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