Here's Jim Stone endorsing Edward Snowden as late as June 26, 2013:
http://jimstonefreelance.com/ecuadorsnowden.html

beginExcerpt
Jim Stone, 6/26/2013
Permalink
If the Mexican television is accurate, Ecuador just accepted Snowden. Ecuadorian President Correa delivered a scathing statement, which loosely translates as this:

"I find it appalling that the media coverage of Snowden has focused on villainizing Snowden and the countries who support him, rather than the real issue - the egregious crimes by the world's elite that Snowden has exposed. Ecuador will stand as a sovereign nation and NOT consider whether or not America is happy about what we do to protect people who have the courage and morality to stand up for what is right. The world order is not only unjust, it is immoral".

America responded by making threats to destroy Ecuador economically by applying pressure to prevent the renewal of Ecuador's membership in the Generalized System of Preferences, or GSP, which allows duty free trade between Ecuador and the U.S., as well as refusal to renew other trade agreements. America also issued scathing statements about Ecuador killing journalists and committing human rights violations, but you know, as I see it, America talks all kinds of bunk about even Mexico that is patently false. In this case, hot on the heels of murdering Hastings, it is America that has a credibility issue.

Snowden is lacking travel documents so it is yet to be seen how all of this will play out, but if I was Snowden, I'd be on the phone with the World Service Authority RIGHT NOW. Ecuador has accepted the WSA passport on a defacto basis in the past.
end




And here's Stone (9 months later) delivering the baby by discerning Snowden for what he really is, a Zionist Psy-ops: http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress3/a- ... f-snowden/

beginExcerpt
March 18 2014

http://www.jimstonefreelance.com

Ha ha ha – NSA recorded ALL CALLS from one nation, and can retrieve them from a month back? STUFF IT SNOWDEN. REALITY: The NSA has every call in America permanently stached on ultra high density digital magnetic tape and can recall anything back to 2003. It’s so densely stored that tens of millions of calls can fit on a single 50 pound tape and just be filed in a giant room with hundreds of thousands of reels. Yes, the NSA still uses tape, it’s still the best for ultra cheap storage.

Remember the Boston bomber? the patsy? Remember that? Here’s proof of what I am telling you – they were able to recall ALL PHONE CALLS MADE BY EVEN HIS WIFE going back 3 years that they admitted to and he was never suspected of anything beforehand. A MONTH? are you KIDDING? on a SINGLE country? The latest from Snowden was a pile of B.S. the size of Mount Everest.

And about magnetic tape – how big are the platters on your hard drive? Three inches across, and there is usually only one or two. What about a giant NSA magnetic tape? It’s two inches across and up to 30 miles long. How much can THAT store? And what if since I have been there they came up with something better? what they had was already good enough to do it ALL.

The “latest” from Snowden was a psy op. Next thing they will say is they can only do a few million people and go back a week, after that a few thousand and a day. FOR THE RECORD: The NSA has everything on EVERYONE for a FULL DECADE and NOTHING LESS, PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION.
end



Jim Stone is an insider with a conscience. Uncle Zook is an outsider with a conscience. When we possess conscience, we all arrive at the same destination sooner or later ... in this case, our destination is the exposition of Edward Snowden as a Zionist plot actor.

Just goes to show that even an outsider can get to the destination first if they have enough discernment.

Chico still endorses Snowden. He also endorses Assange. And too, Daniel Ellsberg of The Pentagon Papers scam and subterfuge. So what can we conclude about Chico? Piss poor discernment? Or a man without a conscience? And does it really matter all that much, seeing as both answers point to abetting the Zionist banksters and their evil ways of lying, robbing, killing, and then acting like victims?


Pax

Seriously, Zook, you misnamed this thread. Why didn't you call it "The Chico Hoax" or "Chico - man without a conscience"? I can rename it for you if you like.

Of course, if I were to choose an even more accurate title, I would call it "Zook's False-Flag".

You have been on a mission to destroy my "credibility" ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ), which is kind of funny to me, since I don't jump through hoops like you do to build up the illusion of credibility. I'm not about painting a perception of myself as credible, nor am I about "endorsing" other people as credible. These are things you do, much like Bill Ryan and other identified sociopaths.

Here you post a new thread trying to contrast Edward Snowden and Jim Stone, with the purpose of damaging the credibility of one while enhancing the credibility of the other. Both men are saying pretty much the same thing, varying only in the degree of the NSA archive depth, which no one can verify anyway since it is classified "for reasons of national security". Based on that small difference of degree, you want to condemn Snowden and venerate Stone. And then, by associating me only to Snowden, you condemn me in the same breath, when I have actually highlighted the stories and claims of both men for a long time.

What kind of people think of these grotesque and degenerate false-flag operations?

Why? Perhaps because you're just an afterthought and not the main focus of the thread. Don't personalize things so much.



Neither of us have to jump through hoops to get our respective credibilities broadcast. Our respective commitments to the truths (and the truthseekers) alone accomplishes that. And you've been idenitified as a man without a conscience (or a man with a severely damaged conscience, take your pick) ... on account of your own commitment to the Zionist empire's shills, their propagandizing mix of information and disinformation, and their outright lies.

Even in this very post you have trouble distinguishing a truthseeker like myself ... from Scientologist-alumni and shepherd of the blessed unrest, Bill Ryan, who has trouble himself distinguishing reality from a personal share of the Pendragon throne.

That you consistently attack truthseekers, our discernment, and our warranted certainty; and equally, defend gatekeepers, their lack of discernment, and their unwarranted uncertainty ... is your burden to bear, Chico.

Again, this thread is about Jim Stone's integrity and Edward Snowden's lack of integrity. For instance, Snowden perpetuates the myth of the phony Osama bin Laden raid and capture in Pakistan (2011).

https://truthnewsinternational.wordpres ... -assanged/

beginExcerpt
And what about Snowden?

Well, if 9/11 was a conspiracy or not, according to Snowden, remains unclear. But here is where it gets very interesting for the truth movement. The Washington Post and Examiner reported that Snowden leaked documents about the 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden. A raid that was FAKE in every meaning of the word.

Why? Well…
end

No doubt, Chico - dear conspicuous, compromised, confusion-oriented Chico - you will try to explain away this glaring damning detail exposing Snowden as a leaker of fake stuff (e.g. propaganda) ... as something other than what it entails.



Yours is outright deception. Stone and Snowden are contrasted by their respective commitments to the truths. Stone has yet to stumble in ths commitment. Snowden has already stumbled significantly (e.g. his endorsement of the official narrative of the Boston Bombings; of the purported bin Laden Pakistan capture; of Wikileaks and Assange: etc.).

In short, Stone's credibility stands on its own merits; Snowden's credibility collapses on its false foundation.

And here, Chico - being the manipulator that he is - would have me be the arbiter of their respective credibilities as opposed to what they themselves have reported, e.g. to earn their respective credibilities.



Not at all. The archives are rife with your deceptions, Chico ... as well as your cheap easy of calling me a sociopath each time you get the opportunity and every Iime I expose your game. Indeed, whenever you call me a sociopath from now on, I have resolved to wear it like a badge of honor, for it really means you have finally come to terms with my empathic constitution ... and are lashing out as per that famous quote (whose origins have been attributed to multiple personalities): "First they ignore you; then they ridicule you; then they attack you; then you win."

You're attacking me now ... so victory should be around the corner.

Pax

Let's examine why you are so focused on credibility, Zook. It's a matter of psychology, the behavioral science you are always trying to denigrate (i.e. render less credible). As you know, sociopaths are all about gaining power and control over others, which is why they rely so heavily on deception as a manipulative tool. Deception only works when others believe your lies. That means you must appear credible to them. Anyone questioning your lies must be made to appear non-credible. Credibility becomes the key to successful deception. Not true credibility, mind you, but deceptive credibility. The deceiver is not credible in the least, but must project the illusion of being highly credible.

We see that other sociopaths like George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton (and even Bill Ryan) rely on the illusion of credibility as much as you do, Zook. From their perspective, the appearance of credibility is crucial to being believed. The deception won't fly without it.

The opposite applies to me and other non-sociopaths. Having power and control over others means little to us, because we have empathy for others. We don't want anyone lording over us, so we don't lord over others. It's simply not what we consider important. As a result, we aren't focused on deceiving and manipulating others. Since we don't rely on deception, our credibility is not an issue. It doesn't matter much whether people believe what we have to say or not. It only matters that we believe in our own minds that what we say is truthful. That is why non-sociopaths can be genuine truth-seekers, and sociopaths cannot.

So now you can understand why your efforts to denigrate my credibility are a non-issue to me, while being so very important to you. Personally, I don't care whether anyone believes what I have to say or not. I'm not selling a deception; I'm simply trying to see through one (the Matrix, i.e. the ruling sociopath's artificially constructed reality). I have the same attitude as my friend who was the first to tell me that 9/11 was an inside job. This was completely contrary to my media-induced brainwashing, and I thought he was nuts. "Don't believe me," he said. "Do the research yourself." I did exactly that, just to prove him wrong, and that's how I learned for myself that the official 9/11 story was a lie. My friend didn't care one whit whether I found him credible or not. Nor was he interested in destroying my credibility. All he cared about is pursuing the truth. I'm the same way, whereas you, Zook, clearly are not. Bolstering your own credibility is of utmost importance to you, while simultaneously trying to denigrate mine. Your own threads here, including this one, are clearly constructed by you for that very purpose! "Don't believe me. Do the research yourself." You can start by rereading your opening post in this thread, followed by the 16 links I included in my prior post.

Credibility stems from one's commitment to the truths. No attempt at lifting my credibility will confer on me more credibility than I deserve. And no attempt at lowering my credibility will subtract from me any credibility that I deserve. Same holds for Zook, Chico and the two Bills (Clinton and Ryan).

Clinton fails the credibility test because of his lack of commitment to the truths, not because you or I decree that he should fail.

Ditto for Bill Ryan.

Ditto for Chico. (Heebert, Assange/Snowden/Ellsberg bootlicking, ignoring the real import of Fukushima, etc.)

Zook has yet to demonstrate failure in the credibility test ... and not because he is some kind of super saintly being who is blessing the masses with abundant gifts of honesty never before seen in the masses ... but because Zook simply dares to observe the facts through an objective lens and not through either rose-colored peepers or blinders.

At this point, it would be helpful to invoke Sesame Street's "Which One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others". (Yup ... there's Zook flailing his arms wildly in the mezzanine ... he appears to be shouting: "Me! Me! Over here ... me!")

One apple to three oranges.

Don't expect to become an apple, Chico, until you show some restraint in your bootlicking.



There' s no illusion with me, Chico ... nor delusions about things. But I'll let the good folks decide who is being illusional and delusional. I'm sure I'm not the only one (reading this forum) that has come to the same conclusion, namely, that you're deliberately and consistently dragging all messages that have been posted here (at United People) ... messages that offend the Zionist bankstering empire ... into a cul-de-sac of messenger theatre.



Keep waxing your deceptions, Chico, Shenanigan Clown of Heebert Town. The proof still resides in the respective messages that you and I post, not in any imagined natures you have decided upon. Exempli gratia, your imagined empathic nature and the imagined sociopathic nature you have conferred upon me.





There's been no effort to denigrate you unnecessarily, Chico. Any effort that brings you into a comparison of Stone and Snowden is purely to hold you accountable for your complicity in the Zionist propaganda matrix and its concerted drive in ramping up both confusion, and the incidence of psychological fingerpointing. In this double agenda, you've shown yourself to be a willing accomplice through your consistent natter (as pertains to uncertainty and sociopathy). The Zionist matrix wants the masses marinating in the timelessness of sociopathy and, too, idling in the infinite spaces of uncertainty. Such masses pose little risk to the rulers of the matrix.



When someone calls me a sociopath ... I already know they are either delusional (in the best case) or complicit (in the worst). I've already given you many opportunities to cease and desist with your arguments of unwarranted uncertainty ... not to mention the unmitigated folly of looking for a solution to the timeless problem of sociopathy (especially given the limited time we have to stop FSD).

It's my own abundant empathy that is fueling my patience, e.g. so I can have the necessary focus in getting the message out about the bankster corruptions (in spite of your deliberate nonsense andf attempts to obstruct me).

And yes, for me, my integrity/credibility is worth all the space and all the matter in the known Universe. I'm only sorry that you don't have a similar appreciation for your own integrity/credibility. And no, my integrity/credibility is not bolstered by my asserting it ... it is bolstered by my demonstrating it. Know the difference and join the league of critical thinkers.


Pax

You clearly have no commitment to the truth, Zook, when you can't even distinguish name-calling from a preponderance of evidence.

You appear to be in a very determined state of denial, Zook, but like your certainty, that denial is just a symptom of your psychology. Believing your discernment reigns supreme locks you into that behavior. So you can't help but continue to discredit your detractors using nothing but smooth-talking rhetoric. You have no real evidence to back up anything you claim, and you can offer no real evidence to counter all the evidence I present. Despite your complete lack of evidence, you continue to claim you are the one and only genuine truth-seeker available, while I am obviously in the service of the "Zionist bankstering empire".

Do you really think anyone will believe your deceptive tripe?

If they do, fine. It doesn't affect my search for truth. An idea does not gain truth as it gains followers, regardless of their perceived credibility. I will continue to weigh the "truths" regardless of where I find them, be it from Julian Assange, Jim Stone, Edward Snowden, or Uncle Zook. It is not necessary that anyone believe what I say, or what my "endorsed" messengers say, because it's not about me or them. It's about uncovering the truth.

So I encourage all readers to not believe me concerning your psychological orientation, or Bill Clinton's, or Poppy Bush's, or mine. Don't take my word for it, or theirs. Inquiring minds should do the research themselves, questioning everything and dismissing nothing. The truth is out there.