The word “whistleblower” has been trending in news headlines lately, but not for the reasons that any sane person might hope for.

Read the whistleblower complaint regarding President Trump’s communications with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky“, says The Washington Post. “Trump responds to hearing on whistleblower complaint“, says MSNBC. “Trump-Ukraine scandal: what did the whistleblower say and how serious is it?“, writes The Guardian. “Whistleblower complaint says White House tried to ‘lock down’ Ukraine call records” announces CBS. “Whistleblower’s complaint is a devastating report from a savvy official“, declares CNN.

So who is this “savvy official”? Who is this courageous whistleblower who boldly shone the light of truth upon the mechanisms of power in the interests of the common man? Who is this brave, selfless individual who set off an impeachment inquiry by taking a stand and revealing the fact that the US president made a phone call in July urging Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to help investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his son?

Well believe it or not, according to The New York Times this brave, noble whistleblower who the mainstream media are currently championing is an officer for the Central Intelligence Agency.

“The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for his re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a CIA officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his identity,” The New York Times reports. “The man has since returned to the CIA, the people said. Little else is known about him.”

So there you have it. A mysterious stranger from the lying, torturingpropagandizingdrug trafficking, assassinatingcoup-stagingwarmongering, psychopathic CIA was working in the White House, heroically provided the political/media class with politically powerful information out of the goodness of his heart, and then vanished off into the Langley sunset. Clearly there is nothing suspicious about this story at all.

In all seriousness, even to call this spook a “whistleblower” is ridiculous on its face. You don’t get to call someone from the US intelligence community a whistleblower unless they are actually whistleblowing on the US intelligence community. That’s not a thing. A CIA officer who exposes information about government officials is an operative performing an operation unless proven otherwise, because that’s what the CIA does; it liberally leaks information wherever it’s convenient for CIA agendas while withholding all other information behind a veil of government secrecy.

A CIA officer who exposes information about CIA wrongdoings without the CIA’s permission is a whistleblower. A CIA officer who exposes information about someone else is just a spook doing spook things. You can recognize the latter by the way the mass media supports, applauds and employs them. You can recognize the former by the way they have been persecuted, imprisoned, and/or died under mysterious circumstances.

But if you listen to the billionaire media, we should be calling this CIA officer a whistleblower, we should be enraged at The New York Times for exposing that CIA officer’s identity, and we should be raising a small fortune on GoFundMe for “legal aid” that this CIA officer will never need.

“The idea that the media needs to ‘protect’ a high-level CIA officer making explosive claims about the president, which have now been used as the basis for impeachment proceedings, is such an insane perversion of journalistic ethics,” journalist Michael Tracey tweeted today on this new development.

While all this political/media class cheerleading for whistleblower protections is going on, the most prominent whistleblower in America remains imprisoned for taking a principled stand against secret grand juries while being driven into crippling debt. Chelsea Manning is still racking up fines of $1,000 per day while locked in a Virginia federal detention center for refusing to testify against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The mainstream press that is so keen to champion a “whistleblower” who works for the CIA and provided information which feeds into America’s fake partisan pro wrestling feud has been almost completely silent on the actual whistleblower who exposed actual US war crimes.

“The courageous whistleblower Chelsea Manning has now been held in a federal detention center in Alexandria, Virginia for more than six months,” reads a recent article by World Socialist Website, one of the only news outlets to consistently report on Manning’s plight. “Manning has not been charged with or committed any crime. She was sent to jail on March 8, 2019 for refusing to testify before a secret grand jury that has indicted persecuted WikiLeaks founder and publisher Julian Assange, who published the information she leaked exposing rampant US imperialist criminality.”

“The vindictive treatment of Chelsea Manning has included ‘administrative segregation’—a prison euphemism for solitary confinement—and being fined an unprecedented $1,000 per day for refusing to answer grand jury questions,” WSWS reports. “By the time she might be released in October 2020, she will be left owing the US government as much as $440,000. Convicted antiwar activist Jeremy Hammond, who provided intelligence documents to WikiLeaks, has been also brought to the same jail as Manning in order to coerce him into giving false testimony.”

“On a scale of ‘haha’ to ‘lol,’ how likely would you say it is that politicians’ sudden interest in whistleblowing will lead to the reform of the Espionage Act, which the government has routinely used to jail the sources behind some of the most important stories in US history?” tweeted NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in response to an Onion article satirizing the latest hypocrisy.

Pointing out hypocrisy is such a common practice in politics that it often wears a bit thin these days, especially since it’s frequently done in a disingenuous way, but when implemented with intellectual honesty it serves a very useful purpose: it shows when people aren’t really being truthful about the position that they are taking.

The political/media class of the United States do not care about whistleblowers. They do not care about truth, and they do not care about justice. They do not care about holding power to account, because they exist only to serve power.

I don’t pretend to know what the CIA’s game is here; it probably isn’t to remove Trump from office because everyone knows that will not happen and failed impeachments historically boost a president’s popularity. But I do know that everyone cheerleading for this fake “whistleblower” while ignoring the real ones has exposed themselves.


Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either YoutubesoundcloudApple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemitthrowing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandisebuying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Liked it? Take a second to support Caitlin Johnstone on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!

74 responses to “MSM Defends CIA’s “Whistleblower”, Ignores Actual Whistleblowers”

  1. Great job, Caity! Jimmy Dore had John Kiriakou on his show and sing your praises and read from this article in this episode:

    John and Jimmy both sing your praises.

  2. On Julian Assange, the link below is to an article published yesterday in Arena by a friend of Julian’s, Felicity Ruby, who has been visiting him regularly. She saw him recently and updates what it’s like to visit him.

    I think the only thing that can save Julian is pressure by Australians on their government to step in and get Julian released – the way they did with Peter Greste who was imprisoned in Egypt. I’ve been emailing relevant MPs – unfortunately they never bother to answer – but if enough people made it clear that they want Julian free perhaps they would take notice. I won’t hold my breath, but what else can we do? I’m encouraging my friends to contact their MPs and urge readers here to do the same. Please.

  3. I am hoping that the ” whole story ” comes out about the United States governments actions in Ukraine so that the average U.S.A. Joe’s and Jane’s become aware of the slimy underbelly of United States ” foreign policy “. There are things going on here that are never mentioned in polite company.

  4. >revealing the fact that the US president made a phone call in July urging Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to help investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his son?
    Yep, and the weird thing is that everybody in the US, even the Russiagate sceptics, seems to agree that this is an incredible evil. Apparently, US presidents are barred from ever encouraging the investigation of alleged corruption, or cooperating with foreign governments in investigating alleged corruption, when the alleged perpetrator happens to belong to the other half of the American two-party system. An official, public corruption investigation by an independent nation state is considered just ‘oppo research’ and ‘digging up dirt’, as long as the suspect bothers to run for an American public office in the meantime; as usual, the entire world is seen only as an insignificant secondary appendage to internal American scuffling. Joe Biden is sacrosanct, untouchable and has total immunity. Perhaps that’s because American officials in general are supposed to enjoy immunity from prosecution for corruption in foreign countries, and Trump is guilty of violating the unwritten rule of mafioso solidarity demanded by the code of conduct of American imperial thieves.
    In addition, it seems that as per the foreign emoluments clause, a president is not allowed to demand any action from a foreign government, when that action would result in any political benefit for the president, making it ‘a thing of value’. By this logic, when a president fights a war and calls on the enemy to capitulate, this is a violation of the constitution and of campaign financing rules, since the enemy’s capitulation would increase the president’s popularity and chances of winning the next election. Presidents are only allowed to make demands that result in catastrophes that ruin their reputation, you see. The interpretation of the foreign emoluments clause is being extended ad absurdum in the age of Trump.
    Now, whether the corruption allegations against Biden are credible, I don’t know (I certainly don’t see what business Biden’s son had to be on the board of directors of a Ukrainian natural gas company, but it’s quite possible that nothing illegal has taken place). However, the common working assumption seems to be that the allegations are so self-evidently false that even just demanding their investigation is unquestionably groundless and criminal, and I don’t see a reason to presume that *before* any investigation has taken place. I also have no doubt that Trump’s *real* motive for demanding an investigation was to hurt his opponents, but this doesn’t mean that he didn’t simultaneously have a perfectly lawful and noble-sounding reason/pretext for it, namely fighting corruption, and that is what counts in law as well as in politics. AFACIS, this is just politics as usual, played by the rules. From what I can gather, it seems that a president can be impeached over anything, including, presumably, the current brouhaha, but it will still be a case of ‘we do it beçause we can’.

  5. Yikes… thanks for clearing up what a ‘Whistleblower ‘ actually is. Seems like…uh, we non-baseball yanks woulda’ known something hyper basic like that !
    Ooops…I completely forgot our main EXCUSE !!! Our ‘information -rich’ environment here in the big acres under Canada ( just North of Mexico 🙂 is such a reality desert ! And… we’re so used to it . AARRRRGGGGHHHHH ! We’ve super-adapted & collectively devolved right off the cognitive charts ?!

    So, in a sense , CeeJay’s incisive essay is like one of those ancient lightning bolts that supposedly hit some stagnant primordial soup & jump-started LIFE ON PLANET EARTH . Fortunate flashes of bright light helping us to gather our wits (again ? ) . Fingers crossed.

    -take care, John Joslin -(Detroit, Michigan , south of the Border)

  6. The good people at The Duran have a video show (probably more than one) on this. The CIA whistleblower wasn’t a whistleblower. The Trump inquiry was about Ukraine (which a full investigation into will certain be bad for the Bidens), and the Democratic Party (and con artist Barack Obama) is desperate to not have that can of worms opened.

