Rappoport replies to a Salon.com charge that he’s a conspiracist
by Jon Rappoport
August 30, 2013
I just became aware that, this past June, Salon.com ran a story headlined, “Here come the Edward Snowden truthers.” The author, Alex Seitz-Wald (twitter), took several writers to task, including me, for doubting Snowden’s story.
Seitz-Wald wrote: “Why would these people find it easier to believe Snowden is an [sic] CIA plant than a whistle-blower? Conspiracists are reflexively skeptical of the ‘official narrative,’ even when it should confirm their worldview. Snowden should be a victory for them, but because the mainstream media and the government are corroborating much of what Snowden leaked, the mainstream account immediately becomes suspicious.”
Salon.com is now considering whether to publish this article.
Let’s see. Seitz-Wald claims I would doubt any mainstream account, right? Well, he’s absolutely on the money. I do. Like clockwork. I get up in the morning, I do 70,000 pushups, check my screen, read a “mainstream account” (of anything), and the pleasure of doubt moves right in. I pour milk on my doubt, a few strawberries, and that’s breakfast.
I doubt medical news, political news, economic news, energy news, military news, intelligence-agency news, and news about media. And that’s just for starters.
Am I a conspiracy theorist if I believe Ed Snowden’s leaks are important, but have serious doubts about his account of events leading up to his enormous data-grab at the NSA?
Let’s look at what Snowden told Glenn Greenwald about his background.
In 2003, at age 19, without a high school diploma, Snowden enlists in the Army. He begins a training program to join the Special Forces. He breaks both legs in a training exercise. He’s discharged from the Army. Is that automatic? How about healing and then resuming his Special Forces training?
If he was accepted in the program because he had special computer skills (why else?), then why discharge him simply because he was put into two casts?
“Listen, Ed, we’ve come to the conclusion that, although you’re a computer genius, your broken legs will, from this point on, destroy your unique talent. You’re fired.”
Snowden next joins the CIA, in IT. He has no high school diploma.
In 2007, the Agency sends Snowden to Geneva. He’s only 23 years old. The CIA gives him diplomatic cover there. Serious status. He’s put in charge of maintaining computer-network security. Major job. Obviously, he has access to significant classified documents. Sound a little odd? Maybe he has his GED by now. Otherwise, he still doesn’t have a high school diploma.
Snowden says that during this period, in Geneva, one of the incidents that really sours him on the CIA is the “turning of a Swiss banker.” One night, CIA guys get a banker drunk, encourage him to drive home, the banker gets busted, the CIA guys help him out, and then with that bond formed, they eventually convince the banker to reveal deep secrets to the Agency.
Snowden is soured by this? He’s that naïve? He doesn’t know by now that his own agency, CIA does this sort of thing all the time? He’s shocked? He “didn’t sign up for this?”
In 2009, Snowden leaves the CIA. Why? Presumably because he’s disillusioned. It should be noted that Snowden claimed he could do very heavy damage to the entire US intelligence community in 2008, but decided to wait because he thought Obama, just coming into the presidency, might make virtuous policy changes.
After a year with the CIA in Geneva, Snowden really had the capability to take down the whole US intelligence network, or a major chunk of it? He had that much access to classified data?
In 2009, Snowden leaves the CIA and moves into the private sector. He works for two defense contractors, Dell and then Booz Allen Hamilton. In this latter job, Snowden is assigned to work at the NSA.
By virtue of his 2013 hack, he claims to have grabbed so much sensitive NSA data that he can take down the whole US intelligence network in a single day. Really? In a single day?
How did he execute the hacks? According to press reports (and this isn’t necessarily Snowden’s version), the magic wand was a thumb-drive. Snowden waltzed into work with one, plugged in, and stole the farm and the Holy Grail and the kitchen sink.
Snowden’s claim of theft, by whatever method, is problematic, dubious, and suspect. Why do people insist on treating the NSA, on the one hand, as the most awesome, talented, resource-rich spying agency in the world and, on the other hand, as an astonishing bunch of morons who just happened to forget to develop their own useful internal security?
The NSA’s business is to intrude, spy, hack, tap, get into everybody’s system, yes? Right? But protecting themselves from the same kind of treatment is just too much to ask.
They never compartmentalized their own data to prevent somebody from climbing the ladder all the way to the top. They considered, but never made it mandatory to have two analysts sign off on every trip into classified areas.
They never got around to installing myriad checks and counter-checks, devised by their in-house geniuses, to prevent employee theft.
This is like saying, in the heyday of the Mafia, a junior hitman from New York could fly to Vegas and sign off on papers making him the owner of ten casinos and hotels on the Strip.
It’s like saying a radio man on a nuclear submarine could launch missiles by throwing a few switches.
“Yes, Mr. President, he bypassed our procedures and took out 24 islands in the Pacific before we could stop him. Well, we didn’t exactly stop him. He jumped into a lifeboat and paddled to shore before we knew what happened. But I swear, we’re going to fix this so it’ll never occur again.”
Or: “Yes, Mr. President, it turns out that the most dangerous weapon we face in the eternal war against terrorism is the thumb-drive. Who knew? Snowden made off with our most sensitive data. We forgot to make our systems secure. I think there was a meeting about it nine years ago, but I was on a plane home to my cousin’s nephew’s birthday party.”
Keep in mind that the very essence of being an intelligence officer is lying. Lying then, lying now, lying later. If you don’t get this, you know nothing about that world.
Given this fact, and given how unlikely it is that the NSA never installed extremely tight internal security, there is a strong chance that Snowden didn’t steal the farm. That’s not the way it happened.
Looking for a clue about how Snowden really operated, the most obvious place to start would be his former employer, the CIA. Would you rather start with his high school gym teacher or Putin?
I picked the CIA, an agency that has been at war with the NSA for a very long time. To boil it down, the agencies battle over federal funds, and the CIA has been losing. Why? Because intelligence-gathering has shifted from human vacuum cleaners to electronic ones. And there, the NSA is king.
Wired Magazine, June 2013 issue. James Bamford, author of three books on the NSA, states:
“In April, as part of its 2014 budget request, the Pentagon [under which the NSA is organized] asked Congress for $4.7 billion for increased ‘cyberspace operations,’ nearly $1 billion more than the 2013 allocation. At the same time, budgets for the CIA and other intelligence agencies were cut by almost the same amount, $4.4 billion. A portion of the money going to…[NSA] will be used to create 13 cyberattack teams.”
That means spying-money. Far more for NSA, far less for CIA.
Turf war.
So I propose this: Snowden didn’t steal the crown-jewels of information, they were given to him by CIA people who had accumulated them, carefully, over a long period of time, to put a hole in the mid-section of the agency they hate: the NSA. Snowden wasn’t capable of penetrating the NSA’s security, which was not a sieve. It was very, very good.
The CIA, of course, couldn’t be seen as the leaker. They needed a guy. They needed a guy who could appear to be from the NSA, to make things look worse for the NSA and to shield the CIA.
They had Ed Snowden. He had worked for the CIA in Geneva, in a high-level position, overseeing computer-systems security.
Somewhere in his CIA past, Ed meets a fellow CIA employee who sits down with him and says, “You know, Ed, things have gone too damn far. The NSA is spying on everybody all the time. I can show you proof. They’ve gone beyond the point of trying to catch terrorists. They’re doing something else. They’re expanding a Surveillance State, which can only lead to one thing: the destruction of America, what America stands for, what America is supposed to be. The NSA isn’t like us, Ed. We go after terrorists for real. Whereas NSA goes after everybody. We have to stop it. We need a guy…and there are those of us who think you might be that guy…”
During the course of this one disingenuous conversation, the CIA is killing 20 innocent civilians in a faraway land with drones, but that’s, ahem, beside the point.
Ed says, “Tell me more. I’m intrigued.”
After a series of chats, it gets serious. Eventually, Ed buys in.
