Category Archives: Ideology

Climate-Gate: The 2011 Edition

Posted on by

 

James Delingpole at The Daily Telegraph breaks the latest from the Climatistas:

“Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the “scientists” at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be.”

Some quotes from more scrupulous researchers are cited in the article:

/// The IPCC Process ///
Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary […]
Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

The email writers recognize that public perceptions about ” global freezing” might be ruining the brand value of “global warming” as a technique of social change:

Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media
Kjellen:
I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming
Pierrehumbert:
What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.”

 [Some of my blogging on climate-gate can be found here and in other posts you can locate by using the Search function on this blog]

The blog Watts Up With That has links to a comprehensive timeline and graphics that display the thirty-year subversion of climate science behind climate-gate.

The Guardian suggests that the new climate emails probably date back to the first group, released in 2009, and that the motive is, again, to sabotage the Durban Climate summit, which starts on Monday:

“The emails appear to be genuine, but the University of East Anglia said the “sheer volume of material” meant it was not yet able to confirm that they were. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages. The lack of any emails post-dating the 2009 release suggests that they were obtained at the same time, but held back. Their release now suggests they are intended to cause maximum impact before the upcoming climate summit in Durban which starts on Monday.”

 There are similarities to the first release, says the Guardian:

“In the new release a 173MB zip file called “FOIA2011” containing more than 5,000 new emails, was made available to download on a Russian server called Sinwt.ru today. An anonymous entity calling themselves “FOIA” then posted a link to the file on at least four blogs popular with climate sceptics – Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke and The Air Vent.”

But there are also differences:

“The use of points instead of commas to mark the thousands when writing a number – highly unusual in both the UK or US – is sure to lead to speculation about the nationality of those responsible.”

The Guardian also indicates that although not all the emails have been confirmed genuine, the University of East Anglia claims that they have had no recent breach of security and says that the emails were probably held back from the original batch released in 2009.

Michael Mann, Director of the Earth Sciences Institute at Pennsylvania State University, whose messages are part of the release, is quoted in the piece dismissing the emails as more of the same. He calls the anonymous FOIA “agents” of the fossil-fuel industry and “criminal” hackers.

Envy Is Not The Problem, Nor Greed

Posted on by

Rob Urie in an excellent piece at Counterpunch about the libertarian accusation of “envy,” which, as I blogged here, is as misplaced as the socialist accusation of “greed”..and for pretty much the same reasons. The arguments are both inaccurate and circular in reasoning:

“One of the theories of the practice of psychology encountered in college is “egoism,” the argument that all people at all times act in their own self-interest. The theory is circular in that once the premise is accepted, any argument that runs counter to it is presumed to result from self-interest.”

I an earlier post, I argued this way:

The principal flaw in the socialist world view, as I see it, is a too great concern with appearances and an inability to see cause and effect in any complex way. It’s not the ‘materialism’ of dialectical materialism I object to. It’s the lack of ‘mind’ in the materialism. The reasoning is limited, superficial, and inaccurate. It lacks sufficient particularity, as Michael Oakeshott argued in “Rationalism in Politics” (1962).

And as Oakeshott argued there, that can be a problem in Hayek, as well.

Ure writes:

“Is there a difference in the degree of envy between the person holding the number two spot and the person holding the eight-billionth spot? The necessary answer is no because if so the person holding the eight-billionth spot might only want to move one spot up. This would mean that they aren’t envious of the rich and powerful at all, but rather only of the poor schmuck whose life is only microscopically, invisibly better than theirs. In that case, the only people envious of the rich and powerful are the rich and powerful just one step below them. There are a few people who fit that description that I’ve seen at Zuccotti Park, but they seemed neither driven by envy nor are they representative of the movement.”

Of course, Ure doesn’t apply the same acute reasoning to socialist arguments about greed.  In other words, if  envy is distributed equally among everyone, rich and poor, so is greed.

Hail Hillary, Smart-Power Chief To Come..

Posted on by

I put on my pointy black hat (I actually have one) when I wrote this in August 3, 2010 about Ms. Clinton:

After reading all the hoopla about Chelsea Clinton’s wedding, I felt…once again… that the future of the US, for good or bad, will have more of Hillary Clinton in it. In fact, if I were a witch, I might venture the following prophecy as I stirred my brew:

“All Hail M’Clinton!/Wife of Bill/Secretary of State/That shall be President hereafter…..

“I don’t know why I’ve always felt this was in the cards. Perhaps because of the sustained ferocity of her ambition…or perhaps because she’s a committed Zionist, with Jewish roots…and only a committed Zionist seems likely to be able to do anything about the Israel-Palestine issue….perhaps because she was once a Goldwater Republican and I see a certain kind of conservatism (a populist kind) marrying itself to a certain kind of liberalism. Pat Buchanan made a similar point about Mrs. Clinton during the 2008 campaign….and he makes it again, predicting that Biden and Clinton will trade places in 2012. Meaning, she’ll be Veep and he’ll be Secretary of State. But I wonder if she’ll go farther.

This isn’t something I look forward to. It’s something I fear will take place.”

I wrote this on October 26, 2011:

“Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, presumably Syria and Iran as well. The Zionists – for that is who they are – declare themselves against all standards. The pretense of humanism and secularism has long been dropped. The glorying in power is evident in the response of the elites to the killing of Gaddafi.

Hillary Clinton, uncrowned queen of the future feminist supranational order of Gaia, heiress apparent to the bankers’ throne, cackled.”

Now I see a cover story at Time Magazine, lauding the rise of “smart power” (a notion developed during Bill Clinton’s time). Smart power is something about which we’ve written in Language of Empire.

Smart power includes things like “no-touch torture” (sexual or religious torture), mind-control through social media manipulation, humanitarian interventions (liberventionism is my term for it)*, psyops, black ops, the melding of the military into domestic security operations, war masquerading as peace-keeping or policing, creation of a “grey zone” in which war and peace, civilian and military blend.

I recall coining this term in a discussion of Jean Bricmont, but find it has been used much earlier by Joseph Stromberg.

[Note: I came across this piece because I noticed a blog at LRC by David Kramer, who seems to read this blog (and why shouldn’t he, looks who’s writing it (wink)…and who’s reading it),

I’ve had this notion for a few years for several reasons:

1. Ms. Clinton fulfills the ruling class requirement whereby a white conservative Christian (George Bush) and a black radical leftist (Obama) do the dirty work of putting the transnational order in place and take the negative fall-out. [Nov 25: I mean, these are their respective ideologies. In practice, of course, their policies fed the elites, in Bush’s case, the oil and defense crowd; in Obama’s case, the hedge-fund/speculator complex].

That spares the reputation of the so-called centrists (the ideological establishment) from blame. Then someone from that class, a white feminist and environmentalist, from the heart of ideological and power networks (wife of Bill Clinton, etc. etc.) presides over the new order, someone whose dirty laundry has already been publicly washed, someone who is a hard worker and a natural politician (to give her credit)….

2. Two people as far apart and as experienced as Alex Cockburn and Patrick Buchanan have both noted her popularity among the ruling classes.

3. She was a Goldwater Republican originally. She has the confidence of many in the “permanent government ” (a.k.a. bureaucrats and spy agencies). She is unlikely to surprise…

4. There is a faint whiff of the androgyne about her, and the androgyne is revered in many occult traditions, and even in the traditional practices of Hinduism, from which the occult traditions take their inspiration, if not their direct descent. The ethos of the androgyne is embodied in popular language as the “strong woman” and the “metrosexual”. ….

Those are my reasons…and of course, as always, they’re just good guesses. Meanwhile, keep your stop-losses tight, and hold onto your (regular) hat..

Hitler’s Pope And The Serbian Holocaust

Posted on by

The little known slaughter of Orthodox Christians, Jews, and Roma in Yugoslavia at the hands of Nazi-sponsored Croatian leadership had the full approval of the Catholic pope and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

“During the Second World War in Yugoslavia, Catholic priests and Muslim clerics were willing accomplices in the genocide of the nations Serbian, Jewish and Roma population. From 1941 until 1945, the Nazi-installed regime of Ante Pavelic in Croatia carried out some of the most horrific crimes of the Holocaust (known as the Porajmos by the Roma), killing over 800,000 Yugoslav citizens – 750,000 Serbs, 60,000 Jews and 26,000 Roma. In these crimes, the Croatian Ustasha and Muslim fundamentalists were openly supported by the Vatican, the Archbishop of Zagreb Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac (1898-1960), and the Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini. Many of the victims of the Pavelic regime in Croatia were killed in the war’s third largest death camp – Jasenovac, where over 200,000 people – mainly Orthodox Serbs met their deaths. Some 240,000 were “rebaptized” into the Catholic faith by fundamentalist Clerics in “the Catholic Kingdom of Croatia” as part of the policy to “kill a third, deport a third, convert a third” of Yugoslavia’s Serbs, Jews and Roma in wartime Bosnia and Croatia (The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Vladimar Dedijer, Anriman-Verlag, Freiburg, Germany, 1988).

On April 6th 1941, Nazi Germany invaded Yugoslavia. By April 10th, Croatian fascists led by Ante Pavelic were allowed by Hitler and his ally Mussolini to set up a “independent” puppet state of Croatia. Hitler granted “Aryan” status to Croatia as his fascist allies carved up Yugoslavia. Pavelic had been awaiting these developments whilst under the auspices of Mussolini in Italy who had granted them the use of remote training camps on a Aeolian island and access to a propaganda station Radio Bari for broadcasts across the Adriatic. As soon as the new fascist state of Croatia was born, and campaign of cold-blooded terror began, as noted by John Cornwell in his book Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII (Viking, London, UK, 1999):

“(It was) an act of ‘ethnic cleansing’ before that hideous term came into vogue, it was an attempt to create a ‘pure’ Catholic Croatia by enforced conversions, deportations, and mass exterminations. So dreadful were the acts of torture and murder that even hardened German troops registered their horror. Even by comparison with the recent bloodshed in Yugoslavia at the time of writing, Pavelic’s onslaught against the Orthodox Serbs remains one of the most appalling civilian massacres known to history” (p 249)

Obama: Normalizing The Police State

Posted on by

Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic asks the liberal faithful (Ezra Klein and David Remnick, specifically) to stop marginalizing peace and civil liberties by defending Obama and blaming criticism of him on Republican partisanship and a bad economy he had no hand in creating:

“These are the sorts of treatments that permit well-educated Obama supporters to evade certain uncomfortable truths, like the fact that the president to whom they’ll give campaign contributions and votes violated the War Powers Resolution when he invaded Libya; that in doing so he undermined the Office of Legal Counsel, weakening a prudential restraint on executive power; that from the outset he misled Congress and the public about the likely duration of the conflict; that the humanitarian impulse alleged to prompt the intervention somehow evaporated when destitute refugees from that war were drowning in the Mediterranean.

In saying that Obama has “awakened to the miserable realities of Pakistan and Iran,” Remnick elides an undeclared drone war that is destabilizing a nuclear power, the horrific humanitarian and strategic costs of which Jane Mayer documents at length in The New Yorker; “Obama is responsible for an aggressive assault on Al Qaeda, including the killing of bin Laden, in Pakistan, and of Anwar al-Awlaki, in Yemen,” Remnick writes, never hinting that al-Awlaki was an American citizen killed by a president asserting the unchecked write to put people on an assassination list that requires no due process or judicial review, and that the administration justifies with legal reasoning that it refuses to make public. “He has drawn down forces in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Remnick writes, obscuring the fact that there are many more troops in Afghanistan than when Obama took office, and that in Iraq he has merely stuck to the timetable for withdrawal established by the Bush Administration, after unsuccessfully lobbying the government of Iraq to permit US troops to stay longer — instead, he plans to increase the presence of American troops elsewhere in the Persian Gulf, and to leave in Iraq a huge presence of State Department employees and private security.

Klein’s piece relies heavily on the reality that, for all his hope and change rhetoric, Obama was constrained in dealing with the economic crisis when he took office. Quite right. Only unjustifiable extrapolation permits Klein to reach the larger conclusion that GOP opposition and a bad economy explain his broken promises. Had Klein tried to come up with a control group to test his hypothesis, he might’ve looked to the policies over which Obama has substantial or complete control. Is Obama’s war on whistleblowers, also documented in the New Yorker by Jane Mayer, something that Republicans and a bad economy forced on him? Are they responsible for the White House’s utter failure to deliver anything like the transparency that Obama promised, and its abuse of the state secrets privilege? How does the economy explain the escalation of the drug war and federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in states where they are legal, or the Department of Homeland Security’s escalation of security theater to the point that Americans are being groped and undergoing naked scans in airports?……

Is Obama better than all the Republican candidates on these issues? Certainly not. He is worse than Gary Johnson and Ron Paul; arguably worse than Jon Huntsman too. Is he better than anyone likely to win the GOP nomination? Perhaps. Does it matter?…….

..What few of us saw in 2008 is that Bush Administration wasn’t “a temporary detour from our history’s long arc toward justice,” and the Obama Administration wasn’t a vehicle for change — it was the normalization of the post-9/11 security state.”

Who Guards The Guardian?

Posted on by

Gate-keeper of the left, The Guardian, has been attacking Gilad Atzmon for the “anti-Semitism” of his book on Jewish identity “The Wandering Who?” which tackles controversial questions about origin myths, race, and religion. It’s not the first time, and Atzmon is not the only one.

Wikileaks and Assange, as well as Chomsky, Hermann, and others, have come in for bashing.

Of course, I, like others, have had my problems with Assange and with Chomsky too. But for altogether different reasons.  Both seemed to me to be engaged in a kind of misdirection. Others whom I respect have agreed with that take.

But The Guardian‘s criticism, especially of Assange, seems to stem from professional rivalry.  I say that because The Guardian supported the intervention in Libya, while Assange, though he has distanced himself from NATO’s bombing, takes credit for inspiring the rebels.

So it is likely not really a difference in ideology that’s split them.

Wikispooks explains:

“The Guardian’s discrediting of the “left” – the left being a concept never defined by the paper’s writers – is far from taking place in a fair battle of ideas. Not least the Guardian is backed by the huge resources of its corporate owners. When it attacks dissident writers, they can rarely, if ever, find a platform of equal prominence to defend themselves. And the Guardian has proved itself more than reluctant to allow a proper right of reply in its pages to those it maligns.

But also, and most noticeably, it almost never engages with these dissident writers’ ideas. In popular terminology, it prefers to play the man, not the ball. Instead it creates labels, from the merely disparaging to the clearly defamatory, that push these writers and thinkers into the territory of the unconscionable.

A typical example of the Guardian’s new strategy was on show this week in an article in the print edition’s comment pages – also available online and a far more prestigious platform than CiF – in which the paper commissioned a socialist writer, Andy Newman, to argue that the Israeli Jewish musician Gilad Atzmon was part of an anti-semitic trend discernible on the left……..

….As is now typical in this new kind of Guardian character assassination, the article makes no effort to prove that Atzmon is anti-semitic or to show that there is any topical or pressing reason to bring up his presumed character flaw. (In passing, the article made a similar accusation of anti-semitism against Alison Weir of If Americans Knew, and against the Counterpunch website for publishing an article on Israel’s role in organ-trafficking by her.)

Atzmon has just published a book on Jewish identity, The Wandering Who?, that has garnered praise from respected figures such as Richard Falk, an emeritus law professor at Princeton, and John Mearsheimer, a distinguished politics professor at Chicago University.

But Newman did not critique the book, nor did he quote from it. In fact, he showed no indication that he had read the book or knew anything about its contents…..

… the Guardian was happy to offer its imprimatur to Newman’s defamation of Atzmon, who was described as a conspiracy theorist “dripping with contempt for Jews”, despite an absence of substantiating evidence. Truly worthy of Pravda in its heyday.

The Atzmon article appeared on the same day the Guardian carried out a similar hatchet job, this time on Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks. The paper published a book review of Assange’s “unauthorised autobiography” by the Guardian’s investigations editor, David Leigh…..

…..The low point in Leigh’s role in this saga is divulging in his own book a complex password Assange had created to protect a digital file containing the original and unedited embassy cables. Each was being carefully redacted before publication by several newspapers, including the Guardian……

….Some of this clearly reflects a clash of personalities and egos, but it also looks suspiciously like the feud derives from a more profound ideological struggle between the Guardian and Wikilieaks about how information should be controlled a generation hence. The implicit philosophy of Wikileaks is to promote an ever-greater opening up and equalisation of access to information, while the Guardian, following its commercial imperatives, wants to ensure the gatekeepers maintain their control.”

That Transparency Meme…

Posted on by

About that transparency meme that I caught on to in 2010, from whence it… er…percolated..to others, like the estimable Daily Bell, whom I have often and meticulously cited,  whom I applaud for its wonderful work and have supported over and over, despite many misgivings….

(One of its associates/editors’ comments to my post can even be seen later in this blog post).

A nod in the direction from where you get stuff, folks, would be nice. It would be even nicer if I got it without having to bring it up, although, as you can see, I’m not bashful about doing that either…

I  give credit regardless, and I hope for the same, politely, humbly, and patiently at first, but if not, then a tad more assertively. Ultimately, this blog is committed to subverting and destroying the lies on which modernity has lived for centuries and a little (intellectual) blood-letting will take place when it has to, with no qualms.

The biggest lie fostered by modernity is the lie called western supremacism, whose economic form is mercantilism. This, as I  see even in this day, can only be sustained by the appropriation of other people’s work, whether physical or mental.  That is fundamental to it.

My attribution battles, small and great, are thus an intrinsic part of  the mandate of this blog, and not solely personal. More later…

Thus this brief history of the transparency meme  is not the first such and it probably won’t be the last.

Over and over, even recently, I blog something  and then see it surface a day or so later, without a nod in this direction. [One recent example was when I blogged why we need avoid treating ‘End the Fed’ as a slogan and why I think that power has already moved to the BIS].

Sometimes, I daresay, it’s just accidental. I allow for that. But more often it isn’t. Then I am reluctantly forced to call them out.

That kind of thing is simply wrong, no matter how many people do it and what theories or philosophies they quote. It is a kind of theft. Whether it is simply careerism or the professional standards of hard money people or marketers or the financial industry, it has to be called out. Nothing will get better without a clean up of the intellectual pollution and smog that clogs political debate.

Think about it. How can you denounce state actions as the means to enforce norms, if your own conduct adheres to none? If you yourself worship at the foot of power, whether money power, or status, or marketing clout, or anything else, and rely on your ability to “get away with it” because “everyone does it,” rather than on objective truth, then you have no moral grounds to complain when another kind of power (state power, the power of law, or the will of the people) opposes you. In fact, your behavior invites it.

That is why, in the end, the OccupyWallStreet folks will triumph. Soros will win. Why shouldn’t he?

If all you really care about is your network, and the money you make from them, and aggrandizing yourself, rather than objective truth, well then, on all those counts Soros is your master. He has proved it.

You cannot complain. If capitalists express in their behavior no more than the tenet, “might makes right”, they  have nothing on which to stand when the might of the state turns against them.  And it will turn against them. In fact, it already has.

And, truthfully, they have no one to blame but themselves.

See below:

http://mindbodypolitic.org/2010/08/03/the-tangled-web/

“Again, I could be mistaken about Wikileaks.

But even if I were,  even if Assange himself turned out to be well-meaning and principled, I’m not enthusiastic about his perfect transparency, leak-for-profit model. I think it has ominous parallels in corporate and state intelligence services. In my reading (and that of some others), it was one of the instigating factors in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. Furthermore, the model depends on flouting the privacy rights of innocent people and private outfits.

So however things turn out, I’ll pass on Wikileaks and the “glamor” of spy v. spy. Means are just as important, if not more, than ends. That’s a lesson the Cold War should have taught us. In fact, I thought libertarianism was premised on it.

It troubles me then to see so many liberty-minded people simply brush off these questions as “spiteful” or “envious”……

In such matters, no one is beyond respectful questioning.”

And this post below (I’d actually started doubting Assange much earlier…as you can see from checking back at my posts)

http://mindbodypolitic.org/2010/06/27/more-on-assange-and-wikileaks/

Here’s the main theoretical reason why one might tend to suspect Wikileaks.

Assange objects to privacy. Wikileaks violates privacy. Kind of like Google, notice? Google thinks it’s heroic too and Google has its China-connection too. Wikileaks makes anonymous sources, hacking, leaking, and ratting out your associates cool. It makes snitches heroes.

Cui bono? Need I ask? Corporate rivals, speculators and short-sellers, blackmailers, rival governments, spy agencies. Does that sound like the company the power-elites keep?

So even if Wikileaks were not a disinformation agent, whose agenda would its work finally help? A totalitarian outfit’s. It certainly doesn’t help individualism.

A friend said…

  • [From The Daily Bell]

    Hi! Interesting article. Can you post a definitive (or semi-definitive article) showing Assange is a disinformation agent? Is that your point in this excerpt … that your suspicions are re-ignited? Maybe we misunderstood.

    At this point, (without evidence to change our tiny, collective mind) our betting is still that it is more likely MADSEN is one (since he is actually a member of several US old boy intel clubs) than Assange. We have our doubts about Rense too, where Madsen often appears.

    06/27/10 2:05 PM | Comment Link Edit This

    • Civil Society + Internationalism + Anonymous = World Government

    Posted on by

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss:

    Let me make this really simple for anyone who still doesn’t get it.

    (C) Rothschild-funded Civil Society (NGOs, MSM)

    +

    (I) Rothschild-front International Capital (banker-speculator mafia+corporate fat-cats)

    +

    (A) Rothschild-related Anonymous web (cyberhacking, espionage, blackmail, secret services, Wikileaks/Assange (?) & Anonymous (?))

    =  C.I.A.

    DNA Disproves British Israelism (Note Added)

    Posted on by

    ADDED (APRIL 18 2015)

    The source of Christian Identity and other British Israel-related race theories is actually  no where in the Old Testament.

    It is in the Talmud (Babylonian and Palestinian), the Rabbinical oral commentaries on the Torah that were put down into writing  between the 3rd and 5th century AD.

    The authoritative work, The Sages: Their Concepts,” Ephraim Urbach (Author),  I. Abraham (Transl), Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1975,  informs us that in the Rabbinical tradition the original sin/guilt of mankind, induced by the Serpent’s copulation with Eve (which gave birth to Cain, according to the Rabbis), was alleviated at Mount Sinai for the Israelites, but not for Gentiles.

    This tradition is the source of the Rabbinical/Jewish belief in the descent of Gentiles from Cain and not, like Jews, from Adam.

    Christian Identity simply reverses the two-seed theory and makes Jews the descendants of Cain.

    ORIGINAL POST

    British Israelism, which I believe is the best  way to call all the various theories claiming that Anglo-Saxon man is tied racially to ancient Israel, is fundamentally a post-hoc justification for political supremacy, since DNA and linguistic evidence completely contradict it, and the folk derivations it points to are largely anecdotal and tenuous.

    BI arose after the conquest of the New World in its earliest form, and quickly penetrated many Protestant sects, or churches close to them, like Christian Science. Mary Baker Eddy accepted it.

    Although some forms of it are benign and no more than a literary hobby, some forms, such as Christian Identity, which informs some of the Patriot movement in the US, are virulently racist, both toward Jews, and toward non-whites in general.

    Jews, in this account, are said to be Satan’s seed (children of Edom in the Bible) and non-whites are said to even lack a soul.

    Whites on the other hands are said to descend from the Biblical Israel.

    Never mind that the DNA evidence, mapped globally since about 2000, has completely disproved this.

    No doubt such beliefs colored Eustace Mullins’ own writings about Federal Reserve.

    One wonders how these beliefs might have colored his perception of government and money.

    DNArefutesbi.com:

    In 2001, Sykes went on to write the popular book The Seven Daughters of Eve: The Science That Reveals Our Genetic Ancestry, which described the seven major haplogroups of European ancestors.

    This book more than any other indirectly takes British Israelism to task through the Mitochondria — genetic DNA tracing through the maternal line.

    After being summoned in 1997 to an archaeological site to examine the remains of a five-thousand-year-old man, Bryan Sykes ultimately was able to prove not only that the man was a European but also that he has living relatives in England today. In this lucid, absorbing account, Sykes reveals how the identification of a particular strand of DNA that passes unbroken through the maternal line allows scientists to trace our genetic makeup all the way back to prehistoric times, to seven primeval women, the Seven Daughters of Eve.

    There are other problems with equating DNA of the Western Europeans with those of Israel Descent. Studies are quite definitive about paternal lines from thousands of years ago. One such study evaluated the lineage of the Aaronic Priesthood through the line of “Cohen”.

    Y-chromosomal Aaron is the name given to the hypothesised most recent common ancestor of many of the patrilineal Jewish priestly caste known as Kohanim (singular “Kohen”, “Cohen”, or Kohane). In the Torah, this ancestor is identified as Aaron, the brother of Moses. The hypothetical most recent common ancestor was therefore jocularly dubbed “Y-chromosomal Aaron”, in analogy to Y-chromosomal Adam.

    The original scientific research was based on the discovery that a majority of present-day Jewish Kohanim either share, or are only one step removed from, a pattern of values for 6 Y-STR markers, which researchers named the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH). However it subsequently became clear that this six marker pattern was widespread in many communities where men had Y chromosomes which fell into Haplogroup J; the six-marker CMH was not specific just to Cohens, nor even just to Jews, but was a survival from the origins of Haplogroup J, about 30,000 years ago.

    More recent research, using a larger number of Y-STR markers to gain higher resolution more specific genetic signatures, has indicated that about half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim, who share Y-chromosomal haplogroup J1c3 (also called J-P58), do indeed appear to be very closely related. A further approximately 15% of Kohanim fall into a second distinct group, sharing a different but similarly tightly related ancestry. This second group fall under haplogroup J2a (J-M410). A number of other smaller lineage groups are also observed. Only one of these haplogroups could indicate ancestry from Aaron.

    The J1e and J2a possible Cohen clusters (only one of them could indicate ancestry from Aaron), when including those tested who are of Sephardi background, have been estimated as descending from most recent common ancestors living 3,200 ± 1,100 and 4,200 ± 1,300 years ago respectively. Ashkenazis only have been estimated by the same article as descending from most recent common ancestors living 2,400 ± 800 and 3,800 ± 1,200 years ago respectively.

    What is being analyzed are variations in DNA sequence called single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, pronounced “snips” by the apparently very cute researchers who look for them). SNPs are passed down from generation to generation intact and thereby become markers of particular lineages. Those who have descended from the same ancient groups of people will share the same SNP markers. These ancestral lines have been classified into haplogroups. A haplogroup is all the haplotypes that share a single common ancestor, and these lineages can be traced back multiple thousands of years.

    The two relevant lineages are haplogroup J and haplogroup R. The SNP markers of the former, J, are found most predominantly among speakers of Semitic languages in the Levant. J is the haplogroup most strongly associated with Israelite ancestry, while representatives of haplogroup R are found almost exclusively in Europe and Asia, where Indo-European languages flourished. The most recent common ancestor between haplogroups J and R is haplogroup IJK, which split off into IJ (progenitor of J) and K (progenitor of R, via K(xLT), via P) some 45,000 years ago. That’s long before the Hebrews coalesced into a discernible collection of tribes out of the Canaanite hill people from which they descended–long before there were Canaanites to descend from. The time referred to here is the Stone Age, before agriculture–before the extinction / absorption of Neanderthals. That’s how incredibly long ago these two haplogroups diverged from a common ancestor. They are about as unrelated as you can get within the same species.

    Haplogroup J — that of the Jews / Israelites is nonexistent in the British Isles map of DNA Y-Chromosome distribution (see McDonald’s World Haplogroups Maps below).

    The proof that DNA refutes British Israelism is given on their British Israelism Website under:

    Compatibility with present-day research findings

    Lack of consistency with modern genetic findings

    Human genetics does not support British Israelism’s notion of a close lineal link between Jews and Western Europeans. Genetic research on the Y-chromosomes of Jews has found that Jews are closely related to other populations originating in the Middle East, such as Kurds, Turks, Armenians and Arabs, and concluded that:

    Middle Eastern populations…are closely related and…their Y chromosome pool is distinct from that of Europeans. (Nebel, 2001.)

    Y-DNA Haplogroups J2 and, to a lesser extent, J1 are most commonly identified in Jewish people, which is in contrast to Western Europeans. The more distant Haplogroup R1b is the most commonly identified in Europeans.”

    An Intelligence Front? The Case Against WikiLeaks, Part III

    Posted on by

    Note: This piece is now up at Veterans Today:

    “In my previous articles, I pointed out the most obvious problems I have with WikiLeaks –  the fact that its leaks seem to leave larger Zionist imperial goals untouched; its antagonistic stance to 9-11 truth; it frantic validation and promotion by major media; the falsity of many of its claims of confidentiality for leakers; the implausibility of its achievements absent intelligence or government connections; the contradictions between its public advocacy of transparency and its own secrecy; and the authoritarian tendencies in the writing and personality of its co-founder Julian Assange, tendencies that contradict the anarchist persona presented for public consumption.

    In brief, to the question –  What is WikiLeaks?

    My answer is –  Whatever it is, it has become a vehicle for disinformation.

    Next, the companion question –

    Who is behind WikiLeaks?

    Here, the answers are less clear.

    According to several sources, WL is “run” by a non-profit called the Sunshine Press. Assange is reported to be director and co-founder. According to the WikiLeaks website, the Sunshine Press is an “international non-profit organization funded by human rights campaigners, investigative journalists, technologists, lawyers and the general public.”

    This doesn’t make it clear if  Sunshine Press and WikiLeaks are the same thing or two separate outfits.  A little googling gives me three Sunshine presses. None of them is our guy.

    The website we want turns out to be Sunshine press.org (dot org, not dot com).

    The Facebook page for Sunshine Press.org lists three URLs http://www.sunshinepress.org http://www.wikileaks.org and http://www.collateralmurder.com and clicking on the sunshine press.org link takes you back to WikiLeaks.

    According to Sunshine Press’s Facebook page, the two organizations, WikiLeaks and Sunshine press, are the same. This seems to be borne out by the fact that the Sunshine Press Youtube channel consists of only WikiLeaks videos.

    Some more googling about sunshinepress.org  yields several IP addresses; various domain names; its server, everydns.net; the location of the host in Sweden; the page rank (7); links (37); and other information.

    http://www.robtex.com/dns/www.sunshinepress.org.html

    www.sunshinepress.org (“http://www.sunshinepress.org/. Wikileaks. Sunshinepress”) has one IP number (88.80.2.32) , which is the same as for sunshinepress.org, but the reverse is host-88-80-2-32.cust.prq.se. Apple-memory.org, leaks.be, wikileaks.to, sunshinepress.org, apple-memory.de and at least three other hosts point to the same IP.

    Sunshinepress.org is a domain controlled by four name servers at everydns.net. All four of them are on different IP networks. The primary name server is ns1.everydns.net. Incoming mail for sunshinepress.org is handled by one mail server at wikileaks.org. We are missing the IP:s of one server: mail.wikileaks.org. www.sunshinepress.org is ranked #514197 world wide as sunshinepress.org and is hosted on a server in Sweden. It has 37 inlinks. The Google Pagerank™ of sunshinepress.org is 7. backorder sunshinepress.org for 49.95 USD.Trustworthiness, vendor reliability, privacy and child safety of this site is excellent. (more on reputation).It is not listed in any blacklists.

    I still couldn’t find a webpage devoted to Sunshine Press itself, although, according to the WikiLeaks site, SP has been in existence since 1996.

    Emails referencing WL at Cryptome goes back to October 2006. Sunshine Press (which doesn’t appear in the Cryptome emails) seems to have come into being at the same time and seems to be identical with WL. We can tentatively conclude that there is no separate Sunshine Press. Nonetheless, the latest development is a new limited liability company formed on behalf of WikiLeaks called Sunshine Press Productions, which is registered in Iceland:

    “The brand new company registered on behalf of Wikileaks is called Sunshine Press Production – the same as the formal international name of Wikileaks, RUV reports. The chairman of the company is Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and he shares the board of directors with filmmaker Ingi Ragnar Ingason and journalist Kristinn Hrafnsson. The deputy board member is Gavin MacFadyen, a professor of journalism in London. The company is registered at the home address of one of the board members at Klapparhlid in Mosfellsbaer.”

    Researching the names mentioned in this paragraph give us some interesting tidbits.

    Hrafnsson, an Icelandic investigative journalist formerly with national broadcaster RUV and a staff member of WL since April 2010, is now the public face of WL. Hrafnsson is also an outside advisor to the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI), started by Birgitta Jonsdottir, an anarchist and member of the Icelandic parliament. IMMI seeks to make Iceland a kind of Switzerland for journalistic freedom. Investigative reporter Wayne Madsen has argued that IMMI is a stalking horse for currency speculator George Soros’ interests.

    Jonsdottir’s inspiration for IMMI was reportedly a presentation by Assange and WL’s German staffer Daniel Domscheit-Berg in Iceland, just prior to WL’s outing of Iceland’s corrupt Kaupthing bank, which collapsed in August 2009. Other accounts describe IMMI as having been initiated by a Soros spokesman Mark Thompson in May 2009.

    (Domscheit-Berg has since fallen out with Assange and left to form his own company, OpenLeaks).

    Birgitta Jonsdottir is also, and significantly, a member of International Network of Parliamentarians for Tibet, which “brings together 133 Parliamentarians from 30 Parliaments to advance the Tibet issue in governments worldwide.” according to the activist website Savetibet.org .

    Now Tibetan autonomy, as championed by the Anglo-American elite, is reported to be a pretext for encroachment on Chinese sovereignty. Tibet itself is central to ecosystems and desertification in the region, as it provides water for several countries. Its grasslands also act as a carbon sink. Recall that a recent WL leak, trumpeted by the major media, was the reported assertion of the Dalai Lama that climate change trumps political issues in Tibet.

    Meanwhile, while Westerners consider the Dalai Lama a benign spiritual guru, not everyone else finds him so warm and fuzzy.  Many in Asia  consider him an ethnic grievance-monger , who wants to segregate Tibetans from Han Chinese. His political positions also fit nicely with Anglo-American imperial ambitions in that region, for which human rights and climate-change are cover for surveillance and control.

    Tibet, after all, is a highly strategic and sensitive area.  The Dalai Lama is reported to be financially supported by the National Endowment for Democracy and NED itself receives CIA funding.

    Jonsdottir is not the only interesting figure in this group.

    Gavin MacFadyen, with whom Julian Assange is now staying, is also someone with strong connections to the financial elites. MacFadyan is a senior producer-director at corporate mainstream outlets,  BBC and PBS, and a director of the NY conference of financial and business journalists at the Columbia Journalism School. He is also the director of the Center for Investigative Journalism, where Assange is listed as a teacher, along with such well-known names as leftist author-activists,  Mike Davis, John Pilger, and Vandana Shiva. Sponsors of the CIJ are George Soros’ Open Society Institute (which, notably, sponsors a number of pro-Tibet projects),  the David and Elaine Potter Foundation, the Ford Foundation (another foundation with ties to the CIA), Park Foundation, City University London and several smaller private trusts.

    There’s a third connection to the Anglo-American elites. Assange is staying at the 600 acre  Suffolk manor of Vaughan Smith, a former British army captain, who owns a popular journalists’ club in Paddington in London, called The Frontline Club (along with the related Frontline TV News).

    Frontline, it is reported, has sponsored a documentary that “casts doubt on allegations of a massacre at Jenin on the West Bank by the Israel Defense Forces in 2002” and has received funding from George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

    On a side note, notice the company Assange keeps. If Assange is a “libertarian,” then, he travels a lot in very government-friendly circles. He is most certainly not the anarchist he’s often portrayed to be and which hackers and computer geeks often really are.

    To return to the question of WL’s origins, the first part of this series pointed out that many of WL’s earliest staffers were Chinese dissidents and pro-Tibet activists.

    Thus, the Soros connection turns up in six separate WL relationships:

  • Its Chinese and pro-Tibetan volunteers/advisors, some of whom worked at Soros connected Radio Free Asia and National Endowment for Democracy
  • Its connection through Hrafnsson to IMMI, considered by many to be a stalking horse for Soros in Iceland
  • Its connection to Jonsdottir and her Tibetan advocacy, which parallels objectives of Radio Free Asia and OSI
  • Assange’s and MacFadyen’s sponsorship by the Open Society Institute, with its pro-Tibetan positions
  • Frontline Club’s funding by the Open Society Institute
  • Direct requests by WL in 2007 for funding from the National Endowment for Democracy and Freedom House, both CIA connected. (Note: Open Society Foundation denies funding WikiLeaks).

    • In this regard, it’s relevant that the Open Society Institute had no critical comment about Wikileaks until recently, when it suddenly joined the chorus of voices suggesting that WL’s actions could have jeopardized the lives of Afghan informants (WSJ, August 9, 2010. This happened about a week after border security detained WL’s Jacob Applebaum for several hours. (Applebaum is a security researcher and hacker who works for the Tor privacy protection project as well as for WL).

    Next question. Who specifically set up WikiLeaks?

    A little research into the first appearance of WikiLeaks on the web shows that Assange is not the only name associated with it from its inception.

    On the Internet archive  (the Wayback machine) the earliest archived pages for WikiLeaks go back to Jan 14, 2007. There are 60 pages in 2007 for the outfit, 19 for 2008, 0 for 2009, and 87 for 2010.

    A click on January 14 2007, gives us mostly dead links, but the contact page produces two web addresses:  w i k i l e a k s  @ w i k i l e a k s . o r g   &    p r e s s   @ w i k i l e a k s . o r g,  a phone number (a cell number) in Washington DC, +1 (202) 657-6222, and a skype address, wikileaks.

    The  DC cell number turns out to be registered in Adelphi, Virginia, and it traces back 20 miles to Reston Virginia, which seems a bit odd, considering that WL’s professed interests originally were in Asia and Africa and its volunteers were supposedly mostly from the Pacific and Europe.

    Reston is a center for outfits working on US cybersecurity, information technology, and defense, as indeed is the whole DC-MD-Va metropolitan area. Among many similar companies HQ’d there, one finds NCI, whose website announces that it is  “an industry leader and provider of full-spectrum IO (Information Operations) enabling technologies and services to promote and protect our US federal government customers’ information and information systems.”

    IO, electronic warfare (EW) and Cyberwar are its specialties.

    Wondering why I hadn’t come across the Reston cell phone in articles about Wikileaks, I did another search and found that in fact in March 2007 a Columbia Journalism Review intern Dan Goldberg had published something about it, only the piece had been removed from the web.

    This is one angle for further research.

    Next, double-checking the domain information, I did a  whois search for WikiLeaks.org, which pulled up the following information:

    Domain ID:D130035267-LROR Domain Name:WIKILEAKS.ORGCreated On:04-Oct-2006 05:54:19
    UTC Last Updated On:17-Dec-2010 01:57:59 UTCExpiration Date:04-Oct-2018 05:54:19
    UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Dynadot, LLC (R1266-LROR)Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
    Registrant ID:CP-13000Registrant Name:John Shipton c/o Dynadot PrivacyRegistrant
    Street1:PO Box 701 Registrant City:San MateoRegistrant State/Province:CA Registrant
    Postal Code:94401Registrant Country:US Registrant Phone:+1.6505854708

    The address of the registrar, Dynadot, as it appears at page insider is PO Box 1072, Belmont, CA 94002, the email is privacy@dynadot.com  and the phone number is 1-866-652-2039.

    I called, and Dynadot confirmed that it is the current registrar for Wikileaks.

    A Cnet blog article and documents from the Julius Baer court case also confirm that the registrar in 2008 was California LLC, Dynadot, and that the registrant/owner was John Shipton, an Australian citizen resident in Nairobi. This is also confirmed by the notice of intent to appear filed by Shipton and his California law firm, Chadwick, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Shipton has a Nairobi address in the notice and Dynadot has its usual San Mateo CA address. 1-650-585-1961.

    Now who is John Shipton? Does he exist in his own right or is he simply a nom-de-plume of Julian Assange? Most likely the second, since it would be grotesquely coincidental to have two Australian nationals resident in Kenya, both involved in human rights activism at the same outfit. Again, more research is in order.

    The original whois information for WikiLeaks appears at Cryptome.org, where the registrant’s name is given as John Young, the owner of Cryptome and a co-founder of Wikileaks. The Cryptome site carries the email correspondence between Young and Wikileaks from a restricted mailing list housed at the collective, rise-up.net, in 2006-07.

    The letters show Young to be first enthusiastic about WL and then increasingly frustrated and annoyed by its methods. He calls the claim of over a million documents exaggerated and the repeated assertions of superior ethics and confidentiality deeply suspect, in the absence of a track-record.

    The final straw comes when WL says it needs $5 million in funding by the summer of 2007 to stay alive. Young erupts with accusations that WL is a CIA “hustle.”

    On the plus side for WL,  the Young correspondence suggests how WL might have got hold of names of activists. Members seem to have been regular readers of Counterpunch, Z Mag, and Mother Jones. I’d written several pieces for Counterpunch in 2005-06, and it’s possible that’s how they got hold of names that way.

    So that is an explanation that does not undermine WL.

    However,  the Cryptome emails note another problem that the review site, Wikileak.com (no S) describes in great detail.

    Wikileaks.org (with an S), it says, makes extraordinary claims about confidentiality and anonymity that are just that – claims. These claims are not justified by an examination of the actual procedures involved in uploading documents to the site, procedures that are often shoddy, incompetent, uncoordinated, or even deliberately misleading, Wikileak.com (no S) notes pointedly.

    [Lila, Dec. 26th, 2010: I made minor stylistic changes to the paragraph above to make it clear that it is not a verbatim quote from the review site, but a paraphrase of its position]

    Anyway, taking all this into account, WL seems to have been founded and registered in 2006 by Julian Paul Assange/John Shipton and John Young OR by a group of activists who for whatever reason let Assange and Young wear the public face of the company.

    Who were these activists?

    The original web entry on the subject (since changed) said WL was the creation of Chinese dissidents and other activists. This is also the claim of an article by Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Information Czar, in The Washington Post in February 2007, “A Brave New Wikiworld.”

    John Young says that the Sunstein article was the first public introduction of WikiLeaks and that WikiLeaks might well be the cointelpro operation to infiltrate conspiracy groups that Sunstein seemed to be arguing for in a later (2008) white paper.

    But this isn’t accurate. WikiLeaks had already been introduced to the public by a Time Magazine story, “A Wiki for whistle-blowers” a month earlier than the Sunstein piece, in January 2007.

    Time, Washington Post – this is pretty high-profile coverage for an outfit that had just begun three months earlier. What’s even more interesting is that the Time piece, like the Post piece, both point out the concurrent start of Intellipedia, the intelligence-sharing project started by US intelligence in October 2006, the month when WikiLeaks began.

    Both articles also explicitly mention rumors about WikiLeaks possibly being a CIA front. This is quite curious. Were these papers simply reporting all the information available to them?  Were they going on Young’s statement at the time, or did they have other sources for this suspicion? If the suspicions were credible, if WL was plausibly an intel operation, why the full-court press? If the suspicions were not credible, why mention them so pointedly?

    Again, it’s impossible to say for sure without first-hand information.

    One explanation of how activists created WL, comes, once more, from John Young.

    In his latest Cryptome posts on the subject, Young talks about Assange as a craven spokesman for WL, seduced by money and the promise of fame to betray the original ideals of the outfit. Those ideals, says Young, grew out of a cypherpunk mailing list going back to 1992 that debated issues around cryptography and privacy. Wikipedia has the list with individual descriptions.

    It’s a distinguished group.

    Besides Assange, who is described as WL’s founder, the inventor of deniable cyptography and the co-author of “Underground,” there are three Bell lab researchers; two elite university professors; the Chief Technical Officer of PGP corporation; the creators of Bit Torrent and other software/technologies; the founders of Anonymizer.Inc., Interhack Corp., HavenCo., C2Net and of Cypherpunk itself; a researcher at Lawrence Livermore labs; the founder and lawyer of the Electronic Frontier Foundation; a former Chief Scientist from Intel;  authors of several books – “Assassination Politics,” “A Cypher Punk’s Manifesto,” “God Wants You Dead,” and “A Crypto-Anarchist Manifesto”; Sun Microsystems employees; and a noted blogger and author on computer security issues.

    These are accomplished activists, no question. And if they were at some point involved with the creation of WikiLeaks, or were aware of it, or promoted it, then it’s no wonder that the project quickly got such a high level of media attention. On the other hand, the involvement of the high-profile cypherpunks lends weight to the notion that intelligence played a hand in the creation of WikiLeaks. It is well-known by now that important American businesses have often been co-opted by the intelligence community.

    Given that, it’s impossible that companies in the vanguard of technological development in encryption, security, privacy, and espionage, especially as it relates to nuclear energy (Lawrence Livermore labs), could have operated without some monitoring or input from the CIA. Ergo, if WikiLeaks were in fact the creation of the cypherpunks, I believe intelligence would have been aware of it and involved in it, as private contractors are deeply involved in Homeland security at every level.

    Of course, I should add that it’s not only US intelligence that is involved in Homeland Security.  Many have seen the hand of the Israeli intelligence and security business in it too.

    Whether WikiLeaks grew out of the cypherpunk list or not, it’s not in dispute that Assange was quickly WL’s public face. In fact, he’s repeatedly and abrasively insisted that he was the “the heart and soul” of the outfit, angering colleagues and eventually leading to public fall-outs with some of them (Young, Domscheit-Berg).

    Besides the cypherpunk list, another group of activists have been treated as the creators of WL -the Chinese dissidents originally named on WL’s website.

    Who were these activists?
    The one mentioned on the webpage originally:
    “Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and startup company
    technologists, from the U.S., Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa”

    But there is another list  mentioned in an email dated Dec 9, 2006 from Cryptome.org’s exchanges with Wikileaks which refers to WL’ activists by their work (I have guessed at three of them in brackets).

    1.Retired new york architect and notorious intelligence leak
    facilitator (John Young of Cryptome.org?)
    2. Euro cryptographer/programmer
    3. Pacific physicist and illustrator
    4. A pacific author and economic policy lecturer
    5. Euro, Ex-Cambridge mathematician/cryptographer/programmer
    6. Euro businessman and security specialist/activist
    7. Author of software than runs 40% of the world’s websites (Phil Zimmerman?)
    8. US pure mathematician with criminal law background
    9. An infamous US ex-hacker
    10. Pacific cryptographer/physicist and activist (Julian Assange?)
    11. US/euro cryptographer and activist/programmer
    12. Pacific programmer
    13. Pacific architect / foreign policy wonk

    This doesn’t sound quite like “Chinese dissidents, journalists etc” but
    both lists do refer to technologists. That fact makes it plausible that some or all of the original WL material came from hacking, and not whistle-blowing, a theory that fits with     a WL letter to John Young on Jan 7, 2007 suggesting that hackers were involved with some of the material, and that WL was gathering so much material it didn’t know where 90% of the material came from or what was in it:

    “ We are going to fuck them all. Chinese mostly, but not entirely a feint. Invention abounds. Lies, twists and distorts everywhere needed for protection. Hackers monitor chinese and other intel as they burrow into their targets, when they pull, so do we. Inexhaustible supply of material. Near 100,000 documents/emails a day. We’re going to crack the world open and let it flower into something new. If fleecing the CIA will assist us, then fleece we will. We have pullbacks from NED, CFR, Freedomhouse and other CIA teats. We have all of pre 2005 afghanistan. Almost all of india fed. Half a dozen foreign ministries. Dozens of political parties and consulates, worldbank, apec, UN sections, trade groups, tibet and fulan dafa associations and… russian phishing mafia who pull data everywhere. We’re drowning. We don’t even know a tenth of what we have or who it belongs to. We stopped storing it at 1Tb.”

    However you interpret this, one thing is clear, right from the start, Wikileaks was a conduit for a lot of material that they themselves could not identify or source.  If an intelligence agency wanted to plant or seed its own slanted “disclosures” in the welter of documents being dumped on the site, it would be only too easy to do.”

    (To Be Continued in Part IV))