when I was younger, I fell for the Assange-Snowden myth pretty hard; I believed that we needed more transparency, that it was as simple as leaking government secrets, and that The People would be able to enact changes to reform society.
Assange's mom was in the Family, also known as the Great White Brotherhood, and according to Assange, he and his mom were on the run from the cult when he was age 11 to 16.
Assange told a NYT reporter that he believed the cult had moles in the government. what else did the cult get up to?
they were a yoga cult that also ran a psychiatric hospital. you know, that normal confluence. among other things, the cult would dose children with LSD and leave them in dark rooms. hey wait...
it isn't clear how, but Assange found his way to the Chaos Computer Club milieu in Hamburg in the '80s
active at the time was a Karl Koch, who was a legendary hacker named "hagbard". some people say he invented the Trojan virus. he was also a paranoiac and a cocaine addict
Koch was involved in hacks on Los Alamos, NASA, US military databases, OPTIMIS, arms manufacturers, ESA, Max Planck Institute, CERN, and DESY on behalf of the KGB. West German spokesmen said it was the most serious espionage case since Guenter Guillaume
Markus Hess, Dirk Brzezinski, and Peter Carl were other hackers that were working with the KGB at the time. they were all caught, in one way or another
unfortunately, Koch was found dead in 1989 when his body was found badly burned, covered in tattoos and phallic symbols, in a forest. the police report calls it suicide, but many speculate that it was intelligence agency retribution
what's that got to do with Assange? according to KGB/FSB records, Assange was at one of the hacker parties where Koch discussed his hacking transactions with the KGB. Assange worked more with Dirk Brezinski, however
he helped author a book about black hat hackers in 1997, which is weird because he sort of positions himself as researcher and not as, you know, a black hat hacker/criminal. almost as if he were like, infiltrating them or something idk.
now, back when Wikileaks launched in 2006, it set an initial fundraising goal of $5 million, which did not really match most outsiders' estimates of costs. it also arrived with several very interesting backers
one was the National Endowment for Democracy, and another was Freedom House. this ought to cue the "Kill Bill" siren in your head, but I'll briefly explain why
Freedom House is a think tank / research institute that spreads anti-communist propaganda and works closely with George Soros' Open Society Institute. check out the cool places it's focused on!
if you read the Wikipedia page for the NED, apparently its called a "quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization", which ought to run chills down your spine. Reagan backed Congress creating the NED in 1983
"A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA," said NED co-founder Allen Weinstein in 1991.
so there have been leaks of internal Wikileaks emails, where Assange talks about funding from "people with some millions who approach us" as well as contemplating acquiring covert funding from intelligence agencies directly
there has also been talk of Wikileaks buying and selling information, aside from public leaks, but that's not been substantiated yet to my knowledge
you can also look at the people who are or have been on the Wikileaks advisory board. that's quite the trip, too
people who know me know I'm Tibetpilled, and one person on the board is Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsanga, an "exile and activist", a member of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile, former president of the Washington Tibet Association, and various other orgs
another guy is Phillip Adams, an Australian 'public intellectual', who wrote for Rupert Murdoch's The Australian. isn't Murdoch on the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group? ahh that probably doesn't matter right?
Adams is also representative of the International Committee of Index on Censorship. by coincidence, Wikileaks was awarded the 2008 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression award
there's also Wang Youcai, co-founder of the Chinese Democracy Party and a leader of the Tiananmen Square protests. you know, the abortive color revolution in China
weirdly, some of these board members have been scrubbed, like Wang Youcai doesn't appear now on the Wikileaks site, and his Wikipedia page doesn't reference Wikileaks. you could postulate some reasons, I'm sure
there's also Xiao Qiang, a founder of China Digital Times, a grantee of the NED, commentator for Radio Free Asia, MacArthur Fellowship grant recipient, and who was also involved with Tiananmen
as a side note, the MacArthur Fellowship is funded in part by the Rockefeller Foundation, which is all Standard Oil (Exxon-Mobil/Chevron) money. they've funded a lot of very interesting things. that's a whole other story
now, when Wikileaks was launched in 2006, it immediately got a lot of very favorable press from media like the Washington Post and Time magazine. you know, the Washington Post and Time magazine, the CIA rags
it's worth reading from that article: “By March, more than one million leaked documents from governments and corporations in Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the former Soviet Bloc will be available online in a bold new collective experiment...
“That is, of course, as long as you don’t accept any of the conspiracy theories brewing that Wikileaks could be a front for the CIA or some other intelligence agency.”
- Time, Jan. 2007
- Time, Jan. 2007
Scott Creighton asks "So why would TIME magazine be writing about them in the first place if they hadn’t done anything yet?"
"let’s not pass up that irony: this is TIME singing the praises of a supposed “leak” site which will expose all kinds of “conspiracy theories” while at the same time telling their readers NOT to believe in those “conspiracy theories” circulating about Wikileaks."
“Instead of a couple of academic specialists, Wikileaks will provide a forum for the entire global community to examine any document relentlessly for credibility, plausibility, veracity and falsifiability,” its organizers write on the site’s FAQ page."
“They will be able to interpret documents and explain their relevance to the public. If a document is leaked from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community can freely scrutinize and discuss it…”
Time Magazine was basically writing a How-To guide to using Wikileaks, which is an interesting thing for them to be doing. Time of course was owned by Henry Luce, in whose social circle was John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State and his brother, director of the CIA, Allen Dulles
"This collaboration between Wikileaks and selected mainstream media is not fortuitous; it was part of an agreement between several major US (the NYT (Bilderberg, CFR)) and European newspapers (Der Spiegel and the Economist (Bilderberg)) and Wikileaks' editor Julian Assange"
the Economist, of course, started back in 1843 when the British East India company was at its worst, it supported the Confederacy during the Civil War, and Lenin famously said it was "a journal that speaks for the British millionaires"
who are some of those British billionaires today? "The Economist is jointly owned by the British Rothschild family and the Lazard Freres banking houses, close to Britain's royal family", who also own Royal Dutch Shell
another word for "Royal Dutch Shell + Rothschild banking" is the Bilderberg group. "The broader question is why would Julian Assange receive the support from Britain's foremost establishment news outfit which has consistently been involved in media disinformation?"
"Are we not dealing with a case of "manufactured dissent", whereby the process of supporting and rewarding Wikileaks for its endeavors, becomes a means of controlling and manipulating the Wikileaks project, while at the same time embedding it into the mainstream media."
"It is also worth mentioning another important link. Julian Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), a major London elite law, happens to be the legal adviser to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust."
"While this in itself does prove anything, it should nonetheless be examined in the broader context of Wikileaks' social and corporate entourage: the NYT, the CFR, The Economist, Time Magazine, Forbes, Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), etc."
Wikileaks leaked Afghanistan War documents to the NYT/Der Spiegel/the Economist, so how subversive could they be?
a lot of how you interpret what I'm telling you will depend on what you know about Operation Mockingbird
"in 1977, Carl Bernstein [in Rolling Stone] reported that more than 400 American journalists worked for the CIA. Bernstein went on to reveal that this cozy arrangement had covered the preceding 25 years". he knew, of course, because Woodward was ONI, lmao
"Seeking to spread the blame, the NYT published an article revealing that "more than eight hundred news and public information orgs and individuals" had participated in the CIA's covert subversion of the media"
libs are always bemoaning the fact that the US public doesn't believe the news, but, you know. maybe there's a reason for that idk
so we've got a really interesting situation: the NYT is selling Wikileaks as a bastion of transparency at the same time that they're lying to get us into a 'Global War on Terror'. what I presuppose to you is, maybe it's an op?
"It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent and protest as a feature of the system inasmuch as they do not threaten the established social order."
"The purpose is not to repress dissent, but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest movement, to set the outer limits of dissent. To maintain their legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms of opposition..."
"To be effective, however, the process of "manufacturing dissent" must be carefully regulated and monitored by those who are the object of the protest movement "
"Few of you might know that just prior to the unveiling of Wikileaks, the intelligence world had an unveiling of their own… a “social media” based resource called “Intellipedia”.
"but Jimmy", you say, "surely if Assange wasn't what he seemed, that would bleed over into how Wikileaks operates?"
in a 2010 interview, "Spending time with Assange, it's hard not to start believing that dark forces are at work. According to him, everyone's emails are being read. For that reason, he encourages anyone planning to leak a document to post it the old fashioned way, to his PO box"
Ronald Thomas West, former sergeant of Operations and Intelligence for Special Forces, says that is a good way to get caught, lol
"Quite true. But by definition, a covert operation always pretends to be something it is not, and never claims to be what it is. In other words, it can't be identified as an official CIA project, so it must seem to be the opposite of what it is."
"For any false flag operation to be effective, 90% of what you put out has to be legitimate information; only then will you be able to target the people with disinformation for completely different reasons"
Cass Sunstein was Obama's Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, right? also a legal scholar and professor of law at Harvard
he also wrote an essay/book called "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures". I wonder if there's any salient passages...
“The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.”
He goes on to propose that, “the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups“. that's right, folks, COGNITIVE INFILTRATION. На прицеле ваш мозг
“Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”
"Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of secret government payments to outside commentators, who are then held out as independent experts", who
"are then held out as independent experts; they suggest that “government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes,” further warning that “too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed.”
anyone who's spent any time in the JFK assassination, 9/11, or UFO worlds with any degree of critical thinking skills has probably identified one or two ops. the thing is, the Powers That Be probably run the entire game of anything even remotely subversive
it reminds me of that good ol' quote: "If I were the head of the Illuminati, I certainly would not call it by that name....I'd call it the John Birch Society, and advertise it as an organization opposed to the Illuminati..."
"That way I'd be able to rope in all the people who are against the Illuminati and use them as unwitting dupes. This is such a plausible idea that if the Illuminati do exist, they must have thought of it already."
I'm not advocating the belief in the Illuminati, and I'm not really into the Discordians, but if you've ever wondered why what passes for the Left in the US can't even win M4A, hopefully this might clue you in on the game