    1. Agree on the excellent Duran – I catch their analysis on their podcast.

  7. This ” Impeachment ” is going to take off on a ” life of its own” in which everyone ” gets into the act “; Here is an example:

  8. The people who argue the narrative that impeachments raise a President’s popularity are basing that on one and only one data point. I don’t know if there was polling when President Johnson was impeached after the civil war. I don’t really remember Nixon being all that popular before the helicopter did an emergency evacuation of him from the White House lawn. So, that whole narrative is based on the Clinton impeachment of the 1990’s. And it may not be relevant to Trump, as Trump is very different than Clinton.
    Clinton still maintained the illusion that the Dems were on the side of ordinary people. The illusion was fading around the edges by the time Monica and the Blue Dress became a thing, but it was still there. And, in terms of personality, Clinton was a lot more likeable than Trump. Clinton could charm a room. I saw a couple of his appearances in person, and he could charm the socks off of a room full of people. Unlike Trump who rants incoherently for awhile before stomping off the stage.
    Thus, the impeachment of Clinton did help gain support for him, and even enough to let his VP win the 2000 election before the coup took place. Clinton was likeable, and the Republicans were represented by two-legged trolls like Gingrich and Dole. Clinton could at least pretend to be on the side of the people, so the people rallied around Clinton when Clinton was attacked on what were really side issues like what he did with his cigars in the oval office and could a deposition be picked apart and preyed upon.
    If a very unlikable billionaire who has led a government of the billionaires, by the billionaires and for the billionaires thinks that impeachment will make him popular, then he’s probably in for yet another surprise.

  9. I saw an interesting poll. A YouGov poll on impeachment questions said 22% that it was “Appropriate” for the president to request a foreign government open an investigation into a potential political opponent.
    That was interesting because I’ve always put rhetorically that Trump’s true base is about 20% of the population. That was mainly based on old data on the Tea Party movement, so I was wondering if it had grown during the years of the Trump regime. Apparently it hasn’t. The crazy radical right was about 20% before and it is still about 20% now.
    Of course, Trump gets more support than that. But the additional support comes from the partisans who will always support a Republican no matter how many horns sprout from his head or that his head glows a satanic red. To me, America is about 45% people who’d support Satan if he was a Republican, and another 45% who’d support Satan if he was a Democrat.
    Elections are decided in the middle. Except, in this case the middle has long since abandoned Trump. If you look at charts of Trump’s Approval ratings, that middle fled in the early days of Trump when he was appointing his cabinet of billionaires and generals. Trump’s approval plummeted in the first few months of the Trump regime, and its never climbed back since. No matter what Trump does or what Trump tweets, the middle doesn’t move and clearly has already written Trump off.
    Which means as long as the Dems don’t do something stupid like nominate Swiss Cheese Biden, they win the election. Almost all their candidates are electable. That’s a non issue. The question is to we want more pro-banker, pro-war Dems, or do we want something different. Elect-ability is a non-issue, outside of CNN-land and MSNBC-land.

  10. Thanks for this article which points out the fact that those in power use any tactic to control the narrative and that we need to be less gullible in accepting all the words unless we see proof, not innuendos. I can think of so many other uses of these politicians time to better the country than just being anti-Trump. Thanks again for a refreshing view of the topic.

    1. Always be careful about accepting any words because they change the meanings of the words any time they want to. Hillary as a ‘progressive’ is proof of that.

  11. Quite right, Caitlin. The hypocrisy of this CIA “whistleblower” is evident in the way it is being trumpeted by the controlled press. All the public ever gets is massive deception and manipulation. It’s quite refreshing to see you point this out. Keep up the good work.

  12. My old brain believes that no matter where ” President Trump’s Impeachment ” eventually goes; Joe Biden and his son are going to be in deep do-do. The Biden’s are likely to take Barack Obama and many of his ” governmental office holders ” down the toilet too. There are many who see what I am seeing; as seen here:

    1. You can only hope the Democrats even think about investigating Joe Biden at all, with the “efficiency” they investigated Hillary’s emails. They will only do so if it suits their purpose.

  13. Obviously, the CIA wants Warren instead of Biden as the Team Blue candidate.

    1. I reluctantly publicly expose my ignorance and ask why that link opens my gmail account with an empty inbox but all my folders down the left-hand side. ??

  14. CIA to Trump, “Nothing personal, it’s just rule-of-law”.

    This is what makes democracy great. We get to choose which mafia we want to rule over us. And just look at how they jockey with each other to compete to wear that mantle. It’s like a buyer’s marketplace!

    1. Your exactly right. Joseph Schumpeter in his 1942 book “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy points out that Democracy is not being ruled by the will of the people, Democracy only allows the people to approve or disapprove of the people that rule over them.

