I've just spent the last 2 days reviewing dozens of news articles about The Intercept and it's campaign to mitigate the damage done to the Surveillance State by the Snowden Leaks. It's a very troubling development. I don't really know what to make of it. One of the things I do when trying to assess things going on in world events is to not spend huge amounts of time trying to dissect people's motives. If the information that they are pushing out into the world is solid good information with high value that should be disseminated widely, I don't much care about the attacks being made on the person doing the pushing. Thus, I look at the record of Wikileaks and can only conclude that regardless of how it is portrayed by what are clearly partisan hacks, Wikileaks is solid and should be protected as a source of journalism-news. I wonder a lot now, having reviewed the history of the Intercept and the very strange incidents that have done on there... how sources have been burned... and I compare it to how Wikileaks helped Snowden... and I look at Pierre Omidyar's behavior... and I can't help but conclude that he is something of a cut-out for the Hillary Clinton State Department types. I strongly suspect at this point that the Intercept and SecureDrop and many of the journalists involved with that publication are deeply compromised and working for the Deep State. I don't know, after reading dozens of reports on this how this conclusion could not be reached by others IF they are willing to look at the situation objectively. I'll go one step further. The Intercept is, as Sybil Edmonds lays it out, a "honey trap" for Whistleblowers. As is the promotion of the Securedrop system. Considering what we know about the ability of the Intelligence community to access all devices anytime they want... I strongly suspect that there's a vested interest in promoting the idea that secure and encrypted communications are much more possible than they actually are. My research on this indicates that the steps one would need to take to actually engage in secure communications, even with end to end encryption are far more complicated than 99.99% of the population would be willing or able to manage. (for example... you could not use any operating system on a Max or any system after WindowsX) securely. I think that the narrative being pushed on this by people who have a vested interest in protecting the Surveillance apparatus is to try and lul people into a false sense of security. I note that The Intercept totally burned Reality Winner, as an example and she was so incompetent as a leaker that she didn't know about the printer codes before printing a document on a government computer.

I'm also surprised that this article, despite being tweeted by Julian Assange's twitter account has made less than 30 cents, and generated no comments despite 2600 views. @mindhawk eh?