@on the cusp  
government accounts of events since 11/22/1963), and saying so openly, might be a start.

“Resisting” a system while continuing to cling to its key narratives is no resistance at all.

People say Trump is a traitor who is ignoring a Russian attack — how much more, then, is everyone a traitor who dismisses examination of the real attack on 9/11?

How about LBJ as a traitor for covering up the real attack on the USS Liberty in 1967?

#2.1 I still say we should all sit in the road, join hands, refuse to work, refuse to purchase any commodity, and refuse to pay taxes, and just stop this shit.

@wendy davis Well, unlike many people, I had a very hard time believing in the reality of Reality Winner. Either she's the dumbest person on the planet or she was an operative who's now sunning herself on some remote beach under another name--in which case, the burn would have happened regardless of how she delivered her data (such as it was). If it was part of the ongoing psy-op, the point would have been to buttress the strength of the Russiagate narrative by adding a Snowden-like heroic narrative to it. (Russiagate *must* be real--Reality Winner risked her freedom to tell us about it!) You'll notice that the data she handed over amounted to the NSA telling itself it was sure Russia had hijacked the election. It was remarkably light on actual data, much less actual secrets. In fact, her leak was so close to what the NSA, the CIA and the government generally were saying in the press, that her imprisonment made little sense. It's not like people haven't leaked information that echoes the government's preferred positions before without incident.

#5.2

what a fine memory you have. now i dunno the timing of it, but the wiki says "It was originally designed and developed by Aaron Swartz and Kevin Poulsen under the name DeadDrop. James Dolan also co-created the software", and of course swartz apparently committed suicide in jan. 2013.

assange had said in that pastebin communication:

“Through a Daily Beast article by "Kevin Poulsen", who interviewed
former FPF board member Xeni Jardin, I learned that the board's
weakening resolve is due to a Micah Lee initiative asking his fellow
board members to "cut ties" with WikiLeaks.

Poulsen is a key actor in the imprisonment of Chelsea Manning, and
a confidant of Adrian Lamo. Poulsen and Lee have both been developers
of SecureDrop. Poulsen manipulated the alleged Manning-Assange chat
logs in an attempt to frame WikiLeaks ...” asshole lamo's dead now of course, overdose of meth, reportedly.

now that the FPF has taken it over, and it serves:
“SecureDrop today is running in dozens of newsrooms, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, ProPublica, The New Yorker, and The Intercept..”

gee, feel the PropOrNot burn of it? yeah, something's wrong at first look media, all right. how many fearless investigative journalists have they corralled by now? 83? we might wonder if the plan is to control the news, by now. and pierre's $250,000 doesn't seem to have lasted long; the place begs for CONtributions, lol.

now i can't say, but did reality winner submit her nsa document to the intercept via secure drop? they inadvertently burned her, and she's serving six years in prison under a plea deal, iirc. but the intercept gave her money for her defense, how kind of them.

@wendy davis Do we know for sure she's actually in that prison? Sorry to be so suspicious, but the times are weird and the powerful insane.

If she is, maybe she is just the stupidest person in the world. Anybody who would risk their freedom to leak that press release is an idiot.

#5.2

what a fine memory you have. now i dunno the timing of it, but the wiki says "It was originally designed and developed by Aaron Swartz and Kevin Poulsen under the name DeadDrop. James Dolan also co-created the software", and of course swartz apparently committed suicide in jan. 2013.

assange had said in that pastebin communication:

“Through a Daily Beast article by "Kevin Poulsen", who interviewed
former FPF board member Xeni Jardin, I learned that the board's
weakening resolve is due to a Micah Lee initiative asking his fellow
board members to "cut ties" with WikiLeaks.

Poulsen is a key actor in the imprisonment of Chelsea Manning, and
a confidant of Adrian Lamo. Poulsen and Lee have both been developers
of SecureDrop. Poulsen manipulated the alleged Manning-Assange chat
logs in an attempt to frame WikiLeaks ...” asshole lamo's dead now of course, overdose of meth, reportedly.

now that the FPF has taken it over, and it serves:
“SecureDrop today is running in dozens of newsrooms, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, ProPublica, The New Yorker, and The Intercept..”

gee, feel the PropOrNot burn of it? yeah, something's wrong at first look media, all right. how many fearless investigative journalists have they corralled by now? 83? we might wonder if the plan is to control the news, by now. and pierre's $250,000 doesn't seem to have lasted long; the place begs for CONtributions, lol.

now i can't say, but did reality winner submit her nsa document to the intercept via secure drop? they inadvertently burned her, and she's serving six years in prison under a plea deal, iirc. but the intercept gave her money for her defense, how kind of them.

@wendy davis I think Greenwald, like most of us, has limits to what he's willing to risk. He's not a revolutionary. Neither is Snowden.

My real take on Greenwald is that he's always been equal parts principle and self-interest. IOW, he was in favor of the principles Snowden took risks for, and he was willing to take risks for them too, but he was also happy to make money off speeches and books, and happy to get visibility for himself--and if the big boys really put the clamp down on him and threatened to destroy his life, he would almost certainly cave. I'm not offended by that kind of person. I'm pretty close to being that kind of person (absent the desire to be on TV and give talks). But it becomes important to ascertain, as much as we can, the moment when capitulation happens and the person in question becomes compromised.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't believe the whole Snowden thing is a big psy-op; the shitfit the Deep State was throwing in European airspace seemed pretty authentic to me. But neither of them were revolutionaries. Julian is basically a revolutionary, in that he simply won't lie.

#5.2

ho-hum media secure drop serves, but some of this ungodly interview at comon dreams and the non-interruptus:

in answer to naomi klein:
“GG: It’s interesting, this burn it down model. I remember one of the first distinctions that Edward Snowden drew when we met in Hong Kong — not to keep drawing this Assange-Snowden distinction, but it’s one that is actually quite fundamental that I think a lot people have overlooked.
He made a fascinating point when I asked him: You have this incredibly sweeping trove of unimaginably sensitive information, which if published on the internet would instantly destroy huge numbers of U.S. surveillance programs, including ones you strongly dislike. Why didn’t you just do that? Why didn’t you just upload it to the internet? Why did you need to work with us, to have journalists as the middleman and mediators to process this information and take the decision-making out of your hands about what the public will and won’t see?
And he said: Think about how incredibly sociopathic, how narcissistic it would be for me, Edward Snowden, to decide that I have the right, singlehandedly, to destroy all of these programs simply because I don’t like them.

He said he doesn’t want to destroy anything, that his goal instead is to take the information that gives human beings around the world the ability to know what it is their governments are doing, what is being done to the internet, so that those people, democratically and collectively, can make that choice about should these programs continue? In what form? Do we need safeguards? Do we need pushback? Do we need citizen movement? All of that. He felt very uncomfortable with the idea that his role could ever be anything other than facilitator of information that allows others to make that choice.

'yep, he'd famously said that he'd just wanted to start a conversation. let people vote on whether they wanted to be spied on]

I think Julian quite clearly views himself and his activism in a much more, I guess you could call it aggressive, and even solitary way. That he is content and does believe he has the prerogative to burn things down — and sometimes institutions that are real acts of evil — and when they burn down, that you can argue it is actually an event of good in the world.”

why do you think none of the FPF board didn’t object to Wikileaks being ‘cut loose’ from funneled anonymous contributions as wikileaks had just published the dnc and podesta emails, and was in the midst of publishing the CIA files?

https://freedom.press/about/board/

@bradleyleigh Sounds like Jessalyn is, at best, compromised.

#7.1 the thing that was weird on the Radack accusations of FitzGibbon was stumbling upon this. I think Vos has done good work here documenting the smears and takedown of WL and their core staff/support infrastructure - esp in the US with Appelbaum and the guy Radack accused. By looking at the Shadowproof piece on the lawsuit, it seems as though something clearly doesn't add up. This is from Vos that I found most interesting.

"Disobedient Media spoke with a member of the intelligence community who wished to remain anonymous, who stated that the allegations against Fitzgibbon appeared to be contrived as opposed to organic. They further stated that the efforts were likely “highly organized and well funded.” The anonymous intelligence source emphasized that the rapidity with which staff from Fitzgibbon’s PR firm found work at six different entities, was in their words: “very uncharacteristic of ‘natural’ events of this kind.”

The anonymous source further explained to Disobedient Media that there is a very clear difference between organic events in response to a scandal, versus an organized event. They placed the destruction of Fitzgibbon’s character firmly in the latter category.

Trevor FitzGibbon represented Wikileaks, Assange, Chelsea Manning, and other whistleblowers.
Another indication of the contrived nature of allegations against Fitzgibbon can be seen in the fact that a jaw-dropping 72 national organizations pledged to never work with him again, within days of the U.S. Attorney’s Office refusal to press charges. At least one of Fitzgibbon’s former staff also found employment with David Brock’s controversial group Media Matters."

Blacklisted by 72 national organizations 48 hrs after being cleared by the AUSA? That doesn't just happen without some powerful forces behind it.

Hence, my question: WTF is going on....