JOIN TEAM VT | SIGN UP DAILY NEWSLETTER
VETERANS TODAY ON : FACEBOOK | TWITTER | VT FORUM
|

VT STAFF: ZIONIST MINDCONTROL – The Case Against Wikileaks, Part I

IS WIKILEAKS “SUBLIMINAL PREPPING” BY AN INTELLIGENCE AGENCY?

By Lila Rajiva STAFF WRITER

(Part II of this ongoing series is now also available at Veterans Today).


Let me first say that harassing Julian Assange for having published leaked government documents is completely wrong. There’s no evidence so far that anyone has been injured directly because of the leaks. National security (even as understood by mainstream statists) hasn’t been damaged. As for the embarrassment some officials might be feeling, tough. Governments routinely subject their citizens to much worse for no valid reason.  As for diplomacy, there’s none worth the name.  In high office, all we have are blackmailers, bullies, and bandits. Some outing and shaming of their public actions is in order. Exposing the crimes and blunders of the state is not only a right of citizens, but a duty.

As enough people have argued, Assange is obviously not guilty of treason, since he’s not a citizen of the US. And, although some people think he’s guilty of espionage, that’s doesn’t seem true either.  He didn’t hack any state computer or blow any agent’s cover to get his information. It was mostly given to him voluntarily by whistle-blowers and leakers.  All he did was publish it. And, since New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), US law has protected the right of publishers to publish politically sensitive information without “prior restraints,” as long as it doesn’t cause “grave and irreparable damage” to the public.

Having said that, though, I must admit that for almost a year now, as I’ve blogged, I’ve found the whole Wikileaks operation strange, if not a bit fishy. Let me recount the ways.

1. Most of the documents seems to cover material already fairly well-known to informed people.  The new material is mostly embarrassing stuff, nothing truly revelatory, say dozens of critics. Now, mainstream critics might just be trying to do damage control, but why would respected alternative investigators who are outspoken critics of war and the police state, people like Wayne Madsen or co-founder John Young or Chris Floyd, among many others, also come to that conclusion? [Floyd seems to have "gone wobbly" since then].

By Assange’s own account in the  The Australian, here are the most important revelations from Wikileaks:

“The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran ‘s nuclear program stopped by any means available.

Britain’s Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect “US interests”.

Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.

The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.”

Now, these disclosures would be nothing to scoff at on any activist’s resume.  But is Assange telling us anything  we didn’t already know? What has really been added so far except specifics and details? Then why are the revelations being called a new 9-11 ?

2. An overblown media story is not the only difficulty with Wikileaks.

Consider that in all this welter of damaging information, whatever you think of it, there’s nothing that really damages Israel.

Justin Raimondo, a right-wing libertarian, has tried to suggest there is. He says there’s material in Wikileaks that reveals the sinister activities of the Israeli mafia. Big deal. Everyone knows the Israeli mafia is everywhere, not just in Israel. The Russian mafia is a euphemism for the Russian and Ukrainian Jewish mafia, which has strong ties to Israel. The Colombian drug trade is run by this mafia. So is the Eastern European sex trade. According to Mark Mitchell, Wall Street is run by it. A leak about the world’s most dangerous mafia, that everyone already knows about, doesn’t really damage Israeli foreign policy, does it? It even carries a good guy flavor about it. [Added: No criticism is intended of Raimondo's intentions or his work, which I much admire and regularly read. I just think he's wrong on this one].

That means what we really have in Wikileaks is a document dump slanted a particular way. So says at least one establishment figure, Zbigniew Brzezinski,  former National Security Advisor for President Carter. Say what you will about him, Brzezinski, master-mind of the policy of luring the Soviet Union to its destruction in Afghanistan, is nobody’s fool. He  spots the hand of an intelligence agency in all this.

Could this be a calculated subliminal “prepping” of the collective pysche by a state intelligence outfit, masquerading as an expose of states?

3. Now comes a report that Julian Assange cut a deal with Israeli officials to keep anything damaging to Israel out of  the revelations. [Update, January 6, 2010: Daniel Domscheit Berg has since denied that he ever said anything about such a deal to the newspapers that were carrying this story].

