Sibel Edmonds destroys Glenn Greenwald

[RocketMan]

Likewise is your fascination with what you describe as thinly disguised gay-hating

I think Mrs. Edmonds' snide attitude towards the fact that Greenwald is in a relationship with a man is beyond question. Calling it "gay-hating" may be pushing it, but it's certainly within the realm of homophobic discourse.

[Spiro C. Thiery]

Likewise is your fascination with what you describe as thinly disguised gay-hating

I think Mrs. Edmonds' snide attitude towards the fact that Greenwald is in a relationship with a man is beyond question. Calling it "gay-hating" may be pushing it, but it's certainly within the realm of homophobic discourse.

I agree that it is within that realm. I nevertheless believe that her metaphorical depiction of the "damsel in distress"--albeit overdone--was an accurate one.

[Nordic]

The form of her writing isn't her strong suit.

The content of what she writes is.

[vanlose kid]

5 Unnerving Documents Showing Ties Between Greenwald, Omidyar & Booz Allen Hamilton

1

26 days ago

UPDATE: Greenwald has published this response, which is appreciated. It is certainly a step in the right direction and he is correct that it isn't fair to single him out when Poitras has equal holding of docs. Let's keep the dialogue going.

http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2014/01 ... first.html

12/29/2013

These are the facts:

1. Omidyar is funding a $250 million dollar new media venture with Glenn Greenwald based on the Snowden documents.

2. Omidyar Network and Booz Allen Hamilton are both partners/investors of InnoCentive.

3. Omidyar Network and a member of the Board of Directors of Booz Allen Hamilton, Philip Odeen, are both major shareholders of Globant. Sal Giambanco, a partner at Omidyar Network, is on the Board of Advisors of Globant. Philip Odeen is on the Board of Directors of Globant.

4. Dhaya Lakshminarayanan, Michael Kent, Pranay Chulet and Patricia Sosrodjojo have all worked in strategic positions at both Omidyar Network and Booz Allen Hamilton.

Here are the questions:

Is this all circumstantial evidence? Are these connections acceptable or not given the gravity and sensitivity of the global surveillance situation?

Has a revolving door of corporations with government ties regained a degree of control over the documents that were leaked by Snowden? What are the full intentions of First Post (NewCo, the $250 million dollar new media venture between Greenwald, billionaire Pierre Omidyar and others)?

Is there a conflict of interest between Omidyar Network, Booz Allen Hamilton, Sal Giambanco (Partner of Omidyar Network and Globant), Philip Odeen (Partner of Booz Allen Hamilton and Globant), Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, the NewCo & the National Security community?

What does Edward Snowden think of these connections and the massive profit being generated from his disclosures? Is he upset about it or is he getting a slice of the pie? Ed! Let us know what's going on!

When will the rest of the documents will be released? Will any be withheld and why?

Where do you draw the line between 'non-publishable' leaked intel and information the public has a right to know?

Why aren't these questions being deeply engaged by mainstream press? Why is most of the alternative press ignoring it?

"To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire

***

Step back for a minute and look below at this publicly accessible document showing cooperation in "Innocentive" between Booz Allen Hamilton (Snowden's former employer) and Omidyar Network (Funding Greenwald in a $250 million media venture based around Snowden docs). Is it not unsettling that we are seeing these two names on the same page in a collaborative context anywhere at all? It doesn't help that InnoCentive happens to be a global data mining enterprise. It also doesn't help that In-Q-Tel, the CIA's venture capital arm, is DIRECTLY next to Omidyar Network on this document.

It rings of Operation Mockingbird, the covert CIA program to influence media. Let's also remember that In-Q-Tel has investment ties to many popular social media sites today, most of whom are implicated in the PRISM slides.




Below are 4 pages of SEC filing documents dug up in securities archives which show cross pollination of Sal Giambanco (Omidyar Network) and Philip Odeen (Booz) in a new technology firm called Globant. Omidyar Network Fund and Philip Odeen both appear to be major shareholders. Philip Odeen is on the Board of Directors and Sal Giambanco is on the Board of Advisors. This is not in itself proof of collusion between Omidyar and Booz Allen Hamilton, but it is further evidence of the close ties in human resources and 'talent'. They are playing in the same ballpark, and that is unsettling.











The purpose of this next image is purely to give more context about who Philip Odeen is and who his connections are. His experience is basically deep in the military industrial complex with close ties to Lockheed Martin (Defense Contractor) and The Carlyle Group (Former partnership between Bush and Bin Laden families).





The most important factor in resolving these types of questions is constant communication. If the steady flow of Q and A is resisted, then suspicions will point in that direction. The recent series of articles by Boiling Frogs Post are very forthright in requesting specific answers from the mentioned parties about these issues (linked below). The answers still have not come. Only vague statements and name-calling on Twitter. Why?

The camps seem pretty split on this controversy overall. I am going to hold judgement until we get further statements from all parties, but it seems Wikileaks, Cryptome, William Binney, Alexa O'Brien and others are certainly curious why Greenwald isn't confronting this issue headon. Instead he calls Sibel Edmonds a lunatic when she is clearly more than justified in posing the questions that she has and has a proven track record as whistleblower/journalist.

Is it possible for Silicon Valley VC firms with ties to the NSA and CIA to fund honest independent media ventures that support whistleblowers? Could they keep the tentacles of corruption out and treat it objectively? Was Greenwald aware of these connections prior to making the deal? Time will tell.




Sources:


Globant IPO SEC Filing REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 - This document connects Omidyar Network - Globant - Booz Allen Hamilton

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... 224_f1.htm

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/fili ... id=9058064


106 Startups Who Received Investment from the C.I.A. + Most Frequent In-Q-Tel Co-Investors. Omidyar included:

http://mattermark.com/106-startups-who- ... investors/


Lilly Ventures (Investment branch of Eli Lilly) are clear links between Omidyar Network, Booz Allen Hamilton and InQtel: all investors in Innocentive

http://www.lillyventures.com/our-portfo ... folioId=21


NSA-linked consortium called Innocentive includes members Omidyar Network, Booz Allen Hamilton, InQTel

http://www.innocentive.com/innocentive- ... artnership

http://www.innocentive.com/about-innoce ... n-partners


Eli Lilly Pharma invested in MK-ULTRA Mind Control Projects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra


Palantir - InQTel backed data mining firm with direct ties to intel community

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenbe ... uggernaut/

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201309 ... ding.shtml

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenbe ... wikileaks/


Globant - The company linking Sal Giambanco (Omidyar Network) and Philip Odeen (Booz Allen Hamilton)

http://www.globant.com/corp/company/con ... d-advisors



Booz Allen Hamilton - Board of Directors - Philip Odeen

http://investing.businessweek.com/resea ... ticker=BAH

http://www.boozallen.com/about/leadersh ... p/48657703
Mr. Philip A. Odeen - 2013 CRDF Global Annual Awards Gala

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpY-tgNQ5ss

http://www.boozallen.com/about/leadersh ... p/48657703


Sal Giambanco Leads Human Capital & Operations Functions of Omidyar Network

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc8tDLlCDAI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwa8PMXhGm4 (Omidyar Network pitch)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuVauzwbQjM (Managing Through Change 1)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsAhWrVQu2s (Managing Through Change 2)


Omidyar Network - BOARD MEMBERS AFFILIATED WITH Salvatore J. Giambanco - Philip Odeen

http://investing.businessweek.com/resea ... =WPP%20PLC


Innocentive - Booz Allen Hamilton Connection

http://www.innocentive.com/about-innoce ... n-partners


Paypal Co-Founder (Pierre Omidyar Partner) Defends NSA Surveillance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7CxIL2O1wQ


Saving Agent Snowden From His Handlers Greenwald & Omidyar By Yoichi Shimatsu 10-24-13

http://www.rense.com/general96/saving.html


Snowden’s documents now safely in the hands of the Omidyar Network By Wayne Madsen Posted on October 23, 2013

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/11190
Who’s Controlling The Snowden Documents and to What Purpose? http://www.infowars.com/whos-controllin ... t-purpose/


Pierre Omidyar Provides Initial Funding of $50M to Establish First Look Media

http://omidyargroup.com/pov/firstlookmedia/





Glenn Greenwald profile and articles in The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/profile/glenn-greenwald



Boiling Frogs Post - Sibel Edmonds :


Mr. Snowden, It’s Time to Come Out and Take a Stand Publicly as to Your Intentions - See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/12 ... 1tTPd.dpuf


Green-Light for Greenwald: Government Duplicity or Government Duality? - See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/12 ... Jf5ZR.dpuf


Greenwald-Omidyar Joint Venture: The Blurring Lines Between Being A Source & Being A Journalist - See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/12 ... SUMpG.dpuf


Glenn Greenwald Goes on Record: “I Don’t Doubt PayPal Cooperates with NSA!” - See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/12 ... 52Hl3.dpuf


BFP Breaking News- Omidyar’s PayPal Corporation Said To Be Implicated in Withheld NSA Documents - See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/12 ... Pq9TU.dpuf


Checkbook Journalism & Leaking to the Highest Bidders - See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/12 ... J7EKW.dpuf




Inconsistencies and Unanswered Questions: The Risks of Trusting the Snowden Story

http://www.globalresearch.ca/inconsiste ... ry/5363262

****

http://www.minds.com/blog/view/26419935 ... n-hamilton

[Nordic]

Great find, Vanlose Kid.

[vanlose kid]

*

Dissidence, and Dissidents, that Even Hollywood Can Love

The most revolutionary and significant aspect of the promise that WikiLeaks offered the world was its radical method of disseminating information. Beginning in very early childhood, all of us are taught to rely on authority figures for everything: for personal and professional advancement and fulfillment, for opportunities of all kinds, for survival itself. Most damningly, we are all taught to rely on authorities for what to think: for our opinions on what books and movies to like or to revile, for our political views, for our perspectives on other people -- and even for our view of ourselves. Information comes to us only after it has passed through numerous filters: via our parents in the first instance, then through our teachers and professors, later on from bosses at work and "tastemakers" and trendsetters in the social sphere, and from "experts" in any field which claims complexity for itself that is not amenable to understanding by laypeople. (I note in passing that every subject in the world should be communicable in a manner that makes it fully understandable to a basically functioning adult. By every subject, I mean every subject, including quantum physics. If an "expert" claims that he cannot make an idea understandable to you, he's trying to get away with something. I suggest that you treat any pronouncement from all such individuals with the greatest skepticism of which you are capable. In short: don't believe a word they say.)

WikiLeaks eliminated the filters -- and most people were horrified. One of the most fascinating revelations in the widespread response to WikiLeaks' work was that the disapproval of its basic approach -- disapproval which ranged from contained but pointed tut-tutting ("My dear, we simply cannot function this way as a society!") to outright loathing -- was spread throughout the continuum of political views. Many of those on the left were as undone by WikiLeaks as those on the right, thus confirming that our culture's insistence on the primary virtue of obedience to authority transcends comparatively superficial political distinctions.

Because it is crucial to what follows, I offer this summary of WikiLeaks' methodology:

[WikiLeaks] transfers the demanding work -- understanding the material in the first instance, and then making those judgments we think justified -- to each and every one of us. Many people don't want the responsibility. Their greatest preference is to defer to authority, to obey. WikiLeaks deprives them of that opportunity. One of the results is that many people profoundly resent WikiLeaks and wish only that it would instantly dissolve into nothingness.

