NB: This description contains material not included in the original broadcast.
Introduction: Continuing coverage of the remarkable WikiLeaks phenomenon, the program analyzes more of the diverse, sinister elements stewing beneath the surface of this dish. In addition to the intelligence agencies , Nazi and fascist elements  and apparent mind-control cults  that figure into the WikiLeaks mix, we find none other than Karl Rove, the Machiavellian mastermind of the Bush administration. A top adviser to the Prime Minister of Sweden  (dubbed “the Ronald Reagan of Europe”), Rove’s consummately cynical methodology may well be manifesting in the selection of material to be surfaced by WikiLeaks.
Long viewed by Mr. Emory as the point man for the Underground Reich in the Bush (II) administration, Rove’s presence may account for the fact that many of the embarrassing disclosures contained in the WikiLeaks documents are from the Obama/Hillary Clinton State Department. As will be seen in subsequent programs on WikiLeaks, many of the cables that have helped trigger uprisings in the Middle East come from the Bush State Department. (The possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood may benefit from the turmoil will be explored in future broadcasts.)
Among the people apparently supporting WikiLeaks is financier George Soros. Generally viewed as a liberal, Soros may well be connected to the Bormann capital network , which uses Jews. (Soros got his introduction to the business world helping to confiscate propert y from Hungarian Jews during the Holocaust, a period he has described as the happiest of his life.)
Much of the second side of the program explores the popular uprising in Tunisia, triggered in part by WikiLeaks cables and–possibly–triggered by Swedish and German nationals  variously described as a hunting party and carrying “automatic weapons.”  Might Rove, who actively courted  the Muslim Brotherhood while working for the Bush administration , be helping to orchestrate a Muslim Brotherhood  takeover of much of the Arab World? This would be an albatross around the neck of the Obama administration (“Obama lost Egypt”) and would realize the goal of the transnationals, the corporatist wing of the CIA and its corresponding elements in the State Department . The latter elements have been supportive of the corporatist philosophy  of the Muslim Brotherhood, and would welcome  its ascension.
Program Highlights Include: The presence of online, Russian cyber-criminals  in the WikiLeaks mix; support given to Julian Assange by the Soros-funded Frontline Club ; Assange’s stated desire to enlist the support of Soros’ Open Society Institute ; WikiLeaks’ documents exonerating an Irish neo-Nazi  for his apparent role in an attempt on the life of Bolivian president Evo Morales; WikiLeaks’ leaking of alleged State Department documents that support the Nazi/UFO propaganda ; the “Anonymous” milieu’s hacking of Tunisian government sites  in the run-up to the Tunisian coup.
1. The bulk of the State Department cables being accessed in the news media have come from Barack Obama’s State Department and have proved embarrassing to the Obama administration. It develops that Karl Rove is holding forth in Sweden, acting as an adviser to the Swedish Prime Minister. Media speculation has centered on the possibility that Rove may be aiding in Assange’s prosecution. Is Rove actually presiding over WikiLeaks’ operations in Sweden? Is the WikiLeaks’ leaking of State Department cables part of a Rove-directed covert operation?
. . . For at least 10 years, Rove has been connected to Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik. More recently, Fredrik, who is known as “the Ronald Reagan of Europe,” has contracted Rove to help with his 2010 re-election campaign.
Rove was said to have fled to Sweden during the prosecution of former Alabama Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman, who believes his prosecution to have been politically motivated.
“Clearly, it appears that [Rove], who claims to be of Swedish descent, feels a kinship to Sweden . . . and he has taken advantage of it several times,” the source added.
Shuler’s source speculated that Rove could be trying to protect the Bush legacy from documents that WikiLeaks may have. “The very guy who has released the documents that damage the Bushes the most is also the guy that the Bush’s number one operative can control by being the Swedish prime minister’s brain and intelligence and economic advisor.” . . .
2a. The subtitle comes from the recent Tunisian coup, that was inspired by WikiLeaks’ release of a cable that was critical of the regime of Ben Ali.
The man now president, Mohamed Ghannouchi was profiled in January 2006 in a secret US cable in 2006, recently released by Wikileaks. “A technocrat and economist, Ghannouchi has served as prime minister since 1999. Is rumored to have told many he wishes to leave the government but has not had the opportunity. Length of his service as PM also suggests Ben Ali [president until resignation] does not view him as a threat and he is unlikely to be viewed as a qualified successor. However, average Tunisians generally view him with respect and he is well-liked in comparison to other GOT and RCD [ruling party] officials.” Then US ambassador William Hudson said: “Given the fact Ben Ali has a dictatorial hold, it is hard to believe he’ll voluntarily step down.” Even so, “the mere fact an increasing number of Tunisians are talking about the end of the Ben Ali era is remarkable.”
Publication of WikiLeaks sourced private US comments on the corruption and nepotism of a hated “sclerotic” regime is said to have helped create Tunisia’s protest, and generated talk by US commentators of a “Wikileaks revolution”.
2b. It turns out that the Anonymous milieu (described in FTR #732 ) launched attacks against Tunisian government sites.
Sites belonging to the Ministry of Industry and the Tunisian Stock Exchange were amongst seven targeted by the Anonymous group since Monday.
Other sites have been defaced for what the group calls “an outrageous level of censorship” in the country. . . .
3a. Initial reports on the coup described a possible role played by foreigners with blond hair and blue eyes, some carrying Swedish and some carrying German passports.
. . . Police said they had caught two men with Swedish passports after one of the shooting incidents, and state television quoted a security source as saying four people carrying German passports had been detained in the same incident.
However, the Swedish news agency TT said the men were part of a Swedish group visiting Tunisia to hunt wild boar who had been attacked by a mob. . . .
3b. Interestingly–and perhaps significantly–an earlier, [now] cached version of the story had a significant detail, which was scrubbed from later versions of the story. In this context, it is important to remember that there are ongoing operational links between Swedish and German neo-Nazis . In FTR #734, we will examine the possibility that the coup will ultimately benefit the Muslim Brotherhood.
Police said they had caught two men with Swedish passports after one of the shooting incidents, and state television quoted a security source as saying four people carrying German passports had been detained in the same incident.
It showed what it said were the detained foreigners, with blond hair and fair complexions, being guarded by armed police, and said the arms they were carrying included automatic weapons. [Italics are mine–D.E.]
However, the Swedish news agency TT said the men were part of a Swedish group visiting Tunisia to hunt wild boar who had been attacked by a mob. . . .
4. Among the ingredients in WikiLeaks soup appears to be billionaire financier George Soros, who has provided financing to the Frontline Club, one of the institutions supporting Julian Assange.
. . . Mr. [Vaughn] Smith set up Frontline by borrowing £3 million ($5.7 million) against his family’s estate in Norfolk, England, and has received financing for its events from the Open Society Institute, a philanthropic organization set up by the billionaire investor and philanthropist George Soros. Though Frontline has yet to break even, Mr. Smith is weighing the possibility of opening a club in New York or Washington, perhaps with a local business partner. . . .
5. The relationship between Assange and the Frontline Club is detailed in a Guardian article.
There has been mounting disquiet among some members of the Frontline Club over the relationship forged between its founder, Vaughan Smith, and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.
Now Smith has invited concerned members to an “open forum” tomorrow evening to discuss the issue. It will begin with a conversation between Smith and John Owen, chairman of the club’s board of trustees.
Smith will explain the decision-making process behind the club’s involvement with Assange. He spent two months working from the club before his arrest in early December. He is facing extradition to Sweden.
When Assange was refused bail because he had no fixed abode, Smith offered his home in Norfolk as an address in order to secure bail for Assange. He has been staying there since being released. . . .
6. There are indications that WikiLeaks had intended to enlist the support of Soros all along.
. . . Operating a Web site to post leaked documents isn’t very expensive (Young estimates he spends a little over $100 a month for Cryptome’s server space). So when other Wikileaks founders started to talk about the need to raise $5 million and complained that an initial round of publicity had affected “our delicate negotiations with the Open Society Institute and other funding bodies,” Young says, he resigned from the effort. . . .
7a. Having helped the Nazis with the confiscation of Jewish property during the Holocaust in his Native Hungary, Soros is remarkably free of pangs of conscience concerning his actions. He has described this as the “happiest” time of his life !
[George Soros Interview On 60 Minutes]
When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros’ father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.
(Vintage footage of Jews walking in line; man dragging little boy in line)
KROFT: (Voiceover) These are pictures from 1944 of what happened to George Soros’ friends and neighbors.
(Vintage footage of women and men with bags over their shoulders walking; crowd by a train)
KROFT: (Voiceover) You’re a Hungarian Jew…
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
KROFT: (Voiceover) …who escaped the Holocaust…
(Vintage footage of women walking by train)
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
(Vintage footage of people getting on train)
KROFT: (Voiceover) …by–by posing as a Christian.
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.
(Vintage footage of women helping each other get on train; train door closing with people in boxcar)
KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.
Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that’s when my character was made.
KROFT: In what way?
Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and–and anticipate events and when–when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a–a very personal experience of evil.
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that’s–that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
Mr. SOROS: Not–not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t–you don’t see the connection. But it was–it created no–no problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. SOROS: No.
KROFT: For example that, ‘I’m Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.’ None of that?
Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was–well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in markets–that if I weren’t there–of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would–would–would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the–whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the–I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt. . . .
7b. The possibility that Soros may actually be a “Bormann Jew” is one to be considered. The program notes that the Bormann capital network  has long made a point of utilizing Jews. A synoptic overview of the Bormann network can be found in the description for FTR #305 .
Using Jews as primary operatives has a number of advantages: it provides an excellent cover for a Nazi money-laundering operation; the capital derived for the state of Israel helps to assure connivance and silence on the part of the Israeli authorities with regard to the existence of the Bormann network and the Underground Reich; people can point to the great wealth of Bormann Jews and blame economic distress on them. This, in turn, plays into the old stereotypes about Jews.
“. . . Since the founding of Israel, the Federal Republic of Germany had paid out 85.3 billion marks, by the end of 1977, to survivors of the Holocaust. East Germany ignores any such liability. From South America, where payment must be made with subtlety, the Bormann organization has made a substantial contribution. It has drawn many of the brightest Jewish businessmen into a participatory role in the development of many of its corporations, and many of these Jews share their prosperity most generously with Israel. If their proposals are sound, they are even provided with a specially dispensed venture capital fund. I spoke with one Jewish businessman in Hartford, Connecticut. He had arrived there quite unknown several years before our conversation, but with Bormann money as his leverage. Today he is more than a millionaire, a quiet leader in the community with a certain share of his profits earmarked, as always, for his venture capital benefactors. This has taken place in many other instances across America and demonstrates how Bormann’s people operate in the contemporary commercial world, in contrast to the fanciful nonsense with which Nazis are described in so much ‘literature.’ So much emphasis is placed on select Jewish participation in Bormann companies that when Adolf Eichmann was seized and taken to Tel Aviv to stand trial, it produced a shock wave in the Jewish and German communities of Buenos Aires. Jewish leaders informed the Israeli authorities in no uncertain terms that this must never happen again because a repetition would permanently rupture relations with the Germans of Latin America, as well as with the Bormann organization, and cut off the flow of Jewish money to Israel. It never happened again, and the pursuit of Bormann quieted down at the request of these Jewish leaders. He is residing in an Argentine safe haven, protected by the most efficient German infrastructure in history as well as by all those whose prosperity depends on his well-being. Personal invitation is the only way to reach him.”
7c. In order to provide some perspective on the admittedly strange and (for some) outrageous concept of “Bormann Jews,” we relate an incident in which organized crime kingpin Meyer Lansky tried to blackmail the Bormann group, which resulted in his removal from Israel.
“A revealing insight into this international financial and industrial network was given me by a member of the Bormann organization residing in West Germany. Meyer Lansky, he said, the financial advisor to the Las Vegas—Miami underworld sent a message to Bormann through my West German SS contact. Lansky promised that if he received a piece of Bormann’s action he would keep the Israeli agents off Bormann’s back. ‘I have a very good relation with the Israeli secret police’ was his claim, although he was to be kicked out of Israel when his presence became too noted—and also at the urging of Bormann’s security chief in South America. At the time Lansky was in the penthouse suite of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel, in which he owned stock. He had fled to Israel to evade a U.S. federal warrant for his arrest. He sent his message to Bormann through his bag man in Switzerland, John Pullman, also wanted in the United States on a federal warrant. Lansky told Pullman to make this offer ‘which he can’t refuse.’ The offer was forwarded to Buenos Aires, where it was greeted with laughter. When the laughter died down, it was replaced with action. Meyer was evicted from Israel and was told by Swiss authorities to stay out of their country, so he flew to South America. There he offered any president who would give him asylum a cool $1 million in cash. He was turned down everywhere and had to continue his flight to Miami, where U.S. marshals, alerted, were waiting to take him into custody.”
8. After relating a number of stories about what was termed [In FTR #732 ] “the attack of the cyber-Wandervogel”, the broadcast recapitulates a number of articles from the “News and Supplemental” category. Noting a strange document from WikiLeaks [allegedly real], the broadcast weights the charges in that document, concerning alleged flights of UFO’s  based at or near Antarctica that are supposedly threatening the United States. Whatever its intent, this plays into the neo-Nazi theme of the “Aryan race” descending from space aliens and manifesting an inherent hereditary superiority as a result. (WikiLeaks’ anti-Semitic operative Joran Jermas aka “Israel Shamir” has works translated by Lars Andelskog, who has trafficked  in these kinds of theories.)
Recently a former Bush (I), Bush (II) and Reagan staffer was found murdered . In that context, the program ruminates about the possibility that his death may have been linked with a WikiLeaks disclosure that the U.S. and Germany had been planning the joint development  of a reconnaissance satellite system–Wheeler had been involved with the Mitre Corporation, which has been deeply involved with the development of reconnaissance satellites.
Another line of speculation concerned the death of an Irish neo-Nazi  in an alleged attempt on the life of Bolivian president Evo Morales. A WikiLeaks document speculates about the possibility that he had been set up , either by the State Department or by Morales himself. (An alleged State Department memo contends that Morales himself was setting up a provocation–a phony attempt on his life to justify a crackdown on opponents. That is a scenario I would not put past Morales. It may also be that the State Department was utilizing Dwyer–the Nazi–and the other mercenaries in order to neutralize Morales, for whom they have no use. In any event, the WikiLeaks document exonerates Dwyer of any wrongdoing. He was just a victim.)
9. Yet another of the unsavory ingredients in WikiLeaks soup appears to be an element of Russian organized crime involved with using the Internet–what Assange in an interview called “Russian phishing mafia.”  In what may be a logical development from this scenario, a Russian mafia data theft consortium is hosting their OWN wikiLeaks! And Assange and co are apparently not commenting on it or doing anything to redirect those looking for the “Real” WikiLeaks to the right sites.
...Spamhaus has for over a year regarded Heihachi as an outfit run ‘by criminals for criminals’ in the same mould as the criminal Estdomains. The Panama-registered but Russian-run heihachi.net is highly involved in botnet command and control and the hosting of Russian cybercrime. We also note that the content at mirror.wikileaks.info is rather unlike what’s at the real Wikileaks mirrors which suggests that the wikileaks.info site may not be under the control of Wikileaks itself, but rather some other group. You can find the real site at wikileaks.ch, wikileaks.is, wikileaks.nl, and many other mirror sites around the world.
...Currently wikileaks.info is serving leaked documents to the world, from a server controlled by Russian cybercriminals, to an audience that faithfully believes anything with a ‘Wikileaks’ logo on it. That has got to send shivers down the spines of rational minds.
...In a statement released today on wikileaks.info entitled “Spamhaus’ False Allegations Against wikileaks.info”, the person running the wikileaks.info site (which is not connected with Julian Assange or the real Wikileaks organization) called Spamhaus’s information on his cybercrime host “false” and “none of our business” and called on people to contact Spamhaus and “voice your opinion”. Consequently Spamhaus has now received a number of emails some asking if we “want to be next”, some telling us to stop blacklisting Wikileaks (obviously they don’t understand that we never did) and others claiming we are “a pawn of US Government Agencies”.
...Few of the people who contacted us realised that the ‘press release’ they had read was not written by Wikileaks and not issued by Wikileaks — but by the wikileaks.info site only — the very site we are warning about (which by no coincidence is hosted on the same Russian based cybercrime-run heihachi.net server as irc.anonops.net). Many people thought that the “press release” was issued “by Wikileaks”. In fact there has been no press release about this by Wikileaks and none of the official Wikileaks mirrors sites even recognise the wikileaks.info mirror. We wonder how long it will be before Wikileaks supporters wake up and start to question why wikileaks.info is not on the list of real Wikileaks mirrors at wikileaks.ch.
... Spamhaus continues to warn Wikileaks readers to make sure they are viewing and downloading documents only from an official Wikileaks mirror site. Meanwhile, despite many attempts to contact the real Wikileaks, there has been no word from Wikileaks itself. . . .
10. An op-ed piece published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology highlighted many of the salient aspects of the WikiLeaks scenario.
. . . In a recent interview with The New Yorker, Julian Assange, the director of WikiLeaks, was asked if he would ever refrain from releasing information he knew might get someone killed. The question was not just hypothetical: a year and a half earlier, Assange had published a study that detailed technical vulnerabilities in actively employed U.S. Army countermeasures against improvised explosive devices.
There was no conceivable benefit to publishing the information. The Army needed no extra pressure to address the vulnerabilities — it was already desperately searching for new countermeasures to protect its soldiers. The only beneficiaries were insurgents, who, using Assange’s gift, could better murder U.S. servicemen.
In response to the interview question, Assange was blase. Yes, he admitted, there might be some “blood on our hands,” some “collateral damage, if you will.” But unlike the journalistic world at large, he didn’t feel it was his duty to weigh and pass judgment on the value of the information he made public. Transparency, the WikiLeaks founder obstinately insisted, would create a better society for all, and we must be willing to break a few eggs to make the omelette.
As he hides behind this reasoning, Assange has released the Social Security numbers of U.S. military personnel, opening them up to identity theft. He has revealed the names of Afghan civilians who collaborate with U.S. forces, a move that was greeted with joy by Taliban commanders, who quickly promised to hunt down and execute those named. He has betrayed the identities of human rights activists and journalists who, at great risk to themselves, passed information on their conditions to U.S. diplomats. In discussing one source, a diplomat pleads: “Please Protect,” and for good reason — with the informant’s identity now known, there is a serious risk that this the poor woman who trusted the United States will be whisked off to prison or worse.
Assange has billed this as some journalistically significant reveal, but if the recent cable releases reveal anything at all, it’s that what the U.S. says in public and what it does in private are remarkably well matched. We’re working hard to secure loose nuclear material. We’re worried about terrorism. We’re trying to unwind Guantanamo Bay. Nothing that is said about foreign powers in the cables is very surprising. Russia is no longer a democratic country. Some elements of the Pakistani government cannot be trusted. China is launching cyber-attacks against the United States. Assange — a computer hacker, not a policy wonk — may be ignorant enough to consider cables novel, but they reveal very little of use, and most of the information (without the harmful details) has already been purposely leaked by the government itself. There is no big lie, no grand hypocrisy, no Chomskyan or Mearsheimeran conspiracy afoot. If this was a whistle-blowing operation, who was the whistle being blown on? Much as it was with the Iraq and Afghanistan leaks, the results were a big yawn. And like revealing the frequencies that our IED jammers work on, Assange immensely damaged U.S. efforts, but added little to the discussion.
The greatest irony is that by proving transparency can be used for evil as well as good, Assange hasn’t just harmed our national security, he’s poisoned the very movement he purports to lead. After 9/11, we worked hard to tear down the walls between agencies and encourage a free flow of information that would better help us connect the dots on issues such as terrorism. It is likely that in the aftermath of WikiLeaks’ attack, our government will return to its Cold War ways, silo-ing information, reducing what it writes down, and securing itself against releases, good or bad.
Mr. Assange and his conspirators tell us they are part of a “New Journalism,” unmotivated by profit or partisanship (never mind their past attempts to auction off their finds or the unabashed ideological spin that accompanies their leaks). But the truth is that their motivation is as old as time itself; like small children playing with fires, fascinated with their own power to destroy, Assange and company are setting the world aflame merely to watch it burn. They are not crusaders for a better society. They are nihilists. They are anarchists. And they are enemies of the United States. . . .