-10 votes

Is Glenn Greenwald’s Alternative Media Network Another CIA Mockingbird Operation?

Is Glenn Greenwald’s Alternative Media Network Another CIA Mockingbird Operation?

Intelligence community historically involved in manipulating news organizations.

Kurt Nimmo
December 13, 2013

Pierre Omidyar, the eBay founder who bought Paypal, has announced he will create an alternative media operation despite Paypal’s effort to defund Wikileaks.

Sibel Edmonds, whistleblower and purveyor of the Boiling Frogs blog, has raised serious questions about journalist Glenn Greenwald’s relationship with Paypal and its billionaire owner, Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay.

In October, it was reported that Greenwald and his associate, Laura Poitras, had entered into a deal with Omidyar to establish a new media organization in response to “rising concern about press freedoms in the United States and around the world,” the Guardian reported. Omidyar is said to have invested a quarter of a billion dollars in the alternative media operation.

Edmonds reports that NSA whistleblowers are highly skeptical of the project and its stated objective. Moreover, as Wikileaks points out, it is outrageous that Paypal would be interested in establishing an alternative media organization when it moved to shut down Julian Assange and his whistleblowing organization by cutting off the organization’s ability to receive donations over the internet.

Read more: http://www.infowars.com/is-glenn-greenwalds-alternative-medi...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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


but as you know it's all developing in realtime, and in flux, so suppose we'll just have to await history to tell us, my friend.)

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

If So Then Does Glenn Greenwald Comes Into Question

I haven't heard anyone on here voice concerns about Glenn Greenwald's sincerity. But if that new news organization he's part of is shady then I would think he would fall under suspicion as well.

My gut feeling (as I think is most people's gut feeling) is that Greenwald is a legit good guy. But it certainly is hard to reconcile if Siebel's points are correct (and I think they are). I don't know what to make of this whole thing.

I have voiced concerns about

GG's sincerity almost from day 1.
For a whistleblower the whole affair came across as a very slick, well managed media campaign.Laura Poitras was funded by the Left leaning MacArthur Foundation, while GG has written and blogged for the Left leaning salon.com, The Guardian, and exclusive interviewed on the Left CNN.
I am suspicious the the NSA debacle will drive control of the internet to the Progressive UN, who are desperate to have it. Putin is calling for this to happen.
I don't doubt that most of what Mr Greenwald has to say is true, but am deeply suspicious of the people behind him.
Personally, I don't like his huge ego.

Me too

I find his "Ego", buried under his "Super Ego", which plays a defensive role, and doesn't jive with his "Ego" (therein the rub) because he's on the offense: destroying (in the name of exposing) US security for a global security.

For sure, I could be wrong...

but at this point I totally trust Sibel. I do my own research where I can, and so far, I've found no reason to question her. Until I find a reason to doubt her...I will continue trusting her.

Having said that, I've not turned up any reason to question GG either...although for whatever reason, I don't quite trust him to the degree I trust Sibel.

If either one is yanking our chain...I fully expect someone in the independent media will expose them...eventually.

If anybody could be considered a "partner" to the CIA

Pierre Omidyar sure can.

CIA throws billions around like confetti.

In my opinion, I think the facts show it is a Mockingbird outfit

This is due to the fact that Greenwald and even Sibel Edmonds tend to ignore PayPal's involvement in the whole affair, in an unwitting way which is damaging to our rights. As anyone who passed high school is aware, what PayPal has been involved with before isn't very good.

And when you bring Cass Sunstein into the picture, that goes beyond hearsay and shows proof of something at the least being rotten about the entire affair. Sunstein is no virgin to CIA Mockingbird operations, and when they are placing him in charge of NSA reform...that is where we get into some serious trouble. Allowing Sunstein to make the final decisions means there will be no meaningful NSA reform, if it stays the way it currently is today.

I'm sure Greenwald has never heard of Sunstein but I guarantee other whistle-blowers sure have. His ties to Pierre seem ridiculous. I take it no one has heard of Bay of Pigs which Sunstein was basically involved with back then too?

