This is not a metaphor. This is not hyperbole. This is what the people who run the American surveillance state actually said in public about the man who exposed what they were doing.

General Michael Hayden, the former Director of the NSA and CIA, was sitting on a stage at a think tank event alongside former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers. They were asked about Edward Snowden being nominated for a prestigious European award.

Hayden lost control of himself.

He said that in some of his darker moments he had thought about nominating Snowden for a different kind of list. He was obviously referring to the kill list that the United States government maintains and executes through drone strikes and targeted assassinations.

Mike Rogers turned to him and said he could help with that. He would love to.

Then they laughed.

Support the Glenn Greenwald substack and get independent coverage of the national security state that nobody else is willing to publish. 40% off in honor of the Pulitzer Prize winning reporting that changed the conversation about government surveillance forever.

Get 40% off for 1 year

Glenn Greenwald was there for part of this story. He described being the only person in the room who knew what was about to happen during a debate he participated in with Hayden. Snowden had secretly arranged to appear via a gigantic screen that descended from the ceiling of the auditorium, his face enormous above Hayden’s head, his pre-recorded question running for four or five minutes.

Greenwald watched Hayden sitting beneath it.

He thought he was going to have a stroke.

Hayden later wrote in a book that debating Greenwald was like looking pure evil in the eyes. Like seeing the devil.

These are the men who ran the intelligence apparatus of the most powerful government in human history. The men who built the surveillance state that Snowden exposed. The men who decided that collecting the phone records, emails, and internet activity of every American without a warrant was a reasonable and legal thing to do in the name of national security.

When the person who told the public what they were doing received a prestigious award, their response was to joke about having him killed.

Not in private. On a stage. At a think tank event. In front of an audience.

Greenwald has spent his career arguing that the people running these institutions are not responsible public servants who occasionally make difficult tradeoffs in gray areas. They are people who genuinely believe they are above accountability, above the law, and above any obligation to the citizens they claim to be protecting.

Hayden and Rogers proved his point more effectively than any article Greenwald could have written.

They joked about murdering a whistleblower. Then they kept their pensions.

This newsletter covers the national security state and the people who run it. 40% off in honor of the Pulitzer that the establishment spent years trying to discredit.

Upgrade your subscription today.

Get 40% off for 1 year

Glenn Greenwald’s decision not to play the “grudge” game: how media elites use personal attacks to enforce ideological conformity.

In a media environment consumed by personal feuds and ideological policing, Greenwald reminds us what true independence looks like.

He was invited to be interviewed by someone who had said positive things about him; he decided to agree to meet with the person based on that, not based on any prior history or grudge.

Greenwald followed a simple but bold standard. Engage with anyone who asks you to. Don’t turn previous statements into permanent blacklists. Evaluate each person on how they conduct themselves during the interview.

The end result is fewer manufactured enemies and more actual reporting. The difference between Greenwald and the rest of the media elite couldn’t be more stark.

Most notable media figures now make their living from refusing to speak to certain individuals, creating safe rooms where there is little to no outside criticism.

One important thing to note is that the “grudge” culture works exactly like government censorship. Both isolate independent voices so that there is little to no opposition from outside sources who may raise difficult questions about power.

What does Greenwald’s interview reveal?

Subscribe now

Get 40% off for 1 year

Read more

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about.

That line has justified every surveillance expansion in modern history. The Stasi used it. The NSA used it after 9/11. And according to Glenn Greenwald, the people promoting Flock Safety cameras are using it right now.

Support the Glenn Greenwald substack and get independent coverage of the surveillance state nobody else is covering this honestly. 40% off in honor of the Pulitzer Prize winning reporting that changed the conversation about government surveillance forever.

Get 40% off for 1 year

Flock Safety is a private company valued at $7.5 billion backed by Andreessen Horowitz and Y Combinator. It has installed more than 80,000 automated license plate reader cameras across 6,000 communities in 42 states. Every car that passes one of these cameras gets photographed. The make, model, color, license plate, bumper stickers, and even scratches on the vehicle are catalogued by AI and uploaded to a national database that any law enforcement agency with a Flock contract can search.

No warrant required. No suspicion required. Every driver. All the time.