And what Snowden’s theoretical CIA handler said, in his completely cynical self-serving way, is true. The Surveillance State isn’t about catching terrorists.
Or perhaps the handler is really a patriot inside the system. He and a few others want to wound and expose the NSA for good reasons.
Either way, Snowden takes the assignment.
I think my hypothesis is far more believable than the one in which the NSA has no clue about how to protect itself from an analyst at Booz Allen who shows up for work in Hawaii with a thumb-drive.
Unfortunately, the press and public are conditioned to look at disruptions in the body politic as one-move chess games. The hero (or villain) executes a single powerful play and then all hell breaks loose.
Intelligence work doesn’t operate that way. It never has. It’s about prelude, lead-in, middle strategy, end-move, cover story, false trail, and limited hangout.
No, the people who simultaneously accept the NSA as miracle-genius and mushhead-buffoon at its own trade are the conspiracists. They just happen to agree with the theme of mainstream press reporting.
Ask yourself this. Has any significant television anchor or Sunday-morning newstalk-host, with an NSA representative on camera, ever asked why we should swallow such an absurd genius-buffoon contradiction about the NSA? Has he asked the question with any degree of heat, and has he followed up, and has he stuck to his guns to press the issue further and further to a resolution or a meltdown?
No. And why not? Because those media stars know how far they can go, before the kind of official access they need to keep their jobs would evaporate in a wind of ill-will. To put it another way, they’re cowards.
Imagine, if by some miracle, David Gregory had NSA mob boss Keith Alexander in the chair on Meet the Press, and said, “Look General Alexander, we’re going to sit here until you explain to me exactly how your Agency can spy on untold numbers of people, utilizing the best minds in the business, and yet fail to secure your own temple against a single intruder who spies on you. I’m not looking for a facile gloss-over here. You’re budget is billions and billions of dollars. So let’s go. Buckle up…”
Just for starters. It’s my firm belief that the whole Snowden affair could then have unraveled in a much different way.
For another even greater miracle, suppose Alexander finally, after heavy grilling, finally jumped out of his chair and said, “Okay, you want the story? Here it is. It wasn’t our fault. We’re not bumblers. We have security that would make an ant squirm to get through, and even he wouldn’t make it past first base. Somebody with far more skill than Snowden penetrated us, and it’s a heavy blow, and we’re working on it!”
Then, all bets would be off.
The question readers will raise, of course, is: if Snowden was operating as an agent, as I suggest, does it matter? He took the files he took. The answer to that question is a subject for another story, but, yes, it does matter.
I’m fully aware that many people can’t and won’t separate a good deed from the doer, because they’re committed to believing, in a brain-addled fashion, that the two must harmonize. They would would prefer this sort of proposition: If JFK really, as some say, wanted to get us out of the horror called the Vietnam war early on, then he couldn’t have cheated on his wife a few thousand times.
Good luck. The world doesn’t always cooperate with such a puerile view. And, by the way, perhaps Snowden is a kind of hero, but with a significantly different twist.
So, if what I’m discussing in this piece is evidence that I’m a conspiracist, as Seitz-Wald claims, and the dubious statements Snowden has made are all resolvable, and the NSA really is an exceedingly brilliant but feeble-minded monster, so be it.
Jon Rappoport
The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
Alex Seitz-Wald’s entire JOB at Salon.com is to “debunk” conspiracy-theories and ridicule conspiracy theorists. Just check out all the articles he wrote after the Boston Marathon. I agree with you on Snowden too — but I also think the information he got is disinformation. Yesterday the MSM reported that part of the files on the “black budgets” just also happened to reveal that DNA evidence proved that it was, indeed, Osama Bin Laden that was killed in Pakistan. Right. Which is why the body was dumped at sea and the government refuses to share any photos or DNA tests. So if this information Snowden is revealing is also part lie, then what’s the real reason behind this whole charade?
yes, snowden is a CIA plant and I’m a conspiracist. “Anonymous” is also fake, always managing to have all its broadcasts promoted everywhere.
Reblogged this on Jericho777's Blog.
