1 vote

Naomi Wolf: "My creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be..."

Naomi Wolf
NaomiWolf.org
Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:38 CDT

I hate to do this but I feel obligated to share, as the story unfolds, my creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be, and that the motivations involved in the story may be more complex than they appear to be. This is in no way to detract from the great courage of Glenn Greenwald in reporting the story, and the gutsiness of the Guardian in showcasing this kind of reporting, which is a service to America that US media is not performing at all. It is just to raise some cautions as the story unfolds, and to raise some questions about how it is unfolding, based on my experience with high-level political messaging.

Some of Snowden's emphases seem to serve an intelligence/police state objective, rather than to challenge them.

a) He is super-organized, for a whistleblower, in terms of what candidates, the White House, the State Dept. et al call 'message discipline.' He insisted on publishing a power point in the newspapers that ran his initial revelations. I gather that he arranged for a talented filmmaker to shoot the Greenwald interview. These two steps - which are evidence of great media training, really 'PR 101″ - are virtually never done (to my great distress) by other whistleblowers, or by progressive activists involved in breaking news, or by real courageous people who are under stress and getting the word out. They are always done, though, by high-level political surrogates.

b) In the Greenwald video interview, I was concerned about the way Snowden conveys his message. He is not struggling for words, or thinking hard, as even bright, articulate whistleblowers under stress will do. Rather he appears to be transmitting whole paragraphs smoothly, without stumbling. To me this reads as someone who has learned his talking points - again the way that political campaigns train surrogates to transmit talking points.

read more http://www.sott.net/article/262774-My-creeping-concern-that-...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Excellent points . . .

most of Wolfs arguments are rather lame IMO. For example - in point F she seems not to know that HK was retaken by China long ago & they run it. Her point E made me think "wtf ?" - - - if this is her general level of thinking/writing I won't be spending a lot of time reading her stuff.

The one point that she made that caused me to be concerned is point D - bringing attention to the public of how extensive the police state is, in order to intimidate them & have a chilling effect. The MSM is pounding on this story pretty hard, and that makes me suspicious. They ignore the most important. They don't air what their masters don't want them to cover. Other whistleblowers have come out with this kind of information before and it got no attention. Why now ? -- Its too early to tell what is going to happen. So far, most of our 'representatives' in Congress seem to be doing what their true masters want - and are defending the spying as 'needed' for 'national security'. The polls Ive seen (again, its early) are about 50:50. Will anyone be sanctioned for criminal activity ? Or will people end up cheering "USA, USA, USA !" like they did in Boston ? (Not literally, of course. But in going along and supporting their enslavement.) If absolutely nothing happens as a result, it will be a very good indication that the people don't care and that our nation is truly lost. Perhaps that's the point and this is a test for that ? This is just speculating of course. But when I mentioned that the new i-gadget that a relative was using tracked his every move, he shrugged and said "they're tracking everything anyway" and went about just as before. His kids will pay for that level of indifference, - in the country they will inherit. I hope that attitude isn't widespread.

You make some excellent arguments regarding Wolf's article. At the same time, people shouldn't automatically and completely accept Snowden's account at face value. Wolf being wrong on many points doesn't make Snowden right, or necessarily all that he appears to be.

We just need to be cautious. Jon Rappoport (investigative journalist not trapped in the false 'left' vs 'right' paradigm makes some excellent observations on this topic and a far better argument than Wolf for being cautious in our judgement of Snowden) He speculates that this could be an intel agency turf war.

onrappoport.wordpress.com/

They're not "talking points" by the way; they're "principles".

"B) Of course he knows his talking points! Any of us in here would, too. That's the reason he came forward! They're not "talking points" by the way; they're called "principles." Though I can understand how this may be a foreign concept for many, these are things all of us in the liberty movement have been discussing for years and so naturally there are numerous main themes which flow from the tongue with ease, let alone from someone who is as plainly intelligent as is Snowden."