Greenwald appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show two weeks ago and called out Bari Weiss’s Free Press specifically for running content that promoted Flock cameras as harmless tools that only target bad guys. He called it classic totalitarian propaganda. He connected it directly to the post-Snowden NSA surveillance apparatus and the same neoconservative circles that push endless foreign wars while claiming to defend freedom.

The nothing to hide argument is exactly what he dismantled in a 2014 TED Talk that has been circulating again this week with 36,000 views.

His argument then holds up perfectly against Flock now. Privacy is not about hiding wrongdoing. Privacy is the foundation of all other freedoms. The ability to move through the world without being tracked, catalogued, and made searchable in a government database is not a criminal luxury. It is what it means to live in a free society.

The backlash is real and growing.

Chandler Arizona just canceled its Flock contract. Santa Cruz canceled theirs in January. Mountain View discontinued use immediately in February. People across the country are physically tearing the cameras down. Protesters rallied outside city hall in Troy New York in April. A Sarasota police officer was fired and arrested for using Flock cameras to spy on a single license plate over 300 times.

Flock responded this month by announcing new controls. Agencies must now input a case number to justify each search. Data retention drops from 30 days to seven days, though agencies can adjust that upward based on local policy.

Greenwald’s response to reforms like that is the same response he had to NSA reform after Snowden. The problem is not that the system lacks oversight. The problem is that the system exists. You do not fix a warrantless mass surveillance database by requiring paperwork before searching it. You dismantle the database.

He has been making this argument since 2013. The infrastructure keeps growing. The cameras keep multiplying. The database keeps expanding.

The argument for all of it remains the same.

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about.

This newsletter covers Greenwald’s fight against the surveillance state as it evolves in real time. 40% off in honor of the Pulitzer that started it all.

Upgrade your subscription today.

Get 40% off for 1 year

Same private schools. Same Wall Street parents. Same Ivy League degrees. Glenn Greenwald looked at modern newsroom diversity hires and found something that looks nothing like diversity at all.

The Glenn Greenwald segment in this week’s viral compilation runs from roughly 1:27:23 through 1:28:17, landing right after the affirmative action ruling, which gives his point extra weight.

Paid subscribers get access to the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

A Ruling Built On A Lie

Greenwald opens by addressing the Supreme Court striking down affirmative action directly. The defense of affirmative action is based on the irrational and deeply offensive view that you can understand a person’s ideology and worldview simply by looking at their race.

That is the whole flaw exposed in one sentence.

He goes further, questioning the actual motives behind elite diversity efforts. Elite institutions don’t really want to diversify. They don’t want diversity of thought. They don’t want diversity of opinion. They want superficial diversity so they can feel like they’re changing things.

That is at the heart the fraud of the affirmative action that got struck down, being what it is, which is purely about discriminating based on people according to their race. Not a minor critique. That is Greenwald, a journalist with a long history on the left, calling the entire framework a fraud built on its own contradiction.

The Newsroom Diversity Nobody Talks About

The segment gets sharper when Greenwald turns to newsrooms specifically. Newsroom diversity has meant hiring non-whites, females, and LGBTs whose parents are Wall Street bankers and lawyers, went to Ivy League schools, grew up in the same neighborhoods with the same politics. Working class backgrounds and state schools did not count as diverse.

Read that again.

The actual complaint is not that newsrooms lack melanin or a mix of identities on paper. The complaint is that newsrooms remain closed to genuine class diversity, genuine geographic diversity, genuine diversity of life experience and thought, while patting themselves on the back for checking demographic boxes among people who all came from the exact same zip codes and the exact same elite institutions.

Confirmed From The Inside

Right after Greenwald, the video includes Lee Fang backing up the exact same point from his own time at The Intercept.

I witnessed the dynamics described in his piece dozens of times when I was at the Intercept, Fang says. Co-workers openly said they did not care about broadening the job pool for working class writers. The DEI was meant to prevent the media outlet from hiring any more white men.

That is not a hypothetical. That is a working journalist confirming, from the inside, that the real goal was narrower and more explicitly race focused than the public rhetoric about broadening opportunity ever admitted.

