Our Kind of Traitor

Barack Obama has given Chelsea Manning something close to a presidential pardon.

The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Tuesday largely commuted the remaining prison sentence of Chelsea Manning, the army intelligence analyst convicted of an enormous 2010 leak that revealed American military and diplomatic activities across the world, disrupted the administration and made WikiLeaks, the recipient of those disclosures, famous.

The decision by Mr. Obama rescued Ms. Manning, who twice tried to kill herself last year, from an uncertain future as a transgender woman incarcerated at the men’s military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. She has been jailed for nearly seven years, and her 35-year sentence was by far the longest punishment ever imposed in the United States for a leak conviction.

The act of clemency could be seen as a reversal, at least in part, of the Obama administration’s unprecedented criminal crackdown on leaking: The administration has brought charges in about nine cases, about twice as many as under all previous presidents combined.

Was Chelsea Manning a traitor? Of course, she was. But we live in traitorous times.

Rightists get triggered by traitors. Rightly so. Add to this Manning’s sexual fluidity, and she . . . or he . . . or whatever . . . fits the bill as the ultimate right-wing punching bag: disloyal, perverted, un-American, etc.

We shouldn’t forget a few things, however.

Manning was heroically brave. She risked her life to oppose and expose a system she viewed as evil; she was ruthless enough to go through with a covert operation; she achieved success and willingly paid the price.

The system Manning opposed hates us, or rather it views us as material to be absorbed into global American mono-culture. Manning thus contributed to the de-legitimization of the American empire, just as she was a symptom of it.

The empire has created many victims and botched souls . . . sons sent home in bodybags or in dresses.

Manning was a victim who chose to fight back. That’s what we should remember.


Richard Spencer
the authorRichard Spencer
Richard Spencer is American Editor of; he's President of The National Policy Institute and founder of


  • Hopefully you have regained your sanity in the 7 months since this article was posted. You do realize, you were referring to poor, mutilated Bradley Manning as “she”? That is just sick.

  • Spencer’s right. Manning is obviously sub-human, but it did a good service to harm the operation meant to benefit Jews. In my younger, flag-waving zealot days, I served in Iraq at various times from 2004-09. I didn’t realize then, but it was such a win-win for Team Yellow Star – because whites would die while killing Muslims at the same time. If you’re a hooknose, you love that situation like dreidel on crack. So, Manning definitely did his/her part to harm that mission. On the flip side of that dreidel, is that a disproportionate number of these men and women that Spencer mentions who went home in body bags, were white. Manning probably got a few of them ziplocked and that’s making it hard for me to embrace the silver lining Spencer points out.

  • Great piece. She did a lot of damage to the establishment by leaking to Wikileaks. People shouldn’t get lost by this he/she thing. They just don’t get the big picture.

  • Stop accepting the left’s mentally-ill premises by calling Bradley Manning a “she”. Are you writing this article for Huffington Post?

  • If Manning had learned to keep his mouth shut he would have never gotten into trouble (I thought the military was suppose to teach discipline.) So “she” was brave but also very dumb. Not very good at being “covert.”

    And anyone who has ever read any kind of book on war (not including fantasy garbage like the stuff Tom Clancy would write) knows that this kind of shit happens. They know that war is not kind and that innocent people get killed in horrible ways. Anyone who believed that the US military (or any military for that matter) never murdered innocent civilians before seeing this video was an ignorant moron to begin with.

  • One minute I am happily hating the transgendered. Next minute I see pointless pronoun insults in the comments. I feel a bit more tolerant now.

  • and….I’m out. Bradely Manning is a mentally ill freak who was just trying to get back at the army cause they wouldn’t let him chop his balls off.

      • Do you like to chop your dick off too? Tell me why I should support a mentally ill freak?

        Or are you so retarded that we must support whatever the government opposes?

        • At least he doesn’t suck ZOG “muh dikk” like you do. Go back to the NRO retard, and don’t forget to fly the Old Glory to affirm your support to sodomy.

  • To the leaks, yeah, as much as they sound terrible in principle, they went to Wikileaks, and the WikiLeaks principle proved to be good and useful, so they’re ultimately good. Present governments, unfortunately, are not something one should be supportive of, and adhering to their principles will lead to bad things.

    To the he/she polemics, I don’t understand why people think using ‘he’ will make it less confusing. It might if the person is in front of you, because then you deny the delusion. But as far as articles and the such go, calling someone who is presenting a female appearance a ‘he’ is just as confusing as calling someone with a penis a ‘she’, not less. There’s no sane way out of it, unfortunately, and that’s why the establishment is pushing it now. It leaves us helpless and confused, the way they like it.
    But if you call it a ‘he’, it makes the subject being discussed more difficult to research, because most vehicles of information will be using she (same with using the male name). So it leads to disinformation and ignorance (again, part of the plan).

    What can’t be done under any circumstance is using the ‘they’ bullshit that’s trying to be implemented. Because it reshapes culture, and then resistance is weakened. Anything else is just as bad, sadly, until we can effectively make the whole issue go away for good.

    • “the WikiLeaks principle proved to be good and useful”

      That depends on exactly what your agenda is.

      Certainly, if your only agenda was to get Trump elected, Wikileaks was useful during the campaign.

      But Wikileaks has been around for a while and from a pro-white (and Judeo-skeptical) perspective their record is mixed, to say the least.

      • You’re right, of course. Didn’t mean to say Wikileaks had been 100% good.
        Which is why I also used useful. To what agenda though?
        Definitely not just electing Trump, but general destabilization of the current governments, the illusions of liberalism and democracy, as well as weakening many of their weapons.

  • I disagree, if you become a soldier and take a job defending America, you have to put your views aside and do the job. Once you are out you can do wtf you want. But NOT the way he did it.

  • What is this crap? “He” is an anarchist who downloaded a bunch of random secret files he didn’t understand and passed them on for total publication because he was bored, endangering the lives of countless low-ranking individuals for no reason.

  • Good article. I think it is right and proper to pay respect to how Manning wants to be addressed. She has earned that right.

  • Jewish neocons got the U.S. to invade/destroy various nations on false premises, causing the following:

    1) Thousands of American lives to be lost;

    2) Hundreds of billions of American dollars to be spent;

    3) ISIS to be released on the Middle East, costing more lives and dollars;

    4) A wave of immigrants to have free access to the northern Mediterranean, raping and killing thousands of Europeans;

    5) The radicalization of another generation of Muslim terrorists with genuine grievances against the U.S. for literally being a cucked Jewish tool that destroyed their families and nations.

    The worthless, non-strategic crap that Manning released was supposedly of some soldiers laughing about killing civilians. How much do you want to bet that unprofessional behavior came from non-white infantry troops cackling like it was Chiraq while they shot up a bunch of Muslim kids? The cucked-out Pentagon has very good reasons to be embarrassed about its dishonorable horde of violent mestizos and dindus. What Manning did was a service to all of us who have been ashamed to see the U.S. acting like Israel’s little bitch, and to see the U.S. armed forces turned into a jobs program for every low-IQ street thug whose local recruiting office managed to reach out to him before he happened to rob a convenience store and shoot at the cop car sent to respond.

  • If sticking feathers up your ass does not make you a chicken, then cutting off your cock does not make you a “she”. Or do we condone this degeneracy now?

  • Why are LGBTs so vastly over-represented in the military and the intelligence services?

    “A Call For Papers: ”

    Last week three prominent members of the US military put their support behind a study from The Palm Center which suggests that the US Military should lift their ban on openly transgendered service members.

    I was not surprised by this development: considering the military’s 2011 decision to support openly gay soldiers, supporting openly transgendered ones seems like the logical next step.

    What did surprise me was that these prominent military figures, which include a former Army acting surgeon general and a former chief of the U.S. Army Nurse Corps, threw their weight behind a report that says 15,500 transgender members actively serve in the military, while 134,300 “Veteran retired Guard/Reserve” are transgendered. That means one in a hundred active US military personnel are transgendered.

    15,500 active transgendered military personnel is a huge number; the estimate’s validity is bolstered by the fact that two distinguished military medical professionals– who ought to know about the populations they serve– authored the report in question.

    These estimates come from UCLA Law Center’s Williams Institute, which also estimates that transgendered individuals are much more likely to serve in the military than the US population in general:

    This is how the estimates’ creators, Gary J. Gates and Jody L. Herman, describe their findings:

    By comparison, approximately 10.7% of adults in the US have served. This implies that transgender individuals are about twice as likely as adults in the US to have served their country in the armed forces. Transgender individuals assigned female at birth are nearly three times more likely than all adult women and those assigned male at birth are 1.6 times more likely than all adult men to serve.

    The transgendered community’s devotion to the armed services exists despite persistent discrimination from the defense establishment: the military has banned openly transsexual people from serving. On top of that, I find it extraordinary that a persecuted minority is drawn to an organization which, at least for the past sixty years, has been used to force the will of a few people on less powerful countries around the globe.

    This apparent anomaly begs the question: what is it about the US military that attracts so many transgendered individuals? Gary and Herman have provided statistical evidence that demands further research.

    Are statistics for homosexual people in the military also so striking? Yes, they are. Gary Gates, the same researcher as before, wrote a paper in 2004 for the Urban Institute, here are some select quotes:

    Estimates suggest that more than 36,000 gay men and lesbians are serving in active duty, representing 2.5 percent of active duty personnel. When the guard and reserve are included,nearly 65,000 men and women in uniform are likely gay or lesbian, accounting for 2.8 percent of military personnel.

    [In an entirely different paper, Gary Gates estimates that 1.7% of the US population identifies as homosexual, so gays appear strongly over-represented in the military. -a.nolen]
    Continuing from Gates’ 2004 paper:

    In particular, military service rates for coupled lesbians far exceed rates for other women in every military era of the later 20th century. Nearly one in 10 coupled lesbians age 63–67 report that they served in Korea, compared with less than one in 100 of other women. Even in the most recent service period from 1990 to 2000, service rates among coupled lesbians age 18–27 are more than three times higher than rates among other women

    Nearly one million gay and lesbian Americans are veterans.

    The District of Columbia leads all states with a rate of 10.2 gay or lesbian veterans per one thousand adults, more than double the national average.

    Homosexuals have shown this eagerness to serve despite institutional discrimination:

    Despite a variety of rules designed to keep gay men and lesbians out of military service, census data make clear that they are actively serving in the armed forces, in guard and reserve units, and have served in the military throughout the later part of the 20th century.

    Again, homosexuals’ draw to the military– despite the organization’s historically discriminatory stance — is something that is difficult for me to understand. Are homosexuals drawn to the military for the same reasons as transgendered service members?

    Many of you know that I’m interested in ‘spooky’ things, so my next question… Is the LGBT community also overrepresented in the intelligence community? Seeing as a lot of spook talent is derived from the military, my hunch is that they are. What’s tricky about this question is that it’s very hard to count spooks given the secretive nature of their work– you never know if you’re getting a representative sample of the intelligence community. (Unless you’re somebody like DNI James Clapper, but even he may not know about all his contractors!:) )

    The best most people can do– probably the best most professional intelligence historians can do– is look to history for individuals who are now known agents and were also part of the LGBT community.

    The most famous homosexual intelligence professionals are Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt, who were Soviet double agents and half of ‘The Cambridge Five’, of who only four are known conclusively. Burgess and Blunt were known homosexuals at a time it was illegal to be so; yet these two men also held sensitive positions in the UK government. (Between the known four spies, they infiltrated MI5, MI6, the Foreign Office, the War Ministry and Blunt even became an advisor to the Royal Family!). I don’t want to get hung up on their traitorous actions. What I do want to point out is that even back in the 1940s homosexuals were represented amongst the UK intelligence community’s ‘best and brightest’. Both the British and the Soviets recognized something exceptional about Burgess and Blunt.

    The Soviets chose to recruit and cultivate these two highly-placed, homosexual spies over a period of thirty years. That’s a huge investment which the Russians wouldn’t have made unless the pair showed exceptional intelligence talent. There were plenty of prominent Brits with socialist sympathies; there were plenty of well-placed Brits in the Communist Party who the Soviets could have recruited (See Secrets of the Service, by Anthony Glees); but it was a group of disproportionately gay agents who were the ‘jewel in the Soviets’ crown’– agents who were recruited despite the obvious vulnerabilities their sexuality presented at the time.

    History provides far more examples of LGBT agents than just Burgess and Blunt. Gabriel Pascal, the Hollywood movie-man who put British spy Roald Dahl in touch with FDR was homosexual; Julia Child’s husband Paul Cushing Child, who was in charge of USIA propaganda in Germany after WWII was likely bisexual; FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover, who left such an indelible mark on US intelligence worldwide, was likely bisexual (and is rumored to have dressed as a woman for sex parties); Hoover’s partner both at the FBI and domestically, Clyde Anderson Tolson was also likely gay; Joan Cassidy, the famous US Navy intelligence office was homosexual; Whittaker Chambers was homosexual. These eight people are just the intel pros I can think of off the top of my head– most of them were heavy-hitters in the intelligence community. Considering that homosexuality was frowned upon amongst the general public, there are probably many more examples.

    What about less well-placed spooks? Ironically, the turmoil caused by the gradual discovery of the Cambridge Five sheds light on just how many homosexual agents have contributed to the intelligence community.The ‘Lavender Scare’ of the 1950s and 60s specifically targeted homosexuals and sought to remove them from sensitive positions in the government. In the words of Tracey Ballard, an intelligence agent who came out in the 1980s:

    Hundreds of gay men and women were purged from government agencies in the ’50s and ’60s. But Ballard says that charge — that gays were a blackmail risk — was always false.

    “If you do research within the community over the decades, you’ll find that it really wasn’t an issue,” she says. “LGBT people were not blackmailed in any type, any way or form. That was their way of ensuring that we were not employed.”

    Trudy Ring, reporter, wrote this in a review of a documentary about the ‘Lavender Scare‘:

    Cassidy was one of thousands who either resigned or were fired because of the order, which she says initiated a “witch hunt.”

    From the side of the 50s-60s persecutors, a Mr. Clevenger gives this congressional testimony on April 24th, 1950:

    It is an established fact that Russia makes a practice of keeping a list of sex perverts in enemy countries and the core of Hitler’s espionage was based on the intimidation of these unfortunate people.

    Despite this fact however, the Under Secretary of State recently testified that 91 sex perverts had been located and fired from the Department of State. For this the Department must be commended. But have they gone far enough? Newspaper accounts quote Senate testimony indicating there are 400 more in the State Department and 4,000 in Government…

    Here we find that the Commerce Department has not located any homosexuals in their organization. Are we to believe that in the face of the testimony of the District of Columbia police that 75 percent of the 4,000 perverts in the District of Columbia are employed by the Government, that the Department of Commerce has none?

    [In The Haunted Wood, Weinstein and Vassiliev detail Soviet penetration of the State Department; the department which Soviets codenamed ‘Surrogate’. -a.nolen]

    It seems experts agree that prior to 1950s, homosexuals were well represented in the US government and at the intel-sensitive State Department in particular.* This speaks well toward their representation in the intelligence community.

    What about today? Any investigation into the LGBT contribution to intelligence is hard because, of course, current agents cannot identify them selves as such. Therefore, the best anybody (besides James Clapper!) can do is make an educated guess about who works with intelligence, and amongst that subset look at who identifies as LGBT or is likely part of the community.

    Here are some prominent LGBT intel candidates: Peter Thiel (Palantir co-investor with CIA’s In-Q-Tel) is gay; high-profile Tor promoter Jacob Appelbaum is homosexual/bisexual; FBI asset/ contributor ‘Laurelai‘ and former analyst Chelsea Manning are transgendered; intel-affliated media baron Nick Denton is homosexual; Snowden clean-up crew Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald are homosexual; the CIA’s porn king Hugh Hefner is likely bisexual; Anderson Cooper was/is a gay CIA agent. Those are nine high-profile LGBT people who are *probably* serving their country this very minute.

    I have no way of knowing whether that list is a representative sample of high-profile intelligence professionals, but the fact that even I could come up with nine candidates in the time I took to type the preceding paragraph suggests that the LGBT community has an active roll in today’s intelligence ‘sphere’. I don’t think an active roll should be surprising, given exceptional LGBT participation in the military.

    But what about the spook rank-and-file? Are homosexuals persecuted at government agencies today? According to Michael Barber, the CIA’s LGBT Community Outreach and Liaison program manager:

    More than 200 CIA employees are members of the agency’s LGBT resource group today. The spy agency is one of the founding partners of Outserve, an organization that represents gay active military personnel, including those with the CIA.

    Barber says there were always gay men and women doing important jobs at the agency, but until recently few were comfortable being out.

    “Part of the reason we’re doing outreach is to change that perception in the community,” he says. “That this is no longer an issue for holding security clearance, that we want the best and the brightest regardless of your sexual orientation.”

    Given intel attitudes before ‘The Cambridge Five’ and the attitude of the CIA (at least) today, perhaps it’s more accurate to say that excluding gays from intelligence work during the 50s and 60s was a deviation from the norm.

    Check out this recent press release from James Clapper’s office (Director of National Intelligence), announcing an article about a transgendered CIA employee’s ‘transition’.

