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

FTR #917 WikiFascism, 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].

Intro­duc­tion: In FTR #‘s 724 [6], 725 [7], 732 [8], 745 [9] and 755 [10], 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.

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 [11] 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 [12] that the hack is actu­al­ly a false flag oper­a­tion [13], 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.” [14]  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 [15]AFA #15 [16] and FTR #‘s 777 [17] and 876 [18]. (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 [19].)

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 [29].

Among Assange’s cham­pi­ons [30] 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 [31] 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 [35]. 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 [12]:

 “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 [36] is the Direc­tor of the Dig­i­tal Soci­ety Insti­tute [37], 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 [38]. 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 [39] 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 [40]. Also, leak­ing to Wik­ileaks isn’t hard. They have a sub­mis­sion form [41].

Giv­en these argu­ments, blam­ing Rus­sia is not a slam dunk [42]. 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 [43]?

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. [13]

. . . . But secu­ri­ty expert Jeff Carr thought the smoke off this smok­ing-gun was a bit too thick. In his minor­i­ty report [44], 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 [45] 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 [20]:

“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. [20]

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 [46]: 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 [26]:

“Wik­iLeaks Just Pub­lished Tons of Cred­it Card and Social Secu­ri­ty Num­bers” by Michael Nunez; Giz­mo­do; 7/22/2016. [26]

. . . . 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 [47] 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 [47] 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 [48] includ­ed doc­u­ments from June 2010 to August 2014. The new release [47] 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 [25]:

“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. [25]

. . . . 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 [49] along with Roger Stone sug­gest­ing that the elec­tion will be rigged and the gov­ern­ment invalid [50] 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 [51] to polit­i­cal­ly dam­age her, it’s prob­a­bly worth not­ing that Roger Stone just claimed he’s in con­tact with Assange [28].

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. [28]

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 [52]. “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 [53] in a pod­cast with Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopou­los, despite the over­whelm­ing evi­dence [54] that vot­er fraud is vir­tu­al­ly nonex­is­tent [55] 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 [56] 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. [23]

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 [57], 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. [29]

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 [58] 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 [59]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 [60] 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. [30]

. . . . 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. [31]

. . . . 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. [32]

. . . . 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” [61]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 [62], 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 [63] with Ron Paul and Glenn Green­wald. Horn­berger believes that 19th cen­tury ante­bel­lum slave-era Amer­ica was “the freest soci­ety in his­tory”. . . [64]

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. [65]

. . . . 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. [33]

. . . . 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. [34]

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. [11]

THIS is what Julian Assange and Wik­iLeaks are doing!

“Tor, Tech­noc­ra­cy, Democ­ra­cy” by David Golum­bia; Uncomputing.org; 4/23/2015. [11]

 . . . . 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 [66] 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’ ”: