- Spitfire List - http://spitfirelist.com -

FTR #917 Wiki-Fascism, Part #4: Weighing In for the Trumpenkampfverbande (Technocratic Fascism in Action)

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash drive that can be obtained HERE [1]. The new drive is a 32-gigabyte drive that is current as of the programs and articles posted by early winter of 2016. The new drive (available for a tax-deductible contribution of $65.00 or more.) (The previous flash drive was current through the end of May of 2012.)

WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE [2].

You can subscribe to e-mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE [3].

You can subscribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE [3].

You can subscribe to the comments made on programs and posts–an excellent source of information in, and of, itself HERE [4].

This broadcast was recorded in one, 60-minute segment [5].

Lee Harvey Oswald: Ersatz Communist [6]

Lee Harvey Oswald: Ersatz Communist

Introduction: In FTR #’s 724 [7], 725 [8], 732 [9], 745 [10] and 755 [11], we have detailed the fascist and far right-wing ideology, associations and politics of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

Lionized by the so-called progressive sector, as well as mainstream media sources like The New York Times and Der Spiegel, Assange’s true colors and fascist politics and associations have emerged on a larger stage.

As the Trump campaign evolves, a major alliance between “The Donald’s” Trumpenkampfverbande and the Assange organization has developed. Obviously serving as a dirty-tricks cadre for the GOP, Assange is working hard to destroy Hillary Clinton with leaked documents intended to torpedo her campaign.

Is this Julian Assange? [12]

Is this Julian Assange?

Assange–not even an American citizen–is manifesting what we termed “technocratic fascism,” arrogating to himself the right to determine the results of the American Presidential election. Quoting from a seminal article [13] by David Golumbia: ” . . . Hack­ers (“civic,” “eth­i­cal,” “white” and “black” hat alike), hack­tivists, Wik­iLeaks fans [and Julian Assange et al–D. E.], Anony­mous “mem­bers,” even Edward Snow­den him­self walk hand-in-hand with Face­book and Google in telling us that coders don’t just have good things to con­tribute to the polit­i­cal world, but that the polit­i­cal world is theirs to do with what they want, and the rest of us should stay out of it: the polit­i­cal world is bro­ken, they appear to think (rightly, at least in part), and the solu­tion to that, they think (wrongly, at least for the most part), is for pro­gram­mers to take polit­i­cal mat­ters into their own hands. . . .”

Beginning with analysis of the alleged Russian authorship of the hack of the Democratic National Committee on the eve of the Democratic Convention in July, we highlight disturbing indications [14] that the hack is actually a false flag operation [15], setting the stage for some very dangerous developments.

In that context, we recall that one of the terms we have applied to Edward Snowden is “The Obverse Oswald.” [16]  We strongly suspect that Snowden, in Russia and working for a computer firm, may have had something to do with this.

The (frankly lame) framing of Russia for the DNC hack reminds us of the process of “painting Oswald Red.” We have covered this in numerous broadcasts, including The Guns of November, Part 1 [17]AFA #15 [18] and FTR #’s 777 [19] and 876 [20]. (An excellent book on the JFK assassination that presents an excellent breakdown of “the painting of Oswald Red” is JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters [21].)

Much of the broadcast highlights WikiLeaks’ efforts on behalf of the Trump campaign, detailing aspects of Assange’s presentation of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.

We note the powerful resonance between Assange’s presentations and elements of major right-wing attacks on Clinton.

Assange/WikiLeaks’ points of attack on Hillary Clinton:

Further developing the right-wing, fascist and anti-Semitic aspects of Assange/WikiLeaks, we note that Assange responded to critics of his efforts against Clinton and on behalf of Trump/Stone with an anti-Semitic tweet [31].

Among Assange’s champions [32] are the fascist National front in France and the U.K. Independence Party, which may well have set the stage for the fragmentation of Great Britain with the Brexit campaign.

It would come as a distasteful surprise to the Bernie Sanders crowd, to whom Assange has catered, to learn that Assange is a champion of free-market economics, synthesizing [33] the Chicago and Austrian schools of economics.

Much of the latter part of the broadcast reviews information about Assange, Snowden and Citizen Greenwald’s right-wing and fascist manifestations.