Great assessment on all points LH. Yes, they are principles. People don't understand what it's like to be in love with Liberty! Most of us have studied, read, watched, discussed, investigated, prayed, and researched some more, until Liberty has become a part of us--it is who we are! For most of us the principles of Liberty roll off the tongue fluidly and naturally, because they are embedded within. No, we don't have to fumble for words. Heck, there are 10 year old kids of Liberty loving parents who can discuss the principles better than Obama can read a teleprompter!

Spot on. QED

Spot on. QED

Great questions on media training and talking points!

Although I would think that most intelligent workers in his field and industry would also have an fair understanding the basics of NSA propaganda manuals. IMHO

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

The basis of her arguement is that Snowden

was talking in complete sentences and did not sound like an idiot....really Naomi? She is going to soar the punch bowl in other areas if she keeps this up.

She is just mad that a Ron Paul supporter was able to do what she and her fake liberal friends were incapable of doing or were to cowardice to do.

Obviously he had been thinking about what he was going to say for a long time and I am sure thought out his delivery MANY TIMES long before blowing the whistle.

I'm not saying I agree with her

But that was not the basis of her argument. It was a single point; one which you sarcastically twisted.

The most important one that puzzles me is "Where is his lawyer?" - Seriously, where is he?

how do you know he doesn't have a lawyer?

and c'mon now....Do you take everything at face value. I thought DPer's were supposed to be able read between the lines. Her entire argument is based on the fact that he doesn't behave like other whistle blowers. The way he speaks. Not having a lawyer, which she doesn't know for a fact. I highly doubt Snowden made it to Hong Kong without speaking to a single lawyer. What you claim is the most important point, is behaviour based. which is exactly the point i was making.

Other whistle blowers have been praising Snowden.

I didn't say he didn't have a lawyer

I asked where the lawyer was. Anytime you see someone in a high profile case like this, especially where they've defected to another country, they always have their lawyers with them in interviews or any public announcements.

When you described the basis of her argument it wasn't based on the entirety of it.

1. He was very organized (more than normal)
2. His interview seemed as though he had rehearsed for it
3. Mention of his personal losses
4. Some what suspicious escape from the country
5. Lack of lawyers

You focused on #2 in your original post, unlike now where you state that he "doesn't behave like other whistle blowers." I think that's a much more fair description of her article; and I agree with you on that.

lmfao!!!

Number 1-4 are related to the same underlying point, which I guess you didn't notice was the same message I was trying to express. Does an essay really need to be written to express an opinion? So what, I only chose one of the points. The idea behind my responses to each would be the same. And anyway, all of what is mentioned are just opinionated observations. All pointing to simple behavioral difference between Snowden and whistle blowers of the past. Because his behavior is different, there fore he is lying? C'mon ... He was doing what any SMART person would do in that situation. For goodness sakes, look at what they have done to whistle blowers of the past. Bradly Manning is still behind bars. OH MY GOD HE ACTUALLY PLANNED AHEAD? IMPOSSIBLE I TELL YOU.....He's a Ron Paul supporter just like you and I. Maybe he is just smarter then most of the other whistle blowers. Maybe he learned from the mistakes and woes of other whistle blowers before him and thought it out further. Maybe he actually took Ron Paul's principals seriously..... I'm not going to claim there is 0% possibility that this is a sham, anything is of course possible. But, lets not call the black sheep white, until you can actually see some strands white wool at least.

And how do you know there is a lack of lawyers? Just because you can't see something with your eyes...

Why isn't Naomi focusing on the crime?

The invasion of privacy is a crime and the damage done to three administration's political enemies is in-calculable.

Creepy feelings aside why are we paying to have government back up all our data.

Free includes debt-free!

She is

She is saying this part of their plan. That this whole thing is DISCLOSURE. It is to "go public" with Big-Brother. Normalization.

Obviously we know who the enemy is and that they are spying on us in an attempt to control us. She is saying they are trickier than you may know.

The fact they are disclosing it, one way or another, means we are winning in the information war.

But now they are clearly implementing the open tyranny we all have been anticipating.

We better get really ready to take back our country or the whole world may be seeing this nwo de-population agenda very soon.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Bump

Bump

Isn't Naomi Wolf the person

Isn't Naomi Wolf the person who on having the chance to support and vote for Ron Paul in 2008, supported and voted for Obama? Enough said.

Are we to assume...

Are we to assume then Gibson, that you have never undertaken introspection, that your thoughts and beliefs are forever rigid unyielding perfection?

Learning and knowledge are fluid, for sure there exists a principled foundation from which to build upon, but to dismiss Ms. Wolf for failing to support Dr. Paul in 2008 is a serious lack of intellectual reasoning.

To wit one must then ask, when was it exactly that you awoke to the imposition of the direct tyranny upon mankind via the U.S. Government; the womb?

Excellent point Allison, there are a few of us 'dummies'

out here (myself included !) who were straight ticket voting conservative Republicans for many years and thought Ron Paul was 'kooky'. (Mainly because we hadn't studied his actual positions and the underlying philosophy and understanding on which they are based. We just accepted what the 'conservative' media told us.) Well, you live and learn. Many of us who were in the false 'left' vs 'right', 'Repub' vs 'Dem' thinking box have learned a few things over the last few years. It will take many more Americans going through this process before we're able to restore our Constitutional Republic. Regards, - - -

Dearest Allison

My opinion of Ms. Wolf came after listening to her speak of 10 of the 12 planks of the communist manifesto and how we were heading dangerously close to tyranny. At the same time we had a congressman running for the presidency whose long voting record showed he voted constitutionally and therefore overwhelmingly appeared to be someone trustworthy when it came to what he said being what he meant. Basically Dr. Paul was the real deal, so why give up on the real deal for the iffy, constitutionally challenged Obama?

About the same time I heard of Obama's lack of appreciation for the constitution I also found him to come across as a used car salesman. Therefore I (even though not being a brain surgeon) was able to possess enough common sense to allow myself to know I wouldn't be voting for the one who came across as a fake over the one whose voting record stood out as constitutional.

If someone in Ms. Wolf's position, was going around the country giving speeches concerning the communist manifesto and how this country was heading dangerously in that same direction yet she couldn't manage to figure out who was the better of the two men running then perhaps she should have done a better job of researching the two men before giving speeches and most likely influencing people in her audience to vote for Obama due to her declaration of support for him.

PS... I find your snippy sarcasm delightfully adorable.

Indeed we share..

Dear Gibson,

Indeed we share the same notion of implausibility to wit an individual could claim ignorance upon the very obvious differences between the principled statesman, Dr. Paul and the charismatic charlatan, Barack Obama.

However, I feel you dramatically underestimate the trance-like pull of partisanship. Many a well-meaning person, struggle to resist the draw of rooting for their team whether Yankees v. Red Sox, or Republican v. Democrat.

Ms. Wolf a known liberal Democrat obviously was struggling, i.e. cognitive dissonance whilst writing her first liberty book, "End of America" seeing the erosion of Liberty all around her, yet unfortunately failing to muster the courage to carry said concern through to the voting booth.

Thus, perhaps think of the actionable contradiction you witnessed as but comparable to a flower in bloom, i.e. you caught her in the midst of transition from a bleeding-heart STATE worshiper to that of a pamphleteer for Liberty, much in the same vein of Mr. Paine, who I might add also leaned a tinge towards preferring activist government.

Nevertheless, few would doubt his loyalty to the Glorious Cause, whereby his treatises not only helped move more Americans towards secession from Great Britain, but also preserved the solidarity of General Washington's rag tag group of regulars.

I suppose time will tell, as it most assuredly always does, whether Ms. Wolf is merely a provocative contrarian in the vein of Mr. Beck or is one who has fully and properly stands against the direct imposition of tyranny to wit we so obviously face.

P.S. Thank you for your appreciation of my adorable snark. :)

Partisanship is a powerful force

as you point out so well. Many people not only support their political parties, they actually identify with them. They see attacks on their party as personal attacks on themselves and, deep down, feel a threat on a physical level. Human beings are social, tribal. That's how we survived against powerful outside threats for thousands of centuries. Breaking through that tendency when it is called for, isn't easy for us.

You are

welcome.

Yes

But she went all in for Ron Paul in 2012, and didn't turn around and change her support at the last minute. She's pretty consistent.