Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash drive that can be obtained here. (The flash drive includes the anti-fascist books avail­able on this site.)

Lis­ten:
MP3 Side 1 | Side 2

Intro­duc­tion: Fea­tur­ing crit­i­cal infor­ma­tion com­ing to us from the Swedish mag­a­zine Expo, founded by the late Stieg Lars­son, the broad­cast high­lights the piv­otal nature of the rela­tion­ship between Wik­iLeaks, founder Julian Assange and a Nazi/fascist/anti-Semitic net­work oper­at­ing out of Sweden.

Far from being “just another jour­nal­ist” who began mov­ing in the Wik­iLeaks orbit, Joran Jer­mas aka “Israel Shamir” appears to have had much to do with estab­lish­ing Wik­iLeaks in Swe­den. A cel­e­bra­tory Holo­caust denier who has stated that it is the duty of all “good Chris­tians and Mus­lims to deny the Holo­caust,” Jer­mas and his son Johannes Wahlstrom (of sim­i­lar polit­i­cal ori­en­ta­tion) are part and par­cel to the same Nazi/fascist milieu as Carl Lund­strom, whose money is the pri­mary finan­cial ele­ment in Pirate Bay.

Nor is Jermas/Shamir’s rela­tion­ship to Assange a casual one. On the con­trary, that asso­ci­a­tion stretches back for years, with Assange view­ing Jermas/Shamir as “clever” and seek­ing to employ him under a pseu­do­nym, indi­cat­ing that Assange knew exactly what sort of crea­ture he was deal­ing with and how he would be perceived.

Indi­ca­tions are that an indi­vid­ual like Jermas/Shamir would not in any way be anath­ema to Assange. He has, him­self, given indi­ca­tions of a sim­i­lar men­tal­ity, recently engag­ing in obses­sive Jew-baiting of per­ceived crit­ics (includ­ing in-laws of edi­to­r­ial per­son­nel of the BBC and The Guardian.)

A major ele­ment of dis­cus­sion con­cerns the pos­si­bil­ity that Wik­iLeaks’ leak­ing of the Guan­tanamo doc­u­ments may have forced the speed­ing up of the oper­a­tion to neu­tral­ize Osama bin Laden. (Jermas/Shamir wrote about these doc­u­ments and what they dis­closed about bin Laden’s where­abouts for Alexan­der Cockburn’s Coun­ter­punch.)

In addi­tion, this por­tion of the pro­gram tack­les the issue of the unfor­tu­nate Bradley Man­ning. Cyn­i­cally manip­u­lated, the young Man­ning is no whistle­blower, hav­ing down­loaded and pur­loined clas­si­fied files the con­tents of which he had not exam­ined! This is not whistle­blow­ing, which is the break­ing of silence in order to report doc­u­mented wrongdoing.

Much of the lat­ter part of the broad­cast exam­ines Julian Assange in the con­text of the San­tikine­tan Park Association–“The Fam­ily” of Anne Hamilton-Byrne. (The Fam­ily is a bru­tal, intelligence-connected mind-control cult, with a quasi Nazi/fascist char­ac­ter.) Of par­tic­u­lar inter­est is Assange’s incor­po­ra­tion of a mys­te­ri­ous woman known as “the nanny” to per­form key tasks for Wik­iLeaks. “The nanny” might well be one of the “Aun­ties” from The Family–older females who admin­is­tered bru­tal pun­ish­ment to the chil­dren of the cult.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: Assange’s social Dar­win­ian, quasi-eugenics phi­los­o­phy; Assange’s adop­tion of the ter­mi­nol­ogy and cog­ni­tive per­cepts of the intel­li­gence com­mu­nity and some of the off­shore com­mer­cial inter­ests to which Wik­iLeaks is osten­si­bly opposed; the pos­si­bil­ity that Wik­iLeaks’ res­i­dent Nazis and anti-Semites Wahlstrom and Jermas/Shamir have been mak­ing prof­its sell­ing Wik­iLeaks’ mate­ri­als; review of what we have come to call “the Pirate Vortex”–the ele­ments asso­ci­ated with the Pirate Bay and asso­ci­ated Pirate Par­ties in Europe.

1a. Begin­ning with the deci­sive role of Joran Jermas/Israel Shamir’s Nazi and anti-Semitic net­work in the estab­lish­ment of Wik­iLeaks in Swe­den, the pro­gram cites research uncov­ered by Expo, the mag­a­zine founded by Stieg Larsson.

The “orga­ni­za­tion” referred to by Jermas/Shamir and embraced by Assange is almost cer­tainly the “Pirate Vor­tex.” Although com­posed of Utopian-minded indi­vid­u­als, for the most part, that milieu has strong fascist/Nazi underpinnings.

The noto­ri­ous anti­se­mitic jour­nal­ist Israel Shamir was actively involved in devel­op­ing the Wik­iLeaks net­work — and was not just another free­lance writer who hap­pened to strike up a work­ing rela­tion­ship with the website’s founder Julian Assange, accord­ing to newly-revealed cor­re­spon­dence. [Empha­sis added.]

Emails seen by the Swedish anti-racist mag­a­zine, Expo, demon­strate that the two men co-operated for sev­eral years. As early as 2008 Mr Shamir was asked to rec­om­mend poten­tial asso­ciates in Swe­den. [Empha­sis added.] He sug­gested his own son, Johannes Wahlström: “He is a Swedish cit­i­zen, and lives in Swe­den. Prob­a­bly, he’ll be able to give advice about press freedom.”

Like his father, Mr Wahlström has devel­oped a rep­u­ta­tion for stri­dent anti­se­mitic views. In 2005, left-wing mag­a­zine Ord­front was forced to with­draw one of his arti­cles, which argued that Israel con­trolled the Swedish media.

An email from June 2010 shows that Mr Shamir was still play­ing a part in the Swedish Wik­iLeaks net­work at that point. “I have a lot of good guys who can help to ana­lyze the trea­sure and it would be good to start spread­ing the news,” he told Mr Assange. “I am now in Paris, and peo­ple want to know more! Tues­day I go to Swe­den, and there is a whole oper­a­tion for your ben­e­fit!” Mr Assange replied: “There cer­tainly is! Tell the team to get ready. Give them my best. We have a lot of work to do.” . . . [Empha­sis added.]

“Revealed: Anti­semite was key to Wik­iLeaks Oper­a­tion” by Mar­tin Bright; Jew­ish Chron­i­cle; 6/2/2011.

1b. It might be worth­while here, to briefly review the nature of Jermas/Shamir’s polit­i­cal outlook.

. . . So let us quickly recap the foul­ness of Shamir’s polit­i­cal views. As I noted last week, he has called the Auschwitz con­cen­tra­tion camp “an intern­ment facil­ity, attended by the Red Cross (as opposed to the US intern­ment cen­tre in Guan­tanamo),” not a place of exter­mi­na­tion. He told a Swedish jour­nal­ist (and fel­low Holo­caust denier) that “it’s every Mus­lim and Christian’s duty to deny the Holocaust.” . . .

“Assange’s Extrem­ist Employ­ees: Why is Wik­iLeaks employ­ing a Holo­caust Denier and his dis­graced son?” by Michael C. Moyni­han; Rea­son Mag­a­zine; 12/14/2010.

1c. The “oper­a­tion [in Swe­den] for [Assange’s] ben­e­fit appears to be the milieu of the Pirate Bay–referred to in FTR #732 as the “Pirate Vor­tex.” This milieu is inex­tri­ca­bly linked with Wik­iLeaks’ oper­a­tions, with the eco­nomic heavy lift­ing for Pirate Bay being done by Carl Lund­strom, Nazi/fascist financier of far right par­ties, includ­ing the Swe­den Democrats.

Lis­ten­ers are emphat­i­cally encour­aged to care­fully digest the mate­r­ial in FTR #732. A grasp of that broad­cast will greatly aid in under­stand­ing this program.

1c. In the con­text of Lundstrom’s oper­a­tions, it is inter­est­ing and (pos­si­bly) sig­nif­i­cant that Swe­den is the com­pany that had the largest num­ber of front com­pa­nies set up under the Bor­mann flight cap­i­tal program.

. . . Seven hun­dred and fifty new cor­po­ra­tions were estab­lished in the last months of the war under the direc­tion of Reich­sleiter Bor­mann, using the tech­nique per­fected by Her­mann Schmitz [of I.G. Far­ben]. A national of each coun­try was the nom­i­nal head of each cor­po­rate struc­ture and the board was a mix of Ger­man admin­is­tra­tors and bank offi­cials, while the staffing at senior and mid­dle man­age­ment lev­els was com­prised of Ger­man sci­en­tists and technicians.

In the back­ground were the shad­owy own­ers of the cor­po­ra­tion, those Ger­mans who pos­sessed the bearer bonds as proof of stock own­er­ship. The estab­lish­ment of such com­pa­nies, usu­ally launched in indus­tries requir­ing high tech­ni­cal skills was wel­comed in Spain and Argentina, to give two exam­ples because those gov­ern­ments appre­ci­ated that Ger­man com­pa­nies would gen­er­ate jobs and imple­ment a more favor­able bal­ance of trade. Coun­try by coun­try, a break­down by U.S. trea­sury inves­ti­ga­tors of these new 750 Ger­man firms was as fol­lows: Por­tu­gal, 58; Spain, 112; Swe­den, 233; Switzer­land, 214; Turkey, 35; Argentina, 98. . . .

(Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile; Paul Man­ning; Copy­right 1981 [HC]; Lyle Stu­art Inc.; ISBN 0–8184-0309–8; pp. 135–136.)

2. The Assange/Shamir rela­tion­ship appar­ently goes back for some years, with Assange hav­ing con­tem­plated join­ing forces with Jermas/Shamir for some time.

. . . What’s more, peo­ple are now appar­ently trav­el­ing the world offer­ing unre­leased dis­patches to other media out­lets. One of these peo­ple is Johannes Wahlstrom from Swe­den. Wahlstrom is the son of Israel Shamir, a noto­ri­ous anti-Semite and Holo­caust denier of Russian-Israeli extrac­tion. Kristinn Hrafns­son, WL’s new offi­cial spokesman, has described both Wahlstrom and Shamir as belong­ing to WL.  Once, he described to me things Shamir had writ­ten as ‘very clever really.’ . . .I think Julian is aware of the sort of peo­ple he’s asso­ci­at­ing him­self with–there’s been con­tact with Shamir, at least, for years. When Julian first learned about Shamir’s polit­i­cal back­ground, he con­sid­ered whether he might be able to work for Wik­iLeaks under a pseu­do­nym. [Ital­ics mine–D.E.]

. . . From the out­side, it looks as though Wahlstrom has passed on the cables to var­i­ous media out­lets in Scan­di­navia while his father has assumed respon­si­bil­ity for the Russ­ian mar­ket. Although WL’s five cho­sen media part­ners have repeat­edly denied buy­ing access to the leaks, the Nor­we­gian news­pa­per Aften­posten out­right admit­ted to pay­ing for a look at the cables. All the other news­pa­pers, includ­ing some Russ­ian ones, have refused to pro­vide any infor­ma­tion about pos­si­ble deals with WL. . . .”

Inside Wik­iLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World’s Most Dan­ger­ous Web­site by Daniel Domscheit-Berg; Eng­lish trans­la­tion copy­right 2011 by Crown Pub­lish­ers [Ran­dom House imprint]; ISBN 978–0-307–95191-5; pp. 267–268.

3a. The broad­cast reviews Assange’s claim that he’s a vic­tim of a “Jew­ish con­spir­acy.” His first evo­ca­tion of this mantra was in response to crit­i­cal com­ments and actions directed toward him by the British Guardian and some of its staffers.

Among the note­wor­thy aspects of this con­cerns the fact that The Guardian has long main­tained a crit­i­cal stance toward Israel.

. . . .He [Assange] was espe­cially angry about a Pri­vate Eye report that Israel Shamir, an Assange asso­ciate in Rus­sia, was a Holo­caust denier. Mr. Assange com­plained that the arti­cle was part of a cam­paign by Jew­ish reporters in Lon­don to smear WikiLeaks.

A lawyer for Mr. Assange could not imme­di­ately be reached for com­ment, but in a state­ment later released on the Wik­iLeaks Twit­ter feed, Mr. Assange said Mr. His­lop had “dis­torted, invented or mis­re­mem­bered almost every sig­nif­i­cant claim and phrase.”

The Pri­vate Eye arti­cle quoted Mr. Assange as say­ing the con­spir­acy was led by The Guardian and included the newspaper’s edi­tor, Alan Rus­bridger, and inves­ti­ga­tions edi­tor, David Leigh, as well as John Kampfner, a promi­nent Lon­don jour­nal­ist who recently reviewed two books about Wik­iLeaks for The Sun­day Times of London.

When Mr. His­lop pointed out that Mr. Rus­bridger was not Jew­ish, Mr. Assange coun­tered that The Guardian’s edi­tor was “sort of Jew­ish” because he and Mr. Leigh, who is Jew­ish, were brothers-in-law. . . .

“Report Says Assange Com­plains of Jew­ish Smear Cam­paign” by Ravi Somaiya; The New York Times; 3/1/2011.

3b. Assange has also inti­mated that the BBC is some­how part of this “Jew­ish con­spir­acy,” because of the sup­posed activ­i­ties of the producer’s wife.

Not only is the BBC producer’s wife nei­ther Jew­ish nor “Zion­ist,” but the BBC  (like The Guardian) is not friendly to Israel. Note Assange’s appar­ently  reflex­ive incli­na­tion to Jew-bait any­one he per­ceives as hos­tile. This is char­ac­ter­is­tic of a Nazi mentality.

Below, we exam­ine more of the fas­cist nature of the San­tikine­tan Park Asso­ci­a­tion, the mind-control cult to which which Assange may well have belonged.

. . . A BBC pro­ducer accused by Wik­ileaks founder Julian Assange of try­ing to influ­ence his extra­di­tion hear­ing because he had a “Zion­ist wife” has said the claim was “absolutely ridicu­lous”. Last month Mr Assange, fight­ing extra­di­tion to Swe­den for alleged sex­ual assault, told Ago­ravox, a French news site: “Our rela­tion­ships [with UK media] are not that great, par­tic­u­larly with the BBC. They are going to broad­cast a show…and try to influ­ence the judges. We finally found out that the producer’s wife for this show was part of the Zion­ist move­ment in London.”

He was refer­ring to the Panorama pro­gramme, Wik­ileaks: The Secret Story.

Its pro­ducer, Jim Booth, said this week: “I was the pro­ducer on the pro­gramme so he can only be talk­ing about me. I have got no idea why he said that. My wife is not Jew­ish, has noth­ing to do with Zion­ism or the Jew­ish community.

“It’s absolutely ridicu­lous and insult­ing for me as a pro­ducer. I do not set out with an agenda and he gave the sense there was a Jew­ish agenda. . . .

“BBC Pro­ducer Says Assange ‘Ridicu­lous’ over ‘Zion­ist Wife’ Claims”; Jew­ish Chron­i­cle; 3/17/2011.

4. There is a pos­si­bil­ity that good ol’ Wik­iLeaks may have com­pro­mised the effort to neu­tral­ize Bin Laden. As dis­cussed by Wik­iLeaks’ res­i­dent Holo­caust denier Joran Jer­mas (aka “Israel Shamir”), the Guan­tanamo files released by Man­ning to Wik­iLeaks indi­cate that the U.S. had located Bin Laden’s hideoput in Abottabad.

Did this com­pro­mis­ing of crit­i­cal intel­li­gence influ­ence the tim­ing of the raid that killed him? Was it feared that Bin Laden would learn that he had been located and flee?

Apol­o­gists for Wik­iLeaks, a far-right, Nazi-linked intel­li­gence net­work, would do well to re-consider their atti­tude. An excel­lent blog has laid out the para­maters of Bradley Manning’s activ­i­ties on behalf of Wik­iLeaks, not­ing the com­pro­mis­ing of the Bin Laden intel­li­gence and nail­ing down exactly why Bradley Man­ning is nei­ther a “hero” nor a “whistle­blower.” Please read the entire post–it is excellent!

In this con­text, it is use­ful to remem­ber that, in addi­tion to the Islam­sists involved with the 9/11 attacks, Nazis (old and new) fig­ured in the plot. FTR #456 encap­su­lates and enu­mer­ates many of these connections.

EXCERPT: . . . Bradley Man­ning and The Leaks

Now, how can Bradley Man­ning be con­nected to the release of the Gitmo papers? Well, let’s look at his own words as he laid bare his actions to Adrian Lamo, cour­tesy of Wired.com…(emphasis mine)

(04:32:05 PM) Man­ning: oh, the JTF GTMO papers… Assange has those too
(04:32:16 PM) Lamo: Read it.
(04:33:21 PM) Lamo: Any­thing else inter­est­ing on his table, as a for­mer col­lec­tor of inter­est­ing .com info?
(04:33:44 PM) Man­ning: idk… i only know what i pro­vide him xD
(04:34:14 PM) Lamo: what do you con­sider the high­lights?
(04:35:31 PM) Man­ning: The Gha­rani airstrike videos and full report, Iraq war event log, the “Gitmo Papers”, and State Depart­ment cable data­base
(04:35:50 PM) Lamo: Not too shabby.
(04:36:03 PM) Man­ning: thats just me….
(04:36:26 PM) Man­ning: idk about the rest… he *hope­fully* has more . . .

None of the other Wikileak’s releases have named Bradley Man­ning as the source of the clas­si­fied intel, since by doing so, Wik­ileaks would be pro­vid­ing evi­dence that Man­ning was the source of the mate­r­ial and thus would be act­ing as a wit­ness against him in his upcom­ing trial. He is charged with vio­lat­ing the Espi­onage Act among other seri­ous charges.

It isn’t just me who thinks it’s pretty obvi­ous that those doc­u­ments came through Man­ning. Andy Green­berg at Forbes says this…

“As with the last four major releases from Wik­iLeaks, impris­oned Army pri­vate Bradley Man­ning remains the sus­pected source of the leak. In a chat with con­fi­dant Adrian Lamo pub­lished by Wired.com last year, Lamo asks which of the doc­u­ments he’s leaked Man­ning deems most impor­tant. He lists: “The Gha­rani airstrike videos and full report, Iraq war event log, the “Gitmo Papers”, and State Depart­ment cable data­base.” All of those files other than the Gha­rani airstrike video–a clip that pur­port­edly shows more than a hun­dred civil­ians being killed in Afghanistan by Amer­i­can forces–have now been released.”

