christopher Sessa
Christopher is dedicated to providing opportunity to all through education.
For over two decades he served the Career and Technical Student
Organization SkillsUSA as both a State and National Technical Chairmen in
the field of Information Technology. Recognized as an influencer of soft
skills, workforce readiness, and IT policy education, Christopher has
helped foster the current generation of the IT Workforce. As part of the
Arizona cyber security community he has driven collaborative efforts and
spearheaded grant-funded education initiatives.
Christina Eichelkraut
Co-founder, Vice President
Christina is a communications professional who believes in the power of
organizing people on a hyper-local level. She has been an advocate for
neighborhood infrastructure improvements, endorsed proper funding for
education and supports accessible neighborhoods. A former print journalist,
Christina founded a digital communications company in 2011 that specializes
in translating complex policy and technical ideas into clear, accessible
language. A word nerd and political junkie, Christina believes when policy
is well considered and properly implemented it can lead to a more
equitable, just and innovative world.
Debbie Kovesdy
Debbie has 20 years of experience as an educator and creates innovative
tech-ed modules used in schools throughout the Phoenix metro area. Her
vision allows students to tackle ambitious problems that arise from complex
projects they engineer themselves, better preparing students to be creative
problem solvers in the workforce of tomorrow.
Debbie founded Generation Tech Support with 22 of her students to enable
the aspiring technologists to gain skills and knowledge in a real world
setting. Since then, GenTech has evolved from a computer repair and
tutorial storefront to a Community Tech Hub. Her award-winning KidsTech
program implements groundbreaking methods to teach STEM in schools.
David Koontz
David has been a software engineer and educator for the last decade and has
a strong passion for education. David has taught at all ages, from senior
elementary through adults embarking upon a second career. David is
passionate about functional programming and has overseen a transformation
from imperative object oriented to functional at several companies. He also
hosts the functional programming podcast LambdaCast where he discusses
functional programming in the context of being a regular working developer.
David's is currently working on the revolutionary learning platform Quanta
which seeks to democratize the process of learning difficult concepts.
Darryn Jones
Darryn has been working to seek out innovative technologies and bring them
to the Phoenix Metro Area in order to increase opportunities for residents.
He's willing to seek out experts across the country to evaluate new areas
of technology and determine whether bringing their associated industries to
Arizona will ultimately be beneficial to the residents of our state.
Ori Eisen
Ori has been thinking about the critical role of digital identity for well
over a decade, long before issues with the modern web were visible to most.
He started 41st Parameter to address some of these issues in the payment
sector and continues to evolve his work with Trusona.
Christine Kerner
Christine has been a fixture of the Arizona startup scene for over a
decade. She's well respected for the thoughtful and through guidance she
continues to provide to several dozen companies.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Iconoclastic Controversies is part of a larger study by Nico Carpentier on the politically charged Cypriot landscape and its community media. NeMe hosted the exhibition which consisted of twenty selected photographs and eight sound recordings, and organised a seminar with three speakers. Instead of a curatorial statement about these events, we are publishing an edited interview, broadcast on CUT-radio on 23 January 2016.
Yiannis Christidis: Today we have Professor Nico Carpentier in the studio. We are going to talk with him about the exhibition which is now taking place in Limassol, at the NeMe Arts Centre. The exhibition is called: "Iconoclastic Controversies: A visual sociology of statues and commemoration sites in the southern regions of Cyprus" and I would like to start the interview by asking you: How do you explain the concept of the exhibition to a 6-year old child?
Nico Carpentier: That is a quite challenging opening question. You should give me time to think about an answer for a couple of hours. No, more seriously, first of all, thanks for having me here to talk about this baby of mine, it is not a six-year old but just a baby of mine.
Let me try to explain the concept of the exhibition: An exhibition is a medium, and it tries to tell a story. In this case, it tries to tell the story that a statue is not just a statue. That is actually the simple version, the simplest version I can give you. If I can add another couple of sentences, obviously, I mean: a statue is made in stone or bronze – it has a materiality. It is placed in a particular setting, in the streets of a city or village. It orients your gaze, invites you to look at it. The way that it is positioned is often at a central place where the entire landscape is geared towards attracting your attention.
There are lots of things to be said about this material positioning. But, there is another layer – we give meaning to it. Moreover, different people give different meanings to it. We look at it in different ways. If you know the historical context, you will look at it differently. For instance, tourists do not always know that historical context. And if you do know the historical context, then you look at a statue differently, you might understand more. So, a statue is not just this piece of stone, or a bronze object; it is actually inviting you to interpret it in a particular way, on the basis of contextual knowledge that you may, or may not, have.
Now, I am not talking to the six year old anymore (laughing). After this answer, one might actually wonder about my capacity to talk to a six-year old. To reassure you, I do know that one does not talk with a six-year old like this.
Let me make things worse, and add a few things. There are different meanings. Not everybody agrees on these meanings. You can interpret the statues in different ways. Meanings are not stable; they are not given and fixed in eternity. The statue is an invitation to think about something in a particular way. But an invitation is something that you can ignore. It is something that you can actually deflect. You can think about it in different ways. It is something that is negotiated and not fixed. People have different opinions about what the statues mean. In some cases, they provoke really very strong emotions. But they also provoke different emotions, which are based on different readings. What the exhibition wants to show is that diversity – the diversity of meanings and interpretations – is also present in the Cypriot context. Here too, there are different interpretations at work. The statues sometimes create different invitations. All of them try to communicate something but you can still always reject it. You can refuse.
