Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #745 WikiFascism, Part 2

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.)

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.

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.

. . . 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. . . .

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”. . . .


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.


11 comments for “FTR #745 WikiFascism, Part 2”

  1. Mr Emory, your efforts are apprecaited. You have my utmost respect. I mean this in all sincerety, even though my praise and affirmations and a buck’ninety five will get you nothing but a medium coffee at Starbucks.
    Kiding aside, thanks for your many efforts. I have learned A LOT due to your diligent research sir.

    Posted by J F | June 22, 2011, 9:32 pm
  2. @J.F. I feel the same way, and I too have learned much from Dave{amongst others}. I myself would have donated a long time ago were it not for the fact that I have had a very hard time getting my PayPal account verified.

    Frankly, I think he’s one of the most under-appreciated researchers out there.

    Posted by Steven | June 24, 2011, 1:23 pm
  3. Hi Dave,

    You seemed rather depressed when recording that show. Was that the case? Anyhow, I want to reiterate my encouragements to continue your work. Like the gentlemen who commented here before me, I feel that your work is invaluable for us, for everybody. Of course, we have learned and still continue to learn a lot from your shows. And don’t mind about one or two connections or angles that you missed in covering a particular subject. Events today are so complex, it is impossible for a single person to encapsulate them in a single shot. It takes rather several people working on them, sometimes for several years.

    As for the discouragement part, me too I feel depressed. Having started a blog for six months now, I realize the immensity of the work that has to be done in every aspects of our lives to make the good, the truth and the beauty to triumph. The vast majority of people don’t follow us for the simple reason that they are not faced with the crude expression of totalitarianism, or the hard realities of a bloody war, or total destruction, etc. In the near future, if everything collapse, those who were skeptical about what we were saying will inevitably jump on our side. Confronted with something that they can’t deny anymore, using the media, that they can’t knock out and put to sleep with drugs or alcohol or television, they will wake up from their dreams/fantasies and fight on our side.

    The situation is similar to a scientist who sees in advance a catastrophy approaching. If there are any skeptics around, when the hurricane, earthquake, tsunami, displacement of poles, etc, arrives, nobody can make believe it is not there anymore. All those who were sleeping leave the building suddenly. My point here is that we have more allies than we think.It is just that the world has to go to pieces before they will finally be able to make the decision to terminate their denial of reality.

    Have a good day…and keep up the fight.

    Posted by Claude | June 26, 2011, 12:21 pm
  4. Hi Mr Emory,
    Unfortunately you have many facts wrong here.Sometimes things that look plausible are not in fact real connections, so I hope some additional facts may be of help here.
    The Aunties of the Hamilton Byrne group were middle aged women in the late 1960s and 1970s; (You can see their photos in Sarah’s book). In fact many are dead now, and the remaining few are very elderly;(they have not dropped through a time warp to become forty years old again,to perform technological stunts as a “Nanny” to Mr Assange).
    Sarah Hamilton Byrne/Sarah Moore (her first name is not Anne , who is the leader of the group)wrote Unseen Unheard Unknown. Julian Assange was not ever raised with the Hamilton Byrne children( and hence would never have even met the Aunties); he would not have been attending 36 schools and living with his mother had he also been being raised in seclusion on the edge of lake Eildon.
    Sarah,9 the author of the book you read) who has a blog on the web recently commented on another blog site Phil Maguires, I think? that Julian was not one of the Up Top children.
    it seems Julians’ only connection was a step father who may have been a member of the group at some point.
    Despite the fact that some of the children had dyed blond hair , the Hamilton Byrne group beliefs were not the same as that of the Nazis.If you read Sarah’s book closely you will find a long description of Swami Muktananda, an Indian guru, who the Hamilton Byne kids were taught to revere.There are also photos of Sarah and Swami Muktanada on the net. A google of Swami Muktananda Sarah Hamilton Byrne, will pull the photo up in google images.you can find a fairly early childhood photo.(Sarah is the smiling young red head in the photo, another blond girl from the group also sits next to him).
    Several prominent members of the group have been/are Jewish.
    hope this is all useful;sometimes if helps to have more information when you are trying to discern the facts.

    Posted by anonymous | June 29, 2011, 8:06 am
  5. Dear Mr./Ms. Anonymous;

    Several points:

    First, thanks for the heads up on the error in posting the title of the Moore book. I work a day job and sometimes am forced to put footnotes in on a 15-minute break at work. Haste maketh waste.

    Second; a clarification concerning the “nanny.” In my fourth decade on the air (all my life’s work is available on this site for download for free) I simply cannot recap every salient detail of every investigation.

    My interest in “the nanny” concerns her role as a possible handler of Assange. The Family is as obvious an intelligence front as I’ve ever encountered (with the possible exception of WikiLeaks itself.)

    That group is almost certainly an extension of the intelligence community’s long research into, and development of, mind control technology.

    Although the original aunties appear to have passed over the horizon, the role this woman appears to have played with Assange is reminiscent of the manner in which intelligence services manipulate mind-controlled agents. (A recent “News and Supplemental” post about deprogramming of Sirhan Sirhan features discussion of “the girl in the polka-dot dress”–regarded by many researchers as an on-site handler of Sirhan.)

    I view the nanny as a probable mind-control handler of Assange. Her role is WikiLeaks appears to have been pivotal. Above all, who in hell needs a godamn nanny when they’re an adult? Domscheit-Berg’s choice of terms is interesting in and of itself.

    Third; your citing of the guru whom the unfortunates in The Family were taught (made?) to revere strikes me as fallacious at best and disingenuous at worst.

    This organization was (is?) monstrous in all its manifestations. The children were subjected to beatings, starvation, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, sexual molestation and torture, and drugged, sometimes in combination with each other.

    Attempting to lay down a smoke screen of “spirituality” for such an organization frankly stinks.

    Fourth; as stated above, The Famly is a spook/mind control operation, whose victims/members have multiple identities and passports.

    The group’s motto is “Unseen, Unheard, Unknown.”

    It is obvious that the group is seeking to mask its membership. As discussed in FTR #724, Assange’s mother’s behavior may well have been the creation of a legend, to mask any attempts at connecting their future operative with the mother group.

    Lastly, James Joyce referred to “the ineluctable modality of the visible.”

    An acquaintance skilled in photo analysis has stated that the photo on the front page of the website is indeed Assange. Not being skilled in the discipline I cannot critically evaluate or negate such an assertion.

    I hold open the possibility that it might be wrong.

    Remember, the unfortunate Ms. Moore was herself a victim of mind control and would not have been privy to all the operational inner secrets of this group.

    Background information on the general subject of mind control can be found in, among other broadcasts. AFA programs 5, 6 and 7.

    Good place to start. AFA #9 about the RFK hit may also prove useful.

    On the subject of cults, you might also want to visit Miscellaneous Archive Show M7 about Rajneeshpuram. Like the Hamilton-Byrne cult, it used a veneer of Indian guru “spirituality” to hide some truly insidious goings on.

    I should also stress that my approach to the picture on the front page of the website and at the top of this post is interrogatory, not declarative. The fellow in the photo bears a strong resemblance to Assange, an opinion shared by others to whom I’ve shown the picture.

    That in no way proves that it is. The group, again, goes to great lengths to confuse/mask the identities of its members.

    In the eventuality that it is NOT Assange–a possibility I hold open–that does not mean that Julian was not a member of the group.

    I do not, and never have, claimed that Assange IS, definitely, a member of the group. That, too, remains in interrogatory mode.

    I’d never heard of the Hamilton-Byrne cult until I began researching Assange. One look at the unfortunate kids in the organization and Assange’s pale locks and I became strongly suspicious that he is associated with the group and/or the intelligence outfit that parented it.

    I don’t find Mama Assange’s explanation for Julian’s pale locks convincing at all. “Once upon a time, there was ANOTHER child custody case. . . .”

    No sale.

    You also cite the Jewish affiliation of cult members as somehow indicating that the organization isn’t fascist in its approach.

    That isn’t relevant. There were Jews who became “honorary Aryans” by supporting Hitler and a strong fascist element within the Zionist element itself, as I’ve documented in a number of programs (including the recently re-aired FTR #449.)

    The Bormann network itself uses Jews in prominent positions. Being Jewish does not preclude being fascist.

    I should also stress that even if Assange is not associated with The Family–a possibility I hold open–it does not change the substance of my analysis of WikiLeaks and the Piggy-Back Coups.

    Summing up the key points here:

    1. I hold open the possibility that the photo might NOT be Assange. Since the group’s members have their identities obscured and confused and since they also have been subjected to rigorous mind control, insisting that they can be taken at (ahem) “face value” is inadequate.

    It is a classic example of begging the question

    2. In the eventuality that the picture is NOT Assange does not negate the strong suspicion on my part that he IS, or was, associated with the group and/or the intelligence outfit that spawned it.

    It remains no more than a strong suspicion.

    3. Citing Indian guru “spirituality” in order to dismiss the monstrous nature of the organization makes you appear, rightly or wrongly, to be an apologist for the group.

    4. Citing the Jewishness of some of its members as also negating the brutal, fascistic nature of the group also makes you appear, rightly or wrongly, to be an apologist for the outfit.

    5. Whether or not Assange was/is affiliated with the Hamilton-Byrne cult is relatively peripheral to my analysis of the WikiLeaks phenomenon.

    In conclusion, on the subject of identities, we don’t know yours, do we, Mr./Ms. Anonymous?

    Thanks for keeping up with this website.

    Good luck and long life to you, Mr./Ms. Anonymous.

    Posted by Dave Emory | June 30, 2011, 7:42 pm
  6. Well, hey there, Dave! It isn’t everyday that we see you commenting on here; Glad to see ya. =)

    In any case, it does make me wonder how in the heck Assange has been able to last this long. Is he really just a victim? Or is there truly something more sinister?

    All I know is, this has been truly weird from the start; you’d think many of Assange’s followers would be able to see thru a guy like ‘Israel Shamir’? Strange bedfellows, indeed……..or are they so strange, after all?

    Posted by Steven | June 30, 2011, 11:36 pm
  7. I try to tell my “liberal” friends about being careful on backing Julian Assange but they don’t listen.

    Posted by Clarence Brown III | July 15, 2011, 7:44 am
  8. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/world-politics/echoes-of-70s-as-bombs-shut-down-german-lines/story-fn9hkofv-1226168014094

    Echoes of 1970s as bombs shut down German lines

    From: The Australian
    October 17, 2011 12:00AM

    GERMAN police have warned that a wave of firebomb attacks that paralysed railways around Berlin last week could mark the start of a far-left campaign of violence reminiscent of the Baader-Meinhof operations in the 1970s.

    The 18 bombs caused no deaths or injuries but led to delays and cancellations of more than 2000 trains.

    Prosecutors launched an investigation into “anti-constitutional sabotage”, a legal term denoting acts of terror intended to bring down the state.

    Some of the bombs had been placed on high-speed railway lines, including the one between Berlin and Leipzig. A bomb on the line to Hamburg was one of two that ignited, damaging the track, but no trains were passing at the time. The line, one of the busiest in Germany, was shut down all last week.

    A previously unknown group called Hekla has claimed responsibility. The group cited Germany’s role in Afghanistan as its motive for the campaign and demanded the release of Bradley Manning, the US soldier suspected of leaking confidential information to WikiLeaks, the whistleblower website.

    Posted by R. Wilson | October 17, 2011, 7:04 pm
  9. @Clarence: I’ve had the same problem. Many just do NOT know about Assange and his past, and associates.

    Posted by Steven | October 19, 2011, 12:34 pm
  10. Posted by Pterrafractyl | March 28, 2012, 7:22 pm
  11. With ‘accidentally’ tweeting neo-Nazi memes the hot new thing in 2016 thanks to the Donald Trump campaign, it looks like one of Trump’s unofficial campaign surrogates decided to get ‘accidentally’ trendy:

    The Daily Dot

    Wikileaks denies anti-Semitism over (((echoes))) tweet

    Wikileaks drew criticism for a tweet linking their critics to (((echoes))), an anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi Twitter movement.

    Chris Tognotti —
    July 24 at 7:07PM | Last updated July 24 at 7:08PM

    If any one form of discriminatory social media expression has been on the rise in recent months, it’s been anti-Semitism.

    The Donald Trump presidential campaign’s well-documented white nationalist and Neo-Nazi following continues to bring such hatred to the forefront. Trump himself had even retweeted things from members of the “white genocide” movement, and in June, the campaign tweeted out an anti_Semitic meme that originated from the alt-right fever swamps of social media.

    On Saturday, a completely different organization seemed to dip its toes in those waters, too. Wikileaks started tweeting about (((echoes))), and it’s generated a great amount of controversy.

    It’s one of the increasingly well-known methods of harassment used by anti-Jewish racists on Twitter, which has exploded into wider visibility in recent months-tweeting at Jews, and bracketing their names with two or three parentheses on either side.

    It’s intended both as a signal to other anti-Semites and neo-Nazis, to highlight the target’s Jewish heritage (or perceived Jewish heritage, since racists aren’t always the sharpest or most concerned with accuracy), and track them on social media, making it even easier for other anti-Semites to join in on the abuse. After the phenomenon became more widely discussed in the media, many Jews and non-Jews alike began self-applying the parentheses on Twitter names, in a show of anti-racist solidarity.

    That’s where Wikileaks comes in. On Saturday, amid the group’s high-profile dump of thousands and thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee, its Twitter account said something very suggestive about its critics. The tweet has since been deleted, going against Wikileaks’ perceived notion of radical transparency. Nevertheless, screenshotters never forget.

    [see tweet with image of deleted Wikileaks tweet stating “Tribalist symbol for establishment climbers? Most of our critics have 3 (((brackets around their names))) & have black-rim glasses. Bizarre.”]

    It’s not exactly the most coherent tweet, but the thrust is nonetheless pretty clear: Wikileaks accused most of its critics of having the (((echoes))) brackets around their names, as well as “black-rimmed glasses,” statements that many interpreted, plainly enough, as “most of our critics are Jews.”

    The Wikileaks account subsequently tweeted some explanations of what the offending tweet meant, suggesting that “neo-liberal castle creepers” had appropriated the racist-turned-anti-racist solidarity gesture, turning it into “a tribalist designator for establishment climbers.” A clarifying tweet also misspelled “gesture” as “jesture,” which further stoked accusations of witting anti-Semitism.

    [see tweet of Wikileaks defending itself]

    Wikileaks ultimately defended the decision to delete the tweets, saying they’d been intentionally misconstrued by “pro-Clinton hacks and neo-Nazis.” It’s also been maintaining a pretty aggressive public relations posture regarding these latest leaks. It threatened MSNBC host Joy Reid for tweeting that she planned to discuss an “affinity” between the group and the Russian government on her show, saying “our lawyers will monitor your program.”

    So, again, not the best tone for a group dedicated to prying open closed organizations, regardless of their desires. It also responded to an article by Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall, investigating alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin, accusing him of “weird priority” for focusing on the method of the correspondences’ release rather than the data dump itself.

    The Wikileaks brouhaha wasn’t the only instance this weekend of a controversial, perceived piece of anti-Semitism on Twitter getting immediately rolled back and explained away.

    The Trump campaign landed in yet another such situation on Sunday morning, when General Mike Flynn?once considered by Trump for his vice presidential selection-retweeted someone who accused “Jews” of misleading people about the origins of the DNC email leak. Flynn has since apologized, saying he only meant to retweet a link to an embedded CNN article about the leak.

    “Tribalist symbol for establishment climbers? Most of our critics have 3 (((brackets around their names))) & have black-rim glasses. Bizarre.”

    Was that just an innocent attempt to cast Wikileaks’s critics as a tribe of “establishment climbers”? If so, it was rather careless considering the flurry of charges that Wikileaks is working with the Russian government to help get assist Donald Trump get elected. After all, one of the individuals who helped set up Wikileaks and lead its Russian operations is the open anti-Semite of Joran Jermas aka Israel Shamir. And Jermas has deep ties to Swedish far-right, including the Swedish neo-Nazi Carl Lundstrom who’s company ended up hosting Wikileaks’s servers back in 2011.

    Oh, and when all this came out and people started wondering if Assange was an anti-semite, Assange reportedly blamed a Jewish conspiracy for the anti-semitism rumors.

    Hmmm…maybe it wasn’t a mistake.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | July 25, 2016, 2:18 pm

Post a comment