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

The Ultra-Right Wing Views of Eddie the Friendly Spook and Citizen Assange

[1]

Fast Eddie Snow­den’s Pres­i­den­tial can­di­date of choice

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained here. [2] (The flash dri­ve includes the anti-fas­cist books avail­able on this site.)

COMMENT:  In our ongo­ing analy­sis of “Snow­den’s Ride,” (U‑2 Inci­dent, II) we take note of Fast Eddie’s far-right polit­i­cal phi­los­o­phy, man­i­fest­ed as sup­port for cryp­to-Nazi Ron Paul [3]. We will also briefly revis­it the social Dar­win­ism and reflex­ive anti-Semi­tism of Cit­i­zen Assange, whose far-right, Nazi-linked Wik­iLeaks infra­struc­ture has meld­ed with Eddie the Friend­ly Spook’s “op.”  

Snow­den’s sup­port­ers have con­cep­tu­al­ized him as some sort of ide­al­ist, embrac­ing polit­i­cal mar­tyr­dom in order to expose encroach­ment to Amer­i­ca’s civ­il lib­er­ties. Noth­ing could be fur­ther from the truth.

Snow­den left a fair­ly large inter­net foot­print while post­ed to Switzer­land by the CIA. His mus­ings are impor­tant and very reveal­ing.

[4]Not only is Cit­i­zen Snow­den no cru­sad­er on behalf of human­i­ty and civ­il lib­er­ty, he is a cyn­i­cal, self-right­eous ultra-right winger [5]. (Be sure to exam­ine the text excerpts below.)

Fast Eddie is a believ­er in:

Fast Eddie char­ac­ter­ized any­one who dis­agreed with these extreme right-wing views as a “retard.”

What a swell guy.

It should come as no sur­prise that some­one with an ante­dilu­vian polit­i­cal out­look such as that would fall in behind Nazi pied piper Ron Paul [6], who him­self is joined at the hip with Mitt Rom­ney.

Note that Eddie the Friend­ly Spook decamped first to Chi­na and then to Rus­sia, obvi­ous­ly to polit­i­cal­ly and diplo­mat­i­cal­ly dam­age both Oba­ma and the Unit­ed States. Nei­ther Chi­na nor Rus­sia is a bas­tion of civ­il lib­er­ties or inter­net free­dom.

Again, this guy is no ide­al­ist and friend of the cit­i­zen­ry.

Nei­ther, for that mat­ter, is his bene­fac­tor and ally Julian Assange. As dis­cussed in FTR #745 [7],  Assange believes in a social-Dar­win­ist phi­los­o­phy, very pos­si­bly deriv­ing from the fas­cist mind con­trol cult the San­tiki­te­nan Park Asso­ci­a­tion [8], to which he appears to have belonged. (See text excerpts below.)

As soon as his pro­fes­sion­al bal­loon began to deflate, Cit­i­zen Assange also screeched about being the vic­tim of an “inter­na­tion­al Jew­ish con­spir­a­cy” involv­ing the BBC and the Guardian, no less! That Assange  would behave in that man­ner should come as no sur­prise, giv­en his strong links to Holo­caust denier Joran Jer­mas (aka “Israel Shamir.”) (See text excerpts below.)

It was Jer­mas who arranged for Wik­iLeaks to set up oper­a­tions at the Pirate Bay’s servers, financed by fas­cist finan­cial angel Carl Lund­strom (who arranged a Scan­di­na­vian speak­ing tour for David Duke, him­self one of the many unsa­vory asso­ciates of Ron Paul).

Assange him­self has endorsed both Ron Paul and Rand Paul [9]. (See text excerpts below.)

Cit­i­zen Assange’s Aus­tralian Wik­iLeaks Par­ty has delib­er­ate­ly betrayed its Green sup­port­ers in favor of far-right, fas­cist par­ties [10]Down Under. (See text excerpts below.)

Assange’s reflex­ive anti-Semi­tism is more than a lit­tle reveal­ing about his real polit­i­cal make-up.

QUICK: What is the dif­fer­ence between NSA/GCHQ’s war­rant­less sur­veil­lance and what WikiLeaks/Anonymous does? What kind of over­sight does Wik­iLeaks have? What kind of over­sight do the Anony­mous folks have? What court, judi­cial or con­sti­tu­tion­al author­i­ty gives offi­cial sanc­tion to what they do?

For­mer Assange asso­ciate Daniel Dom­scheit-Berg has also not­ed that Assange has adopt­ed the phi­los­o­phy and lex­i­con he pro­fess­es to oppose. He has used ver­biage iden­ti­cal to that in the Amer­i­can Espi­onage Act of 1917, under which Cit­i­zen Snow­den has been charged. (See text excerpts below.)

Our pre­vi­ous posts on the sub­ject of Eddie the Friend­ly Spook are: Part I [11]Part II [12]Part III [13]Part IV [14]Part V [15]. Please exam­ine them at length and fol­low the links.

“In 2009, Ed Snow­den Said Leak­ers “Should Be Shot.” Then He Became One” by Joe Mullin; Ars Tech­ni­ca; 6/26/2013. [5]

. . . . Hired by the CIA and grant­ed a diplo­matic cov­er, he was a reg­u­lar old IT guy whose life was ele­vated by a hint of inter­na­tional intrigue. . . .

. . . . But as his first spring dawned in Switzer­land, it must have felt cold, for­eign, and expen­sive. Two days after his arrival in Switzer­land, Snow­den logged onto #arsi­fi­cial, a chan­nel on Ars Technica’s pub­lic Inter­net Relay Chat (IRC) serv­er. He’d been fre­quent­ing this space for a few months, chat­ting with whomev­er hap­pened to be hang­ing out. . . .

. . . . Snow­den logged on to the pub­lic IRC chat room with the same user­name he used across the Web: TheTrue­HOOHA. The chat room was a place he would return to on dozens of occa­sions over his years in Switzer­land, and his writ­ings fill in details about the man who may go down as the most famous leak­er in US his­tory. Over the years that he hung out in #arsi­fi­cial, Snow­den went from being a fair­ly insu­lated Amer­i­can to being a man of the world. He would wax philo­soph­i­cal about mon­ey, pol­i­tics, and in one notable exchange, about his uncom­pro­mis­ing views about gov­ern­ment leak­ers.

Four years lat­er, Snow­den took a job with a gov­ern­ment con­trac­tor for the spe­cific pur­pose of gath­er­ing secret infor­ma­tion on domes­tic spy­ing being done by the Nation­al Secu­rity Agency (NSA). In May, he hopped a plane to Hong Kong before the NSA knew where he was going. Once there, Snow­den began a process of leak­ing top-secret doc­u­ments to jour­nal­ists. Snowden’s first leak con­firmed what activists had sus­pected but couldn’t prove: there was a drag­net gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance pro­gram col­lect­ing infor­ma­tion on every American’s phone calls. . . .

. . . . And he could be abra­sive. Snow­den didn’t short stocks just to make money—he did it because it was the right thing to do. He saw him­self as a pal­adin of the mar­kets, bring­ing “liq­uid­ity” to all. As for those who didn’t agree with him about the right­ness of the gold stan­dard or the need to elim­i­nate Social Secu­rity, they weren’t just mistaken—they were “retards.” . . .

. . . . A Ron Paul man and a short-sell­er

If Snow­den was get­ting com­fort­able in Gene­va, he was ful­ly at home in #arsi­fi­cial. In a depar­ture from his near­ly 800 posts in oth­er Ars forums, here he spoke blunt­ly on mat­ters of state. In the months fol­low­ing the 2008 elec­tion, he dis­cussed his embrace of a return to the gold stan­dard and his admi­ra­tion of its high­est-pro­file cham­pi­on.

In his more hyper­bolic moments, Snow­den spoke about the fall of the dol­lar in near-apoc­a­lyp­tic terms. “It seems like the USD and GBP are both like­ly to go the way of the zim­babwe dol­lar,” he sug­gested in March 2009. “Espe­cially with that cock­bag bernanke decid­ing to mag­i­cally print 1.2T more dol­lars.” . . .

. . . . The high unem­ploy­ment rate that was on the way for the US didn’t phase Snow­den; those wring­ing their hands and seek­ing con­ven­tional Key­ne­sian solu­tions seemed soft­headed to him. Oba­ma was “plan­ning to deval­ue the cur­rency absolute­ly as fast as the­o­ret­i­cally pos­si­ble,” he wrote. Ris­ing unem­ploy­ment was a mere “cor­rec­tion,” a “nec­es­sary part of cap­i­tal­ism.” . . .

“Report Says Assange Com­plains of Jew­ish Smear Cam­paign” by Ravi Somaiya; The New York Times; 3/1/2011. [16]

EXCERPT: . . . .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. . . .

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

EXCERPT: . . . 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. . . .

[18]

Is this Julian Assange?

 Unseen, Unheard,Unknown by Sarah Moore. [19]

EXCERPT: . . . . 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.

any 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”. . . .

 Inside Wik­iLeaks by Daniel Dom­scheit-Berg; p. 211. [20]

EXCERPT: . . . 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. . . .

Ibid.; p. 200. [20]

EXCERPT: . . . . 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 in a 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.” . . .

“Julian Assange: I’m A ‘Big Admir­er’ Of Ron Paul, Rand Paul” by Nick Wing; The Huff­in­g­ton Post; 8/16/2013. [9]

EXCERPT: Wik­iLeaks founder Julian Assange gave a strong endorse­ment to the lib­er­tar­i­an wing of the GOP on Thurs­day, prais­ing Sen. Rand Paul (R‑Ky.) and his father, for­mer Rep. Ron Paul (R‑Texas), for their polit­i­cal views.
“[I] am a big admir­er of Ron Paul and Rand Paul for their very prin­ci­pled posi­tions in the U.S. Con­gress on a num­ber of issues,” Assange said dur­ing a forum host­ed by Cam­pus Reform and trans­paren­cy orga­ni­za­tion OurSay.org. “They have been the strongest sup­port­ers of the fight against the U.S. attack on Wik­iLeaks and on me in the U.S. Con­gress.

Sim­i­lar­ly, they have been the strongest oppo­nents of drone war­fare and extra­ju­di­cial exe­cu­tions.”
Assange went on to com­mend the lib­er­tar­i­an ide­al of “non-vio­lence” with regards to mil­i­tary engage­ments, the draft and tax col­lec­tion. He then put forth an argu­ment against both estab­lished polit­i­cal par­ties in Wash­ing­ton, claim­ing that near­ly all Democ­rats had been “co-opt­ed” by Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma’s admin­is­tra­tion, while Repub­li­cans were almost entire­ly “in bed with the war indus­try.”

The cur­rent lib­er­tar­i­an strain of polit­i­cal thought in the Repub­li­can Par­ty was the “the only hope” for Amer­i­can elec­toral pol­i­tics, Assange con­clud­ed. . . .

“Wik­iLeaks Party’s ‘Admin­is­tra­tive Errors’ Incense Greens” by Bernard Keane;  Crikey.com.au; 8/19/2013. [10]

EXCERPT: A deci­sion by the Wik­iLeaks Par­ty to direct pref­er­ences away from Julian Assange’s strongest polit­i­cal sup­porter has incensed sup­port­ers. They should have known bet­ter.

The fledg­ling Wik­iLeaks Par­ty has inflict­ed major dam­age on itself after a dis­as­trous pref­er­ence allo­ca­tion that saw it pref­er­enc­ing far-right par­ties, apol­o­gis­ing for an “admin­is­tra­tive error” and pref­er­enc­ing the WA Nation­als ahead of Julian Assange’s strongest polit­i­cal sup­porter, Greens Sen­a­tor Scott Lud­lam.

The Sen­ate pref­er­ence allo­ca­tions revealed yes­ter­day showed, in New South Wales, Wik­iLeaks had pref­er­enced the right-wing Shoot­ers and Fish­ers Par­ty and the extreme-right Aus­tralia First Par­ty, run by con­victed crim­i­nal and for­mer neo-Nazi Jim Saleam, ahead of the Greens and the major par­ties. Aus­tralia First wants to end all immi­gra­tion and to restore the death penal­ty.

Soon after the release of the pref­er­ences and a firestorm of crit­i­cism erupt­ed on social media, the par­ty issued a state­ment on its Face­book page blam­ing the pref­er­enc­ing on “some admin­is­tra­tive errors”.

The “error”, the exact nature of which remains unex­plained, appears to have par­tic­u­larly incensed pro­gres­sive vot­ers who had assumed Wik­iLeaks would be a left-wing, Greens-style par­ty. How­ever, Julian Assange has already crit­i­cised the Greens’ totemic asy­lum seek­er pol­icy as “sim­plis­tic and fool­ish” dur­ing the cam­paign and backed off­shore pro­cess­ing, while crit­i­cis­ing both the major par­ties on the issue. On the week­end, Assange said he admired US lib­er­tar­ian Repub­li­cans Ron and Rand Paul, though he expressed con­cern about their posi­tion on issues like abor­tion. Swap­ping pref­er­ences with minor par­ties of very dif­fer­ent ori­en­ta­tions is also stan­dard prac­tice for all par­ties. One par­ty source told Crikey the “admin­is­tra­tive error” in NSW was quite inten­tional and aimed at the Greens. . . .

. . . . Lud­lam has been Assange’s strongest sup­porter inside fed­eral Par­lia­ment, hound­ing the gov­ern­ment over its lack of sup­port for him and its deal­ings with the US over its cam­paign against Assange and Wik­iLeaks. Lud­lam trav­elled to Europe at his own expense in 2011 to talk to Swedish author­i­ties and Aus­tralian offi­cials in the UK about the case.

The deci­sion to pref­er­ence the Nation­als’ David Wirrpan­da ahead of Lud­lam, strength­en­ing the chances of the Nation­als snar­ing the sixth Sen­ate spot ahead of the Greens, is thus an extra­or­di­nary betray­al. . . .

 “Wik­ileaks Par­ty Sen­ate Can­di­date: NSW Pref­er­ences a ‘Poor Judge­ment Call’, not Admin Error” by Ter­ence Huynh; Techgeek.com;  8/26/2013. [21]

EXCERPT: Ger­ry Geor­gatos, the num­ber one Sen­ate can­di­date for the Wik­ileaks Par­ty in West­ern Aus­tralia, has said that the Wik­ileaks Party’s New South Wales pref­er­ences fias­co was a “poor judge­ment call” and not an admin­is­tra­tive error.

It was not an admin­is­tra­tive error, it was a poor judge­ment call. I’m not [going to come out] here and bull­shit the audi­ence,” he told the Indy­media pro­gramme (24 min­utes into the pro­gramme) on Perth’s RTR yes­ter­day. His state­ment appears to con­tra­dicts the offi­cial posi­tion giv­en by the Wik­ileaks Par­ty that the pref­er­ences were an “admin­is­tra­tive error”.

In New South Wales, the Wik­ileaks Par­ty pref­er­enced the Shoot­ers and Fish­ers and far-right Aus­tralia First par­ty above the Greens – in direct con­tra­dic­tion to the deci­sions made by the Nation­al Coun­cil. The fias­co, in addi­tion to the West­ern Aus­tralian pref­er­ences, saw Leslie Can­nold, four Nation­al Coun­cil mem­bers and sev­eral vol­un­teers left the par­ty. . . . .