    I’m not saying that every great intelligence professional is or was gay, nor even that homosexuals are overrepresented in the intelligence community as a whole. (It may be true, but don’t have access to that type of data!) However, having read a fair amount about the history of the Western world’s modern intelligence services, it strikes me how many prominent intelligence pros– people who are in the public eye and must therefore be exceptionally reliable– were and are homosexual, bisexual or transgendered. The prevalence of homosexuality amongst talented, prominent and celebrated intelligence professionals deserves academic study.

    Now that the US military has taken steps to shake off the nearly global prejudice against LGBT people, I challenge the security-cleared research community to investigate just what role this exceptional minority has played in shaping the US military, and organizations like the CIA, NSA and FBI, into what they have become today.

    Here are some questions to get the pros started:

    1) Was homosexuality really a blackmail risk? If it was, why were so many LGBT agents employed by intelligence agencies prior to 1950? What was special about the 50s and 60s that changed intelligence leaderships’ perspective so abnormally?

    2) What is it about the military lifestyle that appeals to the LGBT community despite active persecution?

    3) Are LGBT professionals statistically overrepresented in high-trust intelligence positions?

    * The D.C.’s total population in 1950 was 814,000, if at least 4000 LGBT individuals were employed by the government in D.C.’s ten square miles alone; and if Gates’ estimate of 3.5% LGBT across the population holds; and if the government accounted for 29% of D.C. employment back in the 1950s too, then the LGBT community was probably over-represented in government prior to the 50s and 60s. (4000 ‘caught’ LGBT individuals who were employed by the government makes them alone 1.7% of total government employees in D.C.) I doubt as many as one in two LGBT individuals were counted by the press or police; the 4000 figure probably represents a more vocal/outgoing segment of the LGBT population.

    • Inclusion, a ready-made template of identity. Oh yeah, and it’s patriarchal. A Dad that didn’t leave them or freeze them out.

  • Richard seems to be listing cuckward. Bradley “The Eunuch” Manning heroically brave? Give me a break

    • Maybe Richard wanted to trigger all the alt-SJWs who throw tantrums when anyone dissents from the edgelord echo chamber

  • I think it is best to quietly let Chelsea Manning fade into obscurity. She is not really “hero material” because her trans-mental illness renders her a broken, divisive figure. Good luck to her. She is going to need it, as well as lots of therapy.

      • I agree with you, but I am willing to concede the “she” pronoun to Chelsea Manning, perhaps because it is convenient. Manning dresses like a woman and takes feminizing hormones and has taken a female name, so for the sake of convenience I am willing to grudgingly describe Manning as “she”. However, I always cringe a bit inside & it makes me uncomfortable to do so.

    • Take your (((psychoanalysis))) crap and cram it up your ass. If Manning wants to play dress up, I don’t have any obligation to pay for his therapy, the regulations governing how his therapy should go, or the police response time necessary to force him to go. He can sit in his house and wear his dress, and if he concerns you that much, you can donate money to help him, but I’ll be spending mine on my children instead. Zero tolerance is reserved for if Manning comes to my house, or if you come to my house trying to take my money and spend it on some bureaucracy concerned with fixing men in dresses.

    • Manning sacrificed everything for something she believed in. I dont know anything about her but that she has been at the mercy of her enemies that hate her for a decade. That will damage you. Destroy you, even. No matter who you are. I dont know if this is an old condition in Manning. I dont know if we hurt her by indulging this gender confusion. But using “she” is a sign of acceptance for a person that has suffered horribly. She will have to find her own way back to becoming a human being again after all she has gone through. If she five years down the line will define herself differently, all the best. But ridiculing Manning at this stage is not the right thing to do.

      • There was no belief system involved. The guy was bored and resentful of the world, so he acted out irrationally and put innocent people in danger as a result. There isn’t more to the story than that.

          • It does jeopardize America’s security if Americans find out how unprofessional our dindu and mestizo soldiers act when they’re given advanced weaponry and unleashed on a civilian populace. If we had honorable soldiers, the Pentagon would’ve been live-streaming the entire war.

            Releasing tapes of most of our infantry at work is like releasing tapes of NFL players partying. Never turns out good, so the league fines you for it.

          • I dispise Americas influence in the world. But the conduct of Americas soldiers IS honorable compared to other wars. I mean, read about the thirty yeras war, for example. That was conducted by non mestizo but still dindunothin soldiers. That were more or less from the same people.
            When a civilian population is put at the mercy of a foreign army bad things happen. But less bad things have happened when the army was american, generally speaking.
            Soldiers are inherently evil to their foes. That is their function. But the evil in America is no more in its soldiers than a puppet masters evil is within his puppet.

          • He released secret files from the SIPRnet which contained countless names of individuals involved in military operations and their locations. There is a reason this type of information becomes classified.

          • The vast majority of classified data has no reason to be classified. Since not a single bad thing happened to anyone your claim is absurd.

      • If Obama were threatening to hang you as a traitor or lock you up for 35 years for trying to resist another Jewish war, you might claim any kind of insanity defense available to you in an attempt to get out. And lo and behold, it worked–the only whistleblower Obama pardoned was the one who began demanding a “sex change” after he’d been confined and tortured. Manning has his/her/whatever life back just because Obama was a soulless metrosexual shabbos goy who wanted to be credited for pardoning weirdos only.

        Earl Turner had an electrified rod shoved up his ass by the Jews in charge of his confinement, and Winston Smith got beaten until he could believe that 2+2=5. Mocking someone for what they say in the hands of the perverted rabbis in charge of our military is despicable and unfair. There are plenty of other fruits to laugh at on the internet if you’re so inclined.

        • It might have played a part. But the most likely reason Obama pardons Manning is that Assange has said that he would give himself up if Manning is released. Meaning he would stand trial with Trump as president. If he gets a lenient sentence this will reinforce the lefts narrative “Assange+Putin stole the US election for Trump” and strengthen the lefts delegitimization campaign against Trump. If Assange gets a harsh sentence under Trump this might be used to drive a wedge between Assange affecionados and Trump. After all, large part of anti war people leanded Trump.

          • Maybe so. I tend to think that Obama is imagining history books fifty years from now, and (maybe for the sake of his adopted daughters’ political careers, or maybe not) wants to be known as the president who was actually anti-war or pro-freedom, therefore he pardoned a well-known prisoner. Your explanation is more practical; I guess it depends on how much the DLC is guiding Obama’s future.

            Assange is taking on a rather celebrity-ish role in all of this, which is a bad sign. Whenever they anoint a celebrity, it ends up getting used against us in some way.

    • What does anti-trans feeling have to do with whiteness? After all, the opposition to transexuals in our society comes from the Hebrew Old Testament.

      • Partly, but it also has to do with the same kind of Puritan Yankee-ism that encourages faggots to meddle with my family. Some of them want to take money away from my children and give it to pro-homosexual institutions, while others want to take money away from my children and give it to anti-homosexual institutions. I don’t want to pay for medical students to learn how to give Manning his surgery, and I don’t want to pay for Jesus or Sharia patrols to make sure people are having the right kind of sex and using correct pronouns.

      • not wanting your own people to be degenerates is a very pro-white thing
        enabeling your fellow whites in cutting of their genitalia on the other hand is the opposite

  • I can’t support what Manning did, but I don’t think it counts as treason.

    What Snowden did – if he did what we think he did, if it really wasn’t a CIA op, which it very well might have been – that is treason. Snowden didn’t just release classified information to the US media, he has been openly collaborating with a foreign intelligence service. That’s actually treason.

    Snowden, to a huge degree, and Manning, to a lesser degree, became media stars for a reason. They were useful to whatever faction controls the media for reasons that are not entirely clear.

    William Binney is a patriot, he did more to help people understand what the NSA was doing illegally than Snowden did – and he did so without doing anything illegal or treasonous.

    But you’ve never heard of William Binney, and Oliver Stone won’t be making a hagiography of him, because he apparently was not useful to whichever faction controls the media.

    You’ve also never heard of Sibel Edmonds or Susan Lindauer, because they were certainly not at all useful to whatever faction controls the media, and they won’t ever get favorable media coverage like Snowden and Manning.

      • Binney was arrested – the arrest was intended to intimidate him – but the charges were dropped as he apparently committed no crime.

        So it’s completely different than what Manning did and isn’t even in the same universe of what Snowden did.

        Binney did it years before Snowden – anyone who had learned about what Binney exposed wasn’t surprised in the least when the Snowden docs came out.

        In fact, even before Binney an AT&T employee leaked the fact that NSA had a direct connection to AT&T entire backbone network center in San Francisco, thus knew that NSA was copying basically everything on the internet – every email, every click, etc.

        But for whatever reason the media chose to make Snowden a Star and a Hero – the same media that basically ignored Binney, Lindauer, Edmonds, and the AT&T guy.

        Make of it what you will.

        • because they only highlight what they want to, the same reason they focus on the BLM police murders that are sketchy.

Leave a Reply