Julian Assange to be thrown under the bus

Richard Stanley

Administrator
On the contrary: if Assange was using Vault 7 for espionage purposes, wouldn't he then have a motive to keep them secret? Both to avoid self-incrimination, and to keep the tools available for his own use?
Ahah!!! So he is crafty after all. He understands reverse psychology. This is like saying the Orangutan In Chief could not be guilty because he committed conspiracy, collusion, collaboration, and obstruction in the open. Right?
So we are in agreement that Trump did not get any meaningful assistance from the Russians?
Maybe. That's what I've been writing for some time.
I would say he did get some small quantum of assistance from Assange, and from whoever released the DNC emails to him.
So Trump got the DNC emails from somebody else, while Wikileaks provided them to the world? (Serious question)
By that criteria, the entire history of the last 2000 years can be dismissed with the same 'yawn'. Nobody has come up with the magic key that could stop the juggernaut cold in its tracks.
Hello!!!

But, what's wrong with applauding those efforts that are at least pushing back, however ineffective they might be?
Like Sisyphus.

Numerous people have reported variously on the nature of the human "juggernaut". Others insist that it is the work of God (which we know is figuratively true as deus ex humana). But as far as I know, we are the only ones to have detailed the Hegelian Dialectic of the False Dialectic of Western Civilization, the briar patch of synthetic Judaism versus the 'gentil', where even the 'versus' is a problem of perception. Because the Sheepdogs serve the Shepherds and the fake gentile Sheep Identify with the Gentil Shepherds.

Hopefully, when I return in my new skin, I can find the work of the Postflavians and the boulder will have been nudged upwards a bit.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
This is like saying the Orangutan In Chief could not be guilty because he committed conspiracy, collusion, collaboration, and obstruction in the open. Right?
Isn't it more like you claiming Assange is a jaywalker, and I point out he was last seen in the crosswalk with a green light?

If anybody seriously wanted to impeach Trump, they wouldn't mess around with the Russiagate case. This may be a little off topic, but here's David Swanson's latest list of 19 surefire Articles of Impeachment:

Violation of Constitution on Domestic Emoluments
Violation of Constitution on Foreign Emoluments
Incitement of Violence
Interference With Voting Rights
Discrimination Based On Religion
Illegal War
Illegal Threat of Nuclear War
Abuse of Pardon Power
Obstruction of Justice
Politicizing Prosecutions
Collusion Against the United States with a Foreign Government
Failure to Reasonably Prepare for or Respond to Hurricanes Harvey and Maria
Separating Children and Infants from Families
Illegally Attempting to Influence an Election
Tax Fraud and Public Misrepresentation
Assaulting Freedom of the Press
Supporting a Coup in Venezuela
Unconstitutional Declaration of Emergency
Instructing Border Patrol to Violate the Law


So Trump got the DNC emails from somebody else, while Wikileaks provided them to the world? (Serious question)
Sorry, my syntax was a little twisted. Assange obtained the DNC emails somehow, and then provided them to the Trump campaign as well as the rest of the world.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Once we get all of our definitions and hypothesis straight, then the next step is to look at all the evidence, and see if any of it favors one hypothesis or another.
Gordon Duff at Veterans Today thinks that Assange is indeed some sort of secret Deep State operative. Recently he ran this summary article by Webster Tarpley, originally published in 2013 by Press TV (Iranian state television.) Of course an affiliation with any state-sponsored media comes with at least some concern about a loss of objectivity. But, Tarpley's issues are worth consideration.

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/04/12/yes-both-assange-and-snowden-how-to-identify-a-limited-hangout-op/

Tarpley's article also alleges that Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden are "ops". Leaving all that aside, here are his key complaints about Assange:

1. The Wikileaks publications were immediately picked up by MSM outlets which would be more likely to suppress the information, if it were a genuine challenge to the status quo.

2. Wikileaks was endorsed in 2007 by Cass Sunstein, as a means to destabilize China. Sunstein is a notorious advocate of covert infiltration of anti-establishment groups.

3. In 2010, Assange called 9/11 a "false conspiracy" and a "distraction".

4. As Assange was growing up, his mother became affiliated with an Australian cult run by Ann Hamilton-Byrne. The cult is said to have subjected young children to LSD and other drugs. Tarpley claims that the cult was affiliated with MK-ULTRA. Assange's mother was also a nomad, and Julian attended 37 different schools by the time he was 16.

5. Tarpley says "Assange’s chief mentor became John Young of Cryptome, who in 2007 denounced Wikileaks as a CIA front." I couldn't exactly confirm this, but Young and Assange apparently were co-founders of Wikileaks. Young soon left the organization, and he did indeed denounce Assange.

https://blog.executivebiz.com/2010/12/cryptomes-john-young-wikileaks-pimps-out-secrets-for-money/

Young was one of the founders of whistle-blower site Cryptome. His history of not giving into pressure to remove leaks posted on Cryptome led him to be invited to join WikiLeaks. At WikiLeaks’ conception, Young agreed to be the “public face” of the site, but he later resigned when the other founders wanted unneeded funding from sponsors.
The Register reported that in an interview with U.S. talk radio, Young argued that Julian Assange had turned his insider knowledge into a lucrative venture.
“Well, it only came up in the topic of raising $5 million the first year,” Young said. “That was the first red flag that I heard about. I thought that they were actually a public interest group up until then, but as soon as I heard that, I know that they were a criminal organization.”
6. Tarpley thinks that the Arab Spring was a CIA-sponsored destabilization campaign, and that the Wikileaks diplomatic cable leaks singled out the same rulers as the ones that the CIA was strategizing for regime change. Tarpley's list of Assange's targets includes the Arab leaders Ben Ali, Qaddafi, Mubarak, Saleh, Assad, Maliki, and Karzai, as well as Putin, Berlusconi and Argentina's Kirchner.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Isn't it more like you claiming Assange is a jaywalker, and I point out he was last seen in the crosswalk with a green light?
As we discussed on the phone, Wikileaks is at the hub of one of the largest 'dramas' ever, and on the global 'stage'. Whatever their relative complicity, they are the narrative's conduit for the passing of the controversial 'stolen' data. Their bona fides were established in the flocks' framing for sometime by such as the Snowden affair and more. And if Assange is in on all of this, then this is one more element to consider that Putin is assisting the charade on humanity.

At best(?) Wikileaks were 'made use of" to pass this data to contribute hugely to the drama's narrative. A narrative that I insist is not organic or spontaneous. So thanks for providing Tarpley's analysis, via Duff.

Apropos for Assange the Australian? From my Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

trump
(noun usages)​
2. a valuable resource that may be used, especially as a surprise, to gain an advantage.​
4. Australia / New Zealand informal, a person in authority.​
(verb usages)​
3. (trump up) invent (a false accusation or excuse).​
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Caitlin Johnstone wrote up an encyclopedic rebuttal to all arguments against Assange, and she covered the view that he is some sort of operative, as "Smear 24: 'He's a CIA agent / limited hangout." Let's address her points here.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/04/20/debunking-all-the-assange-smears/

I’m probably going to have to revisit this one because it’s so all over the place that it’s hard for me to even say exactly what it is. It only exists in fringey conspiracy circles, so there’s no organized thought around it and when I ask people why they’re so sure Assange is a CIA/Mossad agent/asset I get a bunch of different answers, many of them contradictory and none of them comprised of linear, complete thoughts. Mostly I just get an answer that goes something like “Well he spent some time in Egypt and he criticized 9/11 truthers, and he’s a few degrees of separation from this one shady person, so, you know, you connect the dots.”
No, you connect the dots. You’re the one making the claim.
None of them ever do.
I think it's safe to say that Johnstone didn't see the Tarpley article. But at the same time, several of the points Tarpley makes are just elaborations on Caitlin's caricature.

'He spent some time in Egypt' sounds like Jesus typology, but in reality he spent time in a possibly MK-ULTRA affiliated cult, and might have been force fed some LSD, before he turned to a life as a computer hacker known as 'Mendax', Latin for 'Liar'. After some high-profile hacking exploits and a criminal conviction, he had his 'Damascus Moment' and became an honest programmer, and then a journalist.

This could be just as bad as it sounds, but then again perhaps these childhood and young adult experiences really did lead Assange to a change of heart. In itself, I don't see how Assange's 'Time in Egypt' proves anything.

He criticized 9-11 Truthers? Maybe he had the bad luck to encounter Web Fairy as his first experience with a Truther, and never looked into it any further.

He was endorsed by Cass Sunstein and Norman Solomon? Well, Tulsi Gabbard just got praised by David Duke. That is, he is broadly hinting that Trump better shape up, or Duke is going to support Gabbard instead. I'm sure both Trump and Gabbard are quaking in their boots to see which side Duke endorses for 2020.

It would be more interesting if Assange endorsed Cass Sunstein, but that never happened.

About John Young's involvement and then his criticism of Assange, perhaps Wikileaks really did need those millions of dollars that they raised. Perhaps that's how they were able to put together the staffing and the effort necessary to attract attention from those giant media organizations. Maybe Young is just jealous of Assange's success. What is really missing from Young's criticism, is any real evidence or analysis of how Wikileaks was corrupted by their fundraising success.

All of Tarpley's points have some circumstantial value, but maybe not much. It all boils down to the question: what was the true effectiveness of the leaked materials? Were they really as lame, worthless and/or counterproductive as Tarpley says? Frankly, I'm not enough of an expert to say.

And even if Assange served as a conduit for materials that were 'leaked on purpose', does that mean he was knowingly working as a CIA agent? Or, more likely, he sincerely believed the materials were valuable & important?

Back to Caitlin:

You’d think this smear would have subsided since Assange was imprisoned at the behest of the US government, but I’m actually encountering it way more often now. Every day I’m getting conspiracy types telling me Assange isn’t what I think he is, right at the time when the MSM has converged to smear him with more aggression than ever before and right when he needs support more than ever.
I’ve never encountered anyone who can present a convincing (or even coherent) argument that Assange is working for any intelligence agency, so I generally just declare the burden of proof unmet and move on. If there’s anyone out there who believes this and would like to take a stab at proving their claim, I have a few questions for you:
Why is a CIA/Mossad agent/asset/limited hangout/whatever being rewarded for his loyal service with a stay in Belmarsh Prison awaiting US extradition? How does that work, specifically? Are you claiming that he was an asset that got “burned”? If so, when did this happen? Was he still an asset while he was languishing in the embassy in failing health and chronic pain? Or was it before then? His persecution began in 2010 and the US government was working on sabotaging him back in 2008, so are you claiming he hasn’t been on their side since then? And if you’re claiming that he used to be an asset but got burned, why are you spending your energy running around telling people on the internet he’s an asset when he isn’t one anymore, and now his prosecution threatens press freedoms everywhere? If you oppose his extradition, why are you engaged in this behavior? Are you just interrupting an adult conversation that grownups are trying to have about an urgent matter, or is it something else? Did you run around telling everyone that Saddam used to be a CIA asset instead of protesting the Iraq invasion? Or do you believe this whole US prosecution is fake? If so, what is Assange getting out of it? What’s incentivizing him to comply at this point? What specifically is your claim about what’s happening?

These are just the sort of questions we live for here at Postflaviana. Let's see what we can do with this.

There's no doubt that the USG has been presenting at least an appearance of trying to sabotage Assange ever since 2008. And, he and his organization have been releasing information continually right up until his most recent major coup, the Vault 7 documents and code in 2017; and documents from the Vatican in just the last few months.

So I don't see how it's possible to argue that Assange was once a spook, but isn't any longer. We have to argue that the Vault 7 and Vatican documents are just as worthless and counterproductive as the rest of it.

Accordingly, the question what is Assange getting out of it? becomes the crux. How do we know that Assange has really been confined to one room in the embassy all these years? What if he has after-hours access to a gym and a library, how would we know? Could he be whisked out the basement door for vacations? How solid is the evidence that he's really in "failing health and chronic pain"?

Rick, I have to say that things are looking bad for the 'CIA Agent' theory. My guess is that all these facts about Assange's imprisonment are abundantly testified by multiple eyewitnesses that could even be interviewed by email.

Would the CIA treat one of their own so badly; and if so, how to count on his remaining loyal? Either he would have to have an unwavering faith in his ultimate reward at the Hidden Resort, or else his youthful MK-ULTRA conditioning must have been really powerful.

Are you just interrupting an adult conversation that grownups are trying to have about an urgent matter, or is it something else?
In view of how far-fetched all of this really is, I think this is the best question of all. But I'm not saying we (or you) need to throw in the towel here. This does call for a comprehensive theory about how all the Wikileaks documents are really favoring the status quo, and/or the ongoing divide and conquer dialectic.

Not a project I'm willing to take on.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I forgot to finish going through Caitlin's article.

My past experiences when engaging these types tells me not to expect any solid and thorough answers to my questions.
I’ve been at this commentary gig for about two and a half years, and during that time I’ve had people show up in my inbox and social media notifications warning me that everyone in anti-establishment circles is a CIA limited hangout. Literally everyone; you name a high-profile anti-establishment figure, and at one time or another I’ve received warnings from people that they are actually controlled opposition for a government agency.
This happens because for some people, paranoia is their only compass. They wind up in the same circles as WikiLeaks supporters because the lens of paranoia through which they perceive the world causes them to distrust the same power establishment and mass media that WikiLeaks supporters distrust, but beyond that the two groups are actually quite different. That same paranoia which causes them to view all the wrongdoers with suspicion causes them to view everyone else with suspicion as well.
Paranoia happens for a number of reasons, one of them being that people who aren’t clear on the reasons our society acts so crazy will start making up reasons, like the belief that everyone with a high profile is a covert CIA agent. If you can’t see clearly what’s going on you start making things up, which can cause paranoia to become your only guidance system.
Maybe this could inspire some useful introspection here? I've seen the sort of paranoia Caitlin describes, lead people to accept any number of questionable ideas, starting with Flat Earth. Generalized distrust of every high-profile person might be a good starting point, but not necessarily the end of analysis.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
So does Johnstone ever provide definitive proof that Assange is an innocent lamb? If not, it starts to appear that she protesteth too much, over what I consider to be becoming a distraction from the simple fact that the opposing narratives were put in place, somehow.

If there ever was a so-called Hidden Hand at work in Western history, then it would be in play now, and not be asleep at the wheel. Besides frequently seeing the sort of paranoia that Johnstone mentions, how many times have we seen various members of the so-called resistance insist that there is no such conspiracy, and that we're just witness to the ongoing spontaneous actions of variously aligned douchebags?

Not being a reader of hers, I suspect that she would have strong objections to our analyses, as one whopper variant of paranoia.

Sometimes (more often than not it appears) Truth (as Reality) is stranger than Fiction. Culture is what allows the various masses to be framed in an alternate reality. And one's particular culture framed reality is necessarily perceived as the only objective reality.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
So does Johnstone ever provide definitive proof that Assange is [innocent]?
A grand old American tradition is "innocent until proven guilty". And that's where the prior probabilities are: in my personal experience, most people are law-abiding and honest. So, the burden of proof that Assange is a CIA agent / limited hangout, should be on the person making that claim.

People who have spent a lot of time studying Assange's document releases, seem to feel that they're pretty important, and highly incriminating to the 'shepherd' class. In my book, that counts as 'evidence' that he's not a misinformation conduit.

I suspect that she would have strong objections to our analyses, as one whopper variant of paranoia.
As she says, she's not going to buy any analysis that says virtually every public figure is automatically assumed to be a spook. I hope we're not that paranoid? But, Johnstone certainly has a solid dose of healthy skepticism about conventional narratives.

I'm sure she mentioned the Caesar's Messiah movie favorably in a comment section to one of her blogs, but Google denies it, so I guess I'll never find it again. About 911, she says:

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/09/11/as-things-heat-up-in-idlib-remember-the-us-empire-has-a-history-with-false-flags/

Conspiracy buffs give me a hard time occasionally for not writing more about September 11; I guess when you have a following and talk about unauthorized narratives a lot it’s just something that’s expected of you. I don’t really have much useful to say about it though. Obviously there are so many gaping plot holes in the official story that the only thing holding it up are the authoritative commands of loud and aggressive empire loyalists insisting that we need to believe everything we’re told or we’re hurting the people who died on that day somehow, but fixating on it never seems to get things moving in a positive direction. Seems like all it ever gets is a bunch of people who already see it clearly nodding along, and everyone else freaking out like a bunch of tattletale children shrieking and pointing at a classmate who’s breaking the rules.
September 11 is such an aggressively protected part of the machine, not just by paid propagandists because so many neoconservative agendas were advanced by PNAC’s “new Pearl Harbor“, but by rank-and-file individuals because considering the implications of the official story being false can bring up a lot of psychological discomfort that many would rather avoid. It seems to me like a lot of wasted effort to keep bashing one’s head against the most heavily armored part of the establishment lie factory when there are others that are far less protected, and while the possibility of world war due to a false flag event in Syria is looming over us currently.
Possibly fertile ground for SSSM theory to take root?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
A grand old American tradition is "innocent until proven guilty". And that's where the prior probabilities are: in my personal experience, most people are law-abiding and honest. So, the burden of proof that Assange is a CIA agent / limited hangout, should be on the person making that claim.
This isn't a legal proceeding, American or otherwise. So, I still say that he is not proven guilty and not proven innocent.

People who have spent a lot of time studying Assange's document releases, seem to feel that they're pretty important, and highly incriminating to the 'shepherd' class. In my book, that counts as 'evidence' that he's not a misinformation conduit.
Yes, and in my book, it also counts as evidence that a possible front is establishing its cover story bona fides. as I said, the critical mass of humanity is blissfully ignorant or couldn't care less what the imperium does, as long as they get their bread and circus shows.

Possibly fertile ground for SSSM theory to take root?
I think it depends on what model she actually does accept. Otherwise, she would need to go to Postflavian bootcamp like everyone else. You have to break them down before building them up.

Interesting that the military sees the need to break down the soft civilian subculture in order to obtain the degree of compliance it considers necessary.

Take the last train to Clarksville
And I'll meet you at the station
You can be be here by four thirty
'Cause I've made your reservation
Don't be slow
Oh, no, no, no
Oh, no, no, no
'Cause I'm leavin' in the morning
And I must see you again
We'll have one more night together
'Til the morning brings my train

Cheeky monkeys.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Besides frequently seeing the sort of paranoia that Johnstone mentions, how many times have we seen various members of the so-called resistance insist that there is no such conspiracy, and that we're just witness to the ongoing spontaneous actions of variously aligned douchebags?
Johnstone has an answer to this. And since she's been kind enough to lift all copyright restrictions on her writings, I'm going to go ahead and copy her 2/11/19 article in full.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/02/11/how-to-tell-if-someone-is-controlled-opposition/

How To Tell If Someone Is Controlled Opposition
Every day in my article comments and social media I get people warning me that this or that journalist, activist or politician is “controlled opposition”, meaning someone who pretends to oppose the establishment while covertly serving it. These warnings usually come after I’ve shared or written about something a dissident figure has said or done, and are usually accompanied by an admonishment not to ever do so again lest I spread their malign influence. If you’ve been involved in any kind of anti-establishment activism for any length of time, you’ve probably encountered this yourself.​
Paranoia pervades dissident circles of all sorts, and it’s not entirely without merit, since establishment infiltration of political movements is the norm, not the exception. This article by Truthout documents multiple instances in which movements like the 1968 Chicago DNC protest and Peter Camejo’s 1976 anti-establishment presidential campaign were so heavily infiltrated by opaque government agencies that one out of every six people involved in them were secretly working for the feds. This trend of infiltration is known to have continued into the current day with movements like Occupyand Black Lives Matter, and we’d be ignorant not to assume that this has been at least as rampant in online circles where people organize and disseminate ideas and information.​
So it’s understandable that people are extremely vigilant about prominent figures in dissident circles, and it’s understandable that people feel paranoid. Over and over again we see shining anti-establishment movements fizzle or rendered impotent, often seemingly with the help of people we once trusted, and it’s hard not to get frustrated and become suspicious of anyone who starts shining bright in antiwar, leftist, or other dissident circles.​
The trouble with this paranoia and suspicion is that it doesn’t seem to function with any kind of intelligence. I have received such “controlled opposition” warnings about pretty much every prominent dissident figure in the English-speaking world at one time or another, and if I believed them all there’d be no one in the world whose words I could share or write about, including my own. I myself have been accused at different times of being a “plant” for the CIA, the Russians, Assad, the Chinese Communist Party, the Iranian mullahs, the alt-right, Trump, Pyongyang, and the Palestinians, which if all true would make me a very busy girl indeed. Since I know I’m not a plant for anybody, I know for myself that such accusations don’t come from a place of insight with any degree of reliability, and I’ve therefore had to find my own way to navigate this confusing landscape.​
So since I know that infiltration and manipulation happens, but I don’t find other people’s whisperings about “controlled opposition” useful, how do I figure out who’s trustworthy and who isn’t? How do I figure out who it’s safe to cite in my work and who to avoid? How do I separate the fool’s gold from the genuine article? The shit from the Shinola?​
Here is my answer: I don’t.​
I spend no mental energy whatsoever concerning myself with who may or may not be a secret pro-establishment influencer, and for good reason. There’s no way to know for sure if an individual is secretly scheming to sheep dog the populace into support for the status quo, and as long as government agencies remain opaque and unaccountable there will never be a way to know who might be secretly working for them. What I can know is (A) what I’ve learned about the world, (B) the ways the political/media class is lying about what I know about the world, and (C) when someone says something which highlights those lies. I therefore pay attention solely to the message, and no attention to what may or may not be the hidden underlying agenda of the messenger.​
In other words, if someone says something which disrupts establishment narratives, I help elevate what they’re saying in that specific instance. I do this not because I know that the speaker is legit and uncorrupted, but because their message in that moment is worthy of elevation. You can navigate the entire political/media landscape in this way.​
Since society is made of narrative and power ultimately rests in the hands of those who are able to control those narratives, it makes no sense to fixate on individuals and it makes perfect sense to focus on narrative. What narratives are being pushed by those in power? How are those narratives being disrupted, undermined and debunked by things that are being said by dissident voices? This is the most effective lens through which to view the battle against the unelected power establishment which is crushing us all to death, not some childish fixation on who should or shouldn’t be our hero.​
Have no heroes. Trust nobody but your own inner sense-maker. If someone says something that disrupts establishment narratives based on what you understand those narratives to be, go ahead and help throw what they’re saying into the gears of the machine. Don’t make a religion out of it, don’t get attached to it, just use it as a weapon to attack the narrative matrix.​
This by the way is also a useful lens to look through in spiritual development, if you’re into that sort of thing. When you enter spiritual circles concerned with enlightenment, you’ll see all sorts of debates about what teachers are really enlightened and which ones are just pretending, and these conversations mimic precisely the exact kinds of debates you’ll see in marginalized political circles about who’s the real deal and who’s controlled opposition. But the truth is there’s no way to know with certainty what’s going on in someone else’s head, and the best thing to do is to stop concerning yourself with who has and has not attained some special realization or whatever and just focus on what they’re saying. If a spiritual teacher says something which helps you notice something you’d never noticed before about consciousness or perception, then use what they said and maybe stick around to see if they have anything else useful to say. If not, move on.​
There’s no reason to worry about what journalists, activists and politicians are coming from a place of authenticity if you know yourself to be coming from a place of authenticity. As you learn more about the world and get better at distinguishing fact from narrative, you will get better and better at seeing the narrative matrix clearly, and you’ll come to see all the things that are being said about what’s going on in the world as weapons in the battle of narrative control. Pick up whatever weapons seem useful to you and use them in whatever ways they’ll be useful, without wasting energy concerning yourself with the individuals who created them. Call the bullshit what it is and use the truth for what it is.​
Or maybe I’m fulla shit! Maybe I myself am being paid to say these things by some powerful influencer; you can’t know for sure. All you can know is what’s useful for you. If you really find it useful to try and organize individual dissident figures into “hero” and “controlled opposition” boxes, if that genuinely helps you take apart the system that’s hurting us all, you’d know that better than I would. But if you find what I’m saying here useful, pick it up and add it to your toolbox.​
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
There’s no way to know for sure if an individual is secretly scheming to sheep dog the populace into support for the status quo, and as long as government agencies remain opaque and unaccountable there will never be a way to know who might be secretly working for them.
'Sheepdog', not 'sheep dog'.

Well, in any case, perhaps she's got a start on the SSSM? In order for there to be a sheepdog, there has to be sheep ... and at least one shepherd, albeit she used 'sheepdog' as a verb. Still, if one can engage in metaphorical 'sheepdogging', one might also be considered a 'sheepdog'.

I think her suggestion makes good sense. What I take away from it, regarding Assange, is that we can celebrate the data in the data dumps that benefit us, but we can indeed leave Assange's true nature up in the air, like I've been saying. Be in love with the data, not the messenger. Sometimes it's good that we take our own advice, when that advice is good.

There had to be a Wikileaks there, as a trusted (to many) brand, in order for Trump to employ so frequently in the trumped-up Trump-Hillary dialectic. Agent Orange Leaks "loves Wikileaks!!!"

Imagine if we place Caitlin's analytical lens from the POV of a Zionist towards the tableau of Israel. Such would celebrate the creation of modern Israel while allowing themselve(s) to sweep poor liddle Adolf's contributions 'under the rig' [sic - I was going to type 'rug' but I fell in love with my typo].

Israel is what's there, just worry about Israel, not on who helped drive the 'narrative' to enable its formation. Besides Hitler (and/or his narrative of 'struggles' for muggles) was agin the Jews, ... so we can summarily dismiss his 'contribution' to the formation of Israel, right? But, maybe false messiah Hitler was agin the Jews, so that he could enable the future Third Temple, the stepping stone for the real apocalyptic script, a religious form of 'narrative' binding too many frothing sheep?

Most every 'sane' person knows and accepts the official narrative about Hitler and his motivations. Thus the focus of debate is about things like whether or not the Holocaust occurred or not, and not on whether or not an accurate understanding of prior motivations and other 'obscured' circumstances might form a better guide as to why "the past is prologue".
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
There had to be a Wikileaks there, as a trusted (to many) brand, in order for Trump to employ so frequently in the trumped-up Trump-Hillary dialectic.
This is an important point, that Wikileaks was a "trusted brand" to many.

When "the Republic" was more intact than it is now, an Ellsberg could go directly to the New York Times with his Pentagon Papers, and reasonably expect that they would publish it. But now, a potential leaker would get caught in endless rounds of review and evaluation, with much less prospect that anything would emerge.

Going to Wikileaks, a whistleblower would get the benefit of their network of contacts. The Tarpley article, and Assange's mentor John Young, were deeply critical of Assange's efforts to develop working relationships with mass media. But perhaps this was a crucial aspect of their success, both in attracting content from whistleblowers, and in their ability to get the material widely published and disseminated. If indeed they raised millions of dollars to spend on publicity, apparently the money was well spent.

But it's also true that Wikileaks' high profile makes them an attractive target for manipulation or takeover by the 'shepherds', even if indeed they weren't somehow in control of the project from the very beginning. And that same popularity would make Assange a highly desirable partner for any insider with an agenda to be served up in conjunction with carefully vetted or even fake documents.

we can indeed leave Assange's true nature up in the air
Certainly one can't take the bona fides of any leaked data for granted. And from the point of view of a potential whistleblower, it would be nice to have two or more competitive agencies to choose from, instead of having Wikileaks so dominant in the field.

But, you haven't answered Caitlin Johnstone's specific questions about Assange's situation:

Why is a CIA/Mossad agent/asset/limited hangout/whatever being rewarded for his loyal service with a stay in Belmarsh Prison awaiting US extradition? How does that work, specifically? Are you claiming that he was an asset that got “burned”? If so, when did this happen? Was he still an asset while he was languishing in the embassy in failing health and chronic pain? Or was it before then?

There's just too much highly credible testimony and film footage in the public record, for us to argue that Assange is really being pampered at some hidden resort, and that this torture scenario isn't genuinely unfolding. And he's continued producing landmark journalism throughout most of the period that he's been under such adverse conditions.

And the ongoing takedown of Assange, and the tarring and feathering of his 'brand', is tremendously damaging not only to Wikileaks but also to any news organization's ability to publish this sort of material. The chilling effect is fundamentally the motive behind Assange's imprisonment. And so I'm back to where I started: that this takedown needs to be unconditionally opposed.

the critical mass of humanity is blissfully ignorant or couldn't care less what the imperium does, as long as they get their bread and circus shows.
This agrees with another recent Caitlin Johnstone piece, where she said that "nothing works". Voting hasn't worked, organizing hasn't worked, and blogging hasn't worked. And sadly, publication of highly incriminating inside information hasn't worked (yet) either.

Does this mean that we just cynically give up doing anything, waiting for some world-saving idea to come along? We begin to sound like we're just jealous of Assange's great accomplishments.

I'm going to finish here with a link to an article that gives a very extensive review of the various Wikileaks information releases over the years, and which especially debunks Gordon Duff's idea that these materials are never damaging to Israel.

https://israelpalestinenews.org/julian-assange-exposed-the-crimes-of-powerful-actors-including-israel/

Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange is incarcerated in a UK prison that has been called “Britain’s Guantanamo.” His crime was exposing actions the US government, the media, the Democratic–Clinton machine, Israel, and others wanted kept hidden, including war crimes and torture.
By Alison Weir
Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange has finally been imprisoned, an objective long sought by powerful parties he helped to expose over the past dozen years.
Assange’s “crime” was revealing deep, embarrassing, sometimes deadly, malfeasance by numerous actors, including the U.S. government, the media, the Democratic Party-Clinton machine, and Israel.
Wikileaks revealed the U.S. government’s cover up of torture, cruelty, the killing of civilians, spying on its own citizens and others. It exposed Democratic Party cheating and manipulation, the fraudulence of “Russiagate.” It unmasked Israeli plans to keep Gaza on the brink of collapse, to use violence against Palestinian nonviolence, to make war upon civilians. All of this will be detailed below.
Without Wikileaks’ exposés, many of these actions would quite likely have remained hidden from the general public, as the perpetrators hoped.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
But, you haven't answered Caitlin Johnstone's specific questions about Assange's situation:

Why is a CIA/Mossad agent/asset/limited hangout/whatever being rewarded for his loyal service with a stay in Belmarsh Prison awaiting US extradition? How does that work, specifically? Are you claiming that he was an asset that got “burned”? If so, when did this happen? Was he still an asset while he was languishing in the embassy in failing health and chronic pain? Or was it before then?
There's just too much highly credible testimony and film footage in the public record, for us to argue that Assange is really being pampered at some hidden resort, and that this torture scenario isn't genuinely unfolding. And he's continued producing landmark journalism throughout most of the period that he's been under such adverse conditions.
The Ecuadorian embassy seemed like better digs than most prisons, and maybe they had underground tunnels to the Vatican and the White House? o_O

I've never been outside of Belmarsh Prison much less inspected inside of it, so I can't answer whether they have a presidential suite or not, or tunnels to the Vatican of the White House. o_O

Or maybe, as I've allowed, Assange and Wikileaks were indeed cuckholded. My open-minded position stands until I'm shown some real evidence one way or the other.

It [Wikileaks] unmasked Israeli plans to keep Gaza on the brink of collapse, to use violence against Palestinian nonviolence, to make war upon civilians.
If the modern shibboleth state of Israel was indeed created as part of a relatively long term plan to foment the Futurist Second Coming, then any 'exposing' of 'Jewish', 'Zionist' malfeasance only serves to feed the millenniums old False Dialectic and help Justify the apocalyptic return of Jesus, aka Isa. As such, the peeps aren't just going to stand around and let Jesus do all the ass kicking, the Easter peeps want to join Jesus' army and kick ass in his name.

Similarly, one might propose that the Wikileaks exposure of such as USA 'Deep State' actors goes more to help the destruction of the current global Boss, the 'degraded' Republic, and thus Prepare the Way for the new Prince of Peace, the New Boss, and his imperial kingdom, wherever the new capitol is going to be. Almost always, in these transitions the seeming capitol is relocated.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
As Assange was growing up, his mother became affiliated with an Australian cult run by Ann Hamilton-Byrne. The cult is said to have subjected young children to LSD and other drugs. Tarpley claims that the cult was affiliated with MK-ULTRA. Assange's mother was also a nomad, and Julian attended 37 different schools by the time he was 16.
I've been trying to track this down. Webster Tarpley talks about it in this video, starting at about 26:00.


But, you'll notice that he gives Wikipedia as his only source. The statement currently existing in the Wikipedia article is this one sentence: "Christine and Brett Assange divorced about 1979. Christine Assange then became involved with Leif Meynell, also known as Leif Hamilton, a member of Australian cult The Family, with whom she had a son before the couple broke up in 1982." Christine is Julian's mother, and Brett was his stepfather who cared for him from ages 1 through 8.

I haven't searched through all versions of the Wikipedia article, but this same exact sentence was there in 2015, and more or less the same in 2011. The item is sourced to Julian Assange's own (unauthorized) autobiography, and two secondary sources based on that primary source, as per Wikipedia policy. Thus, as far as I can find: if Julian Assange himself hadn't told us about this, we wouldn't know at all.

Accompanying Tarpley's narration, there are pictures of kids in the Hamilton-Byrne cult, with one of the kids circled and identified as the young Julian Assange. But, the images are low resolution and the circled kid could be anybody. It all seems to be a fanciful extrapolation. There's no supporting evidence that I can find.

From Assange's autobiography:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/julian-assange-we-just-kept-moving-2359423.html

My own father was missing from my life, and only became part of it again when I was grown up. But it meant that Brett Assange was the male figure I related to, the good father. Brett was one of those cool 1970s people who were into guitars and everything that went with the music scene. I've got his name – Assange – an unusual one which comes from Mr Sang, or ah-sang in Cantonese: his great-great-great-grandfather was a Taiwanese pirate. Brett and my mother divorced when I was nine. He had been good to me, and was good in general, but not so good to himself, and the end of their relationship represents the end of a kind of innocence in my life.
My stepfather's place in our family was usurped by a man called Leif Meynell. I remember he had shoulder-length blond hair and was quite good-looking; a high forehead, and the characteristic dimpled white mark of a smallpox injection on his arm. From the darkness at his roots, it was obvious he bleached his hair. And one time I looked in his wallet and saw that all his cards were in different names. He was some sort of musician and played the guitar. But mainly he was a kind of ghost and a threatening mystery to us.
I was opposed to him from the start. Perhaps that's normal, for a boy to resist a man like that, or any man, in fact, who appears to be usurping his father or stepfather. Leif didn't live with us, though my mother must have been besotted with him at first. But whatever her feeling for him was, it didn't last. She would see him off, but he had this ability to turn up and pretend it was otherwise. Eventually, it was a matter of us escaping from him. We would cross the country and only then suffer this sinister realisation that he had found us. He'd suddenly be back in our lives and this grew to be very heavy. He had this brilliant ability to insinuate himself. He punched me in the face once and my nose bled. Another time, I pulled a knife on him, told him to keep back from me; but the relationship with him wasn't about physical abuse. It was about a certain psychological power he sought to have over us.
In 1980, my mother became pregnant by Leif and, seeing the possible impact of my opposition, he tried at first to be reasonable, pointing out that he was now the father of my brother and that my mother wanted him around. "But if you ever don't want me around," he said, "then I'll leave immediately." He wanted to stay with us, and did, for a time, but I was conscious of wanting to look after my mother and the baby.
My mother was in love with Leif. And I was too young to understand what sexual love was all about. I just knew that he wasn't my father and that he was a sinister presence. He tried, again and again, to make the case that I should not reject him and he had this thing with my mother and he was my brother's father and everything. But a time came when I told him I no longer accepted this deal. He had lied to us in a way that I hadn't known adults could lie. I remember he once said all ugly people should be killed. He beat my mother from time to time, and you felt he might be capable of just about anything. I wanted him to leave, as he had promised me he would, but he denied that the conversation had ever happened.
And so we started moving. Nomadism suits some people; it suits some people's situations. We just kept moving because that's what we did: my mother had work in a new town and we would find a house there. Simple as that. Except that the moving in these years, because of Leif, had a degree of hysteria attached, and that, in a sense, took all the simplicity away and replaced it with fear. It would take time for us to understand what the position was, and it was this: Leif Meynell was a member of an Australian cult called The Family. On reflection, I can now see that his obsessional nature derived from that, as well as his egocentricity and his dark sense of control.
The Family was founded by a woman called Anne Hamilton-Byrne in the mid-1960s. It started in the mountains north of Melbourne, where they meditated, had meetings and sessions where they used LSD. The basic notion was that Anne happened to be a reincarnation of Jesus Christ, but with elements of Eastern philosophy thrown in, such that her followers beheld a karmic deity obsessed with cleansing their souls. Anne prophesied the end of the world, arguing, quite comically, though not to her, that only the people in the Dandenong Ranges of mountains east of Melbourne would survive.
Leif Meynell was part of that cult. And everything he did relating to us was informed by his association with The Family. It was so tiring. Just moving all the time. Being on the run. The very last time, we got some intelligence that Leif was drawing close; they told us he was near us in the hills outside Melbourne. My brother and I showed a lot of resistance that final time: we just couldn't bear the idea of grabbing our things again and dashing for the door. As a bribe, my mother and I told my little brother he could take his prized rooster, a Rhode Island Red, a very tall, proud, strong-looking bird, and also an extremely loud one. To match that, I insisted on taking my two-storey beehive. Picture the scene: a by-now hysterical mother and her two children, along with the pride of their menagerie, stuffed into a regular station wagon and heading up the dirt track. On the run, we learnt a little bushcraft. We learnt how to get by on very little money and not enough normality. Being unsettled was our normality and we became good at it.
My mother changed her name. We worked out that Leif must have had contacts within the social security administration – that was how The Family is thought to have worked – so it seemed best to change the names that would be held inside the government computer system. But he was quite a gifted talker and would get friends to supply him with information about our whereabouts and he would always catch up. It was a private investigator who eventually came and told us about his close relationship with the Anne Hamilton-Byrne cult. We were living in Fern Tree Gully, and I was now 16 years old. We'd come to the end of the road. Also, I was feeling almost a man myself and was ready to front-up to him. Masculinity and its discontents could be addressed here, but let's just say I knew I could waste him and he appeared to know it, too. He was lurking round the bounds of the house and I walked over and told him to fuck off. It was the first and the last time, and something in the way I said it ensured that we would never see him again.
The rumor that Julian Assange was in the cult, was repeated in a recent Netflix film. Assange's mother Christine refutes the story, here:

https://www.news.com.au/national/julian-assanges-mother-tells-of-health-fears-for-wikileaks-founder/news-story/9765b55677dfe8ca10507788c03d4303

Events surrounding the massive 2010 data release are portrayed in a new movie, The Fifth Estate, which Ms Assange said repeated two crucial factual inaccuracies that Julian dyed his hair white and was part of a cult as a child.
"Julian has never lived in a cult and his family has never lived in a cult," Ms Assange said.
"I did discuss it with Julian when he was a teenager that someone had mentioned that his brother's father may have been involved with a cult, but it was a speculative comment and it was never proven.
"I was concerned (about it at the time) but it was never proven. And now it's been blown out of all proportion and sensationalised to sell movies and promote articles."
She said her son's hair colour was the result of Irish genes, which were responsible for early-onset grey hair, including "my own stepmother-in-law, who was of Irish descent and went grey at 24".
"When people put inaccuracies into movies and articles about people who are currently living ... it's a form of smearing. And that person then has to live in their world with those inaccuracies about them and their family," Ms Assange said.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The Ecuadorian embassy seemed like better digs than most prisons, and maybe they had underground tunnels to the Vatican and the White House?
Regarding conditions in the Ecuadorian embassy, see this article:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/julian-assange-socialists-and-liberals-must-now-choose-their-side/

Craig Murray says he visited Assange 'many times' and also provides a link to a description of a visit by Cassandra Fairbanks. They describe a situation very much like a prison.

I've never been outside of Belmarsh Prison much less inspected inside of it, so I can't answer whether they have a presidential suite or not, or tunnels to the Vatican of the White House.
There's not a lot of recent news, but here is a characterization from 2004:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3714864.stm

In December 2001 nine foreign nationals were removed from their families by police and taken to Belmarsh Prison in south east London. They have been held there ever since and still do not know why.
The detainees are unable to see the intelligence evidence against them and are confined to their cells for up to 22 hours a day. Their solicitors say they have been "entombed in concrete".
The men are being held under anti-terror laws bought in following September 11, which allow the home secretary to detain without trial foreign nationals he suspects of terrorism, but cannot deport because it would endanger their life.
To date a total of 17 foreigners have been detained, 11 of whom are still being held - mainly in Belmarsh. It has prompted human rights organisations to brand it "a Guantanamo in our own back yard".
'Faceless people'
"The similarities are striking and appalling," says human rights organisation Liberty.
"The lack of rights afforded to the men in both places undermines fundamental civil liberties."
The conditions the detainees are kept under at Belmarsh have been likened to the extreme regime at the US military prison in Cuba, where more than 600 detainees - including four Britons - have been held following the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.
This is something the Home Office has denied, saying the prisoners are being treated well.
"The men are held in small cells for 22 hours a day, how is that proper treatment?" says Amnesty International.
"We have heard reports of inadequate health care, restricted access to legal advice, to the outside world and to practising their religion. The conditions are cruel, inhuman and degrading. The parallels with Guantanamo Bay are stark."
My open-minded position stands until I'm shown some real evidence one way or the other.
Open mindedness isn't a license to make up any wild thing you want.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Open mindedness isn't a license to make up any wild thing you want.
Like what did I make up? That Assange might be innocent? You and Johnstone are the ones trying to prove a negative.

Interesting that the Ecuadoreans run a virtual prison in their London embassy. I wonder what Randy Credico said about that, if anything?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The DOJ issued an additional indictment against Assange last Thurs. (May 23, 2019) charging him with violating the Espionage Act by publishing classified information. The Real News Network published an interview with Daniel Ellsberg, who said:

https://therealnews.com/stories/daniel-ellsberg-on-julian-assanges-espionage-charges

...apparently they had to bring the charges now rather than after he is back in the States, which was what I had expected, because they have to tell Britain, in deciding whether to extradite him to the U.S. or not, the full scale of the charges that he would be facing. In particular, both Sweden and the U.S., I think, are reluctant to extradite people on charges that hold the death penalty. That’s true I think for Sweden in particular, which is also trying to extradite him. They’re not going to charge him with the death penalty. Just a life sentence, as I was facing.
This does, however, complicate somewhat their extradition. And I thought that Trump would hold off on declaring war on the press until the extradition matter had been settled. But no, the declaration of war came today. This is a historic day, and a very challenging one for American democracy.
Ellsberg is referring here to the Law of Specialty, which we had discussed earlier in this thread. And I made the argument at the time, as Ellsberg says he had also been expecting, that the US could simplify its extradition case against Assange by waiting until he was in the US, before bringing the espionage charges.

So: why now? Is it possible that the Trump administration is desperately trying to suppress new leaks of damaging information? Is he firing this warning shot across the bow, putting the press on notice that publication of information damaging to the Trump administration will not be tolerated, in hopes of protecting himself? Or, perhaps Trump is feeling confident that the UK will extradite Assange to the US. Indeed, perhaps the additional charges will help insure that Assange gets extradited to the US first, in preference to Sweden.

Or on the other hand, perhaps this will unfold as a fiasco for Trump. Perhaps the extradition effort will fail, now that its true intent is revealed.

Caitlin Johnstone notes that Assange has suddenly acquired a number of supporters, including Rachel Maddow and more:

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/05/24/professional-assange-smearers-finally-realize-his-fate-is-tied-to-theirs/

If the resting smugfaced apex of liberal psychosis is getting this one right, then many more will surely follow. And indeed, many already are. In addition to Hayes’ coverage of the story, MSNBC’s Ari Melber also did a segment harshly criticizing the implications of Trump administration’s new charges. We’re seeing multiple segments from CNN about the grave dangers of the legal precedent that is being set with the superseding indictment, as well as urgent warnings about the new charges from major publications like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Guardian. The outlets which have been smearing Assange relentlessly are now finding themselves forced to defend him.
But, as Ellsberg goes on to say, there's nothing much anyone can do about this once Assange is in the US.

...if the current court fairly judges the intent and effect of the First Amendment, this case would be dropped. As we all know, we can’t count on that. And a 5-4 decision now by this Supreme Court is probably another reason why Trump has gone further in attacking the First Amendment than any previous president, because he has an unprecedented court.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
So: why now? Is it possible that the Trump administration is desperately trying to suppress new leaks of damaging information? Is he firing this warning shot across the bow, putting the press on notice that publication of information damaging to the Trump administration will not be tolerated, in hopes of protecting himself? Or, perhaps Trump is feeling confident that the UK will extradite Assange to the US. Indeed, perhaps the additional charges will help insure that Assange gets extradited to the US first, in preference to Sweden.

Or on the other hand, perhaps this will unfold as a fiasco for Trump. Perhaps the extradition effort will fail, now that its true intent is revealed.
The timing is also interesting in light of Agent Orange Leaks's most recent rants about specifically named "treasonous" members of the intel community and then siccing William Barr on them. And here that legally the capital crime of 'treason' requires there to be an official war doesn't negate the inflammatory nature of doing so, especially in the context his Deep State narrative, to his MAGAtroids.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Assange is let off the hook in one regard, leaving the case which can impact journalistic First Amendment rights.
The Justice Department has decided not to charge Julian Assange for his role in exposing some of the CIA’s most secret spying tools, according to a U.S. official and two other people familiar with the case.
It’s a move that has surprised national security experts and some former officials, given prosecutors’ recent decision to aggressively go after the WikiLeaks founder on more controversial Espionage Act charges that some legal experts said would not hold up in court. The decision also means that Assange will not face punishment for publishing one of the CIA’s most potent arsenals of digital code used to hack devices, dubbed Vault 7. The leak — one of the most devastating in CIA history — not only essentially rendered those tools useless for the CIA, it gave foreign spies and rogue hackers access to them.
Prosecutors were stymied by several factors. ...
 
Top