  15. Nice to know exposing presidential wrongdoing is just peanuts compared to exposing CIA secrets. Obviously what you expose is both trivial and highly suspect if you’re the wrong sort of person. But after reading Caitlin’s excellent, well thought out piece I can see that CIA personnel can’t be “whistleblowers” if they go through proper channels to expose wrong-doing by politicians or other officials. Only CIA personnel who bypass that process and go directly to Wikileaks to expose CIA secrets can be so feted and admired.

    But, sarcasm aside, this really seems like an extremely bad faith interpretation of the whistleblower story by this self-styled “rogue journalist”, but that is just par for the course for someone like Caitlin who at one stage was promoting Seth Rich conspiracy theories. But I can think of no better way to implicitly support Trump, (part of long established pattern by the “rogue journalist” of making excuses for the Orange One’s misdeeds), than to echo GOP talking points by casting doubt on whistleblower’s motives by waxing on about their alleged CIAness.

    Oh, and I really, really, really liked the trivialization of Trump’s infamous phone call: “the US president made a phone call in July urging Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to help investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his son?” So that’s what it was all about? He just wanted Zelensky to “help investigate corruption allegations…”? Silly me, I thought Trump was seeking campaign assistance from a foreign power. But the whistleblower didn’t leak CIA secrets to Wikileaks, so the complaint is immediately suspect.

    You’ve learned well at Glenn Greenwald’s knee.

    1. Michael Weddington Avatar
      Michael Weddington

      You are an idiot.

      1. That was profound. Is there any more to your argument? Or that it?

        1. That’s succinct enuff.
          What is it that you don’t get ?
          Are you slow ?
          No need to waste energy and resources to reiterate the obvious.

    2. Graciously Hig thinks CIA approved “whistleblower” messages delivering politically related messages deserve the same respect as patriotic whistleblower heroes who knowingly face extreme harms to inform the public of crimes deliberately nefariously hidden from them by unaccountable agencies.

      Trump looks to have acted inappropriately with Zelensky phonecall. But Centrist Dems know Trump will not be impeached over it, and were also smart enough to known Russiagate was a manufactured lie. The logical political aim of this cabal of Dem Elites/Big Media/Intelligence Agencies is to retain Neoliberalism (of HRC type) at all costs and deflect the rising Progressive Movement (of Sanders type).

      On its surface this latest episode seems to be born out of desperation. And it is unclear how Phonegate could be used to promote this cabal’s interests. We will have to see how they play this out.

      1. Personally hope the whole scandal backfires on the cabal and ends up dropping Bidens numbers and improving the odds of his progressive challengers. One can dream. Hopefully it does not also improve Trump’s popularity.

        1. That’s a bizarre argument: launch a sure-to-fail impeachment of Trump in a bid to damage Bernie Sanders.

          Keep up that “cabal” talk, nothing conspiratorial about it at all!

    3. Trump derangement syndrome on full display.

      1. Yes, there’s a lot of it in the comments here on the “rogue journalist’s” website. Key feature are an ability to see only virtue in the most heinous acts committed by Trump, where if a Democrat had done likewise, impeachment would be seen as too lenient.

  16. As it was in the days of Noah, you have good whistleblowers and bad whistleblowers.

    The good ones are those who will advance the interests of the billionaires and the bad ones are those who will try to advance the interests of the common man.

    For example, the lie of 9/11 is obviously in the interests of the wealthies and against the interest of the common man.

    Protests against climate change seem also to be in the interests of the wealthies since it is not a protest in favor of a decent life and a decent income for every citizens. It is a smoke screen used to avoid talking of better distribution of wealth.

    I do have really seen enough of all the bullshit.

    Fortunately, according to prophecies, the Return of Jesus is very near and I pray the Rosary to hasten His Glorious return.

    1. yup, not all “whistleblowings” are equal. whistleblowing for the bad actors or for the general public are two completely different things. Judith Miller of NYT did time in prison for concealing the ID of the bad actor (source) and then claiming the press privilege. she thought the public were that dumb. any privilege is predicated on the premise that the act is to serve the public interest.

  17. Hilarious, Caitlin. Truly, hilarious. Chelsea Manning is also a fake whistleblower and the perps tell us loudly and clearly in stating that she downloaded 400,000 files onto CDs labelled “Lady Ga Ga” to “smuggle them through security”. You talk of “narrative” and yet you are so entrenched in the brave-transgender-whistleblower -Chelsea-Manning-arm-in-arm-with-Julian, that even when it’s pointed out to you that they tell us – they always do, they’re good that way – you refuse to believe it. It is utterly astounding just beyond astounding how people simply refuse to confront evidence when it contradicts their deeply held beliefs, even those who assert so very loudly that they are “woke”.

    You need to detach Caitlin. The perps have got us all figured out – you included, of course – they know how to entrench a narrative – in any profile of human – quicker than you can say Jack Robinson. It’s so easy for them. I mean I believed in Chelsea Manning for a decade myself but I wasn’t entrenched in her story. Why do people entrench so much in stuff they only know from the media. I mean seriously. She’s a STORY deliberately targeted to you and likeminded people, Caitlin. Do you not get that? Do you think they haven’t got YOU figured out too and don’t know how to target you. They know how to target everyone.