I don’t know how well-sourced or credible this report is. But then there’s also Assange’s citation of  Benjamin Netanyahu, the hawkish Israeli prime minister who’s praised Wikileaks. And there’s Assange’s statement in The Australian crediting Rupert Murdoch, a hard-line Zionist and one of the biggest promoters of war with Iraq, as his inspiration. That alone should make people think twice . It’s not just that Israel isn’t damaged by Wikileaks. A lot of the material on the site actually helps Israel’s global objectives.  We now know that neighboring Arab states are alarmed by the idea of a nuclear Iran. We learn that the Saudi rulers are in bed with the Israeli government and are thoroughly corrupt. Pakistan is treacherous and a threat. There’s a hornet’s nest of terror in South India. This is news? And even if you think it is, who benefits?

Doesn’t all this simply amplify Israel’s hardline attitude to the Islamic world and justify the recent introduction of the biometric ID into India, Afghanistan, and the Af-Pak border? Don’t the revelations reflect most poorly on the Arab states and on America, but not on Israel? Don’t they channel attention away from the global economic collapse master-minded by Zionist financiers and their supremo, the Federal Reserve? Don’t they redirect toward the US anger that was previously directed at Israel, for the slaughter in Gaza, for the massacre on the Mavi Marmara, and for the AIPAC espionage case?  Gordon Duff, at Veterans Today thinks so.  Even liberal commentator Juan Cole writes that Assange is being tarred and feathered for giving to the public what AIPAC routinely gives to Israel.

And what is the ultimate result? Israel now claims that the US is too distracted to broker a deal on settlements.

Again, who benefits from that? Israeli hard-liners, of course.

4.  But maybe all this is just the price Assange has to pay to get wide coverage in the Western mainstream, largely dominated by Zionist editors, writers, and publishers?

Maybe.

Is it also part of the price that he has to bash the 9-11 movement? If you’re against empire and exploitation, as Assange says he is, then shouldn’t you be interested in uncovering the truth about the attack that was the explicit trigger for the unjust war on Iraq, the global war on terror, Homeland Security, and every police state measure since?

And if you’re not, what’s your excuse?

It’s not just that Assange is not interested in 9-11. He’s gone out of his way to mock people who’ve devoted countless unpaid hours of work to investigate it, with none of the media attention that follows every step Assange takes.

5. And that brings me to my fifth point. The fate of whistle-blowers and tellers of dangerous truth is rarely rock-star celebrity. Count them. Mordechai Vanunu, who exposed Israel’s nuclear program – imprisoned for nearly 20 years. Gary Webb, who exposed the CIA connection to the distribution of crack cocaine in the US –  probably murdered. Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, who criticized Putin’s policies in Chechnya – assassinated. Lebanese journalists Samir Qassir and Gebran Tueni, who criticized the Syrian government – killed in car bombings. In 90% of such cases, says the Committee to Protect Journalists, the killers are never brought to justice. Yet, Assange, “the most dangerous man in Cyberspace,” according to the faux-alternative magazine Rolling Stone, lives to tell the tale of his persecution from the cover of Time magazine and the podium of TED conferences, weighted down with awards and honors from such establishment worthies as  The EconomistThe New Statesman, and Amnesty International.

And now he is the center of an international man-hunt. Here too, the claims are bizarre. If Wikileaks hasn’t put lives at risk or seriously damaged “national security,” by even the government’s own account, what to make of all these feverish cries for prosecution under the espionage act, for imprisonment and torture, even for execution? Are they for real, or does any one else detect an element of theater?  The Wikileaks disclosures have been called cyber-terrorism by many. When before have we seen an international man-hunt for a rag-tag band of terrorists headed up by a charismatic leader with a striking appearance and a personal life shrouded in mystery? Now we have Osama-bin-Assange and Al-Wikileaks at war with Joe Lieberman and Sarah Palin, on one hand, and cheered on by David Frum, on the other. Notice that Frum points out that the disclosures actually support George Bush’s rationale for invading Iraq.

This is box-office gold. As some wide-awake journalist has noted, the big winner in all this is the establishment media. Before, it had one foot in the grave. Deservedly. Now it is a  “truth-teller.” Readership is up, resurrected by proxy. And the major alternative press, the foundation activists, are bolstering the conclusions of the New York Times. How convenient.

I dearly wish Julian Assange were exactly as he seems – a brilliant iconoclast delivering the death blow to imperialism. But my memory is not so dim.  I remember another media circus besides the one around Osama. I recall the mass adulation of  a man who exuded brilliance, youth, hope, and salvation. That was in 2008, and he was a young law professor from Chicago. How did that turn out?

6.  Then again, if Assange’s message is so subversive to the state, why are the state’s most reliable mouthpieces plastering his message everywhere? Why did Assange himself choose the New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel for his initial exposes? These are left-center outlets, statist to the core.  And Assange, the self-proclaimed libertarian chooses them? Perhaps, one could argue, the left-center is where the most powerful and influential media organs are located. Assange is just being a savvy marketer in picking those outlets.

Perhaps.

But perhaps not.

Perhaps, instead, he could have thrown in one libertarian or conservative newspaper, at least, to show even- handedness? How hard would it have been to send material to, say, the Independent?

7. But he didn’t, so again I ask you,  how libertarian can he really be? And if he isn’t a libertarian, why does he go out of his way to proclaim he is? There’s nothing wrong, after all, with  being a socialist or even a communist, at least in most places outside the US. Why doesn’t Assange just declare himself a left-wing peacenik and leave it at that?

Ah, now things get even more interesting. Dig into Assange’s writings -  most of it very engaging and thoughtful –  and contradictions emerge.

On June 18, 2006, he writes:

“Rights are freedoms of action that are known to be enforceable. Consequently there are no rights without beliefs about the future effects of behavior. Unenforcable general rights exist only insofar as they are argumentation that may one day yield enforcement. Hence the Divine Right of Kings, the right of way, mining rights, conjugal rights, property rights, and copyright. The decision as to what should be enforced and what may be ignored is political. This does not mean that rights are unimportant, but rather, that politics (the societal control of freedom) is so important as to subsume rights.”

I will repeat that. Assange places societal control above the exercise of rights.

This is not libertarian. And it’s not an isolated statement. It’s repeated elsewhere.

“Technical people, good at stacking houses of abstract cards

often look at the law and see rules, but this is a shadow, for law hangs

from the boughs of politics, that branch of behavior involved with the

societal control of freedom of action. Always consider the real politik

of law; who will push for change and who will resist.”

And then about global warming (Assange seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming), he says this:

“The bottom line is, as Benford notes, “we’re going to have to run this planet.”

Some libertarianism.

One critic has pointed out that at the core of Assange’s philosophy is not openness and freedom so much as a left-leaning concern with “justice.” Nothing wrong with that either. So why the dress-up in American-style libertarianism? At whom is the repackaging, if it is that, directed?

Authoritarianism emerges also in Assange’s own work at Wikileaks, where he is technically the chief editor and spokesman.

His associates complain of egotistic, autocratic behavior, much different from his anarchist professions. Some have left to start their own sites. Others complain about the secrecy he maintains about his work, also at odds with the transparency he advocates for others.

This secrecy might, at first, seem justified. Wikileaks, after all, is a private, not a public outfit. Maybe so. But that distinction hasn’t stopped the site from publishing the secrets of other private organizations, like the Christian Scientists and the Mormons. It’s also published the hacked private emails of Sarah Palin and the financial information of private clients of the Swiss bank, Julius Baer. Wayne Madsen has argued that this ultimately benefits Democrat financier George Soros.

This is a performance that seems not only hypocritical but curiously partisan and parochial, especially when set against the generous intellectual sweep of Assange’s theoretical writing.

And that’s exactly the taste left in your mouth after a sampling of Wikileaks‘ revelations. After all the hype about “scientific journalism,” the conclusions Wikileaks supports are downright provincial: our government lied us into war in Iraq; Hillary Clinton’s a bitch; Arab regimes are corrupt and deserve regime change; private contractors are bilking tax-payers; corporate corruption is the real conspiracy, not 9-11.

This is stuff that could have come out of the computer of any government propagandist.

More to the point, some of us wonder if it did.

(Go to Part II –  The Case Against Wikileaks: A Giant Psyop)


YouTube - Veterans Today -

———————————

Lila Rajiva is the author of two books on mass psychology, The Language of Empire (Monthly Review Press, 2005) and Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets (with Bill Bonner, Wiley, 2007). She is an activist, commentator and blogger

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=66617

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners and technicians. Legal Notice

Posted by on Dec 12 2010, With 0 Reads, Filed under 9/11. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

COMMENTS

To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.
Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback

Comments Closed

52 Comments for “VT STAFF: ZIONIST MINDCONTROL – The Case Against Wikileaks, Part I”

  1. Hi Tom –

    1. For a minister at a church, you make a lot of personal attacks.

    2. I think most people would find my piece (and the rest of my work) very conscientious and detailed journalism, your childish attack notwithstanding.

    What major stories have you been ahead on?

    4. I am not Gordon, yes? It’s hardly fair to attack my piece employing criticism directed at him. People express all sorts of views on this site, some quite different from his. It’s a site, not a cult, unlike Assange’s following.

    Having said that, I will point out that Gordon..or other critics…were not the ones who first made Assange rather than WikiLeaks the focus. He did. And so did the major media. You can’t fault critics for taking Assange at his own celebrity face-value.

    5. What has Wikileaks publishing the climate gate emails after they had been uploaded on ANOTHER SITE first (thus gaining credibility on the basis of it) got to do with Assange being a believer in AGW?

    The point I was making was that his actual political positions are closer to mainstream liberal than to anarchist/libertarian as his professions some times suggest.

    6. You used the word, crucifixion. I didn’t. I considered it rather feverish to consider my measured article crucifying Assange.
    I have repeatedly condemned any personal smearing of him.

    You really should read the pieces you criticize.
    It would help.

    Kind regards.

    Lila Rajiva

  2. Hi Tom –

    First – isn’t “crucifixion” a tad feverish, especially around Christmas time?
    In the second place, no one is “trying” Assange. A few of us (very few) are asking a few probing questions, while the majority of the world’s leading media outlets (print, TV, and blogs) are crowning Julian king of Transparency.

    We’re just trying to figure out the power behind the throne..

    Kind of what real journalists do, right?
    Try reading everything I’ve written about Assange going back a year or so…
    Kind regards and Happy Holidays

  3. Why is the 13 year period from 1990 to June 2003 missing? The archive starts in 1966 and goes to 2010 and hits many years but completely leapfrogs over those 13 years. We have gone from and 18 minutes gap in the Watergate tapes and now a 13 year gap in Cablegate.”
    I doubt they are leaks, I think these are the information that is being fed to us, for a greater drama to unfold on the International scene, may be an attack on Iran, or may be some thing more sinister??? In any case it has to be against Islam and Muslims.

  4. Oh yes, I forgot one…. A CHINESE submarine SNEAKS across the Pacific to fire an ICBM off the coast of California. The military didn’t know it was there…and oh yeah…why hasn’t ANYONE even asked about where it LANDED so they can do forensics on the pieces that are left?

    I am sorry for being off topic Lila, your piece was great but it made me reflect on other items that are “bizarre” as well. Can’t wait for your next piece….

  5. The more bizarre something sounds, the more likely it is the truth.
    Israel is responsible for 9/11
    Iran has nuclear weapons
    Iraq was responsible for the terror attacks
    Osama Bin ladin has been dead since 2003
    Bush should be charged with war crimes
    Bush Sr was involved in Kennedy’s assassination
    Clinton didn’t have sex with that woman
    Reagan didn’t know anything about the Contra’s
    Johnson thought we were winning Vietnam
    An airplane takes of from an air force base in the United States with 6 live loaded nuclear weapons, and lands in Mississippi with 5, and NO ONE questions this….
    Cheney shot a man in the face ACCIDENTALLY
    Vince Foster shot himself in the head, in public, and then threw his gun 43 feet away AFTER pulling the trigger.
    The United States lands on the moon
    Lee Harvey Oswald acted ALONE.

    I have always fashioned myself a reasonably intelligent individual, but now I have to question the way things are going today. Cmon now….

  6. Hi Hareli

    You’re excellent critique is much too detailed for me to address here…it needs a separate article, which maybe I will do…

    My point was simply to show that much of what Assange writes is not libertarian at all.

    I browsed through what I could understand in his writing (the physics and programing material I don’t understand).

    It is too haphazard to really judge, but I generally felt it was a mixture of the sophomoric, the insightful (some of that plagiarized, I am told, from Douglas Adams), and the truly confused, laced through out with authoritarianism..

    As you say, he uses verbal equivalence (“rights) to equate incommensurate items).
    It’s all very poli theory 101, complete with black leather jacket, cigarettes, and stale coffee…

    • Lila, I didn’t expect you to respond in detail. Not at all. I just woke up mad with that first paragraph of his pounding inside my inner TV. ;-) Ever have that happen to you?

      You captured the essence with this It’s all very poli theory 101, complete with black leather jacket, cigarettes, and stale coffee… I’m imbibing the latter right now, BTW.

      I’m intrigued by what is happening with him, because although I, too, think, that Brzezinski’s take is entirely apropos, there is something about the theater of all this that is bothering me: something else that is being made to disappear. And I can’t put my finger on it. It’s something that is being stage-managed behind the scenes, something foundational and fundamental that we will not notice until it’s gone. And that I feel fiercely.

      Your Part I is the best comprehensive explanation I’ve read so far. I don’t usually spend this much time writing comments on this site — a cursory glance at the quality will tell you why, although there are a few spectacular commenters — but your article provoked it.

  7. Lila,

    I woke up this AM thinking about your point #7 above.

    Rights are freedoms of action that are known to be enforceable. Consequently there are no rights without beliefs about the future effects of behavior. Unenforcable general rights exist only insofar as they are argumentation that may one day yield enforcement. Hence the Divine Right of Kings, the right of way, mining rights, conjugal rights, property rights, and copyright. The decision as to what should be enforced and what may be ignored is political. This does not mean that rights are unimportant, but rather, that politics (the societal control of freedom) is so important as to subsume rights.

    (1) Rights are freedoms of action that are known to be enforceable
    No, they are not ‘known to be': they are. Rights are agreements about behavior or principle guaranteed by international treaties, or national law, that are enforceable in the domestic legal systems of every signatory state (either international or national, or both.)

    (2) Consequently there are no rights without beliefs about the future effects of behavior.
    This dog don’t hunt. This syllogism is jism. A consequence of a right is not belief, it is justice. Belief about the future is not contingent on current rights, this belief is simply an extrapolation of our understanding of the present, no more. The future effects of behavior are a consequence of our current actions, what it is we do now, not necessarily our rights now.

    (3) Unenforcable [sic] general rights exist only insofar as they are argumentation that may one day yield enforcement
    See. no 1. There are no such things as unenforceable general rights, otherwise they are not rights. If these unenforceable general rights are argumentation that may one day yield enforcement, in Assange’s logic, then they are currently proposals, legal or otherwise, which do not yet have the effect of the full force of law to back them up. Again, they are not rights.

    (4) Hence the Divine Right of Kings, the right of way, mining rights, conjugal rights, property rights, and copyright
    Because of the “Hence,” I assume this is his listing of some unenforceable general rights. This listing, which is suppose to show equivalence, is the mark of an idiot. One, he equates fiat with municipal, local and state, federal and international law. Two, he calls the law parts of this listing unenforceable. They’re enforceable all right; at least they are, minus The Divine Right of Kings, in this country. He just doesn’t know it.

    (5) The decision as to what should be enforced and what may be ignored is political.
    Never. Otherwise, treaties (effects) and legal systems (cause) are null and void, and would be subject to the whim of cyclical political decisions which Assange is trying to make people, especially kids, believe is OK, proper, and the natural order of things. This is what created the great anger at Bush & Co. This was Bush’s argument for getting rid of habeas corpus, and instituting illegal wiretaps, among many political acts.

    (6) This does not mean that rights are unimportant, but rather, that politics (the societal control of freedom) is so important as to subsume rights
    There is no such thing as societal control of freedom except in anecdotal expression. Freedom, when defined by agreement in signatory (national or international) states, is guaranteed by force of law, not political whim. Rights are how you attain that freedom, and claim it. Politics are the consequence of rights in a given signatory state, not the cause of them. Perhaps someone should explain to Mr. Assange the difference between the legislative and the judicial branches of our government. Even better, explain how systems work.

    But it is in this paragraph that you see his Reformation-grade level of thinking, which is either sinister or stupid:

    Technical people, good at stacking houses of abstract cards often look at the law and see rules, but this is a shadow, for law hangs from the boughs of politics, that branch of behavior involved with the societal control of freedom of action. Always consider the real politik of law; who will push for change and who will resist.

    (1) Technical people should stick to technology, which is not interested in the betterment of society, or its progress, but in that subset of society that leads to improvement for, or fulfillmen of the desires of, the individual and may have costs that are ultimately harmful to society if left unchecked. Example: technology improved cars (gain), but extracted a cost to society in pollution. Technology improved fishing more fish (gain), but extracted a cost to society by depleting the oceans. Technology improved mining wealth from the earth (gain), but extracted a cost to society by destroying nature while doing it. Etcetera. There is a constant tension between technology and the needs of society. The latter, however, society, is defined by laws not technology. Assange has a grandiose idea of his own importance.

    (2) boughs of politics, that branch of behavior involved with the societal control of freedom of action
    Now Assange’s definition has changed. Politics, he explains, is now a branch of behavior, amorphous or otherwise. But politics is the opinion of the polis. Period.

    (3) the real politik of law
    There is no such thing, except in anecdotal expression. Look up the definition. He makes no sense at all.

    I’ll have to spend some time looking at the rest of his writings, because making him the spokesman for a new generation of societal thought is the real danger he represents. He’s antediluvian in his brilliance and understanding of how the world works. And, obviously, badly educated.

    • That first line should read: I woke up this AM thinking about your point #7 above in which you state that Assange wrote

    • Just to be clear, Lila, I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph. Assange should be a footnote to the leak, not the face of it nor the hero of the event.

  8. Excellent article! I’ve been on the same track as you for the last two weeks. I look forward to more of your expose’ on WL and Assange.

    Here are a few site’s and article’s you might find interesting:

    http://cryptome.org/

    OpenLeaks set to rival WikiLeaks
    12 Dec 2010 – 08:53am
    http://bigpondnews.com/articles/WikiLeaks/2010/12/12/OpenLeaks_set_to_rival_WikiLeaks_550927.html

    SATURDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2010
    Musing on Misinformation & Morons.
    http://breakingthecalm.blogspot.com/2010/12/musing-on-misinformation-morons.html

  9. Even if Assange is a well meaninig honest sort of chap dedicated towards contributing to the greater truth for the greater good of humanity. I dont trust his judgement. Global warming …. he might as well believe in the tooth fairy and Santa getting stuck in the chimney together in August.

    “US Government admits satellite temperature readings “degraded.” All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high.

    The fault was first detected after a tip off from an anonymous member of the public to climate skeptic blog, Climate Change Fraud (view original article) (August 9, 2010).

    Caught in the center of the controversy is the beleaguered taxpayer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA’s Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis has now confirmed that the fast spreading story on the respected climate skeptic blog is true.”

    Extract from URL
    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful

    Lake Michegan actually boiled for a while dont you know and this was included in the great warming calculation.

    The University of East Anglia (shame on my countrymen) hosts another bunch of well funded warmists whose statistical exploits and emails were well documented. They are also rumoured to use a “flat earth climate model”.

    Only Monkies are true climate change believers. However 15000 Monkeys did however fly to a luxury resort all expenses paid for with our hard earned and had a great enviromentally friendly piss up on us eco criminal serfs, “turn that light out save the planet”.

    Negotiation was so intense it took until just before the poolside bar closed on the final day and then lo and behold an incomplete agreement of sorts. The sky will not fall in, and we are saved, for the time being that is.

    Until the next junket and the next eco tax feeding frenzy new green taxman eh ! or the ficticious new currency “carbon credits”, sustainable hangers on and purveyors of quack science. There is no longer a requirement for the scientific method when you can “fill yer boots with cash” and just make the results up to suit the age old agenda of pocket lining.

    Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

    • AdeUK,

      Hooray! You caught that malfunction of the NOAA satellites as well, too.

      I downloaded a copy of the NOAA July 4, 2010 9 AM satellite reading that declared Lake Michigan was 604 degrees Fahrenheit in spots.

      I tried contacting news orgs to see why they weren’t reporting it. No response. I looked up the NOAA tables going back at least nine months, and compared the declared non-functioning satellites that the NOAA puts up on their site with the reporting satellite at the various listening posts. They were using data from non-functioning satellites.

      An east Indian scientist has been bitching about this since 2003. He’s been saying that the data are wrong, and that many of the satellites used by various universities and listening posts around the world are getting the wrong info from satellites the NOAA says are not working properly.

      For those of you who dont know, the NOAA supplies the satellites, not the data. They make their satellites available to university meteorological departments and listening posts to collect data at different weather points.

      The first big correction was in February 2010 after it was declared that January was the hottest month on record so far. But in February they reported faulty satellite work. That was somewhat announced to the public. The July anomaly wasn’t.

      What no one knows is if the raw data figures have been changed.

      [Excuse any typos.]

  10. JG, Budreaux, thanks

    Working on the next part…

  11. Excellent review, Lila! Keep up the good work, madame!

  12. Lila,
    I think that there are probably many that will not fully appreciate the extent of the recearch aand documentation that this article represents. Parsimoniously and succintly explaining so many of the facets on this latest shinny object dangled by the media. It’s a shame that some, like Linda J, don’t realize that wanting to know and understand the motivations behind the leaker and the leak dosen’t equate to wanting to deter leaks from whistle blowers or to censor the internet or further abridge our few remainig rights.

    Looking forward to part 2.

  13. A brilliantly sane article, Lila. And I agree with all your points-of-view and arguments.

  14. Thanks for comments.

    @Texas Vet.

    Yeah. People forget, don’t they? Remember all the swooning? Then Obama, now Assange.

    @Tea Partiers

    Not sure what you mean…anyway, it’s not just about Assange. The whole idea of wikileaks is problematic. Wikipedia has been compromised…why won’t wikileaks be too?

    @Linda J.

    I take it you have no problem with government conspiracy theories, then? Just ours?
    Assange himself believes society is run by conspiracy – that’s the theory behind wikileaks. Bust the conspiracies and society runs better. So even Assange disagrees with you on that.

    @Dev Sharma

    Namaskar. Yes, India is in bed with the financial elite. Hope it turns out better than it did with anyone else who teamed up with them. The Rothschilds have been invested in India for several years now..

    @Babush

    I think the Eurocrats are coming apart, myself

    @Revisionist

    Never heard that about Vanunu..

  15. Article => “But my memory is not so dim. I remember another media circus besides the one around Osama. I recall the mass adulation of a man who exuded brilliance, youth, hope, and salvation. That was in 2008, and he was a young law professor from Chicago. How did that turn out?”

    T.V. => That was actually quite funny Lilaji. Warmest Radhasoamis to you, and keep writing.

    T.V.

  16. Rave on, conspiracy theorists! Stick up for the State Dept. and THEIR internet interference against Wikileaks.

    You are the reason humanity is doomed. If you’d rather sit at your computers and poke imaginary holes in the actual cable traffic from U.S. embassies Bradley Manning will pay with his life for, have at it.

    For myself, I’m demonstrating against the sabotage of Wikileaks by Assange’s arrest and the smears accompanying it.

    You go and join up with the senators and white house who want to assassinate him. For shame!

    • Linda, Linda, Linda — Everybody with an Indian background will understand when I say Assange needs to be karmically recycled.

      T.P.

    • Anytime someone uses a umbrella term like ‘conspiracy theorist’, whilst conveniently ignoring the individual points of a discussion, they immediately discredit themselves and anything they might have to say.

      • Yes. It’s a label meant to discourage discussion.

      • Not to mention demonstrating zero comprehension for the general anti-establishment view of a great many posters here. Silly ractionism, Linda.

        Outing wikileaks as a clear demonstration of intelligence agency psy-ops with the drama of Assange added in as political theatre for those who live to follow the cult of celebrity, says nothing about one’s accord with the fraudsters and racketeers infesting all depts of the Federal swampland.

        You need to step back and see the big picture of the roles being played by all parties at the head of this drama to gull so many like yourself into doing just what you are doing, championing the perceived legitimacy of this latest vignette because the media and politicos claim its so dangerous. This is the very psychological methodology long used by the establishment to rope in the gullible by creating the appearance of two sides (our team/the other team, good guys/bad guys, etc.) when in truth those leading the “sides” are all the bad guys furthering a common predetermined agenda.

        I kindly advise you do some serious reading on the nature of “controlled opposition” and “manufactured consent”/”public perception management”. It will help you see the charade more clearly in the long run.

        It’s all a trap, please don’t fall into it.

        • Thank you Penumbra. I have suspected that for a long time now. All sides just play you. Its like when they make up two lies and get you confused trying to figure out which one of the lies is the truth, while the whole time keeping the truth out of reach.

        • Dear Pen. Could you please provide links or titles of books for which one could go about and be enlightened further concerning “controlled opposition” and “manufactured consent”/”public perception management”. I did some searching on my own and kept ruining into bogus experts who only serve to diverge from the truth with their wild claims concerning lizard men and such. much respect

          • Well you can start with Noam Chomsky’s book “Manufacturing Consent” (although I am far more hesitant to recommend Chomsky on other matters these days because of his obvious role as a left gatekeeper). The term itself if credited to Walter Lippmann back in the 30’s I believe (off the top of my head).

            The term “Perception Management” originates with the US military itself as a methodology to influence or induce favorable views into foreign populist thought to better control them towards behavior and policies beneficial to those applying the methodologies (which include psy ops and other forms of deception particularly through media apparati)

            I recommend the video series “The Corporation” which you should be able to download either through Torrent or directly from the Web (if not viewable directly from You Tube or other sites).

            here is a somewhat dated article but to the point:

            http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=10&paper=722

            You should be able to glean sufficient key words from this headstart to further your personal research in the field. It’s very broad and is applied to commerce as well as political/military policy-making.

          • Thank you Penumbra

    • Linda J,
      While I agree with Pen that your response is reactionary and certainly missdirected re. those writers and readers who frequent VT, I agree with you that It is of paramount importance that whistle blowers not be persecuted and that Wiki-crap not be allowed to become a tool for restricting or shutting down the internet. You wont find any here who want to lose any more civil liberties. I think you may have us confused with veterans.gov.

      Keep up the good fight for leakers and a free internet, Bradly Manning and Assange are only part of the picture.

      • Lindas response is a bit more than reactionary, but you said it in a much kinder way than I would have.

  17. Lilaji,
    Namaskar, your article on Julian Assange and “Wikileaks” was informative and I call it an excellent exposé. As an Indian, my colleagues in the academia strongly feel that the GOI had screwed its foreign policy – selective /choice since early 90s by aligning cozily to the Zionists, Wall Street gangsters and the American corporate world. The current Minister of External Affairs (Somanahalli M. Krishna) is a well-known milquetoast and an unabashed supporter of the Zionists especially the megalomaniac and war criminal (poxed and trench mouthed) Bibi Netanyahu. Now at the behest of his Zionist pals in Tel Aviv and Washington, S.M. Krishna the robot has increased his sabre rattling to upset and intimidate PRC (China). India WILL face unnecessary diplomatic and political fallout. Jai Hind.

  18. Yesterday, Mossad was lauching the new “Terror Saison” over Europa, from Stockholm: 1 poor guy got death (probably, he did not know what he was carrying in his pack-bag), but we are sure, Mossad was getting back there money…to the next false-flag under the trio of Zion, Cameron-Sarkhozy-Merkkehell sons of Israel).

  19. Just a caution about Vanunu. My belief is that nuclear weapons are probably a phoney; they never worked. (See my youtube videos on this). If so, Vanunu was an Israeli ‘asset’ – the story about abduction with sex, the writing on hands etc was to make their nukes appear credible. I don’t believe he did a day in solitary – everone says what good condition he’s in; and who could tell, anyway?

    • Article => “There’s no evidence so far that anyone has been injured directly because of the leaks.”

      Come on, Lila. How about all those bigwig Dufi (Dufuses pluralized) having their feelings hurt? In this progressive, touchy, feely, feminized world, that’s important, isn’t it? :-)

      T.V.

Comments are closed

 

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Join Our Daily Newsletter
  View Newsletter ARCHIVE

WHAT'S HOT

  1. Hawks in US Congress threaten Iran with sanctions
  2. I Support Israel’s National Bill
  3. NEO – West supports Kiev in new East Ukraine war
  4. NEO – America’s Nuclear Command Meltdown
  5. ISIL Israeli mercenary army
  6. RT Outs Amanpour, the “Cow of Propaganda
  7. Iran nuclear talks end in Vienna, new deadline set for July 1
  8. Al Etejah-Panorama: Gilad Atzmon on Ed Miliband, The Labour and the Jewish Lobby (TV)
  9. Hagel Resigning, Pushed to the Curb
  10. European Colony Doubles Down on Institutional Racism
  11. ‘No nuclear deal by Nov. 24 deadline’
  12. Uri Avnery – The UnHoly City
  13. US should work with Syrian Army against ISIL
  14. Climate Change or Climate Justice
  15. Part 2. Battle of the Bulge and the Malmedy Massacres
  16. Evil with a Nice Face – The Janus Principle
  17. Afghanistan: Empty Peace
  18. Black Saturday Sale Starring New .308 SASS Tacticals
  19. Gen. Daniel Bolger: “We need hearings on 9/11, wars”
  20. America Approaches Third World World Status!
  1. Allesandro: If you study history, every time "Jewish Power" is in the ascension mode, the rest of the world suffers immensely.
  2. DaveE: The Israelites have been ROYALLY humiliated, once again. What, another SEVEN MONTHS to NOT attack Iran? Exactly what the Jews (or zionists or whatever they are) did ...
  3. LightSaber: Interesting site I've come across recently, a lot of curious facts and connections I did not see anywhere else mindcontrolblackassassins.com/2010/11/22/the-big-switch-alicia-keys-baphomet%E2%80%99s-new-hip-hop-mistress/ Hopefully another Sirhan Sirhan will be stopped in time...
  4. Keyser Soze: Time the Iranians borrowed a few Topol,s off Russia and left the table. Game changer.
  5. Antigov: I now call my local newspaper , The Herald sun , owned by Murdoch , the Seinfeld edition. Its a paper about nothing. I have to thank this site for ...

Veterans Today Poll

For over 60 years, US Taxpayers have been funding Israel, Palestine and Middle East. Are you happy with return on investment or would you prefer those monies be invested at home instead?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Archives