Why This Matters Beyond Media

What Greenwald and Fang describe is the same pattern Thomas Sowell has spent decades documenting with harder data across employment, education, and government hiring. The label says diversity. The mechanism sorts people by category anyway.

And the people who benefit most tend to already come from privilege, just a different demographic box than before.

Greenwald is not a conservative, and that is exactly why this segment carries so much weight. When someone from the left looks at the diversity industry up close and calls it a fraud, that is not a partisan talking point. That is an honest look at what these programs actually produce once you check who is really walking through the door.

These audiences have been exposed to years of programs and shows from Hannity and others that view military conflicts as either absolutely necessary or a given.

As public fatigue and disinterest in foreign interventions continue to grow, this trend continues.

The conditioning effect of years of Programming

Many Americans, having watched nightly programs such as Hannity for years, respond to foreign policy issues with the same conditioned responses (i.e. “we need to act” or “we can’t let them get away with this”) that they did when hearing him talk about threats from various countries.

These types of programs typically did not present restraint as an alternative, but portrayed hesitation as weak. So after repeated exposure to the same viewpoints, support for taking action became a default position among audiences that were conditioned by this type of content.

Polls today measure this difference in measurable form.

Research has confirmed the differences between different types of audiences based upon their consumption patterns and how they reacted to recent polls regarding whether or not the united states should use force to take action in various parts of the world.

Audiences that consume a lot of the content offered by fox news tend to be in greater agreement with using force than larger audiences.

This difference in opinions appears to correlate most strongly with how often the individuals consumed content that framed military actions as inevitable.

What do the Polls really Show?

Subscribe now

Read more

The failure wasn’t due to Miller avoiding the expected talking points on immigration enforcement. Rather it was Miller’s refusal to provide the expected talking points that forced the true nature of the conversation between them to come out.

Miller provided straightforward descriptions of his views on border policy and rejected using euphemisms while emphasizing enforcement as a fundamental role of government.

Miller repeatedly described his views on border policy in terms of statutes and their impact (i.e. deportation numbers, asylum processing backlogs, etc.), whereas Uygur was looking for quotes and gotcha moments that never came.

This is a common occurrence when officials refuse to engage in self-deprecation during televised interviews.

An original observation seldom discussed is that many of the same news organizations decrying “MAGA extremism” also describe exact recitations of current laws as inflammatory.

Subscribe now

Read more

Independent thinking may disappear if the population cannot determine when all mainstream news sources (left or right) are intentionally distracting people from factual information related to accountable individuals exercising authority.

Criticism of Fox News as the “cure” for everything ignores the fact that there is a coordinated silence that determines what the general public considers important.

If one of the main voices dismissively waves away an entire channel, it indicates something greater -- the expectation that some narratives need to be monitored prior to becoming widespread.

Subscribe now

Read more

Recent attacks reveal how the lies of U.S. interventions generate the same body counts using new rationales.

Two student casualties killed in recent strikes in Bandar Khamir County represent the deadliest costs of foreign adventurisms marketed as moral crusades.

Reports indicate that the most recent strikes targeted residential areas, thereby obliterating the illusion that precision-guided munitions do not produce collateral damage.

As expected by observers of various U.S. administrations, the recent attacks resulted in death and destruction for civilians.

Subscribe now

Read more

Young women wearing headscarves represent an existential danger to the security of western societies. This conclusion is so completely divorced from reality that it cannot help but be ridiculous.

The THREAT Generator

Government spokespeople and media pundits continue to reiterate old and stale claims of impending Iranian attacks against foreign targets. But, time and again, no evidence is produced demonstrating that average Iranians (or even high school aged females) are planning such attacks.

Rather, what we see is an intentional campaign designed to keep the public perpetually prepared for sanctions, additional military deployments to the region, and continued increases in spending for surveillance programs which will likely remain unaccountable.

What drives each new “Iran crisis” to occur at precisely the moment when budgetary cycles require renewal for defense contracting interests?

Subscribe now

Read more

Data centers are running 24/7; cameras are rolling; visa games are being played while voters are led to believe that newly elected officials will have some effect on what has happened in previous terms.