Program Highlights Include:

1. An interesting piece by Dr. Sandro Gaycken, a Berlin-based former ‘hacktivist’ who now advises NATO and the German government on cyber-security matters, makes the case that the evidence implicating Russia was very much the type of evidence a talented team could spoof. He also notes that some of the tools used in the hack were the same used last year when Angela Merkel’s computer was hacked and used to infect other computers at the Bundestag [37]. That hack was also blamed on Russian hackers. But, again, as the article below points out, when the evidence for who is responsible is highly spoofable, confidently assigning blame is almost too easy [14]:

 “Blaming Russia For the DNC Hack Is Almost Too Easy” by Dr. Sandro Gaycken; Council on Foreign Relations Blog; 8/01/2016.

Dr. Sandro Gaycken [38] is the Director of the Digital Society Institute [39], a former hacktivist, and a strategic advisor to NATO, some German DAX-companies and the German government on cyber matters.

The hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) definitely looks Russian. The evidence is compelling [40]. The tools used in the incident appeared in previous cases of alleged Russian espionage, some of which appeared in the German Bundestag hack. The attackers, dubbed Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, have been known for years and have long been rumored to have a Russian connection. Other indicators such as IP addresses, language and location settings in the documents’ metadata and code compilation point to Russia. The Kremlin is also known to practice influence operations, and a leak before the Democrats’ convention fits that profile as does laundering the information through a third party like Wikileaks. Finally, the cui bono makes sense as well; Russia may favor Donald Trump given his Putin-friendly statements and his views on NATO.

Altogether, it looks like a clean-cut case. But before accusing a nuclear power like Russia of interfering in a U.S. election, these arguments should be thoroughly and skeptically scrutinized.

A critical look exposes the significant flaws in the attribution. First, all of the technical evidence can be spoofed. Although some argue that spoofing the mound of uncovered evidence is too much work, it can easily be done by a small team of good attackers in three or four days. Second, the tools used by Cozy Bear appeared on the black market when they were first discovered years ago and have been recycled and used against many other targets, including against German industry. The reuse and fine-tuning of existing malware happens all the time. Third, the language, location settings, and compilation metadata can easily be altered by changing basic settings on the attacker’s computer in five minutes without the need of special knowledge. None of the technical evidence is convincing. It would only be convincing if the attackers used entirely novel, unique, and sophisticated tools with unmistakable indicators pointing to Russia supported by human intelligence, not by malware analysis.

The DNC attackers also had very poor, almost comical, operational security (OPSEC). State actors tend to have a quality assurance review when developing cyberattack tools to minimize the risk of discovery and leaving obvious crumbs behind. Russian intelligence services are especially good. They are highly capable, tactically and strategically agile, and rational. They ensure that offensive tools are tailored and proportionate to the signal they want to send, the possibility of disclosure and public perception, and the odds of escalation. The shoddy OPSEC just doesn’t fit what we know about Russian intelligence.

The claim that Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian false flag [41] operation may not hold up either. If Russia wanted to cover up the fact it had hacked the DNC, why create a pseudonym that could only attract more attention and publish emails? Dumping a trove of documents all at once is less valuable than cherry picking the most damaging information and strategically leaking it in a crafted and targeted fashion, as the FSB, SVR or GRU have probably done in the past [42]. Also, leaking to Wikileaks isn’t hard. They have a submission form [43].

Given these arguments, blaming Russia is not a slam dunk [44]. Why would a country with some of the best intelligence services in the world commit a whole series of really stupid mistakes in a highly sensitive operation? Why pick a target that has a strong chance of leading to escalatory activity when Russia is known to prefer incremental actions over drastic ones? Why go through the trouble of a false flag when doing nothing would have been arguably better? Lastly, how does Russia benefit from publicly backing Donald Trump given that Republicans have been skeptical of improving relations [45]?

The evidence and information in the public domain strongly suggests Russia was behind the DNC hack, even though Russian intelligence services would have had the choice of not making it so clear cut given what we know about their tools, tactics, procedures, and thinking.

The DNC hack leads to at least four “what if” questions, each with its own significant policy consequences. First, if Russia had poor operational security and misjudged its target, it needs to be educated about the sensitivity of certain targets in its favorite adversary countries to avoid a repeat of this disaster. Second, if Russia deliberately hacked the DNC to leak confidential information, it would represent a strategic escalation on behalf of the Kremlin and the world would need to prepare for difficult times ahead. Third, if the breach and leak were perpetrated by a bunch of random activists using the pseudonym “Guccifer 2.0“, it would be the first instance of non-state actors succeeding in creating a global incident with severe strategic implications, demanding more control of such entities and a much better design of escalatory processes among nations. Finally, it is entirely possible that this was a false flag operation by an unknown third party to escalate tensions between nuclear superpowers. If this is the case, this party has to be uncovered. . . .

