Is Naomi Wolf (or Edward Snowden) Working for the NSA?

abc_edward_snowden_2_jt_130609_msDave Lindorff writes at Counterpunch:

I hate to do this, but I feel obligated to share, as the story unfolds, my creeping concern that the writer Naomi Wolf is not whom she purports to be, and that her motive in writing an article on her public Facebook page speculating about whether National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden might actually be still working for the NSA, could be to support the government’s effort to destroy him.

After all, with Snowden under vicious attack by both the government and the corporate media, being wrongly accused of treason, or portrayed as a drop-out slacker, a narcissist, a loser hoping to gain fame and even a “cross-dressing” weirdo, what defender of liberty would pile on with publication of a work of absolutely fact-free speculation as to whether he might also be a kind of “double agent” put out there by the NSA in order to discourage real potential whistleblowers from even considering leaking information about government spying on Americans.

Because that is exactly what Wolf has done on her website (the first clause at the opening of this article is a direct quote from the lead in Wolf’s Facebook piece, but with her name substituted for Snowden’s).

What basis does she offer for her wild-eyed speculation that Snowden is perhaps “not who he purports to be”?

Well, first of all she notes darkly that US spy agencies “create false identities, build fake companies, influence real media with fake stories, create distractions or demonizations in the local news that advance US policies, bug (technologically) and harass the opposition, disrupt and infiltrate the meetings and communications of factions that the US does not wish to see in power.” This, she says, touting her own now rather dated 2007 book The End of America, is “something you can’t not see if you spend time around people who are senior in both the political establishment and the intelligence and state department establishments. You also can’t avoid seeing it if you interview principled defectors from those systems, as I have done…”

Then, after having assuring us of how well-connected she is, she raises what she calls “red flags” about Snowden:

“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.”

“He keeps saying things like, ‘If you are a journalist and they think you are the transmission point of this info, they will certainly kill you.’ Or: ‘I fully expect to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.’ He also keeps stressing what he will lose: his $200,000 salary, his girlfriend, his house in Hawaii. These are the kinds of messages that the police state would LIKE journalists to take away.” In case we miss the point, she adds, implying rather strongly that she is concluding Snowden is a fake, “A real whistleblower also does not put out potential legal penalties as options, and almost always by this point has a lawyer by his/her side who would PROHIBIT him/her from saying, ‘come get me under the Espionage Act.’ Finally in my experience, real whistleblowers are completely focused on their act of public service and trying to manage the jeopardy to themselves and their loved ones; they don’t tend ever to call attention to their own self-sacrifice.”

“It is actually in the Police State’s interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled, and that awful things happen to people who challenge this. Which is why I am not surprised that now he is on UK no-fly lists – I assume the end of this story is that we will all have a lesson in terrible things that happen to whistleblowers.” She adds, in a further indictment of Snowden, “That could be because he is a real guy who gets in trouble; but it would be as useful to the police state if he is a fake guy who gets in ‘trouble.’”

She says he talks about the beautiful “pole-dancer” girlfriend he abandoned (actually he did that for her safety, Naomi), implying his repetition process might be so that the media have a justification to keep showing her sexy photo (as though our prurient media needs a justification to do such a thing).

The media keep saying he is in a “safe house” in Hong Kong, which according to Wolf cannot exist in the former British colony, now a part of China, “Unless you are with the one organization that can still get off the surveillance grid, because that org created it.”

Read more here.

53 Comments on "Is Naomi Wolf (or Edward Snowden) Working for the NSA?"

  1. Charlie Primero | Jun 21, 2013 at 4:50 pm |

    Dr. Webster Tarpley makes a pretty good case that Snowden is a “Limited Hang-Out”…

    History repeats. Tarpley must be taken with caution because he is an old-timey Roosevelt socialist, but the “limited hangout” historical similarities between the Pentagon Papers, Wikileaks, and Snowden he documents in that article are valid and worth consideration.

    Tarpley also believes Naomi Wolf is a controlled gatekeeper.

    We’ve known for years about the NSA router in San Francisco, the massive data centers in Utah and San Antonio, and programs SHAMROCK, ECHELON, TEMPEST et al. Clueless television zombies have not, but they are catching on.

    If this is a Limited Hang-Out, the purpose could be what lawyers call the “Admit & Explain” defense.

    This defebse lawyer strategy supposes that it’s better for a criminal to admit the crime and provide an explanation than to deny the crime, because denial of the obvious creates anger and increases punishment.

    • It seems we truly have been living in some kind of sci-fi dystopia for who knows how long. If the article you referenced is accurate, and it seems to me that it well could be, then it is almost impossible to know WTF is going on. The mind recoils. It’s no wonder people go nuts from falling down these “rabbit holes.” They are lucky if the only thing that happens is they end up a tin foil hat paranoid. I suspect there are far worse fates.
      Sometimes I wonder why I even bother reading anything in regard to politics or world affairs, when I suspect it is ALL total propaganda of one kind or another. There are no trust worthy sources. We are left on our own to decide what seems more likely than not. The more you look the worse it gets.

      • Tchoutoye | Jun 21, 2013 at 9:22 pm |

        Welcome to the political equivalent of Chapel Perilous.

      • Charlie Primero | Jun 22, 2013 at 7:11 am |

        Simple Tests:

        Who is rotting in solitary confinement like Bradley Manning and who is a Media Darling attending all the best parties?

        Which sixties radicals now have cushy academic and media jobs, and which got burned up in SWAT raids ?

        Which dissidents were published by New York publishing houses and which died from sudden heart attacks, car crashes, polonium poisoning?

        Which protest movements get snuffed, and which get funding for office space and web design from the big corporate foundations Rockefeller, Soros, Gates, or MacArthur?

        • just outta curiosity, who are you referring to exactly? I know dude from the Weather Underground has a cushy job and is even in w/ the Obama administration. Also Richard Aoki(who supplied the black panthers w/ weapons) lived quite a good life afterwards and was recently discovered to be an informant. Which other dissidents and dissident movements were gov’t led and who are some who are probably not?

  2. Every article that focuses on Snowden’s personality and personal life is an article that draws attention away from Snowden’s point – that the Obama White House has followed the precedent established by the Bush regime in declaring every man, woman, and child on Earth a criminal suspect. To the extent that Wolf’s aricle is yet another personality piece, then yes, she is doing the NSA’s work, whether she’s on the payroll or just bad at journalism.

    ETA: At 6 PM Eastern, in a classic example of the kind of “Friday afternoon news dump” that the government uses to disclose business that it’s too ashamed of to invite televised commentary on, the government finally announced that it had charged Snowden with Espionage and requested that the government of Hong Kong detain him on a provisional arrest warrant.

    • America is not alone in spying on their own country.

      • But America is alone in being the only country specifically founded on the idea of opposing such forms of tyranny.

        • By what I have been reading the UK and others are also keeping tabs on email and phone calls.

          • Uh, yeah. It’s widely known that there has been cooperation/collusion (depending how you look at it) between the US, UK, and other UK commonwealth nations on domestic spying. The echelon program, for example:

            Wikipedia: ECHELON

            ” operated on behalf of the five signatory states to the UKUSA Security Agreement[1] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, referred to by a number of abbreviations, including AUSCANNZUKUS[1] andFive Eyes).”

          • Of course. From wikipedia, on ECHELON:

            “operated on behalf of the five signatory states to the UKUSA Security Agreement[1] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, referred to by a number of abbreviations, including AUSCANNZUKUS and Five Eyes).”

            I think it’s safe to assume a lot of the more recent secret programs are also joint efforts, in a lot of cases.

        • Jin The Ninja | Jun 22, 2013 at 5:48 am |

          for white rich slave-owners to free themselves of the tyranny of an inbred monarch is not a foundation for the concept of justice or anti-oppression.

          • For its time, 1776 america was a foundation for the concept of justice and anti-oppression. Everything must be looked at in relative terms. What was the rest of the world like at that time? A heck of a lot worse, for the most part.

            Slavery existed all over the world back then, as did other forms of oppression along racial, national, and religious lines. Of course it was wrong, and educated people of the time should have known better, but historical context is important. Also, please don’t forget that african slaves were sold to colonists by other africans. Everyone had blood on their hands in those times.

          • Hadrian999 | Jul 19, 2013 at 7:20 pm |

            the conditions at the founding are less important that the conditions today. American foreign policy operates on the claim that the U.S. is a force for good and opposes tyranny, which simply isn’t true we back those that serve our national interests. it is important to call out the hypocrisy of such a position weather or not the US was or was not founded on egalitarian principles is irrelevant

          • Jin The Ninja | Jul 19, 2013 at 9:02 pm |

            i agree with you insofar as to what matters NOW is the (il)legitimacy of american foreign policy.

            but i also detest the worship of colonial america and it’s associated institutions and patriarchs etc etc- ESPECIALLY in the context that this ‘history’/worship is used to justify an exceptional american identity and some sort of foundational democratic tendency that in fact should not only be revered but emulated the world over.

            i do not wish to posit the historical context as more important, but rather wish to deconstruct the fictional-narrative often illegitimately and detrimentally referred to as ‘myth.’ (myth serves a very important function socially and spiritually- even read simply as allegory- to call it ‘myth’ both vastly over inflates the content- contrary to some it has very little universal meaning (and thus applicability) and lacks larger metaphorical significance or content ) and because we both know that this story is not only vastly destructive, the basis for contemporary policy, but also does not even remotely resemble the events of yore- unless of course you apply a literalist, functionally illiterate interpretation to the so-called american genesis.

        • I don’t understand what this has to do with nationalism.

          • It has nothing to do with nationalism, and if you understood what america was supposed to be about originally, real american nationalism is kind of the antithesis to most other forms of nationalism, because it’s about a belief in a set of ideas, not worship of a state, monarch, racial line, religion, tradition, or some other historical concept.

          • Rhoid Rager | Jun 23, 2013 at 6:21 pm |

            I like how everyone thinks they have a handle on the way an idea is supposed to be. Yes, if we only knew the ‘genuine’ form of the formless; if we were to simply put our fingers on the pulse of the ‘nation’ from 300 years ago, we might awaken to the ‘true’ concept of justice and freedom.

            Isn’t claiming a monopoly on an idea at the very heart of nationalism? Maybe it’s just my post-colonial mindset, but the ideals we hold can never match the reality we smash up against, because, alas, there are other people in the world other than ourselves. What a shame.

          • You’re making all kinds of assumptions about my opinion that aren’t accurate. Even the founding fathers had diverse opinions and leanings on a number of issues. So no, there is no one specific formula that represents the “genuine” america, but instead there’s diverse spectrum of ideas around the core principles of individual freedom, equality under the law, limits on the power of the state, privacy, and so on.

            As for a monopoly on an idea, again, I said nothing like that. All I said was america is the only country founded on a specific set of ideas, specifically the rejection of a socially and economically dominant state. Of course there’s a whole lineage of thinking leading up to the american revolution, and since that time other strides have been made for freedom both in america and outside of it. Things like the magna carta, ancient greek philosophy, some of the early greek city states, were all important milestones too.

            And to further clarify my opinion, I think there are people all over the world who believe in individual liberty…

            As for smashing up against reality, the ideals of the constitution definitely aren’t built around the idea of a utopia ever existing. That’s why they called it the pursuit of happiness, btw.

          • Rhoid Rager | Jun 23, 2013 at 7:15 pm |

            It’s faulty logic to think that ideas stand outside of the people that hold them. It is people who control ideas; even the most ‘insignificant’ pauper has freedom of will. This is so because freedom is not granted from above, it is emanates from below. Which is to say, freedom is the existential condition in which we are born into….everything else claiming to grant freedom is a redundancy. Much confusion has resulted from this simple misunderstanding of our reality.

            More concretely, there are no ‘limits’ to state power, because the entire infrastructure of the state exists to exert influence over the populace within its purported ‘borders’. The state is a social mechanism of wealth extraction. That’s all it’s ever been. It exists to farm the labor of people for the benefit of those at the top of the pyramid cozy within the bosom of the state.

            Also, I should add that the ‘pursuit of happiness’ was originally the ‘pursuit of property’.

          • What people like you fail to realize, is that there are plenty of people out there who more or less agree with that you just wrote, but also recognize that a minimal state may be required to prevent the formation of de facto tyranny that could occur in a ‘stateless’ scenario. It’s a difference of opinion that can’t be empirically tested, and so the sensible thing to do would be to agree to disagree. Unfortunately, I’ve come across many people like yourself who seem unwilling to work with anyone of an even slightly different ideological background on common goals, like increasing rather than decreasing personal liberty under the current system.

          • Rhoid Rager | Jun 23, 2013 at 7:41 pm |

            People like me? I was attacking your arguments, not your character, my friend. Don’t worry, though, you’ll come around soon to see what the ‘state’ actually is. Good luck grappling with your false consciousness in the mean time–I predict you’re in for a bit of disappointment along the way.

          • You keep either mistakenly or willfully (idk which) misinterpreting my statements and then rolling them into some kind of template argument.

            I’m sure you’re perfectly well intentioned so I don’t have any negative things to say about your character.

            Why not have a substantive discussion? Suppose the state vanished… What prevents the emergence of a de facto state?

          • Rhoid Rager | Jun 23, 2013 at 8:23 pm |

            Because a ‘substantive’ is something different for me than it is for you, I feel. There is no substance when speaking of the ‘state’ , because the state does not exist. When people turn off their critical thinking and moral faculties and go on ‘autopilot’ based on the pablum information they’ve been fed since birth, then the ‘state’ comes into ‘existence’ through the meaningless roles they play, like the police officer, the bureaucrat, the teacher etc. Social interaction makes the state _seem_ real.

          • I’m using the state as shorthand for the actions carried out in the name of the state, the people who carry them out, and the people who consent to this happening. That’s a lot of people doing or causing a lot of real actions.

          • Jin The Ninja | Jul 19, 2013 at 4:28 pm |

            to use the civil religious concept of american exceptionalism as a justification of american nationalism is in fact worship of both a state and a historical tradition. not only is it grossly fallacious (and frankly hilarious)- it’s out and out contradictory.

          • Hadrian999 | Jul 19, 2013 at 6:22 pm |

            it also shows total ignorance, willful or otherwise, of the world conditions that led to american dominance of the post ww2 era.

          • Many of us support a restoration of the original american ideals as a good starting point, and the post-ww2 era is, in many ways, the antithesis to those values.

          • Jin The Ninja | Jul 19, 2013 at 8:49 pm |

            a good starting point if you’re white, british, hetsex, male and a landowner. preferably protestant.

            interesting to note that you’re also cdn- which would suggest you’d prefer the american model of governance- ironic in that both our parliamentary system and the american system are ultimately descended from the british system and the magna carta- both not only requiring a ruling class, disenfranchisment of the masses, but self-justifying in an esoteric, divine right sort of way.

          • As compared to? Where on earth in the 1700s could a non-white gay woman with no assets have a better life?

            You speak of contextualizing, but there seems to be very little context to your condemnations.

            The magna carta was indeed built inside of a preexisting system involving a ruling class and disenfranchisement of the masses. On the other hand, it marked a significant step forward, towards more people having more rights. Any time more people end up with more rights, I call that a step forward.

            More than 550 years after the magna carta, an even bigger step forward was taken with the declaration of independence, the bill of rights, and the constitution. There hasn’t really been any seminal event for freedom since then but a gradual process has occurred whereby a) many other nation states have adopted similar ideals, and b) as society has intellectually evolved, the understanding and interpretation of rights and freedoms has been extended to all people (all races, genders, religions orientations, etc).

            Although the overall democratization and liberalization that has occurred in the world can’t be entirely attributed to those events, the influence is undeniable. Other events, from the french revolution, to tienanmen square, to the civil rights movement have also contributed to the overall awakening of people to their inherent equality and freedom.

          • Jin The Ninja | Jul 20, 2013 at 12:46 am |

            pirates maintained egalitarian, multi-gender, multi-sexuality democratic communities extensively during the 16th, 17th, 18th and up to the early 19th centuries. among quite a few others.

            the constitution was founded on exclusivity of gender and race and nation- and still continues to exclude others (utilising the codified legal concepts and institutional bodies of that nation). to feign otherwise is slanderous, ahistorical and incorrect. and liberalisation and democratisation are not synonymous. china.

            you deeply underestimate the effects of western hegemony, american and british imperialism and capitalism on third world forces. just because the CIA institutes a coup- and ensuing dictator enshrines a presidential system (s. korea), does not reflect on the universality of the codification of the constitution.

            your aggrandizement of american law serves no purpose other than to distract from legitimate discussions of social evolution.

          • And why didn’t those communities flourish into larger communities? Why do they no longer exist? I’m talking about enduring, large scale change, not aberrations. I certainly appreciate the spirit of those pirates, though. Their dissent against the power structures of the time were, in a lot of cases, admirable. What needs to be recognized, though, is that groups of people always have and always will behave as free men and women, in western nations, in eastern nations, etc. People use “illegal” drugs, people go against “social norms”, people engage in “illegal” sexual activities (like prostitution in the west or gay sex in the middle east or africa), people don’t pay their taxes, people “speed” in their cars, people “pirate” digital media, and all of these things are usually done by groups of people. So, pirate communities will continue to come and go, but they rarely lead to the wider dissemination of freedom, and they will always be threatened by the nation states whose rules they flaunt.

            The constitution was not “founded on exclusivity of gender and race.” Rather, it failed to right the wrongs of gender and racial inequality of the society from which it descended, and the world at large. It was a massive incremental improvement, not an end point for human progress.

            The current understanding of the constitution excludes who? How? No, government discrimination based on race, gender, and religion ended a long time ago. I don’t know if your marxist professors simply parroted old talking points, or if you’re relying only on old texts, but it’s time you update your thinking on institutionalized discrimination, because it’s long gone.

            I agree the CIA has done a lot of harm with its various coups, but south korea has been a rather impressive success. The people of south korea lead an undeniably better, more free life than the people in north korea and china. Again, context is incredibly important here. Secondarily, a relatively free south korea has given the world a great deal of innovation and technological progress.

            I’m not aggrandizing american law, a large portion of which runs counter to the bill of rights.

            You know, I think both our hearts are in the right place, but you seem intent on caricaturing my views and continuously diverting the conversation.

            So let’s try something else… How would you like to see the world change? How will this change be effected?

          • Jin The Ninja | Jul 20, 2013 at 2:20 am |

            in one stroke you both insult me and attempt to assuage my ego.
            in another you completely divert the conversation on your own terms.

            i am not interested in nation states, moral authority, or capitalism.

            i am interested in people, the biosphere, consciousness and education/knowledge.

            american republicanism was in fact founded on the idea to disenfranchise the poor, the other and keep the mastahs on their rather large tobacco farms.

            james madison and alexander hamilton both advocated for limited democratic tendency- in a time when direct democracies existed and had existed for millenia- in fact the iroquois confederacy was at one time an ally of washington.
            the republic was specifically insituted not to be ‘democratic’ but to insure that a ruling elite was able to maintain power.

            that’s american history 101, high school edition. ]

            and the dig about marxism: in reference to a discussion about japanese history specially regarding peasant and labour histories- obviously that sort of analysis is marxist in nature – because the very idea of working class/labour analysis of history IS marxist literary theory- adam was referring to the fact many professors in EAS and area studies generally (but specifically EAS since it is a background we have in common) tell the narrative of the ruling classes, the military campaigns and the high court culture. i agreed with him that social history is and was much more interesting (in that context). so please continue to mischaractise my comments i’m more than happy to contextualise them for you in very plain english.

          • Jin The Ninja | Jul 20, 2013 at 3:08 am |

            and institutional racism, gender discrimination and several labour laws like no fault firing, are very obvious examples of how gov’t legal systems disenfranchise people from their very institutions. not to mention pre wwII america didn’t have a very equitable society for people of colour, glbtq, women, and indigenous people. to pretend somehow that total and finite equity exists that wasn’t even codified until the 1960s, and for native peoples the 90s, is lunacy. admit you’re just a delusional t-bag from ’09.

          • You speak of “historical tradition” like it’s automatically bad. What if the “historical tradition” was a perfect, stateless, fully equitable utopia? Would it be wrong to “worship” (err, appreciate/respect) such a tradition, if it existed?

            Notions of american exceptionalism arise out of the idea that america provided the most free conditions for human pursuits, relative to other countries.

            If you want to debate some real idea/scenarios I’m all for it. I’m not going to be drawn into some semantic word game rife with academic babble, though.

          • Jin The Ninja | Jul 19, 2013 at 8:27 pm |

            actually there was no connotation in the way i framed my comment

            in fact:

            “american nationalism is kind of the antithesis to most other forms of
            nationalism, because it’s about a belief in a set of ideas, not worship
            of a state, monarch, racial line, religion, tradition, or some other
            historical concept.”

            i quoted you nearly verbatim, which unfortunately exposed the grave flaws in your own argument. what you call ‘semantic’ i call ‘reasoning.’

            either american nationalism is subject to accepted socio-political definitions- and if it is then also the very limitations of that mode of thinking- or it is exceptional- which of course refers back to american exceptionalism. so?

            i am not interested in VENERATING historical traditions at large. or veneration period. again, civil religion is antithetical to any sort of egalitarian society in a post-colonial, globalised world. what i am interested in contextualising and drawing from egalitarian models of history- of which there were many- especially if one also includes modes of thought directly advocating or sympathetic to egalitarian social models. and there are none (or perhaps tenatively ‘one’ dependent on how you view jefferson) that have anything to do with the historical nation-state of america.

  3. “Nothing is true; everything is permitted.”

  4. Rip Harvest | Jun 21, 2013 at 7:50 pm |

    The establishment usually engages in a race to the finish line. In other words, they know that a handful of people are onto them (Boston bombing, for example). The security apparatus commits the act, openly dismisses those in the know as conspiracy theorists then move as quickly as possible to finish their objectives. The faster they can say that it’s old news, the better.

    So this idea that Snowden is a ‘controlled release” of information defies logic. Is disclosing this tremendously egregious act supposed to soften the public and get them used to constant surveillance? Why risk it when you can always deny such activities. They would always have a sizeable, doting, sheeplike chunk of the population buying every word.

    Snowden’s revelation is important and understanding it distracts us from nothing.

    By the way, how much credibility does Counterpunch have? 9/11 litmus test, anyone?

  5. Rhoid Rager | Jun 21, 2013 at 8:06 pm |

    As long as we recognize that the NSA actually matters to any of us, then I feel that we all work for the NSA.

  6. Without a degree in the Art of Psychology it’s hard to know who to trust this deep in the rabbit hole.

    Does anyone else feel this is getting ludicrous? Wolf says Snowden might be part of the bad guys so Lindorff says that Wolf is. Then Tarpley jumps in and says that Wolf is as well.

    A couple days ago Valentine (who?) said that Scahill of the film Dirty Wars might be an agent of disinformation for not mentioning the CIA in his film more than once.

    Well we might all be ants on a small rock to some species of giants too.

    I think we should all take a breath and go back to the idea that if you don’t have at least some evidence, don’t say it. Conjecture is not evidence.

    I have a lot of respect for Wolf, do not really know Snowden – who does? – don’t know Lindorff, Valentine, or Scahill, but don’t have a lot of respect for opinionated Tarpley. So where does that leave us?

    All that is left is to giggle like Mr. Hicks used to do at times like these and remember his famous words; “It’s just a ride.”

    The rest will make itself clear in time. Unfortunately we Americans have been conditioned not to have any patience. Remember, these guys are not really that good at what they do and they get lazy about the finer details. Their armor of illusion always develops chinks, but it takes a while.

    If it is a sideshow, enjoy the show, but stick around long enough to see who comes to take down the tent afterwards.

    • the fact that its headline news leads me to think its not what it appears. I thin its a good thing that wolf is questioning and debating whats going on and she seems to be open to the possibility her conjecture is wrong. that’s usually a good sign. the guy from counterpunch seems too invested in denouncing her conjecture, but that could be that hes just a douche like most political people. all I can say is Naomi wolf brings up a good point. we already know the nsa et al spy on us w/o warrants. snowden doesn’t tell anyone anything new. nearly everyone is conscious of constant surveillance. patriot act happened in 01. and im sure anyone whos seriously intending harm and doesn’t want to get caught knows this unless they’re a certain type of unstable. could there be an ulterior motive its such big news now, then? I believe its probable. they gotta lotta psychological technicians working on us. im sure they use em.

    • Naomi Wolf has always tried to appear as a freedom activist. Unfortunately, she has never been willing to go all the way down the rabbit hole in exposing the government’s atrocities. This is where she exposes herself as “controlled opposition.” She totally failed the 911 litmus test and even took a swipe at conspiracy theorists. Now she has come out proclaiming that Edward Snowden is a bit too organized and his communication is a bit too smooth?

      Naomi Wolf reminds me of a defense attorney who is in the process of destroying the credibility of an eye witness in court. This is nothing short of running interference for the government by creating doubt in the minds of people who are finally beginning to take an interest. Smearing Edward Snowden is blatant damage control for the establishment.

      Let’s be honest here, Naomi Wolf is highly educated (Yale, Rhodes, et al…) and reeks of narcissism. Little Miss “Vagina” is an elitist snob who considers anyone who applies analytical thought to an issue as being a pretender. Only the great Naomi Wolf is organized in her endeavors and has the skill to speak smoothly, in whole paragraphs.

  7. Capucine Altier | Jun 22, 2013 at 6:05 am |

    Everyone is paranoid these days. Don’t blame her for that….. We all think differently.

  8. Believe what you don’t believe.

  9. Spasmodius | Jun 22, 2013 at 1:29 pm |

    The Empire never ended.

  10. Jon Goodman | Jun 22, 2013 at 8:51 pm |

    What if the pot be calling the kettle fishy here, eh? Dave Lindorff, writing at CounterPunch? Nothing ‘funny’ about him, or Israel Shamir, or Messrs Cockburn & St. Clair, over there- which nobody can deny! Journalists most yellow, worthy of all the brotherhood’s admiration and respect.

  11. blacklistednews | Jun 25, 2013 at 4:55 pm |

    Good on Naomi for asking the obvious question, is this a psy-op.

  12. I don’t see why not. 80’s popular poet Pam Ayres turned out to be working for MI5 infiltrating working men’s clubs (allegedly)

  13. I find Wolf’s first paragraph off base and seriously lacking in research:
    “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. ”

    It’s not like Snowden hired the guy who directs Kanye West videos to do the interview – it was Laura Poitras, a noted doc filmmaker, who he contacted before he even saw any of her feature films because he read an article about how the stuff she was making was putting her on all the no-fly lists and she was now making a doc about that. She is talented, yes, but it was more about her sympatico-ness than her lighting skills. The interview itself was a talking head thing that anyone could’ve done – he just wanted someone who understood what he was doing and who could then get it to the right people.
    And the thing about the power point – his whole point for leaking material and not just going to the press and saying “this is happening” is because he knew if he did the latter, no one would pay attention. So the control freak aspect about the power point makes a lot of sense.

    Her theory is incredibly cynical, unfortunately not completely unrealistic, but in the end, it’s sloppy. And this is pretty serious stuff to be sloppy about….

  14. IRENE CAESAR, PH.D. | Sep 11, 2014 at 3:34 am |

    Edward Snowden is fake — hustling for the NSA fake alien invasion. NSA ! GET A LIFE ! Five Eyes are working for more than 50 years already on staging a fake alien invasion, and creating synthetic reptilians in their underground cities — for the sake of creating a Global Zion aka NWO of the Satanist-Zionist alliance under the pretence of the global threat to the humankind. Wernher von Braun and Reagan both warned of this scenario. Idiots from the Five Eyes staged fake appearances of agents in masks, planted in fake memories via MK Ultra techniques, and flew their outdated sourcer-like and triangle-like ships all over the place. Imbeciles! They do not realise that WE, RUSSIANS, are the ancient aliens. And they, with their fake Covenant with the Negroid God Seth of the Land of Seth (Upper Egypt), lost all common sense.веды-и-йогу-создали-русские/

Comments are closed.