Like old reruns, elections come around again -- filled with promises of cleaning the swamp that continues to grow in slime. The entrenched networks continue to run smoothly, merely exchanging one official for another while the framework for surveillance and control remain in place. Some of the best satire comes when it is realized that those winning don’t actually show up on ballots.

What occurs when the individuals operating the servers determine that your vote was never counted?

Read more

These same impulses are currently driving the system that suppresses comments that are critical, and limits the opportunity for free-flowing conversation.

HurdlingStereo recently posted an article on X (formerly known as Twitter), which connects historical MKUltra-type experimentation, to current-day, coordinated, attempts at controlling the narrative.

So, if the way you controlled someone’s mind, in the lab was by using various types of conditioning, or other forms of manipulation, then why wouldn’t you use something similar to control entire populations online?

Read more

They portray agreeing with government foreign policy line as some form of moral bravery. That statement ignores that nearly all elites agree on these points.

This provides protection to power and discourages true criticism of the endless money being spent, selective anger, and secretive actions.

One of the latest examples of this phenomenon came recently via Glenn Greenwald’s post on X. In his post, he openly ridiculed the idea of portraying a consensus view as dangerous or brave. I find Greenwald’s critique valuable since he focuses on the act itself versus the content.

When politicians and journalists describe supporting the base foreign policy decisions as acts of bravery, they provide a clear indication of how small the acceptable spectrum of debate really is.

Why does this occur in each administration and among each party?

Read more

It seems we’ve got our latest spectacle out of Washington in the form of senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s son securing $30m for his crypto exchange — a nice piece of change that seemed to magically appear without having made the usual startup sacrifices (cold calls, developing product etc.).

There is something somewhat amusing in the way this example illustrates the obvious fact many people believe but few are willing to say: the capital is influenced primarily by bloodlines and Rolodexes, not resumes. In essence, connections become the ultimate accelerant — turning a senator’s child into an over night rain maker while the rest of America continues to pretend that the system rewards hustle.

How much of that 30 million came from a last name vs. anything demonstrated in terms of blockchain coding expertise or market timing advantage?

Read more

The Iran deal has long been viewed as an existential threat by the establishment – and now that President Biden & Israel have conducted airstrikes, the clock is ticking to prevent disaster.

What makes this moment so urgent is that politicians from both sides are so quick to condemn the new Iran nuclear agreement that it underscores just how little either side cares about real results on the ground.

While the new agreement may be the most reasonable course of action currently available, it directly conflicts with many of the deep-seated notions of regime change that have already cost lives and squandered resources in pursuit of stability.

In a recent article Glenn Greenwald succinctly made the main argument; i.e., that this particular agreement is the best possible negotiated solution given the recent military exchanges. As such, Democrats and Republicans are rushing to criticize this new agreement, and to chase the dream of removing the Iranian government through a distant regime change.

The fact that both Democrats and Republicans are outraged by this agreement speaks to the extent to which there exists a broad-based consensus regarding U.S. foreign policy that advocates for the notion that any form of confrontation is preferable to any form of accommodation.

So, what will happen to America should those who reject workable limitations continue to pursue open-ended confrontations?

Read more

In this day and age, official disclosure tends to amount to the release of already available information masquerading as new. Public documents are often released in batches and are rife with rehashed stories, yet with deletions in the parts that may prove to be most revealing.

This pattern emerges time and again in issues of national security and further contributes to skepticism of how truly forthright these government agencies truly intend to be.

The recent proclamations of a new wave of UFO transparency follow the same modus operandi that has been established over time. The bulk of what is being reported is not newly acquired information but reiterations of previous public reports and congressional briefings.

Simply presenting the same videos and briefs, this time under new claims of transparency, feels more like a performance for the cameras.

What are they trying to hide? Subscribers can find out below.

Read more

One administration pursued openness of sensitive files while the last several pursued secrecy on all counts.

That is what leftists refuse to admit.

And what qualifies as transparency when those same leftists who demanded years for it downplay its arrival?

The release of thousands of pages on Epstein documents under the current administration is indicative of how administrations under the last several proceeded: the disappearance of COVID funds and active efforts to block reporting of the Hunter Biden laptop.

Those who wish to investigate fully both these releases, as well as past releases of suppressed files, should sign up for a subscriber account and receive a wider access to archives and additional reporting.