2. More about cyber-security experts who view the “Russian intelligence” hacking of DNC computers as suspiciously transparent:

“Russia Wanted to Be Caught, Says Company Waging War on the DNC Hackers” by Patrick Tucker; Defense One; 7/28/2016. [15]

. . . . But security expert Jeff Carr thought the smoke off this smoking-gun was a bit too thick. In his minority report [46], he asks: what kind of spy ring tags their stolen docs before releasing them under a cover?

“Raise your hand if you think that a GRU or FSB officer would add Iron Felix’s [47] name to the metadata of a stolen document before he released it to the world while pretending to be a Romanian hacker. Someone clearly had a wicked sense of humor,” he wrote. . . . .

. . . . Crowdstrike president Shawn Henry is dubious. “I don’t know what kind of foreign intelligence service conducting a covert operation wants to be found,” he said on Thursday, but added that CrowdStrike picked up the DNC hack within 48 hours and that it “wasn’t difficult.” . . . .

3a. Check out the latest member of Donald Trump’s opposition research team. It’s an informal membership [22]:

“WikiLeaks Will Release New Clinton Emails to Add to Incriminating Evidence, Julian Assange Says, in ‘Big Year Ahead'” by Ben Norton; Salon; 6/14/2016. [22]

Assange says the government likely won’t indict “war hawk” Hillary Clinton, but it has more than enough evidence

Julian Assange, editor-in chief of WikiLeaks, says the whistle-blowing journalism organization will soon be publishing unreleased emails from Hillary Clinton.

Clinton, the Democratic Party presidential front-runner, has been under criminal investigation by the FBI for using a personal email account on a private server in her home that contained top-secret information.

Assange doesn’t believe that Clinton will be indicted, but argues that the government has more than enough evidence, in both her emails and in the dealings of the Clinton Foundation, if it were truly committed to doing so.

“We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton,” Assange said. “WikiLeaks has a very big year ahead.” . . . .

3b. Behold the latest chapter in Julian Assange’s quest to get Donald Trump elected President [48]: WikiLeaks just released a new searchable database of Democratic National Committee emails. Since the database consists of 19,252 emails so, as you can imagine, there’s quite a bit of content available to the public. Content like innocent donors’ credit card, social security, and passport numbers [28]:

“WikiLeaks Just Published Tons of Credit Card and Social Security Numbers” by Michael Nunez; Gizmodo; 7/22/2016. [28]

. . . . But not always.The organization has also used that tradition of transparency for less just causes, like today when the site published 19,252 emails [49] from top US Democratic National Committee members,many of which included personal information about innocent donors including credit card, social security numbers, and passport numbers.

If you visit the WikiLeaks DNC emails [49] website, you can browse the emails using a simple boolean search.Typing a word like “contribution” will actually turn up hundreds of results. The emails include unencrypted, plain-text listings of donor emails addresses, home addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, passport numbers, and credit card information. WikiLeaks proudly announced the data dump in a single tweet. . . .

The new leak is part of the organization’s ongoing Hillary Leaks series, which launched in March as a searchable archive of more than 30,000 emails and attachments sent to and from Clinton’s private email server, while she was Secretary of State. The original email dump [50] included documents from June 2010 to August 2014. The new release [49] includes emails from January 2015 to May 2016. . . .

3c.While Assange hasn’t come out and endorsed Trump yet, he definitely doesn’t seem very keen on criticizing him [27]:

“Hillary Clinton FBI Investigation: Enough Evidence of an Indictment, But More Emails Coming, Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Claims” by Robert Jonathan; The Inquisitr; 6/13/2016. [27]

. . . . Against this backdrop, Peston wondered if Assange would prefer that Donald Trump, the GOP presumptive nominee, wins the White House in November. . . .
“Trump is a completely unpredictable phenomenon—you can’t predict what he would do in office . . .

3d. Donald Trump once again is hinting at violence as the solution to a Hillary Clinton presidency [51] along with Roger Stone suggesting that the election will be rigged and the government invalid [52] and Julian Assange making it clear that he wants to do whatever he can to ensure Hillary Clinton loses and has more documents that he’s sitting on for the right “October Surprise” moment [53] to politically damage her, it’s probably worth noting that Roger Stone just claimed he’s in contact with Assange [30].

Wikileaks is now clearly working as the unofficial hacking squad for the Trump campaign’s dirty tricks team. It makes sense that Assange would be in communication with the campaign’s unofficial dirty tricks organizer.

Stone is a master dirty trickster,with a track record going back to the Nixon campaign. What specifically is Stone recommending to Assange regarding the nature and timing of planned leaks. Is Wikileaks going to try and help Trump trigger a bloody ‘American Spring’ this Fall? Now that the Trump campaign’s central strategy appears to be preemptively delegitimizing a Clinton presidency and/or prepping the Trump base for acts of political violence it’s a pretty big question.

“Roger Stone Claims He’s In Touch With Wikileaks’ Assange About Clinton Emails” by Allegra Kirkland; Talking Points Memo Livewire; 8/9/2016. [30]

Longtime Donald Trump ally Roger Stone claimed on Monday that he was in touch with the founder of Wikileaks about documents the organization plans to release to derail Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

During a Monday speech to the Southwest Broward Republican Organization, Stone was asked for his “forecast” on what the “October surprise” Wikileaks founder Julian Assange had promised to reveal about Clinton may be.

“Well, it could be any number of things,” Stone said, according to video of his remarks obtained by Media Matters [54]. “I actually have communicated with Assange. I believe the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation but there’s no telling what the October surprise may be.”

These remarks fly in the face of Stone and other Trump allies’ repeated claims that the general election results may be “rigged” in Clinton’s favor. . . .

. . . . Since late July, Stone has pushed the claim that a Clinton victory could only result from a “rigged” election system that favored her campaign. “If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government,” Stone said [55] in a podcast with Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos, despite the overwhelming evidence [56] that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent [57] in the United States. . . .

3e. Assange strongly hinted that the source for the DNC hacks was Seth Rich, a recently murdered young DNC staffer. Also, Wikileaks just offered $20,000 for anyone with information on Rich’s murder. The Trump is–not surprisingly–endorsing this.

Rich’s family is on record [58] as urging that Assange’s inuendos not be taken seriously.

“WikiLeaks Is Fanning a Conspiracy Theory That Hillary Murdered a DNC Staffer” by Jeremy Stahl; Slate; 8/09/2015. [25]

Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton.

Seth Rich was killed last month in Washington, D.C., in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this and Snopes has issued a comprehensive debunking of the premise (Rich is only 27 and has only worked at the DNC since 2014 so is unlikely to be in possession of information that might take down Clinton, he was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time of the shooting and she hasn’t reported any FBI meeting, there have been a string of robberies in the area, an FBI rendezvous at 4 a.m. only happens in movies, the whole thing is batshit crazy, etc.)

The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month’s WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. In an interview on Tuesday that was picked up by BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski, Assange seemed to lend credence to the idea that Rich had been retaliated against.

“WikiLeaks never sits on material. Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks,” Assange said in an interview with the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur. “There’s a 27-year-old who works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the streets in Washington.”

When Assange was questioned as to what the hell he was talking about, he said, “I’m suggesting that our sources take risks and they are—they become concerned to see things occurring like that.”

The implication here is that either Assange’s sources are fearful that Rich might have been a whistleblower to the FBI or someone else and was taken out by Clinton or others—as the conspiracy theory suggests—or that he was a whistleblower for Assange’s group and was murdered because of that.

When the interviewer asked Assange if he was implying that Rich was a WikiLeaks source, he said, “We don’t comment on who our sources are.”

On Tuesday, WikiLeaks sent out a tweet offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich’s murder. . . .

4. With ‘accidentally’ tweeting neo-Nazi memes the hot new thing in 2016 thanks to the Donald Trump campaign [59], it looks like one of Trump’s unofficial campaign surrogates decided to get ‘accidentally’ trendy:

“Wikileaks Denies Anti-Semitism over (((echoes))) Tweet” by Chris Tognotti; The Daily Dot; 7/24/2016. [31]

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 [60] 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 mem [61]e 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 [62] 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. . . .

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.

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.” . . . .

. . . . 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.” . . . .