    Of course, if you have any evidence that Chelsea is not an intelligence asset but a genuine whistleblower, even just the tiniest skerrick, I’m all ears, Caitlin.

    My sister and a couple of friends are people who believe absolutely nothing from authorities – guess what? They’ve got them targeted too. I suspected as much and so I looked up Bill Kaysing, the first person to come out and say the moon landings were a hoax. There was the CIA, like an evil jack-in-the-box waiting for me in his Wikipedia entry. Apparently, he has a daughter and nephew named Dietrich von Schmausen who are writing a book about his life. I looked up Dietrich von Schmausen on YouTube and he’s a Professor at the North American Institute for Xenobiological Research, who talks with a fake German accent about aliens and shows us an alien brain in a specimen jar. What a chortle! Supposedly, Kaysing was head of technical communications at Rocketdyne, the company that made the Saturn V rockets, but he tells us that the lunar lander should have made a huge blast crater throwing up rocks and SAND and sunk into it.

    They hoax us constantly and have a great old chortle while they’re about it. And I have to say as time goes on I blame them less. I feel I’m surrounded by people who are completely as they say in Italian “testa dura”, resistant to all reason, logic and evidence.

    Every 9/11 whistleblower and “ex”-CIA agent I’m aware of looks fake. Anyone who pushes controlled demolition while also asserting that there may have been real planes will probably be controlled opposition. The perps have all the truthers running round like headless chickens over the building collapses while pushing us away from the planes cos when you look at the planes it’s so much more obvious.

    No planes means no building collapses and it also means NO ONE DIED IN A PLANE! Then the question arises, “Well, if 265 people didn’t die in planes could they have done whatever they did to fake those 265 for the remaining 2,735 of the alleged 3,000 dead.” Well, of course, they could. After all, they persuaded us that 19 barely-trained terrorists armed with boxcutters hijacked four airliners yada yada … But in any case why would we believe a single, solitary thing that the perps have told us about 9/11 in the first place. There is no reason to believe a single thing and there isn’t a single skerrick of evidence for any of the 3,000 people having died – nothing that doesn’t fit “disinformation agents/controlled opposition”.

    When the perps carry out a psyop they do it by the rules. They don’t do it half-arsed, killing people they don’t want to kill, especially not 3,000 in buildings that very obviously came down by controlled demolition. You have to be a moron to think that that’s the way they would operate. And they need to involve far too many people to kill all those people too – the response agencies, media, medical staff, etc. It is utter insanity to think that they would have done that. 9/11 was NOT a false flag, it was a straight-out psyop. In fact, I wonder how many false flags have ever really occurred and whether all false flags in history (except political assassinations) are not just straight-out psyops.

    1. With this kind of thinking, how do we know you’re not CIA?

      1. My apologies, Sharon. I should have pointed out that there is more evidence at the link I posted –

        On this page I analyse:
        — Chelsea Manning and Adrian Lamo’s Wikipedia pages
        — Chelsea’s first interview post her alleged jail sentence with anchor of ABC’s Nightline, Juju Chang (active member of the Council on Foreign Relations).
        — The Collateral Murder Video
        — An article about the Crazy Horse pilots in the Daily Telegraph

        The thing is there is absolutely every reason to anticipate that Chelsea might be an intelligence asset. As soon as Wikileaks appeared on the horizon we would expect the perps to be polishing up their assets for release to undermine Wikileaks and Julian Assange. That is exactly the behaviour we would expect – controlled opposition. There is wall-to-wall controlled opposition out there for 9/11 and everywhere we turn they have controlled opposition. So there is nothing extraordinary about her being an asset. It is only to be expected. When she appeared 10 years ago I knew nothing about 9/11, controlled opposition or any of that stuff. If I’d known then I probably would have suspected much sooner.

        1. I read your site before when you were promoting the ‘no one died on 9/11’ thing at OffGuardian. And like I said then, when everything is an illusion to you then you’re in flat-earther world. Intelligence agencies are just not possibly as all-knowing, all-capable as you would have us believe. Which is why my original question remains: Why should anyone believe that you’re not an intelligence agent?

          1. I don’t want anyone to believe things, Sharon. What I do is present the hypothesis I think the evidence favours and challenge those who believe opposing hypotheses to present the evidence to support theirs. I want people to evaluate evidence and push their current beliefs aside to give the evidence its due consideration … and TO QUESTION THEIR BELIEFS. It’s very simple and straightforward.

            Not a single solitary soul has presented a single piece of evidence for Chelsea Manning being a genuine whistleblower nor for real death and injury on 9/11 while I have presented what I believe to be significant evidence that show she’s an intelligence asset and that death and injury were staged.

            The thing is neither of these concepts is out of left field. They make perfect sense – it’s just that very few ever considered them before. That is all. They didn’t consider them.

            Anyone who thinks that the US government would have killed 3,000 of their own citizens on 9/11 when they could so easily have faked it – and indeed this is exactly what the evidence shows – needs their head read. Sure, they kill lots of people and even their own citizens by sending off their soldiers to fight in self-generated wars but they never would have killed those people – it’s absolutely not their MO and it wouldn’t have worked for them at all.

            1. You reject evidence in favour of belief, clearly.

      2. Sharon, I reply to your last reply here as it’s getting too narrow.

        Your words, “You reject evidence in favour of belief, clearly,” are simply meaningless Sharon. There is no evidence to reject as far as I can tell for death and injury on 9/11 or for Chelsea Manning being a genuine whistleblower. I mean there is a person we see in interviews and so on who we are told has the name Chelsea Manning and that she was Bradley Manning and she was an intelligence analyst. We are also told that she is a whistleblower and that she spent 7 years in jail. Yes, we are told all that but then we are also told that she downloaded 400,000 files onto CDs and labelled them all “Lady Ga Ga” to “smuggle them through security”.

        Whenever you analyse fakery by the power elite there are always two aspects to the fakery: that it is fake and that it is OBVIOUSLY fake.

        They could have given us something more plausible than the Lady Ga Ga story but they didn’t do that – they pushed their fakery right in our faces. They gave the option to people to call out the Chelsea narrative and go, “Hey that has no credibility. That’s bullshit.” And that is not the only way they did it – they did it other ways too which I identify in my analysis, eg, Adrian Lamo’s ages not adding up and Chelsea calling herself THE “subject matter expert” at the ripe old age of 22.

        I don’t expect anyone who doesn’t know this feature of fakery – that they push it in our faces – to identify this aspect when they aren’t aware of it as it is simply too counterintuitive to think that they would actually push their fakery in our faces. We do not expect criminals to push their crime in our faces like that so we will find other explanations for things that seem anomalous. But I tell you now, Sharon, as it was told to me, that they do that – it’s called “revelation of the method”. It’s a recognised phenomenon and when it was told to me I did not have a second’s hesitation in believing it, despite its counterintuitiveness, because it explained so many anomalies that had previously puzzled me such as the nose cone of the second plane popping out the other side of the South tower on 9/11 and the big smile on the face of the Sandy Hook parent, Robbie Parker, as he walked to the microphone to give a 17-minute press conference the day after his 6-year-old daughter died.

        Please identify the evidence you think I reject and then I’ll let you know if and why I reject it.

        Your line of argument seems to be that because they media have told us this that or the other, it means it’s fact, which is not Caitlin’s line of argument at all – except sometimes when the narrative has resonated so strongly with her (the power elite are pretty good at making the narrative resonate with whatever group they target) that she is unable to detach herself sufficiently to apply reasoned analysis.

    2. “if you have any evidence that Chelsea is not an intelligence asset but a genuine whistleblower”

      There are always people like Liver who go over the deep end.

      It is generally impossible to absolutely prove a negative. We can not know absolutely we are not living in a simulation and everything is fake.

      It is nobodies responsibility to prove Chelsea is not an intelligence asset. If you have evidence she is give the evidence. Not some bullshit claim of having secret knowledge.

      1. “The deep end.”

        Glider, a priori, that Chelsea Manning might be an intelligence asset makes absolutely perfect sense. There is nothing left-field about the IDEA. When the power elite saw Wikileaks on the horizon (who knows they may have even predicted such an organisation would arise) they would have immediately set to polishing their assets all set for infiltration in their objective to undermine Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

        We would only expect there to be controlled opposition implemented against Wikileaks. It would be lack of controlled opposition that would be extremely anomalous to the power elite’s MO. You just didn’t consider it before, Glider, as I didn’t until three months ago myself. If you find it an odd idea then I’m afraid you don’t have a clue how the power elite works.

    3. How is it Petra Liverani cannot be fooled just as easily as he claims Caitlin Johnstone has been completely fooled? They always tell us what they are doing? Really? You fell for that one, Petra? Physician, heal thyself.

      1. I have a webpage on how they clearly tell us Chico.

        If you disagree with any of it, please let me know.

      2. There is nothing wrong with being fooled, Chico. I am not pointing out that Caitlin has been fooled. I was fooled myself for a decade about Chelsea and about so very many other things – and I have no doubt I’m still fooled about lots of things. It is probably impossible to avoid being fooled. What we can avoid – or at least I claim we can avoid it even though I see so much evidence of it not being avoided – is that when our attention is alerted to something that might contradict our belief, we don’t keep invested in our original belief, especially when we can see that not only evidence but logic and reason suggest our belief is mistaken. Instead, we investigate and CHANGE OUR MIND ACCORDING TO THE NEW EVIDENCE PROVIDED. We do not stay stuck in our old belief.