The Gitmo files, which Wik­ileaks began releas­ing daily on April 24th, 2011, came directly from DoD Clas­si­fied Intel­li­gence data­bases and are of the same clas­si­fied cat­e­gor­i­cal des­ig­na­tions as other DoD and State Dept intel­li­gence cables pre­vi­ously released by Wik­ileaks. The above cited Gitmo File was specif­i­cally clas­si­fied as “SECRET// NOFORN.” The clas­si­fied cat­e­gory of “SECRET// NOFORN” means that any intel labeled as such should not ever be seen by any for­eign gov­ern­ment per­son­nel or cit­i­zens. There was a rea­son this intel was clas­si­fied. Releas­ing any of this intel­li­gence would likely com­pro­mise Top Secret oper­a­tions in the plan­ning stage or those on the verge of being executed.

This is all back­ground for what comes next. The Osama bin Laden oper­a­tion and the con­nec­tion to the release of the Gitmo files. My first visit to Osborne Ink was when I clicked on a link in a Bradley Man­ning story. I’ve been a reg­u­lar since then. A few days ago, Matt put a post up that asked a great ques­tion to the defend­ers of Bradley Man­ning, the “Hamwal­dians” as he calls them. From Osborne Ink…

“If Bradley Man­ning had blown the bin Laden Oper­a­tion, would the HamWal­dians still be advo­cat­ing his release? It’s a fair ques­tion, because when Man­ning (allegedly) put those hun­dred thousand-plus cables on his thumb drive, he cer­tainly had not read them all. In fact, it’s pretty cer­tain Man­ning had no idea what was in them — and no clue how many poten­tial OPs might get blown by their release.

If he had blown the OP and allowed bin Laden to get away, would he still be a hero?”

My opin­ion of the Bradley Manning’s mas­sive data dump has always been that it isn’t whistle­blow­ing, how could releas­ing doc­u­ments that you haven’t even read be whistle­blow­ing? It can’t be. The act that pro­tects whistle­blow­ers is pretty spe­cific. From Wikipedia…(emphasis mine)

“The alleged mis­con­duct may be clas­si­fied in many ways; for exam­ple, a vio­la­tion of a law, rule, reg­u­la­tion and/or a direct threat to pub­lic inter­est, such as fraud, health/safety vio­la­tions, and cor­rup­tion. Whistle­blow­ers may make their alle­ga­tions inter­nally (for exam­ple, to other peo­ple within the accused orga­ni­za­tion) or exter­nally (to reg­u­la­tors, law enforce­ment agen­cies, to the media or to groups con­cerned with the issues).”

What Man­ning did was expose to the entire world, friends and foes, infor­ma­tion that over­whelm­ingly was not any vio­la­tion of law, reg­u­la­tion etc.. He leaked diplo­matic and Top Secret, sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion as well as friv­o­lous, stu­pid stuff. And his defend­ers, Glenn Green­wald, Jane Hamsher and Greg Mitchell think he is an inno­cent man, going so far as to say he is a hero and should be released. Wow, the extent that these peo­ple will go to try to hurt the Pres­i­dent of the United State’s rep­u­ta­tion, accus­ing him of tor­tur­ing Man­ning because he was in soli­tary con­fine­ment, is unbe­liev­able.  Is it that hard to under­stand that the defense depart­ment might want to put a man who bragged about how many files he was copy­ing, with no con­cern for what impact it might have on his country’s secu­rity and defense, in soli­tary con­fine­ment? From the government’s per­spec­tive, I imag­ine this kid is the worst spy they’ve ever seen. By they way, every­one in max secu­rity at Quan­tico is housed by them­selves in their own cell. I’ve posted about his con­di­tions in the past, go here to get caught up on that, if needed. In your mind, was this kid a hero?

The Con­nec­tion

So the other night, I’m on Twit­ter and one of my fel­low blog­gers, who prefers to remain name­less, put up a cou­ple of links in a post. I duti­fully clicked on them and saw this short arti­cle on The Guardian’s web­site detail­ing infor­ma­tion from one of the lat­est Wik­ileaks of Gitmo files, here is the para­graph and sen­tence that caught my eye…

Accord­ing to the doc­u­ment, Libi fled to Peshawar in Pak­istan and was liv­ing there in 2003 when he was asked to become one of Bin Laden’s mes­sen­gers. The doc­u­ment says: “In July 2003, detainee received a let­ter from [Bin Laden’s] des­ig­nated courier, Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan, request­ing detainee take on the respon­si­bil­ity of col­lect­ing dona­tions, organ­is­ing travel and dis­trib­ut­ing funds for fam­i­lies in Pak­istan. [Bin Laden] stated detainee would be the offi­cial mes­sen­ger between [Bin Laden] and oth­ers in Pak­istan. In mid-2003, detainee moved his fam­ily to Abbot­tabad (Pak­istan) and worked between Abbot­tabad and Peshawar.” . . .

Wik­iLeaks released the report last week, prompt­ing spec­u­la­tion that the US, afraid that its planned raid might be pre­empted, brought for­ward its attack. . . .

“Did Bradley Man­ning Almost Blow the Oper­a­tion to Capture/Kill Bin Laden?”; Extreme Liberal’s Blog; 5/7/2011.

5a. The pro­gram notes an odd piece of infor­ma­tion con­cern­ing some­one referred to only as “the nanny.” An old, trusted friend of Assange’s, she assumed tasks of impor­tance with regard to Wik­iLeaks. One of these was free­ing up the Pay­pal account for Wik­iLeaks, which had been frozen for some time.

In Sep­tem­ber 2009, Julian got the “nanny” involved. The nanny was brought in when­ever there was a job that Julian couldn’t be both­ered with or couldn’t do him­self. She some­times arrived just before con­fer­ences to write his speeches. [Ital­ics are mine–D.E.] After other peo­ple and I left Wik­iLeaks, she was also the one who ended p trav­el­ing the world medi­at­ing between Julian and us and ask­ing us not to dam­age the project by pub­licly crit­i­ciz­ing it.

The nanny was an old friend of Julian’s and was around forty—a pleas­ant but very res­olute sort of per­son. For per­sonal rea­sons I don’t want to go into here, she would never want to talk about her con­tact with WL. That was Likely a par­tic­u­lar advan­tage she offered from Julian’s perspective.

At any rate, the nanny had our Amer­i­can vol­un­teer at his wit’s end. What made the mat­ter worse was that the time zones in which the two of them lived were so far apart that com­mu­ni­ca­tion was only pos­si­ble for one dur­ing the poten­tial deep-sleep phase of the other. In addi­tion, our poor vol­un­teer was sick of describ­ing the whole prob­lem over again. . . .

Inside Wik­iLeaks by Daniel Domscheit-Berg; p. 80.

5b. The nanny also helped draft a [rejected] pro­posal for finan­cial assis­tance from the Knight Foundation.

. . . One day before the dead­line for sub­mis­sions, Julian turned up with the nanny in tow. The plan had been for the nanny to write the appli­ca­tion on the eve of the dead­line, but I had long since com­pleted it. So we decided that we would make two appli­ca­tions. One was bound to be suc­cess­ful, or so the think­ing went. Julian and the nanny tried to con­vince me that theirs would be the suc­cess­ful appli­ca­tion. It was rejected in the first round. . . .

Ibid.; p. 85.

5c. The nanny also par­tic­i­pated in a key meet­ing delib­er­at­ing the sus­pen­sion (and even­tual dis­missal) of Domscheit-Berg from the organization.

. . . A few hours after my sus­pen­sion, on the evening of August 26, Julian called a meet­ing. The archi­tect, the tech­ni­cian and I were barred from par­tic­i­pat­ing. The nanny, Bir­gitta, and Kristinn were among those who did take part. . . .

Ibid.; p. 227.

5d. The nanny appears to have per­formed exec­u­tive func­tions for Assange, doing dirty work upon occa­sion. After his rup­ture with Assange began to fully develop, Daniel Domscheit-Berg got a visit from “the nanny.”

. . . . When the nanny got in touch with me for the first time after my depar­ture, I had to agree not to log our con­ver­sa­tion and store it as a file. That wasn’t a big prob­lem. I typed up the tran­script as best I remem­bered it.

I don’t truly think that the nanny is an evil per­son, but when she told me that she only wanted to “make every­one happy,” I couldn’t help feel­ing uneasy. Our con­ver­sa­tion was like some­thing from a bad spy thriller. [Ital­ics are mine–D.E.] She offered to ensure that my name wasn’t dam­aged if I agreed to stop mak­ing crit­i­cal com­ments in pub­lic about Julian and the project. All I had to do was say yes, and in return there would be no attempts to pub­licly por­tray me in a neg­a­tive light. I told her that I found her word­ing a lit­tle men­ac­ing. No, said the nanny I had mis­un­der­stood. When she made threats, they were never so sub­tle. That wasn’t her style. . . . [Ital­ics are mine–D.E.]

Ibid.; p. 251.

5e. Fol­low­ing Domscheit-Berg’s for­mal break with Wik­iLeaks, the nanny trav­eled to Ger­many, act­ing as an exec­u­tive proxy/enforcer for Assange.

. . . .The nanny even came to Ger­many and vis­ited me at the com­puter club. . . . I was sit­ting at the club’s large meet­ing table, with my back to the wall and my eyes on the door. We spot­ted each other immediately.

The nanny hadn’t read the Spiegel inter­view, main­tain­ing, “I don’t want to know any of that.” She smiled pleas­antly at me. I smiled back a lit­tle. Then she pulled out a list.

“These are the points that I’d like to clar­ify with yu,” she said.

“I haven’t got much time,” I said.

She read out, ” ‘Access codes’? ” And then looked at me questioningly.

I don’t think that she even knew her­self what this was sup­posed to mean. It just sounded good. Pass­words? I didn’t have any pass­words, or any­thing else. I explained to her that there had been a proper han­dover and that I was sorry if she had been mis­in­formed. . . I explained why I didn’t want to return the sub­mis­sions doc­u­ments to Julian at this point. I asked her if she thought that things were going well at Wik­iLeaks. But she didn’t really give me an answer.

She looked at me as if she didn’t under­stand what lan­guage I was speaking.

I think she was flab­ber­gasted when I stood up to leave. She wasn’t used to that. Could any­thing be more impor­tant than a con­ver­sa­tion with her? . . .

Ibid.; pp. 252–253.

5f. Again, the nanny ful­filled exec­u­tive advi­sory and enforce­ment func­tions at WikiLeaks.

. . . .The nanny had long wanted to get him a PR advisor. . . .

Ibid.; p. 261.

6. “The Nanny” raises some inter­est­ing ques­tions. These are grown men and women. Who needs a nanny?

In this con­text, we return to “The Fam­ily,” cult of Anne Hamilton-Byrne–the San­tikine­tan Park Asso­ci­a­tion. (This is dealt with at greater length in FTR #724.) The female adults in this orga­ni­za­tion were known as “Aun­ties,” and were respon­si­ble for dis­ci­plin­ing the chil­dren brought up in the orga­ni­za­tion. (Bear in mind that this is a pow­er­ful, intelligence-connected mind con­trol cult with fascist/Nazi teach­ings cen­tral to its ideology.)

Is “the nanny” one of “the Aun­ties?” Or is she a sim­i­lar type of controller–bear in mind that The Fam­ily gives every appear­ance of being an intel­li­gence front.

As noted by a com­men­ta­tor on this post–thanks and a tip of the hat, Mr/Ms. Anonymous–the orig­i­nal aun­ties would be too old to be the mys­te­ri­ous “nanny” involved with Wik­iLeaks and func­tion­ing in an exec­u­tive posi­tion with the group.

Again, the sus­pi­cion here is that this mys­te­ri­ous woman is a han­dler or con­troller of some kind. One won­ders of the Hamilton-Byrne cult may have been per­pet­u­ated in some form by what­ever intel­li­gence out­fit spawned it in the first place.

An acquain­tance with a back­ground in photo analy­sis alleges that the photo linked at the top of this page IS, in fact, Julian Assange. Not hav­ing such a back­ground, I don’t know how one would dis­prove his alle­ga­tion. I hold open the pos­si­bil­ity that he may be wrong.

. . . They were taught that Anne Hamilton-Byrne was their bio­log­i­cal mother, and knew the other adults in the group as ‘aun­ties’ and ‘uncles’ They were denied almost all access to the out­side world, and sub­jected to a dis­ci­pline that included fre­quent cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment and star­va­tion diets. . . .

. . . While we were doing our yoga, most of the Aun­ties were upstairs hav­ing their break­fast. THEY got tea and toast. They also read a daily affir­ma­tion from a book called ‘God Call­ing’. Some­times one Aunty was left down­stairs to keep an eye on us or would wash our clothes. . . .

. . . Because she [Hamilton-Byrne] trav­elled so much she left two books of instruc­tions called ‘Mummy’s Rule Books’. These books listed penal­ties for infrac­tions. They had entries such as : “If David rocks or sways dur­ing med­i­ta­tion, he is to be hit over the head with a chair” and rules about every­thing, even about how many hours of piano prac­tice each child was to do. These were signed by Anne. She encour­aged the Aun­ties to belt us. . . .

. . . One time we had a baby called Madeleine stay­ing with us for a few weeks. She was locked in a cot all day with the sides up. She had not reached the walk­ing stage and so couldn’t get out of the cot and get to the toi­let. How­ever that didn’t stop the Aun­ties. She still got belted when she wet or dirt­ied her nappy. . . .

. . . One time we had a baby called Madeleine stay­ing with us for a few weeks. She was locked in a cot all day with the sides up. She had not reached the walk­ing stage and so couldn’t get out of the cot and get to the toi­let. How­ever that didn’t stop the Aun­ties. She still got belted when she wet or dirt­ied her nappy. . . .

Unseen, Unheard,Unknown by Sarah Moore.

7. Worth not­ing for our pur­poses is The Family’s empha­sis on a quasi-Nazi, eugenics-like empha­sis on “breeding.”

. . . . I sus­pect per­haps that there were more sin­is­ter motives than these alone. Some of us had mul­ti­ple birth cer­tifi­cates and pass­ports, and cit­i­zen­ship of more than one coun­try. Only she knows why this was and why we were also all dressed alike, why most of us even had our hair dyed iden­ti­cally blond.

I can only con­jec­ture because I will never know for sure. How­ever I sus­pect that she went to such great lengths in order to enable her to move chil­dren around, in and out of the coun­try. Per­haps even to be sold over­seas. I’m sure there is a mar­ket some­where in the world for small blond chil­dren with no trace­able iden­ti­ties. If she did it, it was a per­fect scam. Many ex-sect mem­bers have said that they were aware that Anne was cre­at­ing chil­dren by a “breed­ing pro­gram” in the late 1960s. These were ‘invis­i­ble’ kids, because they had no papers and there is no proof that they ever existed. Yet we Hamilton-Byrne chil­dren had mul­ti­ple iden­ti­ties. These iden­ti­ties could per­haps have been loaned to other chil­dren and the sim­i­lar­ity of our appear­ance used to cover up their absence. One lit­tle blond kid looks very like another in a pass­port photo. . .

. . . We were to be the ones who would carry on the work of the sect – we were a direct reflec­tion on her – so she was inti­mately con­cerned about our appear­ances. She used to talk a lot about “breed­ing” and talk about us being from the “right stock”. . . .

Idem.

8. Assange, him­self, seems to pos­sess a Dar­win­ian world-view  (and per­haps a repro­duc­tive instinct) that is con­sis­tent with what is taught to The Family.

. . . We often dis­cussed the the­ory of evo­lu­tion. If he did have faith in any­thing, it was the the­ory of evo­lu­tion. Julian thought that the stronger mem­bers of the species not only pre­vailed, but pro­duced heirs who were bet­ter able to sur­vive. Nat­u­rally, in his view, his genes par­tic­u­larly deserved to be reproduced.

Often, I sat in larger groups and lis­tened to Julian boast about how many chil­dren he had fathered in var­i­ous parts of the world. He seemed to enjoy the idea of lots and lots of lit­tle Julians, one on every con­ti­nent. Whether he took care of any of these alleged chil­dren, or whether they existed at all, was another question. . . .

Inside Wik­iLeaks by Daniel Domscheit-Berg; p. 211.

9. Assange, him­self, began behav­ing like the inter­ests to which he was (osten­si­bly)  opposed. Seems he, too, has become some­thing of a devo­tee of “off­shore.” (Pirate Bay, financed by Swedish fas­cist Carl Lund­strom and inex­tri­ca­bly linked with Wik­iLeaks’ oper­a­tions, is incor­po­rated in an off­shore entity in the Sey­chelles Islands.)

. . . Julian also had con­nec­tions to some orga­ni­za­tions that wanted to act as “fis­cal spon­sors.” They were non­profit orga­ni­za­tions to which Amer­i­can donors could trans­fer money in order to avoid taxes. I don’t know whose com­pany Julian was keep­ing at the time, what kind of films he was watch­ing, or more sig­nif­i­cantly, which doc­u­ments on our site he had been read­ing a bit too closely, but sud­denly all he could talk about was “front com­pa­nies,” “inter­na­tional law,” and “off­shore” firms. I imag­ined him sit­ting in front of me with his encrypted cell phone, his hands non­cha­lantly on his hips, his long white hair slicked back with gel, say­ing, “Hello, Tokyo, New York, Hon­olulu? Please trans­fer three mil­lion to the Vir­gin Islands. Yes, thanks a lot. And don’t for­get to destroy the doc­u­ments after the trans­ac­tion has been com­pleted. Burn them, please. And wipe up the ash and swal­low it. OK? You know that I can’t stand leftovers. . . .”

Ibid.; pp. 81–82.

10.  More about Assange  behav­ing like those against whom he was (osten­si­bly) act­ing. As noted by Wik­iLeaks co-founder (turned critic) John Young (in FTR #725), the Wik­iLeaks orga­ni­za­tion is behav­ing like a “bunch of spies” and “a government.”

. . . . The result of the pres­sure was that we made more and more mis­takes and could no longer live up to the immense respon­si­bil­ity we had piled upon our­selves. For Julian, this was an oppor­tu­nity to spout his new favorite slo­gan: “Do not chal­lenge lead­er­ship in times of crisis.”

It was almost funny. Julian Assange, chief revealer of secrets and unshak­able mil­i­tary critic on his global peace mis­sion, had adopted the lan­guage of the pow­er­mon­gers he claimed to be com­bat­ing. The extremely curt, soul­less lan­guage of our doc­u­ments, with their absurd acronyms and code words, increas­ingly appealed to him.

For some time, he had begun describ­ing peo­ple as “assets,” not unlike a busi­ness­man talk­ing about “human resources” or a mil­i­tary man refer­ring to his troops. Julian did not mean the word ina nice way. It showed that he saw our peo­ple as mere can­non fodder.

Later, when he tried to kick me out of Wik­iLeaks, he said the rea­son was “Dis­loy­alty, Insub­or­di­na­tion and Desta­bi­liza­tion in Times of Cri­sis.” These con­cepts taken from the Espi­onage Act of 1917, which came into force just after the United States entered World War i. They were mil­i­tary des­ig­na­tions for the word “traitor.” . . .

Ibid.; p. 200.