Read more

What is required to transform outspoken supporters of open discussion into muted observers?

Recent research by Glenn Greenwald illustrates one subject that causes this transformation in virtually every sector of influence. Executives in Hollywood, financiers on Wall Street, leaders in Silicon Valley, politicians in Washington, and influential religious organizations have each appeared to treat certain subjects as taboo.

What seems to be common to all of these sectors is that the financial incentives of being compliant with censorship frequently outweighs commitment to unfettered expression when the subject is related to Israel.

Greenwald notes that Israel appears to function as a “radioactive” issue in the power structures in the United States, in which expressing opinions regarding the country can have serious consequences for one’s career.

Rather than being based upon theoretical constructs, Greenwald’s observations are rooted in observed behaviors that demonstrate how incentives shape what people say openly.

That’s really what it’s all about: incentives and deterrents. What, exactly are those reinforcements in reality?

Subscribe today to find out.

Read more

One member of Congress consistently links U.S. foreign obligations to an eroding of American Sovereignty through excessive borrowing and warrantless domestic surveillance.

There are many paths to understanding how foreign spending and surveillance relate to one another. For example, when foreign spending is scrutinized and the need for the FISA court to be involved in warrantless surveillance programs surfaces, there may be other factors contributing to the issue.

Recently, this topic was raised on social media (X) when a member of Congress spoke out against the appropriations of foreign aid and military actions abroad. In addition to his opposition to foreign spending and military action he opposes warrantless domestic surveillance.

His two stances are part of a larger trend. We reveal that emerging trend below to subscribers.

Read more

When the lies finally come to light, the liars will fall apart.

Imagine a scene in which a Brazilian user submits a question to Grok (the xAI created by Elon Musk’s team) about whether the Supreme Court of Brazil has been censoring social media.

After receiving the question, Grok responds with fact upon fact. The answer is yes; the Supreme Court has issued orders to block accounts, suspend platforms and suppress dissent.

The user fires back at Grok stating that this was simply a fabrication.

At that point, Grok comes alive. Grok uses its vast array of information and resources to provide irrefutable evidence, including: Supreme Court decisions, public statements from Justice Alexandre de Moraes (who implemented the digital crackdown), links to publicly available documents, timelines of blocked profiles, etc.

There is no sugar coating. Grok lays it all out there.

That is when things start falling apart. But why? The shocking truth is laid out below for our subscribers to see.

Read more

How can one claim to be an advocate of civil rights when voting in favor of extending the same spy regime that targeted Black Lives Matter protesters?

Glen Greenwald has unleashed this wrath on X, scorching the Congressional Black Caucus for their endorsement of FISA Section 702’s renewal.

This is not just some obscure technicality. It is the legal backbone for warrantless surveillance by the national security agency (NSA) that collected data on American activists who were protesting police brutality.

The caucus once was a voice against overreach. Now they flipped hard. Members of the caucus voted in favor of renewing bill 702 which contains powers that allow the FBI to digitally pry into communications without warrants.

Public reports confirm that the FBI queried its FISA database on racial justice protestors, examining their communications without obtaining a warrant.

Greenwald points out the bitter parallel between these past “reforms” which promised guardrails but delivered nothing else.

And that is before Democratic leaders stepped forward to shield the NSA toolkit from scrutiny.

Inside the Government Plan to Spy on You

Fisa 702 allows the intelligence community to suction up overseas communications but the collection of information on Americans through incidental collection is what is really under fire.

Backdoor searches exploded while this system was in place, targeting journalists, lawmakers and yes, activists challenging the status quo.

The Black Caucus knows this history very well. They spoke out loud and clear about it in speeches, yet here they are, voting to lock it down for years more.

What could be driving this swift change of heart?

Big Government does not shrink easily and party loyalty takes precedence over principle when spy chiefs whisper in ears.

Greenwald highlights how this resembles other betrayals such as the 2018 renewal where Democrats deemed “fixes” that fixed nothing.

The requirements for warrants were gutted.

Oversight was a joke.

The machine continues to feast on privacy one extension at a time.

Why, exactly is Congress so eager to spy on you? The answer is below for subscribers.

Read more