        This is not the first time I’ve said to Caitlin that Chelsea Manning is an intelligence asset. I’ve also said it to a number of people connected to Julian – they simply ignore me or point blank refuse to discuss it with me. It is truly astounding. The myth of Chelsea must persist. We can’t have anyone being fooled by her, especially not Julian. How shameful. This attitude is so antithetical to truth – which is what Wikileaks is allegedly about no? The truth.

        From Dresden James:
        A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn’t flat.

        When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.

        ​The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.

        1. I took a look at the link. Apparently, the Collateral Murder video leaked by Manning was a fake made by ‘them’ – ‘they’ being, presumably, an evil leftist conspiracy trying to make people think American empire is bad. The same globalist socialist cabal that is also faking incidents in order to trick people into believing that powerful weapons in the hands of every madman will result in massacres, or that white supremacist extremists have a tendency to be violent and homicidal. In short – just what I expect from right-wing conspiracy nuts whose only reason to support Assange is his role benefitting Trump in the 2016 election.

          1. It’s not about WHO did the faking, F. Foundling – I don’t know who exactly did it – I refer in all cases simply to the “power elite” but the EVIDENCE of faking. You took a look. I wonder how long that look was. What’s most interesting is that someone who BELIEVES THE VIDEO IS REAL points out numerous anomalies in it – probably more than I do. It simply did not cross this man’s mind that the video was fake, nevertheless, he points out numerous anomalies and when you consider the anomalies in the light of possible fakery, fakery makes far more sense than real.

            Instead of just spouting meaningless labels please apply your brain to ANALYSE the evidence.

        2. [Answer to rightmost comment by Liverani due to lack of place]:
          I have no idea what you’re talking about.
          The author of the site you linked to clearly states that s/he does *not*
          believe the video. And not even the imperialist US establishment claims it’s fake. If the US establishment had had the slightest chance of proving the video was fake, it would have.
          If the ‘power elite’ controlling MSM propaganda is opposed to US imperialism in your mind, and you believe that it is consequently inclined to spread and endorse videos discreditting US imperialism, your worldview is delusional.
          I won’t waste 30 minutes of my life to debunk all the technical details of a fringe overall narrative that I know to be patent nonsense.

    4. Anyone who pushes controlled demolition while also asserting that there may have been real planes will probably be controlled opposition

      It’s people who spout nonsense like this who seem to be CO. No plane theory is clearly a psyop

  18. The MSM have discredited themselves do badly that most same people dont believe anything they say. They dont care if they are believed or not. We have become Russia or China with full propaganda 24/7. They have gained the necessary level of control that pretending is no longer needed.

  19. Another superb article by Caitlin:)

    Since I’m not on twitter, but watch Caitlin’s twitter-because I very much find following the best writer(in my view)in my best intellectual interest– I have to know what is Caitlin’s meaning behind the, “lying to get sex is rape”, tweet. There must be nuance that I’m completely missing. Can you, Caitlin, or someone else explain this to me? I’m a female, and a feminist, but I’ve no clue what it means. Thank you in advance:)

  20. In the dystopian world of the purportedly “mainstream” media and the “Democratic” Party in which we now live, the irrelevance of truth has reached absolutely new heights, amazing as that may seem, hyperbolic hypocrisy more than just the norm, not only in displaying of brazen dishonesty but insulting our intelligence, although in many cases they have a point with respect to the latter. Our polarized polity has utterly corrupted not only the political process but probably half of the electorate (as it was meant to do) in service to the Deep State and our billionaire neoliberal-neoconservative masters. Caitlin’s article here illustrates these points rather well. Note, neither Caitlin nor I are supporters of either President Trump (we oppose his policies to a great extent) nor of the GOP:

  21. Very soon ” The Trumpeteers ” will be in the streets of these United States doing battle with any agents of the ” government ” and all the ” others ” that they encounter. The 2020 election will not be held at all. Welcome to chaos; the shit-show is coming.

  22. The evil United States Government tirelessly at work to persecute honest citizens. The worst among us rule over and oppress the rest of us. The brainwashed US citizens don’t have a clue what is being done to them in the name of truth, justice, and the American Way.

  23. Its not just the political/media class in the United States Caitlin, its in every subservient bootlicking vassal state of the Empire. And the hypocrisy is beyond contempt.
    I watched both ABC and SBS coverage tonight regards this farcical beat up, and its emerging as Russiagate all over again.
    These people are Not journalists; they are fully fledged operatives of the Anglo Zionist Empire. They have sold their souls to propagate on behalf of the ruling elites, and for the agenda of this Rogue Empire, including the Deep State. They are Goebbels in front of TV cameras or in the byline of newspaper articles. Not journalists.
    You hit the nail on the head yet again, and there’s also an excellent story on this called ‘From Russiagate To Ukrainegate’ by Finian Cunningham at Strategic Culture Foundation

  24. Russiagate and Ukrainegate are two faces of the same medal only in the sense that are (were) both aimed to damage Trump, and he is in the cross-hair of the democrat elites rifles from the moment he got the Republican nomination, I’ll give you that. But the two things are very different in substance: Russiagate was based on nothing, and rightly blew off in the face off its perpetrators, Ukrainegate shows undeniably that Trump he is not willing or able to differentiate between his personal short term interest and the duties of the presidential role, and as such, is not fit to be president. The fact his un-fitness to lead the country was known long before he won the election is irrelevant, IMPO. Even a president less scrutinized would not have got a free pass to name a political opponent in a call with a foreign country leader, and Trump this time walk over his luck, because this is a slip toward presidential autocracy the us government cannot afford. A nice byproduct of all this would be the elimination of Joe Biden from the political scene, btw. A potential excellent byproduct would be a re-evaluation of the whistleblower figure, with immediate release of Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Snowden from their injustified detentions, though I agree with CJ this is not going to happen in a milklion years.

    1. “presidential autocracy”? In the U.S.? Makes no sense. Clearly we have an oligarchy here, in the U.S. Trump goes nowhere in the 2016 election unless Sheldon Adelson and the judeo-christian zionists support him;)

  25. I love you Caitlyn. I really do. You’re one of the few, bright, truly progressive lights remaining. I wish your authenticity & perceptiveness were contagious.

  26. This interview of Aaron Mate by Jimmy Dore is essential viewing:

    1. This is a MUST WATCH about how the D’s are trying to control the narrative about the basis of this stupid impeachment bullshit. This whole mess is just like the Russiagate distraction to tie up the narrative about Biden and the election. It’s political theater to distract and deflect attention into the void.

  27. Too bad their wages aren’t paid by the tips they would receive from passerby’s if their performances had to rely on credibility.

  28. Ms Johnstone when the truth comes out the public will find that ” Russiagate ” and this new scandal are the same plot. Please peruse this:

  29. yup, it’s getting more dangerous by the day.

  30. the Deep State’s end game is gaining firm control over Trump (and the unwashed masses who are planning to vote for him in 2020) through threatening, intimidating, and corrupting Trump and his crew. no need to throw him out. a compromised potus is the best potus, for the Deep State and its masters on wall street.

  31. “The Very Best Men” by Evan Thomas, 1996 > sanitized CIA history
    “The Devil’s Chessboard” by David Talbot, 2016 > unsanitized CIA history
    “Target Patton” by Robert Wilcox, 2008 > OSS assassination of Patton, pre CIA
    “The World that Never Was” by Alex Butterworth, 2010 > secret police origins
    Government intelligence has always been a wicked tool of the ruling demonic warlords.
    Any research will make you ashamed to be their human chantel.

  32. The empire strikes back , , ,

    1. President Trump is extremely upset and I believe ” the Deep State ” has his testicles in a grip that is not going to loosen up. Unlike the Russiagate report ” this whitsleblower has dotted all the i’s and crossed all of the t’s to ” nail Donald Trump ” to the wall. Donald Trump’s ego will not let him resign; so this ” fight ” is going to be very long and be very dirty!

  33. OMG, the utter insanity of it all … very depressing, very dangerous … the evil that lurks in the violent American collective mud is hatching out

    1. You might be interested in this article from Chris Hedges who agrees with you that this political tactic of attacking Trump is going to have some very serious blowback from the MEGA crown and the disinfranchised with guns. Buckle up. It’s going to be a very bumpy ride.

  34. Here’s a wild thought. Could the NYT be publishing a cover story (cover as in spy cover and not as in magazine Vogue cover)? My first thought on hearing this story beginning to break was that it is now official that the US Intelligence community (oh, what a nice word for a gang says my inner George Carlin) is listening in on the elected President’s phone calls with foreign leaders.
    OK, I don’t like this President and I’d like to see him gone and impeached. But, and this is a big but, what happens if my side eventually does win an election and puts a true, loyal lefty peace activist into the White House? At that time, I’m probably going to be a little bothered that the CIA and the NSA and the rest of the alphabet soup are listening in on my elected President, and leaking what they choose, and probably scheming in all sorts of ways funded by black money stash funds to interfere with the President that I elected to make Peace and especially stop being Saudi Arabia’s new mercenary army.
    Having the intelligence gang listen in on the elected officials could be a big problem should the members of the real human race actually elect a President to stop these wars and rein in the CIA.
    Now its interesting that suddenly there is a cover story out there, put out by the paper who’s masthead motto is “All the news the CIA says you can see”, and that this conveniently provides an explanation for the story besides the fact that Deep State spies on elected officials.
    And besides, who really believes the NYT?

    1. no worries. there’s no real lefty peacenik running for anything, at the moment and ever in the future. the Deep State will make sure of it.

    2. Quote, ” what happens if my side eventually does win an election and puts a true, loyal lefty peace activist into the White House?” Unquote.
      Clearly, your ambitions to become a comedian are running away with you. L.O.L.

  35. The best thing here is to put them on suicide watch

Leave a Reply