Some of the photographs in the exhibition are actually about this refusal. They are about the refusal to follow the invitation of dominant (nationalist) ideologies. There is one picture, if I can give you one example, there is a picture of a Grivas statue. It is set at the Grivas landing site memorial, on the Chloraka coast. It portrays a child playing there, poking a stick in the bushes at the feet of the Grivas statue. The young child is clearly not in full admiration for whatever the Grivas statue is inviting us to admire in relation to the independence war, and for the sacrifice that is linked to that war. The child is not accepting the invitation of the statue. The photograph that I made, is analysing the rejection of the invitation to pay tribute to Grivas. What the exhibition is trying to explain is this very complex interplay between communicational invitations, acceptances and rejections of dominant meanings.
Yiannis: One can wonder whether this invitation is a kind invitation, or not. Because, I mean, when the state is constructing these statues, when they are ordering a sculpture from an artist, it may be a kind of intervention in which other people are not involved. This sort of invitation might be kind of rude. Actually, to me, it is a rude invitation. And maybe it is rude to more than one person?
But what I want to find out with my comment is: How do you photographically translate this public intervention? How do you transfer the whole experience, which is located in public space, to an exhibition? How do you take these statues and move them to another medium – photography – and then after this, to an exhibition space. This transition of the public space to photography, and then from photography to a printed version in an exhibition space, is quite a route to take.
Nico: Yes, it is a trajectory. Of course, it effects the meanings. Let me to start with the invitation part of your question. I agree with you that the invitation can be rude, but it does not mean that it is not an invitation. It does not mean that you necessarily have to accept the discursive constructions that are embedded in the statue, sometimes created by the state, sometimes also by particular groups in society, e.g., foundations, etc. Some invitations are more open and kinder than others. I fully agree with you. What I want to emphasise with using the concept of "the invitation" is that the communication originating from the statues is not that strong, and its meaning is definitely not a given. It can never be that strong that it cannot be resisted.
Their invitations do try to seduce you into accepting particular meanings. Heroism is one meaning which is very present in the Cypriot statues, but it is still possible to use irony and just see a pompous object. Some gaze in admiration at a statue and others see something ridiculous, which does not speak to their life worlds. That is what the invitation does. It does try to push you to see heroism, but you might not accept the invitation. Actually a lot of people do not (any more).
The landscape of statues in Cyprus – each with their own invitations – is also characterised by the different (and sometimes contradictory) discursive positions that they embody. If you take one step back and start looking at the Cypriot public space, you see that there are also interventions in this public space that are not driven by the state. That are not even driven by dominant ideologies. That are actually trying to resist the dominant ideology. Public space is not something that the state can totally control. Individuals and foundations can buy pieces of land, get permissions and then use it. But these usages are not necessarily in accordance with government policies, or aligned with dominant ideologies. There is also a more participatory-democratic control over these spaces, even if the government can be a very imposing actor on how we can use public space.
That actually brings me to your question about the translation of public space into photography and then into an exhibition, and its particularities. I think that that trajectory is driven by an analytical perspective. That perspective is what is allowing me to transgress these spheres and to move from one sphere to another, from the public space where the statues are situated, to photography where they are represented, and then to an exhibition space where they are contextualised (more). It is the analysis that drives the translation, that made these statues travel through this trajectory. The statues and commemoration sites have been selected for particular reasons, and they are represented in particular ways and for particular reasons. The reasons why they are represented as they are represented through photography is the analysis. It is an academic reflection about the role of meaning through statues in Cyprus. That makes the exhibition specific – it is not a mimetic or exclusively aesthetic representation of statues, it is an analytical exercise in trying to understand what these invitations are about, and how they work. And that is an analytical process. And of course, I am not ignoring that artistic interventions are also analytical and reflexive. But I think that in the case of this exhibition, the balance is different, in the sense that the analysis is much more present. And we should not forget that I am still an academic who uses photography, which renders the analysis more present than usual. Although, I hope that the aesthetic have not completely disappeared from my work, but that is up to people to come and see.
Yiannis: How does the genre of photography influence the analysis, of what you want to say about the monuments? What effort did you make during the shooting to exactly capture what you wanted to say? What about angles and perspectives? How did they influence your analysis and how did you use them to analyse?
Nico: This question moves us into the back office of both photography and academic analysis. The answer lies in a complicated (and hopefully sophisticated) mixture of all these different components, of the analysis, the technology (the camera), the setting, the light, the angle, the framing, etc. I find it still difficult to get it right, to be honest. But talking as an academic, I think that writing an article this is also pretty difficult, as you are also combining very different elements. What I am doing here, is applying a slightly less common communicational technology in combination with an aesthetic framework to convey the results of an academic analysis. It is just a different language that I am trying to use, in contrast to what academics usually use.
Still, I think that there were a few basic guiding principles that I used. I wanted to stay away from the purely documenting approach. Because that would still be the common thing to do. Most academics, when they write articles and use photography in them, they it in an illustrative way. I believe that we can use aesthetics, we can use form, we can use emotions, to convey a message, to communicate analysis. And we can use humour.