5. The National Front and the UK Independence Party are among Assange’s big supporters.

“WikiLeaks Motivations Aren’t What You Think” by Akbar Shahid Ahmed; The Huffington Post; 8/03/2016. [32]

. . . . Meanwhile, he [Assange] has attracted support from powerful anti-U.S. actors in his battle with Swedish authorities. Two right-wing political parties in Europe that are skeptical of Washington . . . the far-right National Front in France and the pro-Brexit U.K. Independence Party, have called for their countries to grant Assange asylum so he can avoid questioning by Sweden. . . .

6. Among his many delightful qualities, Assange is an advocate of neoliberal economic theory. We wonder what the Bernie Bots would think of this?!

“Julian Assange–Also Neoliberal Utopian” by Ramona; libcom.org; 8/27/2012. [33]

. . . . Assange’s most lengthy articulation of his own politics comes in a lengthy interview with Forbes. Asked “Would you call yourself a free market proponent?”, Assange replies “Absolutely. I have mixed attitudes towards capitalism, but I love markets”. . . . How does Wikileaks fit into this scenario? For Assange, through the act of leaking information, Wikileaks is providing better information in order for the market of international politics to work better. The question of informational asymmetry is a complex one in neoliberal circles, with a long history. Whereas neoliberalism in the variant of the Chicago School of Economics tends towards a model of equilibrium where actors have perfect information about the market, the Austrian school of Economics, favoured by the more radical anarcho-capitalist believe that information is unevenly distributed throughout a market system, and that to increase overall information enables better price setting thus improving the efficency of the market.

Assange’s philosophy here blends Austrian and Chicago School approaches. . . .

7a. Eddie the Friendly Spook Snowden and Julian Assange are big fans of Ron Paul. It is worth weighing Ron Paul’s pronouncements in light of Donald Trump’s candidacy and Assange’s more or less open backing of Donald Trump:

“Bal­ti­more & The Walk­ing Dead” by Mark Ames; Pando Daily; 5/1/2015. [34]

. . . . In 1992, the most famous lib­er­tar­ian of all, Ron Paul, was still between Con­gres­sional stints when [the riots in] Los Ange­les erupted, but he did run a prof­itable lib­er­tar­ian newslet­ter, “The Ron Paul Polit­i­cal Report,” to keep his ideas alive. Shortly after the LA riots, Ron Paul put out a “Spe­cial Issue on Racial Ter­ror­ism” [63]offer­ing his lib­er­tar­ian analy­sis of what he termed black “terrorism”:“The crim­i­nals who ter­ror­ize our cities—in riots and on every non-riot day—are not exclu­sively young black males, but they largely are. As chil­dren, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppres­sion is respon­si­ble for all black ills, to ‘fight the power,’ to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as pos­si­ble.

“The cause of the riots is plain: bar­barism. If the bar­bar­ians can­not loot suf­fi­ciently through legal chan­nels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middle-man), they resort to ille­gal ones, to ter­ror­ism. Trou­ble is, few seem will­ing to stop them. The cops have been handcuffed. . . .

. . . .“We are con­stantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irra­tional. Black men com­mit mur­ders, rapes, rob­beries, mug­gings, and bur­glar­ies all out of pro­por­tion to their num­bers.”

“I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in [major U.S. cities] are semi-criminal or entirely crim­i­nal.” A few months later, in Octo­ber 1992 [64], Dr. Paul explained how he taught his own family—presumably includ­ing his favorite son, Rand Paul—how to defend them­selves and even mur­der what Dr. Paul called “hip-hop” car­jack­ers, “the urban youth who play unsus­pect­ing whites like pianos”:

“What can you do? More and more Amer­i­cans are car­ry­ing a gun in the car. An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene imme­di­ately, dis­pos­ing of the wiped off gun as soon as pos­si­ble. Such a gun can­not, of course, be reg­is­tered to you, but one bought pri­vately (through the clas­si­fieds, for example.).

Beyond that, the Lib­er­tar­ian Party’s polit­i­cal solu­tion to African-American poverty and injus­tice was to abol­ish all wel­fare pro­grams, pub­lic schools, and anti-discrimination laws like the Civil Rights Act. This was the solu­tion pro­moted by an up-and-coming lib­er­tar­ian, Jacob Hornberger—who this week co-hosted an event [65] with Ron Paul and Glenn Green­wald. Horn­berger believes that 19th cen­tury ante­bel­lum slave-era Amer­ica was “the freest soci­ety in his­tory”. . . [66]

7c. David Duke has been a high-profile supporter of Trump, characterizing him in much the same context as he characterized Ron Paul, Snowden and

“Top 10 Racist Ron Paul Friends, Supporters” by Casey Gane-McCalla”; News One; 12/27/2011. [67]

. . . . 6. David Duke
David Duke is a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and candidate for Governor of Louisiana. Duke is also a New World Order conspiracy theorist who believes that Jews control the Federal Reserve. On his website, Duke proudly boasts about the endorsements and kind words that Paul gave him in his newsletters and in turn endorses Paul for president:

Duke’s platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing…

To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, the voters were willing to overlook that. If he had been afforded the forgiveness an ex-communist gets, he might have won.