Kind of a big jump

So because Paypal blocked Wikileaks, the guy who founded a different company, eBay couldn't possibly be interested in a free press? I have no idea of his intentions, but it seems like a pretty big leap to me. Paypal does not equal eBay. While they're affiliated, they are different companies and they do engage in different activities.

The idea's time has come.

Guilt by Association/Jump to Conclusion

Add THEM to the list of most preferred Logical Fallacies folks use when reacting to news, in lieu of reasoned contemplation.

While we're blithely speculating

Is Sibel Edmonds running a CIA operation to discredit Greenwald? After all, the intelligence community has historically been involved in manipulating news organizations.

Sibel Edmonds went through hell

when she told her story…on American soil. She didn't run off to foreign (communist) countries to "spill the beans". She stood her ground, was gagged, mistreated, and intimidated. To me, she stood for freedom, and still does.
Mr Greenwald and his side kick, Laura Poitras however, have a fishy smell about them. They were funded by the Left (MacArthur Foundation) and "broke" through the Left media. Something smells Progressive!
Whenever a crime has been committed, the first question asked is..Who profits?
Glenn Greenwald has profited by 250 MILLION dollars from the Snowden leaks.
Take good care that you are not being duped into driving control of the internet to the UN.
If you wonder why the UN shouldn't take charge, Google UN Agenda 21. these "people" have a plan for the next 100 years,…..have you?

Labels labels

Communist. Left. Progressive. Big deal.

Greenwald has been doing great work for years. That's why Snowden chose him.

It's true that Snowden helped Greenwald's career, but to say he profited $250 million is just hyperbole. It remains to be seen whether or not that investment will be profitable in terms of finance or influence.

What does any of this have to do with Agenda 21 or internet governance?

Communism is a big deal.

I imagine that you maybe quite young, or maybe have not learned about the true horrors of living in a communist state. Maybe you believe (as many do), that communism died with the Cold War.
Well it didn't, it just morphed with the times.
If you are not worried about communism, then I imagine you are not worried about State surveillance,because the citizens of Communist countries are constantly spied on.
If you are not worried about the Progressives, GG revelations are meaningless, because the state has a "right" to all your private information, because your very existence is for The Greater Good of the State.
If you are not worried about communism, then you wont mind queuing for hours for basic food stuffs, never owning a car, or your own home or plot of land, and if you do, you will "share" it all For The Greater Good. You wont mind working mind numbing hours in return for slave wages, because your work is for The Greater Good. In short, you wont mind the State controlling every aspect of your life.Period.
THAT, my friend is Communism, the Left, Progressiveness.
I beg you to research a site called Freedom Advocates. An American site set up by a man Passionate about America's freedoms, and how the Communist UN Agenda 21 is slowly but surely, bit by bit, striping away every "right" you have.
One trick of Communism is to have control of Bad news, in this case the NSA, and then "Heeding" the cries of the people for the Government to fix it. If the UN (who wants control of the World Wide Web)
steps in to "fix it", we will never ever get it back, and we will be censored for life.
There is far more behind the Snowden Greenwald saga than meets the eye, this is a fight for control of one of the most powerful tools in the world.

The Soviet system is truly

The Soviet system is truly terrible. I don't mean to belittle that.

China and Russia are state capitalist economies, just like the United States and the United Kingdom. Your use of ambiguous, emotional labels adds nothing to this debate. Same goes for the other labels you threw out. They mean nothing in this context.

Claiming that communism has a monopoly on the tactic of creating or using crisis to further an agenda is just ridiculous. So is lumping progressives in with those who want a total abolition of voluntary exchange. It's as useful as saying AnCaps and Neocons are really the same thing because both support a market in some form.

Labels,names, tags

are a means of identifying things. If you can't identify the enemy, how do you fight it.
In order to keep us confused, and so we can't see what is happening, or recognise it, Communism, The Left, Progressive and Socialism are all names for the same thing, a small "Elite" group that control and dominate the lives of everyone under their rule. The striping of freedom, assets and wealth from the everyman.
Just imagine if every time you went to buy your brand of beer, the packaging was changed dramatically, and the product placed in a different part of the store, it wouldn't take too many trips to get you annoyed and confused. It doesn't mean your beer isn't in the store, it's just that you don't know what you are looking for, and can't recognise it when you see it, without reading the label.

The way you're using labels

The way you're using labels does more harm than good. You're actually preventing people from knowing who the enemy is.

Capitalism, communism, left, right, progressive, social, etc are all very ambiguous. They mean different things in different circumstances, and even within the same context they mean different things to different people. For instance, "capitalism" is an economic system to some readers and an negative epithet to others.

Using these words as epithets is nothing but demagoguery. Labeling the countries Snowden fled to as "communist" is a perfect example. Surely you knew neither country is currently communist, but you used the word because of its other, more emotionally powerful meaning: enemy. It's no different than expressing disdain for something by calling it "gay". Each time it happens the quality the discourse suffers for it.

Using any epithet, especially one that's a synonym for a political ideology, to advance a political position will almost certainly alienate listeners who would otherwise agree with you. Not only that, it's likely to put you in an impossible position to defend if you keep talking long enough.

So what do you suggest?

How can I put that the UN is based on Socialism, but if it gets the power it wants will then become Communist?
How do I word that the US in under serious attack from a particular political force that wants to abolish, not only the middle class, but also 99.9% of our freedoms? What is the word for that?
I'm not quite sure why you feel that China and Russia are not still communist countries, and would be interested to hear your views about this.

Describing systems

China is definitely not communist anymore. Unlike Russia it still self identifies as communist, but it's been reformed since the 80s. It still has big state enterprises, but then so does my province. Private enterprise is thriving there. Media is highly censored, but then so it is in the UK.

Russia I know less about. I haven't been there. I do know, that like China, the state isn't assigning jobs, housing, and rations. It would only be fair to describe these countries as communist if the state managed the economy directly.

If not communist, then what? Socialist? That would be fair, but meaningless. Every industrialized country is socialist to some extent, and has been for some time now.

So what about the UN? I don't believe the narrative that somehow the UN is asserting its collectivist will upon the government of the United States.

The US government has more force at its disposal than the rest of the world combined. The UN exists (is able to exert influence) at the pleasure of the United States. My view is that anything that appears to originate internationally is in fact just policy laundering.

US leadership will cite an obligation to obey international laws, treaties, or other mandates when it suits them. When it does not, they'll hold in veneration the laws and traditions of the United States, piously trotting out the ghosts of the founding fathers to make their case.

The -ism epithets may play well with a segment of Republicans, but most everyone else will be turned off.

How to word it then? Describe what is actually happening without using any ideological language. Try that and judge for yourself which sounds more compelling.

good argument,

but I have to disagree with some of it, but these are only my thoughts and observations.
I think we tend to view Communism as it used to be, grey, stark and ugly. Stern unsmiling men who ruled with an iron fist.
I do believe that Communism has morphed to be more competitive in todays world, and is allowing more monetary freedoms for it's peoples, but behind the facade there still lies the essence of the Communist Doctrine in both Russia and China.
With any Communist regime, the top people, their family and friends profit enormously,amassing vast wealth that is tightly controlled, as we have seen by the deaths and imprisonments of those who have gotten too big, or have fallen foul of the regime.
In both countries, "enemies" of the state, and true investigative journalists are murdered or jailed.
Communism, Socialism, and Progressiveness, all spawn from The Left, and I feel that that is why it is important that these words are used, so that when people recognise the policies of a left government, they will recognise that The Lefts 3 brothers are close behind.
As for the UN, it's plans for this century are clearly laid out in UN Agenda 21, and it is a Communist Agenda. No Nation will have it's own laws, everyone will conform to the UN's way of thinking, no private land ownership, population control, and countless other thing that strip you of your freedom as a human being. You will not vote for those that will rule you, instead you will vote for a "selected-to-be-elected UN puppet, as you are doing now, exactly the same as most UN signatory countries. Check out Freedom Advocates web site, there you will find UN Agenda 21 laid bare for you.

Let me try something else...

Your argument just isn't going to be relevant to many people. It's not going to move them. It's not moving me, and I'm already more or less on your side! Do you want to turn people away from Agenda 21 or do you want to win a semantic argument? Is it more important you that I accept your definitions or that I demand my city withdraw from ICLEI?

Here's some information about me:

I live in Vancouver. I live in a high rise condo, and I love it. I walk to and from work. I have no interest in owning a farm or having a big yard.

I'm not satisfied with the density of my city... It's not even close to dense enough. I'm all for increasing the density, getting more people living and working here. The more people there are in the area, the more services I have at my disposal. The more people there are, the higher the quality of those services will be. And it's not just commercial services, it's access to other like-minded people.

I already accept many trade-offs to live in a high rise neighborhood. For example, I have to accept less personal space and I can't make as much noise. Since I don't want my neighborhood cluttered with all sorts of messy street vendors I have to give up my freedom to setup a cart on the street and I have to pay for the bureaucracy to enforce that. I like having a lot of nice green spaces nearby, which I have to pay for constant maintenance of. And of course, since my neighborhood hosts all the local sports teams and big events I have to pay for all that to be policed and the inevitable messes to be cleaned up.

In spite of all it costs me financially and in personal liberty I still choose to be here. If you weren't talking to me on Daily Paul, how would you persuade me to oppose (or at least be suspicious of) Agenda 21?

But it is relevant .

If you know the End Game of UN Agenda 21, then you will know that the urbanization of the Globe is one of the UN's objectives, Moving people off the land and placing them in high rise, pac-em-stac-em apartment blocks with their high tech security camers for you protection, your smart metres that will spy on you and charge you extra for your 20 minute shower, because you dare go beyond the "suggested" 3 minutes You will live clustered around public trans port hubs and will be penalized for parking or using a car. You will be taxed for every gallon of fuel. You will pay for everything you are forced to use.
You will be spied on 24/7 by something, somewhere.
….and wait until you are in your loverly (tiny) apartment with a screaming baby, or having to listen to neighbors screaming baby. Pac-em-stac-em living has been a dismal failure,unless you are very rich.
This green utopia that the UN is forcing on us, will turn into an "open" prison. Do YOU call that freedom?
Take care what you wish for…it may come true.

I know the end game

I'm trying to help you formulate an argument that might win some supporters outside the small group who will listen to "the UN is out to get us", but you're just not having it.

I shared with you the fact that I prefer to live in the highest density part of my city, and I even told you which one. You respond by insulting my way of life and reiterating that the UN is going to enslave me.

Pac-em-stac-em apartment blocks? Makes me picture a violent housing project. I live in a glass high rise, on top of a whole foods style supermarket. I can stand under a powerful stream of hot water all day, something I could never do when I lived in a house. The doorman knows when I come and go. Oh, the horror!

Have you ever hired any domestic help? There's a privacy trade off there too. Big deal. I want to be served. If I have to give up a little privacy for that, so be it. It's not even close to the level of intrusion NSA and friends are inflicting on me.

I live where I live because I'd rather dine out than do yard work. I'd rather make a motion at a meeting to have something fixed than even look at it myself. In this respect my neighbors are all like me. We all voluntarily pay a lot to live in a location where everything we need is within walking distance. We all voluntarily refrain from tap dancing on our hardwood floors.

To reach people like me, and especially people like me who aren't into "liberty" as understood on Daily Paul, you need a different argument:

"This faction of the environmental sustainability movement is going to force a bunch of rural and suburban poor into the neighborhood... No really, it's true and it has a very high probability of happening... It's supported by the United Nations and it's already begun in many places around the world. Look, [their city] is already signed on, and so is [adjacent suburban city that residents of their city look down upon]"

The logic here is that high density is great, but if you let these guys have their way you'll be living in a high density environment with the WRONG kind of people.

The political and economic beliefs of the listener are irrelevant, so why risk alienating someone by attacking a vague label that they may self identify with? The UN is brought up to establish the credibility of the threat. The listener can be for, against, or indifferent to the UN. There is no need to take a position on it either way.

Anyway, good luck!

I didn't mean to insult you, nor bag your

chosen way of life, we live differently through out different stages of our lives.
When I was young and single, city dwelling suited me too, (Auckland, NZ) but at heart, I always was a country girl, and went back to were my heart wanted to be.But that is just me…some people just LOVE city life and all it has to offer, I'm certainly not bagging you or anybody else that feels like that. We need cities and the people who CHOOSE to live in them.
I'm at abit of a lose here about how you would prefer me to put my message across…I am passionate about people not falling for the UN, about the slow death of yours (and mine) freedoms. Talking about ICLEI and how it works, how it IS UN Agenda 21, about the TPP which will allow Global companies like Monsanto to dictate Laws to sovereign nations…and backed by the UN through International Law, where unseen, unknown, UNELECTED people will dictate your lifestyle, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.
How can I say that what you have today may well be gone tomorrow?
Sure, today you may stand under the shower for as long as you like, but "tomorrow" you will have to pay for the privilege.
Ps just because people will be moving into the cities, wont automatically mean that they will be poor, they just wont be able to afford to live on large sections. Urbanisation will be gradual, not a sudden migration.

Lame downvotes

It looks like someone is downvoting your comments. So deep in a conversation, that's lame. I wish Michael would make comment vote identities public.

> Sure, today you may stand under the shower for as long as you like, but "tomorrow" you will have to pay for the privilege

I already pay for the privilege. This awesome company makes it possible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Heat_Distribution

> just because people will be moving into the cities, wont automatically mean that they will be poor, they just wont be able to afford to live on large sections.

It doesn't make any difference. Unless you have to tell the listener about something that matters to them you won't get anywhere.

Every time you tell someone Agenda 21 is a communist conspiracy chances are you're helping them win. Being right and being the winner are not necessarily the same thing.

But what happens when your awesome

company is sold off to or swallowed by a not so awesome company?
There is a world wide grab for both water and power companies going on, and we are the ones who will pay through the nose for the essentials.
As for the people who read these posts and choose to ignore the UN's agenda for the 21st century, well there is only so much I can do on here. If they do not understand that this Agenda will cost them nearly all of their freedoms, and if that's not enough for them to start researching the Freedom Advocates web site, well so be it.
This is a site for people who want liberty, and who respect the liberty of others…I can't "make" them do anything. It is up to the individual to research, educate themselves and others and act upon the information they have.

> company is sold off to or

> company is sold off to or swallowed by a not so awesome company?

If the boiler ceased operating, it would be a disaster. The buildings connected to the system cannot function without it. That's a really good point. I'm not sure what kind of provisions there are to protect against that. Many of the buildings supported by it cost tens of millions of dollars to construct, so the loss of that system would do billions of dollars in damage to the city.

I'll keep my eyes open for Agenda 21 activity around here, and do what I can to oppose bad policy.

Good on you, liberty needs people like you.

Also watch which global entities are buying city infrastructure.
As an example, here in New Zealand, our PM is selling off our assets in the form of "broke" coal mines, and hydro electric power companies. The coal mines will be sold out right, the Power companies we will retain 51% . The "opposition" is up in arms about selling assets.
What nether party has said is that we need to sell these assets because the World Bank (a UN entity) wants the money back that it lent us to build these assets in the 1st place. We are in huge debt, so the WB will asset strip.
There has been a referendum to gage public opinion of the sales, and it is an overwhelming no! BUT, if we don't sell now, and keep 51% ownership will the World Bank demand the privatization of our water in the near future, because it has lent us 800 million dollars to up grade our water infrastructure. Water in many parts of NZ is free. But for how long?
ICLEI, and the UN's international laws drive cities and countries to debt, as they struggle to bring everything up to international standards set by the UN, who then lends them the money, waits, then repossess, then sells off to the Global entities that are UN backed and financed, and owned by "The Boys".
It is very, very clever, the best ponzi scheme on the planet.

The PMs buddies

The PMs buddies are probably going to get the assets at below the real market price.

This kind of thing goes on everywhere. Leaders sell off public assets to cover deficits then claim "I balanced the budget". It's ridiculous.

The concept of "privatization" gives private enterprise a bad name. Socialize the cost, privatize the profit.

One would also connect the U.N's agenda to London

If such facts are outed, and then the agenda of the U.N. straight to Jerusalem. Both in deed and action, all of these things are a part of the Agenda 21 and the people need to be wide awake to it.

I have a strong feeling that Jerusalem is just a

pawn in the game. The UN Big Wigs live and socialize behind shiny black doors in Geneva, and The Hague.