Yiannis: Yes, humour, I wanted to ask you about that.
Nico: Yes, of course. You can use humour for that. Humour is a legitimate communicational tool for analysis, although it is an incredibly difficult one, as one also needs to avoid that things become tacky or disrespectful. But in particular, I think that staying away from the documenting approach was important to me. I wanted to also allow the form, the way you actually capture the statue, the light, the angle, to play a role, but in alignment with the analysis. That made it slightly challenging for me, because I did not want to work with contradictions. That would have been a totally different project. I wanted to tell one story about this complexity of meaning (in relation to the statues) and I wanted to show the diversity of meanings, but I still wanted to tell that one story. I did not want to go for internal contradictions in my story. That would be different analysis and a different format.
What I was trying to do is to align the analysis with some of formal components of photography. Trying, in some cases, to enhance some elements by using a close-up, or a particular framing, … There is the photograph of the memorial to the missing in the Agios Alexandros church, with its many little wooden frames where the horizon is used as a formal method. You do not see the end of this dreadful list and collage of faces, it is endless. This photographs does not only show the way the pictures of the missing are displayed in a church in Pyrga, it also represents the societal debate – and comments on that debate – of the missing here in Cyprus. It is again an analysis communicated through that very formal aspect. The photograph refers to fact that, sadly, these people are no longer there, they are beyond of our horizon, but it also comments on the endlessness of the debate about them. Apparently, it has no end. Or better, it seems to have no closure, which is exactly one of the problems of this debate. This formal component interacts with the more textual analysis; supported by other academic publications on this debate. But I try to symbolise my analysis. I think this is the best way I can summarise my work, as I am using these formal elements to symbolise an analysis and to symbolise societal processes through that analysis. I think that is what the exhibition tries to do.
Yiannis: It is important to know how to combine these photographs with the textual analysis and what meanings that you want the visitors to understand, in a second reading or maybe in the first reading. Let me ask you this one thing, before we go to the second topic which is more sociology related. Having done the first exhibition in Nicosia and having received all the feedback from this exhibition … From the set-up in that space, in the Home for Cooperation in Nicosia, and the space you have created here in Limassol … How were the photographs organised and how is this different now?
Nico: One very quick comment is that there have been two exhibitions and that these are two totally different exhibitions. The spaces are completely different and I was … Actually you guessed what I was thinking about yesterday, I was looking at the main set-up and I was simply taken aback by the differences, generated by different lighting, a different way of organising the pictures and the huge contextual difference between the two spaces, one in the Buffer Zone at the Ledra Palace crossing in Nicosia, and one in Limassol. And, again is important to emphasise how the particular exhibition space influences the story that one tells. After all, it becomes a part of the medium. Actually, more correctly, the exhibition is a medium in itself. One of the things I have learned from this experience is how spectacular the impact of the exhibition space can be, and how you can use exhibition spaces in different ways to communicate your work.
One substantial difference, obviously, is that in the Limassol exhibition we are using the basement of the exhibition space as an opportunity to bring in the voices of others. What we have done in the basement of the NeMe Arts Centre is that we have created a series listening posts. There, people can sit down on a bean bag, or at a table, and they can listen to different voices, discussing different dimensions of the exhibition, giving different perspectives on the object of the exhibition. Some of the debates that we organised in Nicosia in November 2015 have been recorded by the Cyprus Community Media Centre, and they are now being made available on the site of the exhibition. Also the seminar organised by NeMe in January 2016, recorded in by CUT-Radio, is being played in the basement. The idea behind that set-up – and I think that this is most important- is that it is not my voice only that matters. First of all, an exhibition is a collaboration. There are many wonderful people that worked with me, and that I worked with, in creating these exhibitions. But what the basement set-up is now communicating, is that are many voices to speak about the exhibition and its objects of analysis. There are many interpretations possible, also of the exhibition. What I do not want to do, is to close off meanings. That is actually the last thing that I want to do. The space here, at the NeMe Arts Centre, is allowing me to emphasise that openness of interpretation much more than before. The interpretatory openness, not just of accepting or rejecting the invitations embodied by the statues in always particular ways, but also of the photographs and the exhibition. The process of interpretation is something that I could emphasise much more by using the basement space at the NeMe Arts Centre.
At the same time, there are similarities between the two exhibitions. The set-up is still fairly linear, which is a debatable choice I made. The exhibition's narration is highly structured, probably because that is how I work and think. And it is actually translated into the exhibition. There is a linearity present in the exhibition that combines the textual (through the use of text panels) with photographs, and that tries to create a trajectory within the exhibition space. A visitor goes through the different stages of the analysis. Both exhibitions had this idea of a clear starting point and ending point. Now, I do not think that a visitor is obliged to respect this built-in order. It is one of these debates in any kind of museum or exhibition set-up. How much do you expect visitors to follow a particular trajectory? There is often the tendency of museums and exhibitions to have signs like: "Start Here", "Walk this Way", "Exit", "Exhibition Continues Here", … All these rather authoritarian signs force people to follow a particular trajectory. At least I was trying hard, to be a bit more open, and used the logics of the invitation here as well. But I am not going to claim that I was using the logic of the "1000 plateaus", allowing visitors to enter the exhibition at a thousand different entry point. I would not have the audacity to make that claim. This exhibition does have different entry points, but it is still a fairly linear narration at the same time.
This raises all sort of questions when we want to talk about which medium is actually more important. Is it the textual linearity that still matters most, in the end? Of course, the photographs are still involved, but what is dominant? Is it the multi-dimensionality of the photographs, that is actually dominating, where the picture literally attracts all the attention and where the written text on the panels, and the order of things, is just secondary? That I find a difficult debate, and I am not sure if I have clear answer to that question. It also depends on the visitor. Some like to be invited into that trajectory, to take the steps as I created them. But still, there is the back door, there are the different entry points, which I see as gates, into the exhibition. But I think that the exhibition's linearity is still pretty strongly present.
Yiannis: And at the same time you are creating an invitation which is more polite than the other invitations we were talking about before.
Nico: I definitely hope so. I think that any kind of project created by academics (as academics) has to respectful. They can (and I would say: should) be critical but I believe they have to remain respectful. I do not think I would defend any kind of communicational activity that is disrespectful. I think that is for others, for other people, or for other roles. It definitely makes sense in some cases, but I would not be comfortable with using disrespect in an academic setting, which I think the exhibition is still part of.
Yiannis: Just to make a small comment, or two, about the monuments. From what I have seen, because I have had a sneak-preview (laughs) … You see the monuments as generators of audience satisfaction. That is your perspective, and that is your photography. Analysing this tendency of people to follow ideas, in order to get satisfied by certain values – as these ideas can, for example, be called – by the creators of these statues, by the state, or by whoever has intervened to build and create these monuments.
Nico: That is a good comment. It is not an easy one to reply to. I would now be inclined to revert to some French theorists, which is maybe not the most polite thing to do (laughs).
Yiannis: The six year old is already gone.
Nico: He ran away after the first sentence. (laughing) There is the notion of interpellation, and that is what I think that different discourses actually do. They try to seduce us, they console us, they give us ways of being part of something. Discourses are very strong forces because of that. They offer commonality and togetherness, they sometimes drive us to war because others have other commonalities. There is Sam Keen's quote: "In the beginning we create the enemy."; "We think others to death and then invent the battle-axe or the ballistic missiles with which to actually kill them." It shows us how strong these forces, these ideas, can be. We often forget the importance of ideas, not only (by the way) as lethal destructive forces but also as forces of goodness. "Values" is an old term, I prefer to use "discourses", but basically values are a sub-category of discourses, so let us stick to "values". These values can create togetherness, they can create solidarity, they can create equality, they can create democracy. But they can also create war and death. They can instigate them. They do have a key role to play in our societies, for the better or for the worse.
And yes, you are right, I was actually playing with these ideas in the photography and in the analysis, because what often happens in this kind of discursive struggles is that one particular idea, one particular perspective, gets privileged. And other perspectives therefore become eliminated. I feel uncomfortable with that, in particular when dealing with history. I like the diversity of ideas, and I do not like to have one particular mind-set, or one particular set of values to be imposed, becoming the dominant and only one. If we look at history – because this is an exhibition about history – there is often this emphasis on glorification: On the glorification of the self, on the heroisation of the self, where one party sees itself as good, where its (national) identity becomes articulated as an intrinsically good thing to have. This essentialist identity can then never questioned, or even critiqued. I think it should be questioned and critiqued. Because the logics of glorification and heroisation is concealing a lot of things. This is something that needs to be discussed more, and to be theorised much more.
That identity discourse is one reason why I am using photography to talk about these issues, as I want to show the restrictive workings of dominant nationalist identities. But there is more: We need to be careful not to enter into the glorification of war itself. This is something with which I am even more uncomfortable. I am open to discussions about diversity and about the ways that national identity tends to contradict diversity. But I am upset and troubled by the creation of military heroes, which supports the moral acceptance of war (or worse, its celebration). We should not go there.
There are a lot of question marks to be placed with these kinds of 20th century (and also 19th, 18th, 17th, … century memorials) as they might convey an undesirable message. Should we not construct a different interpretation, allowing us to rethink these memorials, reconsidering and recontextualising them, because they literally celebrate death and destruction? There is a lot of academic and artistic work on this topic, all over the world. Obviously, Cyprus is not the only country that has issues with this. There is the wonderful analysis of Krzysztof Wodiczko, a Canadian-Polish artist, on the Arc de Triomphe (the Triumphal Arch) in Paris (France). If you start analysing what this particular memorial is actually convening, it turns out to be horrific. It is the purest celebration of militarism you can think of. Maybe we should not be doing these things. Maybe we should raise questions about these memorials, and maybe we should start looking at some of these statues and memorials as problematic, and in dire need of re-contextualisation, exactly because of that.
Nico: And in that sense, these statues are pedagogical, to use a more neutral term. Or even better, they have a pedagogical intension. The invitation is also pedagogical in the sense that what is typical for any kind of project like this, is that it wants to transgress time. It does not want to speak about the now only. Memorials want to speak to the future. They want to convince you that the way of looking they embody is the right way. Not just now, but also when you are looking at them in a later stage, looking back at the past. So, they play with time. In very particular ways, and sometimes in very troubling ways. We should not forget the very materiality of these statues. They are set in stone, in bronze. They are fixed. And they also try to fix the meaning of a particular time, though this logic of the invitation. At the same time, their context has changed. People changed, the times have changed. The interpretations have changed, and will change even more. And, at some point in time, the invitation will no longer be accepted. It might not even be recognised anymore.
We can see this if you go back to the previous centuries – and I have been doing some research on older conflicts – if you go back to, for instance, the 17th century. A few weeks ago, I was visiting a memorial in Prague (in the Czech Republic), with a group of university students. The memorial was commemorating a battle from the 17th century. Even if people have some knowledge about it, it is hard for them to contextualise it, and nobody has a strong emotional response to it anymore. It refers to the Thirty Years' War, which was one of the bloodiest wars in that period of our history. However lethal it was, it does not provoke much response anymore, because it is situated in the distant past. Its cruelty has been forgotten. There are other memorials where people are simply ignorant about their meaning and even their existence. They do not have the knowledge frameworks anymore to interpret them. The invitation is gone. It just disappeared, evaporated over time.
Even if this can sometimes be reassuring, it is not always a good thing either. Maybe we should not forget, after all, memorial are memories. But I do think that the pedagogical dimension is important if you talk about new generations of citizens. We have to think about what we want to communicate to them and what we want statues and commemoration sites to communicate to them. And this is not a question that stops. It is something that we need to revisit over and over again. As any pedagogical project, we need to think about what kind of story we want them to tell to us. Obviously, this is a very difficult thing to do and it requires a rather intensive reflection.
Yiannis: This also applies to the role of public space as a whole, if we connect what you now say with what we have discussed before.
Nico: We have this sort of hierarchy in our minds, which I find troubling. We believe that media (and nowadays the Internet in particular) are the centre of our society. We watch television, we surf, or we go on different social networks, and that is how we see and learn about our world. That is of course a myth. Discourses and ideologies work through the interactions of different spheres in our societies. But we seem to cling to this hierarchy. Media are seen to be the top level of the work of discursive construction, and then, maybe, the role of the school, and maybe of religion, and then possibly of public space is acknowledged. Public space dangles somewhere at the very end of this hierarchy. I think that this is wrong. We need to look at different communicational environments, not in hierarchy but in interaction. They work onto each other, they strengthen each other, they contradict each other but they still work with each other. Public space is crucial in that process of signification. We tend to forget this, because, of course, exactly the strength of public space is that it so naturalised. It is normal and unquestioned. If there is a statue there, it is normal that it is there, we do not even see it. If it disappears, we might notice that it is gone. But at the same time, it is a form of continuous communication. Even if you do not notice it, you notice.
Yiannis: A form of passive knowledge?
Nico: And a form that matters, I mean, in the sense that the public space can be a very strong communicational and pedagogical instrument of power. Again, in our hierarchy of the most important centres of discursive power, we tend to put the media first and forget about the rest. I think that this needs reconsidering. We have to be more careful and acknowledge that public space matters.
Yiannis: I want to end this conversation with one more question. How would you explain the concept of the exhibition to a seventy-five year old Cypriot patriot? Someone with very patriotic feelings?
Nico: It is a rather good question, because it is very difficult question. I am not sure if I can answer you, but let me try. Earlier, I talked about the need to be respectful and I want to use this idea as a starting point. There is a need to be respectful for the heroism of people. I definitely do not want to reject suffering, and I also do not want to reject courage and sacrifice.
Mind you, I have studied war, but I have not been in a war. Still, I might have a vague idea of the intensity of emotions, about the horrific things that happen in war, but also of the most wonderful things that sometimes happen. We should try to understand them in a respectful way. At the same time we need to think critically about the past. That would also be part of my response: Maybe some things from the past need to be revisited and rethought. With respect for the emotions of all involved, with respect for all sacrifices and losses, because war is about loss. But we should also use other values, like humanity, to look back at wars. Maybe also the value of togetherness. Maybe also the value of respect for diversity. I like to see the exhibition as an invitation to go back into the past and see that precious things were lost there. I also see the exhibition as an invitation to think about the future, to create a better and safer future. These losses do not have to occur again.
We should keep in mind that the experience of war changes people. War can create traumatised people that continue to live in the past for as long as they live. For understandable reasons – who am I to critique that? But war can also create visionaries for the future. Here, my cultural heritage matters, as I am a Belgian that knows about the impact of the First World War. War can create visionaries that say: "Never again". "Never again" is an incredibly important lesson that people have learned from the First World War (and from other wars) but that in Europe has been forgotten still too quickly, unfortunately. But the trauma of war can feed into different ways of thinking about conflict and war. Looking at the future, finding realistic ways to prevent this from ever happening again, and maybe even helping others – in other places in the world – to prevent this from happening again, should still be the most important focal point in our thinking about war, I think. That would be my answer to the patriot.
We would very much like you to watch this NeMe produced video, presenting footage from the exhibition, uploaded on Vimeo on vimeo.com/155836824.


text:
Series: Dragnets
Revealed: The NSA's Secret Campaign to Crack, Undermine Internet Security
Newly revealed documents show that the NSA has circumvented or cracked much of the encryption that automatically secures the emails, Web searches, Internet chats and phone calls of Americans and others around the world. The project, referred to internally by the codename Bullrun, also includes efforts to weaken the encryption standards adopted by software developers.
by Jeff Larson
Sept. 5, 2013, 3:08 p.m. EDT
Tracking Censorship and Surveillance
Note: This story is not subject to our Creative Commons license.
