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.)
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 . 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.
Not only is Citizen Snowden no crusader on behalf of humanity and civil liberty, he is a cynical, self-righteous ultra-right winger . (Be sure to examine the text excerpts below.)
Fast Eddie is a believer in:
- the rectitude of short-selling, in which he engaged.
- the elimination of Social Security.
- returning to the Gold Standard.
- high unemployment as a natural and good part of capitalism.
- the right-wing Republican view that Obama was debasing the currency with his economic policies.
- John McCain.
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 , 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 , Assange believes in a social-Darwinist philosophy, very possibly deriving from the fascist mind control cult the Santikitenan Park Association , 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 . (See text excerpts below.)
Citizen Assange’s Australian WikiLeaks Party has deliberately betrayed its Green supporters in favor of far-right, fascist parties 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.)
. . . . 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.” . . .
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. . . .
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. . . .
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”. . . .
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. 
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.” . . .
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. . . .
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. . . .
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. . . . .