Snowden seems expendable. Maybe, like Edward Lee Howard, the Albuquerque spy, he will die in Russia, “…at his Russian dacha, reportedly from a broken neck after a fall in his home.”
Yes I know it is utterly impossible that Snowden had a genius in computers.
After all EVERYONE KNOWS a high school drop out is a useless bum.
Look at the shit Michelangelo drew when he was six years old…a bunch of crap. And the mainstream is still raving about the guy as if he were some sort of genius. Incredible.
\\][//
This type of article is why I keep coming back here, even though sometimes I think Jon is a bit out there….. he engages in some very rationale speculation here.
The term “conspiracy” comes from Latin for “to breathe together,” but that is what football players do in their huddle. They conspire to outwit the other team and make the plays that win the game. What then of this “game” called life?
As I remember playing linebacker, always roving behind my line so the other team wouldn’t know where I’d be when the ball snapped, I have this fantasy. As my opponents come out of huddle and approach the line, a light goes off in my head and I shout to my team mates: “Its not what you think. Its a conspiracy. They’re going to trick us!” The other linebacker shouts back, “They wouldn’t do that! Have you gone crazy? That last tackle whacked your brain and now you’re a paranoid nut case conspiracist!”
The entire game is about faking out the other team. Why is the term “fake” at the core of almost every sport, and the very essence of those like boxing, judo, and fencing? Its central to poker, bridge, chess, and most other games. Its at the core of our entire modern culture and kids get trained to be experts at it from kindergarten on. One goes to business school to learn to conspire with the rest of one’s own team to beat out all competitors. Conspiracy is at the core of political and military strategy, which itself is now based on “game theory.”
Why then is the fact that humans plan (conspire) together to accomplish their goals even a topic for doubt? (They wouldn’t do that to ME!) Essentially everyone we interact with is doing their best to deceive us (for our own good of course), including our parents, mate, and kids, our priest, pastor, or rabbi, our teachers and gurus, our doctors and therapists, our scientists and news reporters, and even our trusty attorney and auto dealer. The only questions are; at how many different levels are they conspiring at any given moment, to what ultimate end, and what particular type of prey, farm animal, or parasitic host are we in their game? (“Naive” BTW comes from the Latin for “born slave.”)
In the diverse Gnostic teachings that were the basis of the early “Christianities” (before Constantine co-opted and reduced their diversity for Rome), the fallen god who ruled Earth was a deceiver, as was the Hindu goddess Mara who tempted Buddha. The whole point of religion was to purify and awaken oneself, much like training in a sport or martial art, to protect oneself from deceptive gods and demons while discerning what and whom to trust. This understanding was the basis of all the ancient spiritual traditions from shamanism onward.
Why then do modern humans have such difficulty with this obvious fact of life on Earth, while engaging in almost constant subtle forms of deceit themselves, including most importantly the all pervasive practice of deceiving themselves?
Where might we begin the process of unraveling lies and discovering what we can trust, other than within our own self, or more accurately “our selves.” If I can’t uncover how I lie to myself and at how many different levels, how will I recognize this in others? How could I possibly discern a demon from angel if my own life is a “matrix” of self deception and denial of my own direct experience?
The NSA’s “thumb drive” corresponds to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld, et al’s “box-cutting razor blades wielded by 19 Arab ‘terrorists’ ” that overcame ALL the defensive forces of the U.S. Government that were at that same moment on highest alert because of a massive military anti-terror training exercise regarding the very events that happened on 9-11-01. That one worked so well, why not NSA using it again later. Same with the Boston “Bombing” and all 9-11 spin-offs. The “Secret Ones” figure they pulled off 9-11 riotously successfully. So why not continue gnawing that bone until it’s unfit to digest before going to the rigors of developing a whole new scenario?
Indeed, the very term “conspiracy theorist” (something that every policeman and ostensibly, every politician and judge are supposed to be) is a term deliberately re-engineered by the “Salon.coms” of the world and Internet to sound as though any “civilian” individual is doing an evil thing by hypothesizing who may have done what regarding criminal activity and for what reason(s). If one is a civilian musing thus, one is a dreadfully stupid “conspiracy theorist,” but if one is a cop, prosecutor, judge or legislator, then one is a conspiracy theorist doing his holy purpose of ferreting out criminals. Salon.com, of course, works for yo’ gubmit. Thus, Salon is only gubmit protecting gubmit and greasing one another’s penis’ for the big “pushes” coming down, if they intend using any grease, that is, or raping the victims dry. Getting dry fucked can be tough, at least so I hear, and I have heard and read about the screams of some of the victims. Praise the Lord I even avoid the simile. God is good to me.
I would be proud of Salon.com’s disagreeing with me if I were you, Jon, as one is known by
the enemies one has as much as by friends. Birds of a feather flock together.
AdamXYZ
[…] source: http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/rappoport-replies-to-a-salon-com-charge-that-hes-a-cons… […]
no you are not a theorist. that is just what people with low iqs cry out in vain who still possess a degree of common sense in this senile world.
remember…. no access to cloud drives with a usb….. duh.
Jon, I think you need to hold your head up and exclaim you are a conspiracy theorist. In this politically correct world following Alice Bailey’s “plan” the voice of the “Illuminati” mainstream media is the VOICE. The theosophical new world order have become alarmed that the majority of human beings no longer believe the VOICE, so they have established an “alternative” VOICE. This attracts the pseudo-intellectual and corrupts truth to the same ultimate end as the mainstream VOICE. A competition, as it were, like the one we are seeing between the CIA and NSA.
Those who disrupt official propaganda generated by the mainstream or alternative VOICE, are commended with the honour “conspiracy theorist”. You see these fine, intelligent folks find the cracks in both mainstream and alternative stories and in doing so, defy the party line. This is something to be proud of; something to promote; something to cherish.
There is one thing that intrigues me. The Russians are not stupid. Putin is as “tricky” as they come. In light of many sane individuals backing on Russia being the break on the Zionist (yes, more of that theosophical plan) insanity in the middle east, why are they harbouring the CIA, or rather a CIA man? The CIA is the brainchild of perhaps the most terrible family on the planet – the one that can make the Satanists shrink. I don’t need to mention them by name. You know who they are. So what do you think Putin’s real position is on Syria, Iran and the Armageddon?
the OBL story is the kicker. I get what you are saying. This guy is nowhere near anything that would allow him to get this data… What is his real “degree” if you get my drift. Guys who could do this have at least 29 degrees, not one. Now, whatever happened or how it happened, it woke some people up, which all said and done, is a good thing. BUT, if I see one more thing about OBL or something along those lines… then I know what is going on. They have played the game to put this guy on a pedestal of ‘truth’ and that all he says is gospel. That is where this could come full circle. Oh, But wait, Cameron and crew made them ‘destroy everything’ and NO ONE thought to make back ups and mail them to everyone out there? And why ‘greenwald’? Who is this Greenwald anyway? Why not a group of people… One in every country? AND why aren’t we really hearing anything we don’t already know? “The NSA is spying on you!!!” AND? IS this suppose to be some revelation? “There are black budgets” Sure, this is where the dope money goes to pay for this stuff… we knew that going back to the 1930’s and the Exchange Stabilization Fund.
Now what has happened? It trails off into the night… no good data comes out… We have ‘hope’ there is a good guy out there… and in the end… nothing happens at all, and said hope is ‘crushed’ He can ‘take down the NSA’ OK, since you are pretty much a dead man…. do it! Surely you would have something to release by now (Or is agent greenwald waiting for the right time)
I will be less speculative on this mess if they pin something on Merkel just before the elections. Which would of course spell the nail in the coffin for the Euro (which of course was planned also)
Other than that, Until I see something I don’t already know by surfing the net and doing research. I am suspect of this whole mess. Props to the fact that this has been a wake-up call for some people and perhaps… perhaps helped them understand what all us ‘conspiracy whacko’s’ have been saying. EVERYONE who gets into this truth starts somewhere, and this looks like it has been the ‘somewhere’ for lots of people.
So, Let’s see the meat and potatoes… please, something I don’t already know 00 Snowden
If Snowden worked for all these outfits without proper qualifications, then it means that whoever did the hiring was compromised in each case into breaking the hiring rules by a more powerful entity.
Given that NSA was recently investigating MSM zio-journalists (e.g. Rosen of AP), it should be considered whether Snowden actually works for Mossad and was brought out to play his card after having been a sleeper hired without proper qualifications and installed by coercion over hiring authorities. It seems to me the only way Snowden could have been hired by so many outfits and move up so fast is if he were indeed working for Mossad. Someone needs to investigate Snowden’s early life thoroughly, as I have seen nothing about it yet. Is he Jewish? Is he Christian? Where did he actually grow up? And frankly his father seems like he might be a faker too.
Yes, you’re right, Jon. It IS cowardice. That’s exactly what the establishment media mindset boils down to. Pure, self-rationalized, self-deluded, self-serving COWARDICE. I am hoping and praying for the day when one of these corporate sock puppets break from the herd, and in a true Network Moment, shatters that first Matrix layer.
Yeah, I know, I’m probably living in my OWN little fantasy world, hoping for something like this, but hope is what sustains us. Right?
Controlled access. This pertains to all information, including, and not limited to this web-site, en-virtual or or perceived physical. Allowable under the idea of critical thinking or dissecting of facts. All is controlled access. It gives the Illusion that one is free to express ones self (‘wether’ HA!, castrated sheep) it be through fri night ‘let’s go out’ and be ourselves’ rebel at the per cieved fuck you ‘I’m an individual’ blow off steam at my watering hole or,concert venue et al…what-ever..OK, AS for Snow-den, well…in the obvious, it is an opportunity for the players to perpetuate more conspiracy, ‘We need better security’. Said same. They ‘are’ brilliantly feeble minded monsters. Monsters!
Of course you are a conspiracy theorist. It is the nature and substance of your theory that distinguishes you from flock of theorist who conspire to theorize that that conspiracy is only a theory while seeing fear porn is a fine way to earn a living. Keep up the good dot connecting.
Excellent Info Jon Rappoport! I will share this info 🙂
[…] After covering a number of mass shootings and bombings over the last 20 years, I question the official explanation when a new one occurs. Automatically. Always. Every single time. […]
[…] After covering a number of mass shootings and bombings over the last 20 years, I question the official explanation when a new one occurs. Automatically. Always. Every single time. […]
[…] After covering a number of mass shootings and bombings over the last 20 years,I question the official explanation when a new one occurs. Automatically. Always. Every single time. […]
[…] After covering a number of mass shootings and bombings over the last 20 years, I question the official explanation when a new one occurs. Automatically. Always. Every single time. […]
[…] After covering a number of mass shootings and bombings over the last 20 years, I question the official explanation when a new one occurs. Automatically. Always. Every single time. […]
[…] After covering a number of mass shootings and bombings over the last 20 years, I question the official explanation when a new one occurs. Automatically. Always. Every single time. […]
[…] After covering a number of mass shootings and bombings over the last 20 years, I question the official explanation when a new one occurs. Automatically. Always. Every single time. […]
I wonder why when it’s an atrocity by Muslims, the Gov. says, “They were acting alone.” When it’s an atrocity by a black, the Gov. says, “He was mentally disturbed.” If the atrocity is done by a White man, the Gov. says, “It’s a terrorist attack and Hate crime by fanatic Christians, or, Conservative Patriot Group, or, White neo- Nazis ! ”
Does any one else wonder about THAT ?
The Snowden background story that Jon reviews here is essentially the plot to the 2003 film “The Recruit” with Al Pacino and Colin Farrell, where Farrell is a genius with a computer and defeats the invincible the CIA with a thumb drive and his web server skills, all while Pacino waxes poetic about unthanked patriot martyrs and never-ending bad guys that normal people can’t see. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0292506/