Closer Look: Why We Published the Decryption Story
Sept. 6: This story has been updated with a response from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The National Security Agency is winning its long-running secret war on encryption, using supercomputers, technical trickery, court orders and behind-the-scenes persuasion to undermine the major tools protecting the privacy of everyday communications in the Internet age, according to newly disclosed documents.
This story has been reported in partnership between The New York Times, the Guardian and ProPublica based on documents obtained by The Guardian.
For the Guardian: James Ball, Julian Borger, Glenn Greenwald
For the New York Times: Nicole Perlroth, Scott Shane
For ProPublica: Jeff Larson
The agency has circumvented or cracked much of the encryption, or digital scrambling, that guards global commerce and banking systems, protects sensitive data like trade secrets and medical records, and automatically secures the e-mails, Web searches, Internet chats and phone calls of Americans and others around the world, the documents show.
Many users assume — or have been assured by Internet companies — that their data is safe from prying eyes, including those of the government, and the N.S.A. wants to keep it that way. The agency treats its recent successes in deciphering protected information as among its most closely guarded secrets, restricted to those cleared for a highly classified program code-named Bullrun, according to the documents, provided by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor.
What's New Here
The NSA has secretly and successfully worked to break many types of encryption, the widely used technology that is supposed to make it impossible to read intercepted communications.
Referring to the NSA's efforts, a 2010 British document stated: "Vast amounts of encrypted Internet data are now exploitable." Another British memo said: "Those not already briefed were gobsmacked!"
The NSA has worked with American and foreign tech companies to introduce weaknesses into commercial encryption products, allowing backdoor access to data that users believe is secure.
The NSA has deliberately weakened the international encryption standards adopted by developers around the globe.
BULLRUN Briefing Sheet from GCHQ
SIGINT Enabling Project
Beginning in 2000, as encryption tools were gradually blanketing the Web, the N.S.A. invested billions of dollars in a clandestine campaign to preserve its ability to eavesdrop. Having lost a public battle in the 1990s to insert its own "back door" in all encryption, it set out to accomplish the same goal by stealth.
The agency, according to the documents and interviews with industry officials, deployed custom-built, superfast computers to break codes, and began collaborating with technology companies in the United States and abroad to build entry points into their products. The documents do not identify which companies have participated.
The N.S.A. hacked into target computers to snare messages before they were encrypted. And the agency used its influence as the world's most experienced code maker to covertly introduce weaknesses into the encryption standards followed by hardware and software developers around the world.
"For the past decade, N.S.A. has led an aggressive, multipronged effort to break widely used Internet encryption technologies," said a 2010 memo describing a briefing about N.S.A. accomplishments for employees of its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ. "Cryptanalytic capabilities are now coming online. Vast amounts of encrypted Internet data which have up till now been discarded are now exploitable."
When the British analysts, who often work side by side with N.S.A. officers, were first told about the program, another memo said, "those not already briefed were gobsmacked!"
An intelligence budget document makes clear that the effort is still going strong. "We are investing in groundbreaking cryptanalytic capabilities to defeat adversarial cryptography and exploit Internet traffic," the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., wrote in his budget request for the current year.
In recent months, the documents disclosed by Mr. Snowden have described the N.S.A.'s broad reach in scooping up vast amounts of communications around the world. The encryption documents now show, in striking detail, how the agency works to ensure that it is actually able to read the information it collects.
The agency's success in defeating many of the privacy protections offered by encryption does not change the rules that prohibit the deliberate targeting of Americans' e-mails or phone calls without a warrant. But it shows that the agency, which was sharply rebuked by a federal judge in 2011 for violating the rules and misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, cannot necessarily be restrained by privacy technology. N.S.A. rules permit the agency to store any encrypted communication, domestic or foreign, for as long as the agency is trying to decrypt it or analyze its technical features.
The N.S.A., which has specialized in code-breaking since its creation in 1952, sees that task as essential to its mission. If it cannot decipher the messages of terrorists, foreign spies and other adversaries, the United States will be at serious risk, agency officials say.
Just in recent weeks, the Obama administration has called on the intelligence agencies for details of communications by Qaeda leaders about a terrorist plot and of Syrian officials' messages about the chemical weapons attack outside Damascus. If such communications can be hidden by unbreakable encryption, N.S.A. officials say, the agency cannot do its work.
But some experts say the N.S.A.'s campaign to bypass and weaken communications security may have serious unintended consequences. They say the agency is working at cross-purposes with its other major mission, apart from eavesdropping: ensuring the security of American communications.
Some of the agency's most intensive efforts have focused on the encryption in universal use in the United States, including Secure Sockets Layer, or SSL, virtual private networks, or VPNs, and the protection used on fourth generation, or 4G, smartphones. Many Americans, often without realizing it, rely on such protection every time they send an e-mail, buy something online, consult with colleagues via their company's computer network, or use a phone or a tablet on a 4G network.
For at least three years, one document says, GCHQ, almost certainly in close collaboration with the N.S.A., has been looking for ways into protected traffic of the most popular Internet companies: Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Microsoft's Hotmail. By 2012, GCHQ had developed "new access opportunities" into Google's systems, according to the document.