…David Broder, also of the Post and equally liberal, writing on an entirely different subject, had it right: ‘No one wants to talk about race publicly, but if you ask any campaign consultant or pollster privately, the sad reality that a great many working-class and middle class white Americans are far less hostile to the rich and their tax breaks than they are to the poor and minorities with their welfare and affirmative action programs.”

Liberals are notoriously blind to the sociological effects of their own programs. David Duke was hurt by his past. How many more Dukes are waiting in the wings without such a taint?

“Duke lost the election,” it said, “but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.” In 1991, a newsletter asked, “Is David Duke’s new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?” The conclusion was that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.”

Duke also gave advice to Paul on his website, saying:

What must Paul do to have any real chance of winning or making a bigger impact? I think he should do exactly what I did in Louisiana, and for Ron Paul to follow exactly the same advice Ron Paul gave in his newsletters for others, take up my campaign issues with passion and purpose.

Could it be that Paul is taking Duke’s advice by hiding the racist “baggage from his past” in a more consistent package of “freedom?” . . .

7c. Snowden’s leaking journalist of choice–Glenn Greenwald–is also worth pondering in this regard.

His observations on immigration sound JUST like Donald Trump.

“Would You Feel Differently About Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange If You Knew What They Really Thought?” by Sean Wilentz; The New Republic; 1/19/2014. [35]

. . . . On certain issues, though, his [Greenwald’s] prose was suffused with right-wing conceits and catchphrases. One example was immigration, on which Greenwald then held surprisingly hard-line views. “The parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known,” Greenwald wrote in 2005. The facts, to him, were indisputable: “illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.” Defending the nativist congressman Tom Tancredo from charges of racism, Greenwald wrote of “unmanageably endless hordes of people [who] pour over the border in numbers far too large to assimilate, and who consequently have no need, motivation or ability to assimilate.” Those hordes, Greenwald wrote, posed a threat to “middle-class suburban voters.” . . . .

7d. Compare, also, the back cover of Serpent’s Walk with the Trump phenomenon.

  Serpent’s Walk by “Randolph D. Calverhall;” Copyright 1991 [SC]; National Vanguard Books; 0-937944-05-X. [36]

It assumes that Hitler’s warrior elite – the SS – didn’t give up their struggle for a White world when they lost the Second World War. Instead their survivors went underground and adopted some of their tactics of their enemies: they began building their economic muscle and buying into the opinion-forming media. A century after the war they are ready to challenge the democrats and Jews for the hearts and minds of White Americans, who have begun to have their fill of government-enforced multi-culturalism and ‘equality.’

8. Once again, the world of technocratic fascism should be viewed against the background of a vitally important article by David Golumbia. [13]

THIS is what Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are doing!

“Tor, Technocracy, Democracy” by David Golumbia; Uncomputing.org; 4/23/2015. [13]

 . . . . Such tech­no­cratic beliefs are wide­spread in our world today, espe­cially in the enclaves of dig­i­tal enthu­si­asts, whether or not they are part of the giant corporate-digital leviathanHack­ers (“civic,” “eth­i­cal,” “white” and “black” hat alike), hack­tivists, Wik­iLeaks fans [and Julian Assange et al–D. E.], Anony­mous “mem­bers,” even Edward Snow­den him­self [68] walk hand-in-hand with Face­book and Google in telling us that coders don’t just have good things to con­tribute to the polit­i­cal world, but that the polit­i­cal world is theirs to do with what they want, and the rest of us should stay out of it: the polit­i­cal world is bro­ken, they appear to think (rightly, at least in part), and the solu­tion to that, they think (wrongly, at least for the most part), is for pro­gram­mers to take polit­i­cal mat­ters into their own hands. . .

9. Let’s connect some dots in the “conga-line ‘ops'”: