Archive for the ‘Illuminati & Global Elite > International’ Category

Dramatic images that media claimed represented Obama and Clinton watching live assassination of Bin Laden revealed to be a PR stunt

In addition to images of President Obama’s address to the American public on Sunday night, it has emerged that the dramatic photos of Obama, Biden, Hillary Clinton and members of the White House security team watching the assassination of Bin Laden “live” were in fact completely staged, casting further doubt on the ever-changing official account of the operation.

On Tuesday, the White House released provocative images that purported to show, “US President Barack Obama watching live footage of the operation that killed Osama bin Laden.”

In one particularly dramatic photo, Hillary Clinton is seen with her hand anxiously clasped over her mouth as if reacting to a crucial event. Other photos show Obama and his staff with stern faces as they discuss the operation while it unfolds.

The photos were described by many as having “historical significance,” forming a “captivating” record of Obama’s greatest success and being the “defining moment” of his Presidency.

We were also told by the media that, “The leader of the free world saw the terror chief shot in the left eye.”

“US president Barack Obama along with his high-level team, watched live coverage in the White House, as the commandos gunned down the world’s most wanted terrorist Osama Bin Laden Via a video camera fixed to the helmet of a US Navy Seal,” it was also reported.

US chief counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan claimed that the head cameras that fed audio and video back to the White House, allowed Obama and his staff to track the operation “on an ongoing basis”.

But the claims have been proven to be completely fraudulent.

it has emerged that Obama, Clinton and their staff saw virtually nothing whatsoever of the mission that allegedly led to the assassination of Bin Laden, because according to CIA director Leon Panetta, there was a 25 minute blackout of the live feed which was cut off before the US Navy SEALS even entered the building.

A photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound,” reports the London Telegraph.

In an interview with PBS, Mr Panetta said: “Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.

The notion that Obama “saw the terror chief shot in the left eyelive on video is a total fabrication. At best, the photos were cynically misrepresented by the White House and the mainstream media, at worst, they were completely staged to add a contrived dramatic spin to the unfolding wall-to-wall press coverage of the Bin Laden fable, which is becoming more convoluted with each passing day.

The key image that clearly indicates the photos were staged is the shot of Hillary Clinton with her hand over her mouth. Clinton looks shocked as if she has witnessed something disturbing, obviously implying that she is watching a live shootout or someone being assassinated, when in fact she saw nothing of the kind because the feed was cut before the SEALS entered the compound. The White House was careful to not describe this image as representing the moments during which the SEALS stormed the building, but the implication was clear, and the establishment media did the work for them, reporting that the picture depicted Obama and Clinton, “watching intently as the raid takes place,” another total falsehood.

Former top spymaster Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik, a man who worked under five different US Presidents, has been proven correct in his assertion that the photos were “Nonsense….total make-up, make believe,” and proof that Americans were being held captive to a “theater of the absurd”.

We truly have entered the “theater of the absurd” when, even as the narrative of the Bin Laden fable crashes and burns, the establishment media that helped manufacture this work of fiction are still claiming that anyone who even questions the blaring inconsistencies of the official account are merely conspiracy theorists engaging in “black helicopter fantasies”.

Source: PrisonPlanet

Stage 1 The Sheople

People in the street know the banks, governments, multinational corporations and the ‘establishment’ are corrupt as hell, but haven’t worked out ‘the agenda’. They still try to make sense of this illusion through the mainstream media.

Many of these people are very angry and try to vent their anger at the government and local MPs. They attend futile protests/demos and fill out partitions in the hope it will make a difference to their lives and the world in general.

Stage 2 The Sleepwalkers

“Oh my God – there’s an agenda. The New World dis-Order, Illuminati, Freemasons, and many amorphous entities like these, not to mention all the disinfo out there. This is the first wake-up call in which (unfortunately) most ‘truthers’ remain and do not progress further.

Some refuse to go beyond this stage, because after a while being a “truther” becomes part of their identity. These truthers go around telling the sheople to wake up, yet don’t realize they are pretty much contained inside a little box themselves. They have got up out of bed, but are just sleepwalking. They don’t realize they are the controlled opposition/dissent.

Stage 3 The ZIMs

The ʻsecond awakening’ or second “OMG” when they begin to see material on Zionism, Israel, and Mossad. There are stacks of youtube videos and sites now highlighting these topics. The term “Zionism” again is a very clever tactic to create a non-specific target and a subtle distraction from the true culprits behind those who have plagued humanity for the last 4000 years.

Stage 4 The Jew-wise

This next stage could really be described as just an extension of stage 3 in that the ones that progress to this stage tend to just blend into after a while.

Although many people stay at stage 3 and don’t ever feel comfortable saying “It’s the jooos”. It is part of our Pavlovian conditioning never to say the ʻJ’ word in a negative tone.

I think we all hover in stage 3 for a while until we realize that Zionism, Israel and Mossad are all relative recent history, yet this same criminal gang has been perpetrating their criminal network for thousands of years. It’s not a new world order but a Jew world order.

So it’s really nonsense to say “it’s just those naughty Zionists”, because the truth is that all these Khazars/Jews are all in it to some degree. Yes, even the so-called “good Jews”. as they all clan together to protect their tribe. Just try and engage with a so-called ‘good Jew’ (who for example may be pro-Palestinian) about Jewish control of finance, media and overwhelmingly-Jewish control of organized crime and you‘ll see what we‘re talking about here. Try to expand on the whole JCN (Jewish Criminal Network) and watch how they clam up and won’t admit to the plethora of criminal activities their tribe is guilty of.

Therefore they are indirectly supporting this network. How many Jewish laborers do you know? Or painters, carpenters or mechanics who actually get some dirt behind their nails and do an honest days hard graft -zero. That’s because they don’t do hard labor and ALL these ‘good Jews’ milk off us gullible goyim.

For further information on these Khazar criminals please visit

these sites:

–www.theuglytruth.wordpress.com–excellent comprehensive site outlining the nature and crimes of the JCN.

–www.theuglytruth.podbean.com–complimentary audios

–www.iamthewitness.com–a vast repository of truth in book, audio and articles and current affairs.

–www.johnkaminski.info–Unique prolific author on these so-called chosen ones

–www.wideeyecinema.com–excellent archive of films and audios

–www.theforbiddentruth.net

–www.800pg.co.cc

–www.jewishcrimenetwork.blogspot.com

–www.jewwatch.com

–www.jewishracism.com

 

Source: The Ugly Truth

 

Afrika Bambaataa

 

 

Afrika Bambaataa, considered to be hip-hop’s godfather recently spoke with the Chicago Sun Times regarding the state of hip-hop.

“Hip-hop has been hijacked by a Luciferian conspiracy,” he says, quite matter-of-factly. “People have used hip-hop in a lot of ways that cause a lot of mind problems. They use the word wrongfully. They use it to mean a part instead of a whole. Like many of these [radio] stations say they’re hip-hop, they’re playing hip-hop. I go to these stations, and these so-called program directors don’t know jack crap about hip-hop culture. They know rap to a certain extent. But I question them. I say, ‘Where’s your go-go, your hip-house, your electro-funk, your raga, your R&B and soul?’ They get real quiet.”

Chicago Sun Times

One of the founders of hip-hop is speaking out about this…what else do you need?

Source

Jared Lee Loughner allegedly tried to assassinate Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords at a meeting with constituents in Tucson, Arizona, on Saturday. In the wake of the attack, the 22-year-old Loughner has been called everything from “crazed” to “unhinged.” What he’s not been called, however, at least by the media, is a terrorist.

According to the United States Law Code, terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” New evidence alleges that Loughner possibly planned for years to assassinate Giffords, a prominent politician. Sounds a lot like terrorism to me. But a whole host of major media outlets seem to disagree.

The Wall Street Journal today says Loughner “raged against the government” and “discussed terrorism,” which, when you actually think about it, is a vague, nearly meaningless sentence (who hasn’t discussed terrorism in the past decade?). In the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the main story is that Loughner was denied entry into the military because he failed a drug test, while the only talk of terrorism comes in a confusing quote from a blog posting from Loughner himself: “If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is ad hominem.” And, in the Los Angeles Times’ lead story on Loughner today, the word “terror” doesn’t appear once.

Compare this nebulous coverage to that on Nidal Hasan in November 2009. If you’ll remember, Hasan is the only suspect in the Fort Hood shooting in Texas that left 13 people dead and 30 more wounded. Hasan is also Muslim, a fact every news outlet won’t let you forget, while also speculating about his terrorist ties.

Four days after the attack on Fort Hood, the Wall Street Journalpublished two stories suggesting that Hasan was a terrorist, one of which included the assertion that it was a terrorist act because Hasan spoke Arabic while he shot. The Los Angeles Times spoke to counterterrorism experts for this piece on Hasan. And, in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, blogger Kyle Wingfield actually gave credence to a Forbesargument claiming that Hasan “went Muslim.”

Some will argue that Hasan’s terrorist intentions were proved by communications he had with radical cleric Anwar al Awlaki, but, in fact, experts who reviewed the pair’s e-mail exchange deemed it totally innocuous.

It should be noted that the FBI Director Robert Mueller has said he’s not ruling out terrorism charges against Loughner, but nothing’s certain yet. And today in Dubai, Hillary Clinton called Loughner an “extremist,” though, like the media, she stopped short of calling him a terrorist. From the sidelines, the message this sends is pretty obvious and very insidious: When a white man executes a political attack, he’s likely crazy; when it’s a Muslim doing the shooting, he’s likely a terrorist.

 

Source

Wikileaks

Wikileaks

After the publication of a series of confirmations rather than revelations, there are some crucial unanswered questions regarding the nature and organizational structure of Wikileaks.

Shrouded in secrecy, the now famous whistleblowing site and its director Julian Assange are demanding “transparency” from governments and corporations around the world while failing to provide some basic information pertaining to Wikileaks as an organization.

Who is Julian Assange?

In the introduction to the book Underground: Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier (1997), by Julian Assange and Suelette Dreyfus, Assange begins with the following quotes:

“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.” — Oscar Wilde

“What is essential is invisible to the eye.” — Antoine De Saint-Exupery

From the start, Assange states that he undertook the research for the book; however, he fails to mention that he was actually one of the hackers analyzed in the book, going by the name of Mendax, a Latin word for “lying, false…”.

Although we cannot confirm that the above quotes referred to him, they nonetheless suggest that Assange, at the time, was hiding his true identity.

We know very little about the cryptographer Julian Assange. He is indeed very cryptic when it comes to revealing who he is and where he worked prior to the Wikileaks project. On the list of board members published previously by Wikileaks, we can read that Julian Assange:

has “attended 37 schools and 6 universities”, none of which are mentioned by name;

“Australia’s most famous ethical computer hacker”. A court case from 1996 cited abundantly in the mainstream press is available on the Australasian Legal Information Institute. Contrary to all the other cases listed on the afore mentioned link, the full text of Assange’s case is not available;

in the first prosecution of its type… [he] defended a case in the supreme court for his role as the editor of an activist electronic magazine”. The name of the magazine, the year of the prosecution, the country where it took place are not mentioned;

allegedly founded “’Pickup’ civil rights group for children”. No information about this group seems to be available, other than in reports related to Wikileaks. We don’t know if it still exists, where it is located and what are its activities.

“studied mathematics, philosophy and neuroscience”. We don’t know where he studied or what his credentials are;

has been a subject of several books and documentaries”. If so, why not mention at least one of them?

One could indeed argue that Assange wishes to remain anonymous in order to protect himself, the whistleblowers and/or the members of his organization. On the other hand, he cannot realistically expect people to trust him blindly if they do not know who he really is. […]

Who’s Who at Wikileaks? The Members of the Advisory Board

Here are some interesting facts about several members listed in 2008 on the Wikileaks advisory board, including  organizations to which they belong or have links to.

Philip Adams:

Philip Adams, among other things, “held key posts in Australian governmental media administration” (Wikileaks’ Advisory Board, Wikileaks.org, 27 March 2008), chaired the Australia Council and contributed to The Times, The Financial Times in London and The New York Times. Confirmed by several reports,  he is the representative of the International Committee of Index on Censorship. It is worth mentioning that Wikileaks was awarded the 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression award. (Philip Adams, Milesago.com)

Adams worked as a presenter for ABC (Australia) Radio’s Late Night Live and as columnist for The Australian since the 1960s. The Australian is owned by News Corporation, a property of Rupert Murdoch, member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Adams also “chairs the Advisory Board of the Centre for the Mind at Sydney University and the Australian National University”. CFR member Michael Spence also serves on this board and Rupert Murdoch’s son, Lachlan Murdoch, has served as well until 2001. The 2008 Distinguished Fellow of the Center for the Mind was former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has faced a slew of accusations for war crimes. Does Adams have conflicting allegiances: serving on the advisory board of the Wikileaks organization whose mandate is to expose war crimes, yet at the same time sitting on another board which honors an accused war criminal.

According to an article in The Australian:

Adams, who has never met Assange, says he quit the board due to ill-health shortly after WikiLeaks was launched and never attended a meeting. “I don’t think the advisory board has done any advisoring,” he quips.

CJ Hinke:

CJ Hinke, “writer, academic, activist, has lived in Thailand since 1989 where he founded Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) in 2006 to campaign against pervasive censorship in Thai society.” (Wikileaks’ Advisory Board, Wikileaks.org, 27 March 2008) FACT is part of Privacy International, which includes among others on its Steering Committee or advisory board, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Index on Censorship.

In 2009, FACT received funding from the following organizations: the European Parliament, the European Commission framework funding programmes, the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, the Open Society Institute, the Open Society Justice Initiative, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, The Fund for Constitutional Government, the Stern Foundation, the Privacy Foundation, the German Marshall Fund, and the University of New South Wales (Sydney).

In the US, Privacy International is “administered through the Fund for Constitutional Government in Washington DC.”(About Privacy International, 16 December 2009).

One of the board members of this fund is Steven Aftergood, who wrote one of the first articles on Wikileaks before the website was even functional. In a report from Technology Daily dated January 4, 2007, it is stated that “Wikileaks recently invited Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy researcher at the Federation of American Scientists [FAS], to serve on its advisory board.”

Ben Laurie:

“’WikiLeaks allegedly has an advisory board, and allegedly I’m a member of it… I don’t know who runs it…’ Laurie says his only substantive interaction with the group was when Assange approached him to help design a system that would protect leakers’ anonymity.” (David Kushner, Inside Wikileaks’ Leak Factory, Mother Jones, 6 April, 2010)

This article appeared in Mother Jones in April 2010. An article of the New York Daily News dated December 2010  quotes Ben Laurie as follows: “‘Julian’s a smart guy and this is an interesting tactic,’ said Ben Laurie, a London-based computer security expert who has advised WikiLeaks.”

Despite his denial of being an advisor to Wikileaks, his name still appears on the list of advisory board members, according to reports. It is also worth noting that Ben Laurie is a “Director of Security for The Bunker Secure Hosting, where he has worked since 1984 and is responsible for security, cryptography and network design.”He is also a Director of Open Rights Groupfunded by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd and the Open Society Foundation.

Chinese and Tibetan Dissidents on the Advisory Board

Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang:

Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang, a “Tibetan exile & activist” is a former President of the Washington Tibet Association, and was a member of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. In July of this year he was appointed by the Governor of Washington State to the State Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs. (A Tibetan Appointed to the Washington State Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs, Tibetan Association of Washington, 17 July 2010)

Wang Youcai:

Wang Youcai co-founded the Chinese Democracy Party and is another leader of the Tienanmen Square protests. Imprisoned for “conspiring to overthrow the Government of China… he was exiled in 2004 under international political pressure, especially from the United States. He is also a “member of Chinese Constitutional Democratic Transition Research and a member of the Coordinative Service Platform of the China Democracy Party” (Wikileaks’ Advisory Board, Wikileaks.org, 27 March 2008)

Xiao Qiang:

Xiao Qiang, is one of the Chinese dissidents listed on the Wikileaks board. He “ is the Director of the Berkeley China Internet Project…[He] became a full time human rights activist after the Tienanmen Massacre in 1989… and is currently vice-chair of the Steering Committee of the World Movement for Democracy”, according to Wikileaks’ description. He received the MacArthur Fellowship from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation in 2001 and is a commentator for Radio Free Asia. (Wikilieaks’ Avisory Board, Wikileaks.org, 27 March 2008)

Xiao Qiang is also the “founder and publisher of China Digital Times” (Biographies, National Endowment for Democracy), which is a grantee of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) (Directives from China’s Ministry of Truth on Liu Xiaobo winning Nobel, Democracy Digest, October 8, 2010).

The Steering Committee of the World Movement for Democracy is an initiative of the Washington, DC-based NED. (World Movement for Democracy). In 2008, Xiao Qiang was part of a discussion panel titled “Law Rights and Democracy in China: Perspectives and Leading Advocates”, held by NED before the Democracy Award Ceremony. (2008 NED Democracy Award Honors Heroes of Human Rights and Democracy in China, National Endowment for Democracy, June 17, 2008).

Radio Free Asia is funded by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) which describes itself as a body that “encompasses all U.S. civilian international broadcasting, including the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio and TV Martí, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN)—Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television.” Eight of its nine members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate; the ninth is the Secretary of State, who serves ex officio”. (Broadcasting Board of Governors)

RFE/RL no longer hides its covert origins: “Initially, both RFE and RL were funded principally by the U.S. Congress through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)… In 1971, all CIA involvement ended and thereafter RFE and RL were funded by Congressional appropriation through the Board for International Broadcasting (BIB) and after 1995 the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). (A Brief History of RFE/RL)

Interestingly, in a report from 2002, the CFR suggested “creating a Public Diplomacy Coordinating Structure (PDCS) to help define communications strategies and streamline public diplomacy structures. ‘In many ways, the PDCS would be similar to the National Security Council’… PDCS members would include the secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury and Commerce, as well as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and BBG chairman”, a suggestion officially objected by the BBG “to preserve the journalistic integrity.” (BBG Expresses Concern With Report Recommendations on U.S. International Braodcasting, 31 July 2002)

Wang Dan:

Among the Chinese dissidents once listed on the board is Wang Dan. He was a leader of the Tienanmen Square democracy movement, which “earned him the top spot on China’s list of ‘21 Most Wanted Beijing Student Leaders’.” He was imprisoned for his subversive activities and “exiled in 1998 under international political pressure to the United States.” (Wikilieaks’ Avisory Board, Wikileaks.org, 27 March 2008)

He is chairman of the Chinese Constitutional Reform Association, and sits on the editorial board ofBeijing Spring, a magazine funded by NED, the “chief democracy-promoting foundation” according to an article by Judith Miller in The New York Times. One of the founders of NED was quoted as saying “A lot of what we [NED] do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” (quoted in William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, 2000, p. 180).

In 1998, Wang Dan was granted the NED’s Democracy Award “for representing a peaceful alternative to achieve democracy and for [his] courage and steadfastness in the cause of democracy”. (1998 Democracy Award honors Heroes of Human Rights and Democracy in China, National Endowment for Democracy)

The Battle for “Transparency”

In 2007, Wikileaks described itself as an “uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis.” Its priority? “[E]xposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.” Like the advisory board member list, this description no longer appears on Wikileaks’ website. The organization also claimed to be “founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.” (Wikileaks.org, 17 December 2007)

In the currently available description, the reference to the Chinese dissidents and the origins of the other members has been removed. Wikileaks rather puts the emphasis on not being a covert operation.

Assange encourages blind faith in Wikileaks as he puts a lot of emphasis on the trustworthiness of his opaque organization. In the words of Assange:

“Once something starts going around and being considered trustworthy in a particular arena, and you meet someone and they say ‘I heard this is trustworthy,’ then all of a sudden it reconfirms your suspicion that the thing is trustworthy. So that’s why brand is so important, just as it is with anything you have to trust.”(Andy Greenberg, An Interview with Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, Forbes, 29 October, 2010, emphasis added)

“People should understand that WikiLeaks has proven to be arguably the most trustworthy new source that exists, because we publish primary source material and analysis based on that primary source material,” Assange told CNN. “Other organizations, with some exceptions, simply are not trustworthy.”(The secret life of Julian Assange, CNN, 2 December 2010, emphasis added)

While Wikileaks no longer discloses the names of the members of its advisory board, nor does it reveal its sources of funding, we have to trust it because according to its founder Julian Assange, it “has proven to be the most trustworthy news source that exists”.

Moreover, if we follow Assange’s assertion that there are only a few media organizations which can be considered trustworthy, we must assume that those are the ones which were selected by Wikileaks to act as “partners” in the release and editing of the leaks, including The New York Times, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, El Paìs, Le Monde.

Yet The New York Times, which employs members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) including Wikileaks’ collaborator David E. Sanger, has proven more than once to be a propaganda tool for the US government, the most infamous example being the Iraqi WMD narrative promoted by Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller.

In an interview, Assange indicates that Wikileaks chose a variety of media to avoid the use of leaks for propaganda purposes.  It is important to note that although these media might be owned by different groups and have different editorial policies, they are without exception news entities controlled by major Western media corporations.

A much better way to avoid the use of leaks for disinformation purposes would have been to work with media from different regions of the world (e.g. Asia, Latin America, Middle East) as well as establish partnership agreements with the alternative media. By working primarily with media organizations from NATO countries, Wikileaks has chosen to submit its leaks to one single “worldview”, that of the West.

As a few critics of Wikileaks have noted, the Wikileaks project brings to mind the “recommendations” of Cass Sunstein, heads the Obama White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Sunstein is the author of an authoritative Harvard Law School essay entitled “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures”. As outlined by Daniel Tencer in Obama Staffer Calls for “Cognitive Infiltration” of ” 9/11 Conspiracy Groups”:

Sunstein “argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via ‘chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine’ those groups”.

Sunstein means that people who believe in conspiracy theories have a limited number of sources of information that they trust. Therefore, Sunstein argued in the article, it would not work to simply refute the conspiracy theories in public — the very sources that conspiracy theorists believe would have to be infiltrated.

Sunstein, whose article focuses largely on the 9/11 conspiracy theories, suggests that the government “enlist nongovernmental officials in the effort to rebut the theories. It might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts.” (emphasis added)

Links to The Intelligence Community

Wikleaks feels the need to reassure public opinion that it has no contacts with the intelligence community. Ironically, it also sees the need to define the activities of the intelligence agencies and compare them to those of Wikileaks:

“1.5 The people behind WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks is a project of the Sunshine Press. It’s probably pretty clear by now that WikiLeaks is not a front for any intelligence agency or government despite a rumour to that effect. This rumour was started early in WikiLeaks’ existence, possibly by the intelligence agencies themselves. WikiLeaks is an independent global group of people with a long standing dedication to the idea of a free press and the improved transparency in society that comes from this. The group includes accredited journalists, software programmers, network engineers, mathematicians and others.

To determine the truth of our statements on this, simply look at the evidence. By definition, intelligence agencies want to hoard information. By contrast, WikiLeaks has shown that it wants to do just the opposite. Our track record shows we go to great lengths to bring the truth to the world without fear or favour.”(Wikileaks.org, emphasis added)

“Is Wikileaks a CIA front?

Wikileaks is not a front for the CIA, MI6, FSB or any other agency. Quite the opposite actually. […] By definition spy agencies want to hide information. We want to get it out to the public.” (Wikileaks.org, 17, December 2007, emphasis added)

Quite true. But by definition, a covert operation always pretends to be something it is not, and never claims to be what it is.

Wikileaks’ Entourage. Who Supports Wikileaks?

The people gravitating around Wikileaks have connections and/or are affiliated to a number of establishment organizations, major corporate foundations and charities. In the Wikileaks’ leakpublished by John Young, a correspondence dated January 4, 2007, points to Wikileaks’ exchange with Freedom House:

“We are looking for one or two initial advisory board member from FH who may advise on the following:

1. the needs of FH as consumer of leaks exposing business andpolitical corruption

2. the needs for sources of leaks as experienced by FH

3. FH recommendations for other advisory board members

4. general advice on funding, coallition building and decentralised operations and political framing

These positions will initially be unpaid, but we feel the role may be of significant interest to FH.”

The request for funding from various organizations triggered some doubt among Wikileaks collaborators.

John Young became  very sceptical concerning the Wikileaks project specifically with regard to the initial fund-raising goal of 5 million dollars, the contacts with elite organizations including Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy and the alleged millions of documents:

“Announcing a $5 million fund-raising goal by July will kill this effort. It makes WL appear to be a Wall Street scam.

This amount could not be needed so soon except for suspect purposes.

I’d say the same about the alleged 1.1 million documents ready for leaking. Way too many to be believable without evidence. I don’t believe the number. So far, one document, of highly suspect provenance.”

Young finally quit the organization on January 7, 2007. His final words: “Wikileaks is a fraud… working for the enemy”.

Four years after its creation, we still don’t know who funds the whistleblower site.

Wikileaks, Hackers, and “The First Cyberwar”

The shady circumstances around Julian Assange’s arrest for “sex crimes” have triggered what some mainstream media have called the “first cyberwar”. The Guardian for instance, another Wikileaks partner, warns us with this shocking title: “WikiLeaks backlash: The first global cyber war has begun, claim hackers”.

Some people suspect that this is a false flag operation intended to control the Internet.

It is no secret that hackers are often recruited by governmental authorities for cyber security purposes. Peiter Zatko a.k.a. “Mudge” is one of them. Here is an excerpt of a Forbes interview with Assange regarding his connection to Peiter Zatko:

Assange:Yeah, I know Mudge. He’s a very sharp guy.

Greenberg: Mudge is now leading a project at the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to find a technology that can stop leaks, which seems pretty relative [sic] to your organization. Can you tell me about your past relationship with Mudge?

Assange: Well, I… no comment.

Greenberg: Were you part of the same scene of hackers? When you were a computer hacker, you must have known him well.

Assange: We were in the same milieu. I spoke with everyone in that milieu.

Greenberg: What do you think of his current work to prevent digital leaks inside of organizations, a project called Cyber Insider Threat or Cinder?

Assange: I know nothing about it.

Peiter Zatko is an expert  in cyber warfare. He worked for BBN Technolgies (a subsidiary of Raytheon) with engineers “who perform leading edge research and development to protect Department of Defense data… Mr. Zatko is focused on anticipating and protecting against the next generation of information and network security threats to government and commercial networks.” (Peiter “Mudge” Zatko, Information Security Expert Who Warned that Hackers “Could Take Down the Internet in 30 Minutes” Returns to BBN Technologies, Business Wire, 1 February 2005, emphasis added)

In another Forbes interview, we learn that Mr. Zatko is “a lead cybersecurity researcher at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA], the mad-scientist wing of the Pentagon.”His project “aims to rid the world of digital leaks”. (Forbes, emphasis added)

There also seems to be a connection between Zatko and former hacker Jacob Appelbaum, a Wikileaks spokesperson. Zatko and Appelbaum were purportedly part of a hacker group called Cult of the Dead Cow.

Appelbaum currently works for the Tor Project, a United States Naval Research Laboratory initiative. The sponsors of that project listed on its website are:

NLnet Foundation (2008-2009), Naval Research Laboratory (2006-2010), an anonymous North American ISP (2009-2010), provided up to $100k. Google (2008-2009), Google Summer of Code (2007-2009), Human Rights Watch, Torfox (2009) and Shinjiru Technology (2009-2010) gave in turn up to $50k.

Past sponsors includes: Electronic Frontier Foundation (2004-2005), DARPA and ONR via Naval Research Laboratory (2001-2006), Cyber-TA project (2006-2008), Bell Security Solutions Inc (2006), Omidyar Network Enzyme Grant (2006), NSF via Rice University (2006-2007).

Zatko and Assange know each other. Jacob Appelbaum also played a role at Wikileaks.

The various connections tell us something regarding Assange’s entourage. They do not, however, provide us with evidence that people within these various organizations were supportive of the Wikileaks project.

Recent Developments: The Role of the Frontline Club

Over the last seven months, the London based Frontline Club has served as de facto U.K “headquarters” for Wikileaks. The Frontline Club is an initiative of Henry Vaughan Lockhart Smith, a former British Grenadier Guards captain. According to NATO, Vaughan Smith became an “independent video journalist […] who always hated war, but remained […] soldier-friendly”. (Across the Wire, New media: Weapons of mass communication, NATO Review, February 2008)

Upon his release from bail, Julian Assange was provided refuge at Vaughan Smith’s Ellingham Manor in Norfolk.

The Frontline Club is an establishment media outfit. Vaughan Smith writes for the NATO Review. (See NATO Web TV Channel and NATO Nations: Accurate, Reliable and Convenient). His relationship to NATO goes back to 1998 when he worked as a video journalist in Kosovo. In 2010, he was “embedded with a platoon from the British Grenadier Guards” during Operation Moshtarak in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province. (PBS NewsHour, February 19, 2010). According to the New York Times, The Frontline Club ”has received financing for its events from the Open Society Institute”. (In London, a Haven and a Forum for War Reporters – New York Times, 28 August 2006)

Concluding Remarks: The Cyber Warfare Narrative

Wikileaks is now being used by the authorities, particularly in the US, to promote the cyber warfare narrative, which could dramatically change the Internet and suppress the freedom of expression Wikileaks claims to defend.

Peter Kornbluh, analyst at The National Security Archive, argues that “there’s going to be a lot of screaming about Wikileaks and the new federal law to penalize, sanction, and put the boot down on organizations like Wikileaks, so that their reactions can be deemed illegal.”
Ultimately, Wikileaks could spark off, intentionally or not, entirely new rules and regulations.

Source

Avigdor Lieberman

In a further blow to peace in the Middle East, Israel’s foreign minister has ruled out a comprehensive agreement with Palestinians as “impossible” and “forbidden.”

It’s not only that it is impossible” to reach an overall agreement, the Associated Press quoted Avigdor Lieberman as saying on Sunday. “It is simply forbidden,” he told a conference of Israeli diplomats.

Labeling the Palestinian Authority (PA) as illegitimate, Lieberman urged that instead of a full peace deal, Tel Aviv seek a long-term, interim agreement on security and economic matters.

The remarks by Israel’s hawkish foreign minister come nearly two months after US-brokered talks between Tel Aviv and the PA broke down three weeks after they were launched in Washington.

The direct negotiations, strongly opposed by the Palestinian public and major resistance groups, hit a dead-end when Israel refused to heed repeated international calls to extend a partial settlement freeze after it expired on September 26.

Palestinians have long demanded a halt to the construction of Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank, including East al-Quds (Jerusalem), as a pre-condition to any negotiations.

They argue that otherwise a two-state solution would be unfeasible.

Source

J.Assange, The Economist & The Rothschilds

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has won an award from the “Economist” magazine, a financial publication controlled by the Rothschild banking family, and he has also featured on an “Economist” video clip, raising questions about conflicts of interest.  Assange predicted a bank run could be triggered by bank data leaks but he does not mention that this would result in the robbery of millions of people because of the way the fractional reserve banking system works, and profit the banks.

Is a false flag bank run hyped by the banker’s media and carried out by a Rothschild operative being planned to rob millions and to implement emergency laws?

Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder who plans to leak bank documents that will take down „one or two“ major banks according to Forbes, has won an award from the Economist, a magazine belonging to the Economist group, half of which is owned by the Financial times, a subsidiary of Pearson PLC. A group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff and the Rothschild banking family of England.

Kurt Nimmo writes that the Economist is owned by members of the Rothschild banking family of England. It is run by the Economist Group, a known CIA front

http://www.infowars.com/rothschild-and-cia-publications-attack-constitution-worshipers/

Greek blogger Vicky Chrysou found that Assange won an Economist Censorship Index Award in 2008.

http://vickytoxotis.blogspot.com/2010/11/wikileaks-wikileaks.html

Assange’s close links to perhaps the world’s leading financial publication, which has consistently given misinformation about the eurozone and bank bailout, are underlined by a recent video interview he held with the Economist magazine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_HPLHIBTtA&feature=player_embedded

Assange has not only won awards from the Rothschild banking family’s financial publications; he also won an award from Amnesty International, which works closely with the UN, itself associated with the IMF, the World Bank profitting politically and financially from the gigantic national debts saddled on country’s by banks with the help of compliant politicians.

Assange’s latest Wikileaks have been hyped by the mainstream media around the world as a major diplomatc row and destablising factor in spite of the fact that they are largely trivial gossip and news items that are in alignment with the Globalist’s goals.

If Assange were a real activist, he would not be getting any coverage from the mainstream media, let alone so headlines every day in every well known corporate media outlet. The alleged hide and seek between Assange and the US government as well as Interpol is played out on the theatrical stage of the world’s media when it is well known the US government and Interpol can arrest anyone they want virtually any time they want given their immense resources.

The Economist and FT were also among the corporate media that consistently hyped the swine flu pandemic and the need for vaccines last April while blocking information about the incident where Baxter contaminated 72 kilos of seasonal flu vaccine with the bird flu virus in ist biosecurity level 3 labs — virtually ruling out an accident — and so nearly triggered a global bird flu pandemic.

This media group has also consistently given misinformation about the current financial crisis and how it is being engineered by the banks to rob people, using the fractional reserve banking system.

Vienna Economics University Professor Franz Hormann explained how „banks create money out of air“ in a model for fraud in an interview with Der Standard recently. Hormann has also said that current economic theory is „political propaganda.“ But the Economist Group and IMF spout this propaganda all the time for the profit of the banks.

A bank run would result in the loss of people’s money, savings, pay checks and so bring ruin to millions of people – but this is what Assange wants because that is what will happen as anyone with a basic knowledge of economics now. The fractional reserve banking system means that the money or capital people put in the bank does not need to be on their account: capital can be spread all over the banks activities, locked in bonds and shares. Governments have very limited guarentees for deposits.

So if there the bankers can engineer a bank run, it will be the ordinary people who are robbed once more. Assange goes along with the propaganda that banks have capital in the banks not fractional reserve digits.

Expect the corporate media to hype Assange’s bank data leaks and hype the disaster and so help the banks justify bringing down the shutters and ruining millions if not billions of people in the process in a crash as devastating as 1931.

The media hyped the mild swine flu into a pandemic and they can hype a few extra withdrawls into a bank stampede as well unless we take action and demand that financial services scrutinse all withdrawals.

Because the euro is crumbling faster than expected, the bankers are desperate to institute some form of emergency law or martial law and a false flag bank run initiated by their operative Assange and hyped by their media would suit their plans perfectly.

His irresponsible actions that could destroy the world’s economy in a financial Pearl Harbour — also on December 7th, the date set for another irresponsible bank run —  certainly are those of an operative working for the banks and may even be on the orders of the Rothschilds directly given his close links to the Economist. His task is to destroy the financial system before the eurozone fragments, allowing country’s potentially to restore their own currencies and regain their souvereignty.

His gigantic financial crime is also designed to discredit the alternative media and investigative journalists and so give the a chance to close websites and steer people back into the mainstream media.

Accusations of a sordid rape are also desgned to discredit investigative journalists in the eyes of the public.

Help spread this news: a false flag bank run hyped by the media is being planned by a Rothschild operative and it will result in the robbery of millions of people. Get financial regulators and the police to scrutinize all financial transactions and stop banks declaring themselves broke artificially, thereby robbing customers.

Source