This particular resentment stands largely separate and apart from a writer's political beliefs, and you find it on both right and left. It is more deeply personal than political convictions alone. WikiLeaks allows people no excuse merely to obey, and they no longer have justification for being intellectually lazy. WikiLeaks' critics often decry the manner in which government systematically and increasingly disregards citizens' voices and concerns -- but present them with the means to take back their own power in a meaningful way, and they recoil in horror. In addition to being invaluable in itself, WikiLeaks' work provides this additional benefit: it reveals many people's actual motivations and concerns. And one great truth that has been revealed (again) by this latest episode is that the majority of people want to be guided by authority, by "experts," by those with "secret information." Give them that "secret information" so they can judge it for themselves and they immediately cry: "Oh, we can't possibly understand that! Only the State, or 'experts,' can be trusted with that information and explain it to us!" Most people want to obey. They've been taught obedience as the primary virtue, and they now believe the lesson and have fully internalized it.

For a detailed discussion of this issue, see "In Praise of Mess, Chaos and Panic," and the essays referenced there.

As I set out in "In Praise of Mess" and developed further here and here, WikiLeaks' methodology stands in stark contrast to that used by the journalists to whom Edward Snowden gave his document trove. These journalists insist that filtering of the "raw" documents is indispensable to understanding by the otherwise untutored (and, presumably, unwashed) public. These journalists will first select which documents we will be permitted to see, and which we won't (which is most of them). But that is far from sufficient in the view of these journalists, who are gifted with powers of understanding and judgment far exceeding the abilities of us ordinary schmucks. We are told that the Snowden documents are "difficult" and "complex." Therefore, when we are allowed an occasional glimpse of carefully selected documents, these journalists will explain to us what we should think of them, and what conclusions we are entitled to reach. These self-appointed authorities are genuinely dedicated to the role they have granted themselves: they will guide us in every step we take. Our "protectors" will guard from all the dangers that might unleash chaos resulting in the immediate implosion of the rigid structures that narrowly circumscribe our lives: an original thought, a unique perspective, an unexpected insight.

If you are an unreconstructed and unsalvageable advocate of spontaneity and universe-shattering chaos, a troubling thought might occur to you at this point. In terms of basic approach, what choice is there between a State which is committed to constantly increasing its control over every aspect of our lives -- and "experts" who are determined to shepherd us through each step of accessing and evaluating information, even information which directly affects every aspect of our lives? A few of you are thinking that this is no choice at all. Obviously, you're entirely correct. You need to bathe in scalding water, and pray for deliverance from the gods of authority. It is pitiful that these journalist-"experts" are commonly regarded as presenting a serious challenge to the authoritarian State. It is equally pitiful that most of those on the left (broadly speaking) subscribe to this same view. This is further evidence of the universality of our training in the primacy of obedience. If you think authoritarianism is confined to the right, you have failed to pay attention in recent years, and you have missed much of history.

The radical nature of WikiLeaks' approach could conceivably be dramatized in a film, but it would require a writer and director of extraordinary talent and imagination. Such a film would also depend on creators willing to challenge our culture's widespread condemnation of WikiLeaks. People of this kind are unusual in any culture, and they are unheard of in Hollywood. It is only to be expected that The Fifth Estate, the Disney film about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange that opens later this week, sounds absolutely dreadful, as detailed in this valuable article: "Disney's Ode to State Repression." The writer notes that the film "serves as a rolling character assassination of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange," and goes on to write:

Wikileaks has been at the forefront of the contemporary effort to push out uncensored, unvarnished data about crimes that range from corporate banking scandals to the U.S. massacre of Reuters reporters in Iraq. What really catches in the government’s craw? You’re free to review and assess that data unencumbered by big media spin or government censorship. How else to explain the feds’ debauched assault on independent journalist Barrett Brown, who’s facing over 100 years in prison for essentially repasting a publicly available link that contained publicly available data “that he was researching in his capacity as a journalist,” according to his lawyer.

Two principles have formed the core of Wikileaks’ operative mores since its formation: uncensored information and a rigorous commitment to protect the anonymity of the whistleblowers who provide that information. Unsurprisingly, authoritarian governments, criminal corporate enterprises and their toadies just hate these two prongs of potential exposure – full disclosure of primary source material and protection of the sources of that information.

The article mentions the central importance of anonymity several more times. This sentence leapt out at me:

Anonymity undermines managed dissent, and we live in an age of managed dissent.

From the State's perspective, anonymity is deeply troubling. Threats to the State's control can come from anywhere; when the State is unable to identify the sources of leaks, it is much more difficult to strengthen the State's protections. What -- and whom -- does the State need to protect itself from? The State doesn't know.

Anonymity is also critical in terms of the questions of method I've raised. When we don't know the identity of a leaker, it is impossible to make the resulting story(ies) about the personalities of the players. Our sole focus must be on the content of the leaks, regardless of the source. And in fact, this is ideally how we should evaluate all information: on its own merits, on the strength of the arguments offered, regardless of the person involved. When we don't even know the person involved, most people's temptation to focus on comparatively trivial matters is removed at the outset.

With these factors in mind, it is instructive to consider the Snowden stories from an additional perspective, and to go back to close to the beginning. One question immediately comes to mind: Why, exactly, do we know Edward Snowden's identity? I will admit (somewhat to my chagrin) that I failed to analyze this question with the care it demands; I will now attempt to rectify what I consider an error of some consequence. But as the NSA stories first appeared, I experienced what I know many others experienced. I was filled with admiration and gratitude for the enormous risks Snowden had chosen to run. Since it was unarguable that Snowden had put his life on the line, I was strongly disinclined to examine his behavior in a serious way. And I must emphasize even now that I do not engage in this discussion to raise questions about Snowden's character or about him personally. As I hope will be clear, my major concern is Snowden's self-identification with regard to the NSA stories themselves and how they are being offered to us. (I will also acknowledge that the analysis that follows does contain implications concerning Snowden's character, but for the most part, I will leave the reader to draw what conclusions he will on his own.)

Snowden explained why he identified himself in his first interview with Glenn Greenwald:

Greenwald: "One of the extraordinary parts about this episode is usually whistleblowers do what they do anonymously and take steps to remain anonymous for as long as they can, which they hope often is forever. You on the other hand have decided to do the opposite, which is to declare yourself openly as the person behind these disclosures. Why did you choose to do that?"

Snowden: "I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model. When you are subverting the power of government that's a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy and if you do that in secret consistently as the government does when it wants to benefit from a secret action that it took, it'll kind of give its officials a mandate to go, 'Hey tell the press about this thing and that thing so the public is on our side.' But they rarely, if ever, do that when an abuse occurs. That falls to individual citizens but they're typically maligned. It becomes a thing of 'These people are against the country. They're against the government' but I'm not."

"I'm no different from anybody else. I don't have special skills. I'm just another guy who sits there day to day in the office, watches what's happening and goes, 'This is something that's not our place to decide, the public needs to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong.' And I'm willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them and say, 'I didn't change these, I didn't modify the story. This is the truth; this is what's happening. You should decide whether we need to be doing this.'"

Other statements from Snowden confirm these as the primary reasons that led him to come forward.

Snowden contends that "the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures." Why? In terms of the documents' contents, the motives of a particular leaker are entirely irrelevant. Snowden's motives don't alter what the documents say, or the programs they describe. Is Snowden suggesting that we should view the documents in light of his own character? That appears to be the implication. But as I suggested above, this is absolutely the wrong way to approach any information. The information is what it is; the identity of the person offering it should be of no concern to us at all. (There are rare exceptions to this rule, but none are relevant here.)

Snowden says that leaks like his "subvert[] the power of government," and "that's a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy." He worries that people might conclude he's "against the government," so he identified himself in part to assure everyone that he's not "against the government." In other words: he doesn't wish to threaten the State in any serious way. Even though he himself thinks that the State's surveillance powers threaten liberty and privacy, he is not committed to eliminating that threat. He wants "the public" to "decide whether we need to be doing this." It thus appears that if "the public" approves total surveillance by the State, that outcome would be satisfactory to him in the most important sense (and despite the fact that he himself would choose differently). Any outcome would be all right, as long as "democracy" approves it after being informed of the relevant facts.

Snowden identified himself for an additional reason: if he insisted on personal anonymity, he is concerned that the State might treat that as a sanction for the State's own secrecy practices. We might observe that the State hardly needs encouragement from Snowden (or anyone else) for its insistence on as much secrecy as it can get away with. We might also observe that a lone individual who incurs the wrath of the State -- especially a State which proclaims its "right" to murder anyone it chooses, whenever it wishes -- is hardly on equal footing with the State itself. (Do I actually need to say this? Apparently, I do.) No reasonable person could question Snowden's desire to protect himself as fully as possible from the murderous anger of the State. And Snowden himself indicates that he's well aware that the State might attempt to kill him. With regard to his personal safety, we should also note this passage from a Guardian article that accompanied that first interview:

The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong," he said.

I obviously agree with Snowden that he's "done nothing wrong." And it's lovely that he himself believes that -- but, honestly, what does his own conviction on this point (or mine, or yours) have to do with anything? Most importantly, what does it have to do with the State's view of him, and with what the State is prepared to do about its own view? Nothing, nothing at all.

I am not aware of any additional arguments Snowden has offered for identifying himself. As I indicated, Snowden has repeated these arguments in different forms, but the arguments are the same. (If you know of additional arguments he's made on this point, please let me know, although I strongly doubt they will alter my conclusions.) The reasons he offers for identifying himself are notably weak tea: they are irrelevant, or wrong, or wildly misplaced. At best, we can only say that Snowden is extremely naive. Despite his very strong criticisms of the State's surveillance activities, he seems to have a curiously sanitized view of the State with which he is contending. He seeks to assure the State that his disclosures don't represent a serious threat to State power, or at a minimum that he hopes they will not. In effect, he's hoping his disclosures will lead all of us, including the powerful ruling class, to say: "We need to talk."

Among my other reactions, I find all this extraordinarily puzzling. It becomes even more puzzling when we consider Snowden's repeated insistence that he doesn't want to be "the story" himself. If he had remained anonymous, he couldn't be the story. So he made himself a key element of the story by identifying himself when he didn't need to, and for reasons which are singularly unconvincing. And remember that he identified himself while he was still in Hong Kong. The result was that he was suddenly in the midst of a terribly dangerous situation. He only managed to get out of Hong Kong with great difficulty, and then his efforts to find asylum were hugely complicated by the fact that his identity was known throughout the world. (If we accept the fact that Snowden himself was very naive about the dangers he faced, there surely must have been others -- for instance, the all-knowing journalists with whom he was interacting -- who appreciated those dangers, or should have. Couldn't they at least have convinced him to withhold his identity until after he was in a country that had granted him even temporary asylum?)

Snowden's self-identification becomes somewhat less puzzling when we look at another element that was introduced in the story at the same time: the contrast with Chelsea Manning and WikiLeaks. From that same early Guardian article:

Snowden said that he admires both Ellsberg and Manning, but argues that there is one important distinction between himself and the army private, whose trial coincidentally began the week Snowden's leaks began to make news.

"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."

He purposely chose, he said, to give the documents to journalists whose judgment he trusted about what should be public and what should remain concealed.

Look carefully at the second and third paragraphs in that excerpt. Note the huge contradiction they contain. On one hand, Snowden claims that he "carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest" -- while the story goes on to state (and this is a claim that has been repeated numerous times) that he chose "to give the documents to journalists whose judgment he trusted about what should be public and what should remain concealed."

If, in fact, Snowden "carefully evaluated every single document" he disclosed, and determined that "each was legitimately in the public interest," why do these trusted journalists have to determine "what should be public" all over again? (We might conclude that the involved parties simply believe that you can never have too many filters. Given the way in which the NSA stories are being ever more fitfully delivered to us, I wouldn't be disposed to argue with that view.) This element of the story never made any sense. But if you disbelieve Snowden's claim that he "carefully evaluated every single document," the mystery vanishes -- and Tarzie recently demonstrated that Snowden's claim cannot be true.

I began by describing the genuinely radical methodology employed by WikiLeaks. Just how radical that methodology is, was reflected in the title of one of my WikiLeaks essays from three years ago: "A World without Obedience or Authority: Toward a Life of One's Own, and a Real Revolution." The promise that WikiLeaks held out is one that the custodians of the Snowden leak strongly reject. Greenwald is at pains to constantly reiterate his admiration for WikiLeaks and Manning, but the manner in which he markets the NSA stories contradicts that claimed admiration at the most fundamental level. Beginning with that early Guardian article, Greenwald & Co. repeatedly emphasize that Snowden and the superlatively wise journalists overseeing the NSA stories are "responsible," and "careful," that they make certain never to endanger anyone or anything. They're not "against the government," and they certainly do not wish to threaten it in any serious manner. They want a "debate," and they want "reform." But as I've noted, "reform" of what I term the Death State is an exercise in unbridled, unreflective, and decidedly unserious fantasy. When he speaks of his and his compatriots' "responsibility" and "care" in recent days, Greenwald doesn't mention WikiLeaks or Manning by name -- but he doesn't need to. There is only one other leak story in the past few years that equals (and exceeds, in my view) the NSA stories, and everyone knows what it is.

The unavoidable implication of the way the NSA stories are marketed is that the NSA stories represent "good" leaking, while WikiLeaks represents "bad" leaking. Greenwald & Co. are "responsible," WikiLeaks is not. Greenwald & Co. are "careful," WikiLeaks is not. Greenwald & Co. are superbly protective of everyone on the planet, including the murderous ruling class, while WikiLeaks endangers every constituted authority and everyone who exercises destructive political power. And the fact that we know who Snowden is and was offers an additional benefit. From that same Guardian story, one more time:

He has had "a very comfortable life" that included a salary of roughly $200,000, a girlfriend with whom he shared a home in Hawaii, a stable career, and a family he loves.

A "good" whistleblower with a conscience that works overtime (even on behalf of those who would kill you in an instant, just for being there), who gave up big bucks -- and even gave up a hot babe with whom he cavorted on Hawaii's beautiful beaches. At sunset, no doubt.

The movie writes itself, doesn't it? It was all there, right from the beginning. We should have seen it:

For more than a week, Hollywood has been exploring what could be one of the most difficult nonfiction projects it has ever tried: a proposed film based on the journalist Glenn Greenwald’s planned book about Edward J. Snowden, the fugitive whistle-blower.

As of late Friday, it was not clear that any studio had secured a deal. But 20th Century Fox, Sony Pictures Entertainment and the cable television powerhouse HBO were among potential buyers that had considered the project, according to several people who were briefed on it, but spoke on condition of anonymity because of confidentiality strictures

Mr. Greenwald’s planned book, which is based on his close contact with Mr. Snowden and promises fresh revelations about government and corporate intelligence-gathering, is set for publication next March by Macmillan’s Metropolitan Books imprint.

(The Times article is via Tarzie, who has thankfully been all over numerous aspects of this story.)

I don't want to be misunderstood. I am obviously not suggesting that the NSA stories were designed from the outset with the goal of marketing what is potentially a blockbuster film to Hollywood. That would be ridiculously trivial, and hopelessly beside the point. What I am arguing is what I regard as far worse. The self-appointed authorities who sporadically deliver the NSA stories to us, "carefully" and "responsibly" selected, sanitized, and redacted, have no quarrel with obedience or authority in the manner WikiLeaks does, more's the pity. They obviously have no such quarrel, for they act as authorities themselves, and they do this with regard to what might have been a game-changer if handled in a fundamentally different way. But their gatekeeping has served and continues to serve to defang these stories of any meaningful danger to authority they might have had, just as their insistence on their own "responsibility" and "care" makes the NSA stories thoroughly "respectable" -- and thoroughly safe. They don't want to seriously threaten anything at all, much less overthrow it. They want a "debate," after which you are free to choose tyrannical, murderous rule, if that's what you want.

The article about The Fifth Estate excerpted above makes clear how Hollywood will treat anyone who represents a genuine threat: he will be subject to character assassination, his motives and character will be despoiled, and the crucial significance of the methodology he championed will be ignored. That article offers this further observation:

While the The Fifth Estate script includes a couple of toss-away bromides about Wikileaks’ commitment to the anonymity of its whistle-blowing information providers, its real thrust is to boost the fabricated ‘common sense’ notion that some information just isn’t ready for prime time consumption, ergo we should rely on ‘responsible’ outlets like The New York Times to parse the data for us.

To which we can add, "responsible" outlets like The Guardian.

But we have a noble, self-sacrificing hero, some danger but not too much, and even Hawaiian beaches. It's all so respectable and safe that I'm sure Tom Hanks will be happy to star (Jennifer Lawrence will have a delicious cameo as Snowden's girlfriend), and Steven Spielberg will be thrilled to direct. Fabulous. And all the leading real-life characters are well-prepared and well-practiced for their interviews. We might say they're ready for their close-ups. What a fucking great country.

It's enough to make you weep, isn't it? Yes, I thought it might.

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/20 ... -even.html

*

[JackRiddler]

I am not convinced that what you did in this thread isn't rather display a certain obsequiousness towards the hero myth as it relates to the next untouchable in the mighty drama of our day.

Yeah, you tell yourself that. Because they've broken the national security monopoly on knowledge and provided documentation for certain predictable crimes of the terror-surveillance state, Snowden-Greenwald are current targets for the official two minutes' hate, as well as for physical harrassment and threats of murder from NSA chiefs and senators. Some members of the conspiracy merchandising community and their fans on this board have found a way to join in the fun, without compromising their self-images as radical dissidents from consensus reality. I find that highly objectionable, as well as smug and lazy, while you happen to share the views of these particular conspiracy merchandisers, who may be responding to perceived competition for their own market. So now you're explaining away my views by attributing motives to me that you cannot possibly know, and that would be irrelevant. Whatever. Diddle away.

This assertion that Greenwald/Snowden are being victimized by an NSA smear campaign is as blind as the most extreme unfounded accusations being lobbed their way.

I don't think I said "NSA smear campaign," though maybe I did and it may be an accurate description. Can't know all about its origins. What is visible is a phenomenon of mass mobbing and personal defamation using any available means and coming from former and current officials, establishment media, and the punditry. Again, this has included public joking about murdering Snowden, as well as the physical targeting of Greenwald's husband in the real world and a continuation of the constant harrassment at border crossings that Poitras has been experiencing for many years; just as an earlier outbreak from much the same elements included approval of the idea of murdering Assange.

To what extent all this requires coordination as a scripted campaign may be a peripheral question. Once it starts, the conformists and authoritarians are happy to join and produce their own contributions on a freelance basis. General Alexander's recent foray into fake-leftist hand-wringing about how terrible it is that Snowden-Greenwald have a monopoly on the documents (that he would have preferred to keep top secret as his own monopoly) appears to be the planned kick-off of a campaign phase, but it probably doesn't much matter whether that was the plan.

That you want to deny that this large-scale, official-backed mobbing is underway (or that you attempt to equate it in scale with the written excesses of a couple of the minor authors participating within it) can't possibly be because you are blind. Rather, your empirically insupportable assertion illustrates once again that "we see what we want to see."

Likewise is your fascination

Emotionalized labeling attempt; kindly fuck off.

with what you describe as thinly disguised gay-hating a thinly disguised excuse to ignore serious questions, a tendency that someone of rigorous intuition would do well to avoid.

Take it up with Sibel Edmonds for introducing gay hatred into her rhetoric. It has nothing to do with her argument about whether Snowden and Greenwald are authentic whistleblower and journalist, and in fact further handicaps this already weak argument. So it's definitely her problem. It is not my task to tolerate it, or to ignore it. Also, take it up with your own self for tolerating and minimizing such obvious gay hatred. You will see no compromise from me on this matter. I've also been targeted by gay hatred, not because I'm gay (gay haters aren't known for being able to figure out who is), but because I neither fit nor have respect for the bogus "masculine" ideals with which little boys are brainwashed and handicapped. I've seen people suffer and bleed because of it, literally. This is no recent invention of political correctness.

(RocketMan, with respect to its targets, it's not a phobia but a hatred. I don't prefer a term that stresses the possible inner motivation of the haters, because the outer expression has real-world targets and victims; they are the ones I care for. But yeah, there's no doubt a kernel of phobia, if by this we mean fears proceeding from uncertainty about one's own sexuality and identity expressing themselves as exclusion, projection and hatred toward some designated Other.)

What's truly bottomless in all this, though I have to admit it should take less of my time, given her relative importance, is the hypocrisy displayed by Edmonds, who doesn't tire of presenting herself as the most gagged person in history, etc. Here are other imperfect but apparently well-meaning whistleblowers revealing important secrets held by the same state that she, too, has fought against; and they are being threatened with murder by actual members of that state, by people who run the surveillance programs and participate in dispatching the drones. And as her response she chooses to present a contrapuntal echo that state's propaganda against them.

What's the title of that other thread?

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... =8&t=37630

[vanlose kid]

A Press as Deadly as the State

I am now prepared to state without reservation that the ongoing NSA/surveillance story ranks among the more momentous and nauseating charades perpetrated on a frighteningly gullible public. Any remaining doubt I had on this question -- and, in truth, no substantial doubt remained in my own mind -- has been obliterated by this story concerning the remarks of Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian's editor, to the home affairs committee of Parliament.

All of it is shocking, but this is the worst:

Rusbridger said the leak amounted to about 58,000 files, and the newspaper had published “about 1 percent” of the total.

“I would not expect us to be publishing a huge amount more,” he said.

Some years ago, I remarked that professional (and even semi-professional) apologists for the Democratic Party, such as Digby, offer a credo which amounts to the following, once you strip away the endless, and endlessly dishonest, rationalizations: "We're 2% less shitty than Pure Evil! It's all we've got!"

I can adapt this credo with full accuracy for the actual role of the so-called "adversarial" press: "We're 1% less shitty than the evil State! It's all we've got -- and it's all we're going to give you!"

I'm sure we're all prepared to storm the barricades of the murderous surveillance State with this rousing call to arms as our inspiration. C'mon, baby, let's get it on!

I'm also reminded of my observation about "dissenting" journalists like Chris Hayes: "The ruling class loves dissent like this. It's not 'dangerous' in the smallest detail. If 'dissenters' like Hayes didn't exist, the ruling class would have to invent them." Ditto for the Guardian, and, yes, ditto for the Greenwald/Omidyar venture.

In the short time I've reflected on this latest article, I realized that the 1% figure actually tracks what we already knew about the extent of the Snowden documents compared with the number of pages from those documents which have been published. But to see it stated so baldly -- especially when coupled with Rusbridger's additional comment, "I would not expect us to be publishing a huge amount more" -- truly does take my breath away. If we add in the pages that have been published in outlets other than the Guardian, under the ever-watchful, "responsible" eyes of the information controllers (primarily Greenwald and Poitras), what total figure would we come up with? Perhaps 2% of the Snowden documents have been offered to the public?

In this latest story, Rusbridger repeats all the usual "justifications" for the refusal to disclose more, including this:

Rusbridger denied placing intelligence agents at risk, saying the Guardian had “made very selective judgments” about what to publish and hadn’t revealed any names.

"Very selective judgments" -- yeah, no shit. And it's a decidedly odd "adversarial" press that adopts the State's rationales with such enthusiasm (Greenwald completely adopts them, too). Why such concern with "placing intelligence agents at risk"? I suppose you wouldn't want to endanger the next coup, or throw a monkey wrench into plans for the next invasion. We're talking about "intelligence agents" who work at the direction and on behalf of a criminal, murdering, brutalizing Death State. One might argue that we don't need to protect such agents: to the contrary, we need to protect ourselves -- and other innocent people around the world -- from them.

But that's just me and my cranky, nutty old man routine. I clearly fail to appreciate what the exercise of power requires, or the eager self-censorship engaged in by those who make themselves indispensable handmaidens to power.

It is certainly true that the 1% or 2% of the Snowden documents that our betters have decided it is "responsible" to share with us have provided additional details of various governments' surveillance activities. While the details may be new (and sometimes valuable), we haven't learned anything in general terms that many of us hadn't already figured out. And the severely restricted focus on the NSA represents a very dangerous shifting of focus to one agency, when the threat is far more widespread.

As for the Guardian doing the State's bidding (and Greenwald/Poitras/Omidyar as well, since they are all using the same rule book, which is the one devised by the State), additional details are mentioned in this Guardian piece:

During an hour-long session in front of the home affairs select committee, Rusbridger also:

• Said the Guardian had consulted government officials and intelligence agencies – including the FBI, GCHQ, the White House and the Cabinet Office – on more than 100 occasions before the publication of stories.

• Said the D-Notice committee, which flags the potential damage a story might cause to national security, had said that nothing published by the Guardian had put British lives at risk.

Consider the enormous value of the hugely restricted publication of the Snowden documents to the various States involved. Rusbridger, Greenwald, et al. all trumpet the great triumph represented by the "debate" publication has engendered -- the clamor of public voices demands "reform," so committees will be formed, investigations will be undertaken, and when the dust has settled, life for the States involved will go on almost exactly as before (remember: if the NSA were disbanded today, identical surveillance would continue via other agencies and institutions of power) -- and the States will be able to claim that the public knows the "truth," and their activities now have the full blessing of informed public consent.

This is the dream script written by the States themselves -- and it's playing out in blood-drenched, high definition video before the willingly unseeing eyes of the world.

In his remarks, Rusbridger refers to his government's efforts to "intimidate" the Guardian. I do not underestimate that intimidation, and I think Rusbridger's comments must be viewed in part against that backdrop. It's impossible to know to what extent Rusbridger emphasizes how few of the Snowden documents the Guardian has published -- and how few additional documents it ever intends to publish -- because of his desire to protect various individuals and the Guardian itself from government reprisals. But even if we appreciate this aspect of the charade being performed for us, it doesn't make any difference in the end. Think of it this way: when you do the bully's bidding -- when you follow the bully's orders -- because you fear even worse results if you do not, you are not resisting the bully any longer. You are making the bully's grip on power still stronger, and you have made the task of those who genuinely wish to challenge the bully's stranglehold on power infinitely harder.

And that is precisely what all these "adversarial" journalists are doing: they have internalized the State's demands almost completely (as I've detailed from the beginning of this saga, the journalists' arguments against disclosure track the State's justifications at every point of significance), and they continue to willingly submit their decisions to the State for its review before publication. The governments involved have made clear that they are not seriously concerned about any of the disclosures thus far -- and all the grandstanding about dangers to "national security" and the like, together with the efforts at intimidation, are designed primarily to discourage anyone who has even a stray thought about more far-reaching disclosure.

So I return to the 1% or 2% of the Snowden documents that have been made public. What would be the effect of publication of 20% of the Snowden documents -- or 50%? Now that might likely cause serious disruption of the States' operations, even at the 20% disclosure rate -- and it is painfully obvious that none of the journalists involved have any intention of allowing publication on that scale. So whose side are the "dissenting" journalists actually on? It's not the side of "the public," despite all the blather about publication of what is in "the public interest." No: they're finally on the State's side. But the charade allows the interested parties to pretend that a meaningful "debate" is occurring, and that "reforms" are in the offing that will make a serious difference. And everyone can sigh with relief that we finally know the "truth."

On the basis of 1% or 2% of the total number of documents? We don't know anything close to the truth and, with this cast of characters, we won't in the foreseeable future.

Rusbridger's comments also raise some important questions. Two of them should be answered by the journalists involved immediately. I have followed the NSA stories fairly closely since they began, and I have to state that, at this point, I have absolutely no idea who actually controls the Snowden documents, or various parts of them. Does the Guardian have its own copy(ies) of the entire Snowden trove? Rusbridger's remarks seem to imply that. But it had appeared that only Greenwald and Poitras now have complete sets (see here for more on this, and this Update as well). And what happens when Greenwald and Poitras work with reporters at other newspapers on stories? Do those reporters get to keep their own copies of the documents about which their stories are written? Or do they only review copies temporarily provided to them? And so on. Since these particular journalists ceaselessly herald the virtues of transparency and accountability, how about some transparency and accountability on this question, especially since it's now become hopelessly muddled? It should be easy to answer: these people -- x, y, possibly, z, a, b, etc. -- have complete sets; these people have partial sets (indicating in at least general terms the categories of documents held by additional individuals). As things stand now, except for knowing that Greenwald and Poitras have complete sets, we don't know who has control of the documents. It seems to me that is of considerable importance. Isn't it in "the public interest" to know which particular people control this allegedly world-shattering information?

My second question is of equal importance. Since it seems that, at most, a very, very small percentage of the Snowden documents will ultimately be made public, we are entitled to know why 98%, or 90%, or 50%, of the documents will never be made public. What percentage of the documents name names, and would therefore supposedly endanger "innocent" people? Can't the names be omitted, and the redacted documents then published? Which percentage might endanger "national security"? How are these journalists determining what endangers "national security" (or what "national security" is?) or how much "danger" is permissible, if any? Is there some percentage of the documents that the journalists have determined to be not "newsworthy"? How is that determination made? What are the factors involved? As I noted in one of my earliest posts about this, we are offered only vacuous phrases devoid of specific content when it comes to the reasons for non-disclosure. In fact, we have no specific idea how any of these judgments are being made. Thus, we are reduced to the identical posture with regard to both the State(s) and the "dissenting" journalists: we just have to trust them.

To which, I have only this response: Fuck, NO.

One of the key pillars supporting the pretense of a "responsive democracy" is the belief in a "free," "adversarial" press. But as described above -- and there is much, much more that could be said on the subject -- it is difficult to imagine how the NSA/surveillance story could redound more fully to the benefit of the States involved while simultaneously maintaining the illusion of "adversarial" journalism. It is a propaganda coup for the State of notable proportions. I, for one, am sickened by this deadly charade. It's past time for it to end.

P.S. Before I saw this latest story this morning, I had already begun planning a new article (probably the first of several). The general subject is indicated by my provisional title: "Reflections on Power, Responsibility and Obedience." The NSA story will be one example of the issues I intend to discuss, but perhaps not even one of the major examples. Nonetheless, the NSA story captures some of the dynamics that concern me with particular clarity. I hope to publish the first of those articles toward the end of this week.

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/20 ... state.html

*

[coffin_dodger]

^^ thanks for that, VK, it's comforting to know that others are thinking in a similar vein. Pretty smart operation, eh? But what else should we expect - these guys have been doing this kind of ops shit for a looong time... and very, very successfully. It's almost perfect, not least because Greenwald has been canonized by so many of the fringe - and the faith placed in him makes it all the more difficult to shake without leaving an intolerably bitter taste in the mouth.

I'm waiting / watching for any msm to tackle the questions raised above (and by Edmonds) but it's an extremely thorny issue (for them) - as an op, it wouldn't surprise me to see tentative msm support for Greenwald as being genuine / justifying his credentials etc - and then the casual character assassination of his detractors as 'homophobic racists'. Pretty sound tactic that works, well... everywhere.

We'll see.

[JackRiddler]

the casual character assassination of his detractors as 'homophobic racists'.

Why did those nefarious secret forces make poor Sibel Edmonds include all that gay-hating rhetoric in her otherwise totally logically sound and sober discourses on Greenwald?

Tough shit. Her choice. If you want to defend or distract from it: your problem. In articles about Greenwald, Snowden et al, there was no need for her to (further handicap herself) express prejudices about gay people that were completely irrelevant to her argument (whatever that ostensibly was supposed to be). But that is what she did. No one made her. You want to distract from it? You want to pretend it's just "political correctness" at work, and throw in something about unfounded accusations of racism that no one has actually raised? (Gays, blacks, whatever. Some Jew ambulance chaser is always complaining on their behalf, right?) Well then fuck you too. Some of us ain't going to tolerate that crap any more. There have been enough victims of it. Tough shit. New year. New age. Marijuana and gay marriage be legal now. You're going to have to learn how to transport your conspiracy merchandising theses without including gratuitous insults or "jokes" against gays, or you'll find that this obstacle keeps coming up.

[JackRiddler]

Deconstruction of utdocuments smear piece, here:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37630&start=45#p532340

[slimmouse]

Deconstruction of utdocuments smear piece, here:
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... 45#p532340

Your pont being what exactly?

That we are approaching global tyranny ?

No shit, Sherlock ( to qoute you)

What you gonna fucking do about it JACK?

I mean you might want to set up a people funded TV station, if of course you were sufficiently both intellectually and spritually motivated.

On the other hand, your ego might look at people with such courage and pick the bones out of it.

Whilst in the same breath supporting a 250 million dollar subscription from a known Globalist.

Give me the Peoples voice anyday.

[JackRiddler]

Deconstruction of utdocuments smear piece, here:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37630&start=45#p532340

Your pont being what exactly?

That we are approaching global tyranny ?

No shit, Sherlock ( to qoute you)

What you gonna fucking do about it JACK?

I mean you might want to set up a people funded TV station, if of course you were sufficiently both intellectually and spritually motivated.

On the other hand, your ego might look at people with such courage and pick the bones out of it.

Whilst in the same breath supporting a 250 million dollar subscription from a known Globalist.

Give me the Peoples voice anyday.

Misrepresentation on all counts, at least with regard to anything I said. Anyone interested, quasi-literate, and fair can read what I wrote, they won't require your complete (and presumably intentional) misreading thereof. You are hands-down the dumbest dumbfuck on this board. Pretty much everyone can see that. Have I told you that lately? Now you can suspend your recent efforts to slime up to me, for whatever reason, and go kick your fucking David Icke promotional thread. Lizard man.

.

[slimmouse]

You are hands-down the dumbest dumbfuck on this board. Pretty much everyone can see that. Have I told you that lately? Now you can suspend your recent efforts to slime up to me, for whatever reason, and go kick your fucking David Icke promotional thread. Lizard man.

I am currently considering this amidst the best "quotes only" thread from RI

Why dont you pop it in there, with my very own personal approval?

[JackRiddler]

Whereas I invite you to do yourself a favor and kill yourself tonight.