"The risk is that when you build a back door into systems, you're not the only one to exploit it," said Matthew D. Green, a cryptography researcher at Johns Hopkins University. "Those back doors could work against U.S. communications, too."
Paul Kocher, a leading cryptographer who helped design the SSL protocol, recalled how the N.S.A. lost the heated national debate in the 1990s about inserting into all encryption a government back door called the Clipper Chip.
"And they went and did it anyway, without telling anyone," Mr. Kocher said. He said he understood the agency's mission but was concerned about the danger of allowing it unbridled access to private information.
"The intelligence community has worried about 'going dark' forever, but today they are conducting instant, total invasion of privacy with limited effort," he said. "This is the golden age of spying."
A Vital Capability
The documents are among more than 50,000 shared by The Guardian with The New York Times and ProPublica, the nonprofit news organization. They focus primarily on GCHQ but include thousands either from or about the N.S.A.
Intelligence officials asked The Times and ProPublica not to publish this article, saying that it might prompt foreign targets to switch to new forms of encryption or communications that would be harder to collect or read. The news organizations removed some specific facts but decided to publish the article because of the value of a public debate about government actions that weaken the most powerful tools for protecting the privacy of Americans and others.
The files show that the agency is still stymied by some encryption, as Mr. Snowden suggested in a question-and-answer session on The Guardian's Web site in June.
"Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on," he said, though cautioning that the N.S.A. often bypasses the encryption altogether by targeting the computers at one end or the other and grabbing text before it is encrypted or after it is decrypted.
The documents make clear that the N.S.A. considers its ability to decrypt information a vital capability, one in which it competes with China, Russia and other intelligence powers.
"In the future, superpowers will be made or broken based on the strength of their cryptanalytic programs," a 2007 document said. "It is the price of admission for the U.S. to maintain unrestricted access to and use of cyberspace."
The full extent of the N.S.A.'s decoding capabilities is known only to a limited group of top analysts from the so-called Five Eyes: the N.S.A. and its counterparts in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Only they are cleared for the Bullrun program, the successor to one called Manassas — both names of American Civil War battles. A parallel GCHQ counterencryption program is called Edgehill, named for the first battle of the English Civil War of the 17th century.
Unlike some classified information that can be parceled out on a strict "need to know" basis, one document makes clear that with Bullrun, "there will be NO 'need to know.' "
Only a small cadre of trusted contractors were allowed to join Bullrun. It does not appear that Mr. Snowden was among them, but he nonetheless managed to obtain dozens of classified documents referring to the program's capabilities, methods and sources.
Ties to Internet Companies
When the N.S.A. was founded, encryption was an obscure technology used mainly by diplomats and military officers. Over the last 20 years, with the rise of the Internet, it has become ubiquitous. Even novices can tell that their exchanges are being automatically encrypted when a tiny padlock appears next to the Web address on their computer screen.
Because strong encryption can be so effective, classified N.S.A. documents make clear, the agency's success depends on working with Internet companies — by getting their voluntary collaboration, forcing their cooperation with court orders or surreptitiously stealing their encryption keys or altering their software or hardware.
According to an intelligence budget document leaked by Mr. Snowden, the N.S.A. spends more than $250 million a year on its Sigint Enabling Project, which "actively engages the U.S. and foreign IT industries to covertly influence and/or overtly leverage their commercial products' designs" to make them "exploitable." Sigint is the abbreviation for signals intelligence, the technical term for electronic eavesdropping.
By this year, the Sigint Enabling Project had found ways inside some of the encryption chips that scramble information for businesses and governments, either by working with chipmakers to insert back doors or by surreptitiously exploiting existing security flaws, according to the documents. The agency also expected to gain full unencrypted access to an unnamed major Internet phone call and text service; to a Middle Eastern Internet service; and to the communications of three foreign governments.
In one case, after the government learned that a foreign intelligence target had ordered new computer hardware, the American manufacturer agreed to insert a back door into the product before it was shipped, someone familiar with the request told The Times.
The 2013 N.S.A. budget request highlights "partnerships with major telecommunications carriers to shape the global network to benefit other collection accesses" — that is, to allow more eavesdropping.
At Microsoft, as The Guardian has reported, the N.S.A. worked with company officials to get pre-encryption access to Microsoft's most popular services, including Outlook e-mail, Skype Internet phone calls and chats, and SkyDrive, the company's cloud storage service.
Microsoft asserted that it had merely complied with "lawful demands" of the government, and in some cases, the collaboration was clearly coerced. Executives who refuse to comply with secret court orders can face fines or jail time.
N.S.A. documents show that the agency maintains an internal database of encryption keys for specific commercial products, called a Key Provisioning Service, which can automatically decode many messages. If the necessary key is not in the collection, a request goes to the separate Key Recovery Service, which tries to obtain it.
How keys are acquired is shrouded in secrecy, but independent cryptographers say many are probably collected by hacking into companies' computer servers, where they are stored. To keep such methods secret, the N.S.A. shares decrypted messages with other agencies only if the keys could have been acquired through legal means. "Approval to release to non-Sigint agencies," a GCHQ document says, "will depend on there being a proven non-Sigint method of acquiring keys."
Simultaneously, the N.S.A. has been deliberately weakening the international encryption standards adopted by developers. One goal in the agency's 2013 budget request was to "influence policies, standards and specifications for commercial public key technologies," the most common encryption method.
Cryptographers have long suspected that the agency planted vulnerabilities in a standard adopted in 2006 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the United States' encryption standards body, and later by the International Organization for Standardization, which has 163 countries as members.
Classified N.S.A. memos appear to confirm that the fatal weakness, discovered by two Microsoft cryptographers in 2007, was engineered by the agency. The N.S.A. wrote the standard and aggressively pushed it on the international group, privately calling the effort "a challenge in finesse."
"Eventually, N.S.A. became the sole editor," the memo says.
Even agency programs ostensibly intended to guard American communications are sometimes used to weaken protections. The N.S.A.'s Commercial Solutions Center, for instance, invites the makers of encryption technologies to present their products and services to the agency with the goal of improving American cybersecurity. But a top-secret N.S.A. document suggests that the agency's hacking division uses that same program to develop and "leverage sensitive, cooperative relationships with specific industry partners" to insert vulnerabilities into Internet security products.
A Way Around
By introducing such back doors, the N.S.A. has surreptitiously accomplished what it had failed to do in the open. Two decades ago, officials grew concerned about the spread of strong encryption software like Pretty Good Privacy, or P.G.P., designed by a programmer named Phil Zimmermann. The Clinton administration fought back by proposing the Clipper Chip, which would have effectively neutered digital encryption by ensuring that the N.S.A. always had the key.
That proposal met a broad backlash from an unlikely coalition that included political opposites like Senator John Ashcroft, the Missouri Republican, and Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, as well as the televangelist Pat Robertson, Silicon Valley executives and the American Civil Liberties Union. All argued that the Clipper would kill not only the Fourth Amendment, but also America's global edge in technology.
By 1996, the White House backed down. But soon the N.S.A. began trying to anticipate and thwart encryption tools before they became mainstream.
"Every new technology required new expertise in exploiting it, as soon as possible," one classified document says.
Each novel encryption effort generated anxiety. When Mr. Zimmermann introduced the Zfone, an encrypted phone technology, N.S.A. analysts circulated the announcement in an e-mail titled "This can't be good."
But by 2006, an N.S.A. document notes, the agency had broken into communications for three foreign airlines, one travel reservation system, one foreign government's nuclear department and another's Internet service by cracking the virtual private networks that protected them.
By 2010, the Edgehill program, the British counterencryption effort, was unscrambling VPN traffic for 30 targets and had set a goal of an additional 300.
But the agencies' goal was to move away from decrypting targets' tools one by one and instead decode, in real time, all of the information flying over the world's fiber optic cables and through its Internet hubs, only afterward searching the decrypted material for valuable intelligence.
A 2010 document calls for "a new approach for opportunistic decryption, rather than targeted." By that year, a Bullrun briefing document claims that the agency had developed "groundbreaking capabilities" against encrypted Web chats and phone calls. Its successes against Secure Sockets Layer and virtual private networks were gaining momentum.
But the agency was concerned that it could lose the advantage it had worked so long to gain, if the mere "fact of" decryption became widely known. "These capabilities are among the Sigint community's most fragile, and the inadvertent disclosure of the simple 'fact of' could alert the adversary and result in immediate loss of the capability," a GCHQ document outlining the Bullrun program warned.
Corporate Pushback
Since Mr. Snowden's disclosures ignited criticism of overreach and privacy infringements by the N.S.A., American technology companies have faced scrutiny from customers and the public over what some see as too cozy a relationship with the government. In response, some companies have begun to push back against what they describe as government bullying.
Google, Yahoo and Facebook have pressed for permission to reveal more about the government's secret requests for cooperation. One small e-mail encryption company, Lavabit, shut down rather than comply with the agency's demands for what it considered confidential customer information; another, Silent Circle, ended its e-mail service rather than face similar demands.
In effect, facing the N.S.A.'s relentless advance, the companies surrendered.
Ladar Levison, the founder of Lavabit, wrote a public letter to his disappointed customers, offering an ominous warning. "Without Congressional action or a strong judicial precedent," he wrote, "I would strongly recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States."
Update (9/6): Statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence:
It should hardly be surprising that our intelligence agencies seek ways to counteract our adversaries' use of encryption. Throughout history, nations have used encryption to protect their secrets, and today, terrorists, cybercriminals, human traffickers and others also use code to hide their activities. Our intelligence community would not be doing its job if we did not try to counter that.
While the specifics of how our intelligence agencies carry out this cryptanalytic mission have been kept secret, the fact that NSA's mission includes deciphering enciphered communications is not a secret, and is not news. Indeed, NSA's public website states that its mission includes leading "the U.S. Government in cryptology … in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies."
The stories published yesterday, however, reveal specific and classified details about how we conduct this critical intelligence activity. Anything that yesterday's disclosures add to the ongoing public debate is outweighed by the road map they give to our adversaries about the specific techniques we are using to try to intercept their communications in our attempts to keep America and our allies safe and to provide our leaders with the information they need to make difficult and critical national security decisions.
John Markoff contributed reporting for The New York Times.
Jeff Larson is a reporter at ProPublica.
@thejefflarson
How to File Your State and Federal Taxes for Free in 2020
Inside a Training Course Where School Workers Learn How to Physically Restrain Students