Assange sex charges are a Trojan horse to divide and distract::

“Julian Assange is a propagandist, make no mistake of it. Time and time again his supposed leaks have been edited down, altered, and sometimes are just flat out lies. [1] Some of these lies have long since been debunked such as the WMDs in Iraq and the Old Iranian propaganda from the Bush era administration.

Assange has multiple ties that back the assertion that he is a disinformation agent. He is tied to the Rothschild family through Economist magazine [2], which has deep connections to the Rothschild Family. Further investigation will reveal that Assange supposed “intel” can only come from one source; AIPAC. AIPAC is a Zionist spy organization that fronts as a lobby. [3](see source 3 for info)

Now why is that all important? Because it sets up the obvious fact that Swedish charges are a Trojan horse but not one to get at Assange to destroy him, no they are to get the conspiracy community to believe him by giving him and his organization credibility.

The story of what happened is that Julian had sex with two women on separate occasions that approached him during his seminar in the Swedish capital on the August 14^th. [4] They both approached him together and filed their charges 6 days later together. Now that reeks of obvious setup.

Now so far the case has been dismissed by a higher ranking prosecutor than the one who filed it and Eva Finne (the chief prosecutor) closed one case saying it wasn’t even worth consideration. Both of these were overturned in a political stunt most likely perpetrated by ether Israel or the USA.

Now let’s look a statement from one of the woman who have accused Assange.

Speaking anonymously, one of the two women involved told the Swedish daily newspaper, Aftonbladet, she had never intended Assange to be charged with rape and that both women had had voluntary relations with him.

“He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him,” she reportedly said. “The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man who had attitude problems with women.” [4]

Now if you look at the wording the quote you see a clear sign of Feminism. The traditional men are garbage rhetoric. Now this kind of ideology can be just a coincidence or it can show ties to the Rockefeller family who engineer feminism with the CIA in the United States with this rhetoric being a key value. [5]

In fact it is not all surprising with that in mind then that you find out that Anna Ardin actually worked for the CIA in anti Castro campaigns. [6] From those campaign is tied to terrorists through Luis Posada Carriles who has killed around 100 people in various bombing attempts. This terrorists was also US sponsored but later jailed.

It is not surprising then when we look at the other woman and find out that she is a feminist as well. Both Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen have both boasted about how they would destroy Assange and have several twitter posts they wish they could delete revealing their intent on destroying Assange and enjoying partying. [7] Something one would imagine women who were actually raped not doing or saying.

Julian Assange has time and time again been interviewed by members of the Council on Foreign Relations.[8] This is significant because the CFR is controlled by the Rockefellers and Rothschilds. David Rockefeller was the chairman of this group for several years. [9] Showing further connections to the Rockefellers and Rothschild families whom have long noted histories with the CIA.

All of this evidence comes together to show that the events unfolding are nothing but a show for our benefit. It is a Machiavellian plot to divide us against each other dividing the conspiracy community. Then those that follow Wikilinks or its soon to be splinter group [10] will be lead astray and be fed a steady diet of propaganda and disinformation.

When we step back though and look at the whole picture we begin to see a carefully orchestrated drama that is meant to grab our attention and trick us into returning to sheeple status. Though through diligence we can remain free by watching out for carefully constructed machinations like the one playing out before us.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYIC2BMhE5A

[2] http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-has.html

[3] http://mycatbirdseat.com/2010/11/gordon-duff-wikileaks-a-touch-of-assange-and-the-stench-of-aipac/

[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/julian-assange-wikileaks-founder

[5] http://tcrnews2.com/Steinem_CIA.html

[6] http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/

[7] http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/

[8]http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20101213&articleId=22389

[9]Gods of Eden Pg 332

[10] http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/12/wikileaks.rival/index.html

Florence King, cited by the American Thinker:

“Maybe it was the endless hours spent watching the Jacobins on MSNBC, maybe it was switching to CNN and finding cyberspacey John King, the high-tech finger-painter, noodling his living maps. Whatever it was, I was trapped in a cycle of revulsion, resignation, and exhaustion that became unbearable. It was cri de coeur time and out it came: ‘I HATE POLITICS!’

“I’m sick of everybody on both sides, whether it’s Obama making a fool of himself singing at the Apollo Theater, or the whole Nitt Gomney-Sanctus Santorum omnium gatherum on the right.”

In a long and sometimes incorrect assessment of libertarianism, a blogger ( Zompist.com) makes two very thoughtful and accurate points:

“The more important point, however, is that the capitalist is the über-villain for communists, and a glorious hero for libertarians; that property is “theft” for the communists, and a “natural right” for libertarians. These dovetail a little too closely for coincidence. It’s natural enough, when a basic element of society is attacked as an evil, for its defenders to counter-attack by elevating it into a principle.

As we should have learned from the history of communism and fascism, however, contradiction is no guarantee of truth; it can lead one into an opposite error instead. And many who rejected communism nonetheless remained zealots. People who leave one ideological extreme usually end up at the other, either quickly (David Horowitz) or slowly (Mario Vargas Llosa). If you’re the sort of person who likes absolutes, you want them even if all your other convictions change.”

(Lila:  It’s interesting to me that both Rothbard and Hoppe began on the left, seeking meaning in the structural totalities of Marxism.  That explains the feeling one gets when reading both that they retain some of the world-view of the ideology they first embraced).

And this:

“It’s hard to read libertarians without concluding that they’ve never been out of the country– perhaps never out of the suburbs. They don’t know what Latin American rule by the elite looks like; they don’t know any way of running an industrial economy but that of the US; they don’t know what an actually oppressive government looks like; they’ve never experienced a depression; they’ve never lived in a slum or experienced racial discrimination. At the same time, they have a very American sense of entitlement: a gut feeling that they’ve earned the prosperity they were born into, that they owe the community nothing, that they deserve to have whatever they want, that no one should stand in their way.

In short, they’re spoiled, and they’ve evolved a philosophy that they should be spoiled.”

I just wanted to point out that for a while now, odd grammar and spelling errors have been littering my blog posts.

Some of them are mine. I often don’t have time to revise before posting.

But others are not my work at all. They are part of subtle electronic stalking I’ve been experiencing.

I posted previously about the blog being hacked and about a couple of posts being deleted and a user added.

But recently I’ve been noticing other odd things. Mistakes that I’m quite certain I didn’t make cropping up and reappearing after I’ve corrected them. Words being deleted so sentences don’t make sense.

Bear with me.  This is just petty harassment..

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post (with whom I don’t usually agree) catches an important story:

“Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights organization, posted an alert on its blog Tuesday: “Paul Ryan Speaking at Hate Group’s Annual Conference.”

The “hate group” that the Republicans’ vice presidential candidate would be addressing? The Family Research Council, a mainstream conservative think tank founded by James Dobson and run for many years by Gary Bauer.

The day after the gay rights group’s alert went out, 28-year-old Floyd Lee Corkins II walked into the Family Research Council’s Washington headquarters and, according to an FBI affidavit, proclaimed words to the effect of “I don’t like your politics” — and shot the security guard. Corkins, who had recently volunteered at a gay community center, was carrying a 9mm handgun, a box of ammunition and a backpack full of Chick-fil-A — the company whose president recently spoke out against gay marriage.

Mercifully, the gunman was restrained, and nobody was killed. When I walked by the Family Research Council building at 8th and G streets NW on Thursday afternoon, things were returning to normal. Outside the main doors, above which is inscribed the group’s “Faith, Family, Freedom” motto, some discarded yellow police tape lay on the sidewalk. Attention to the incident had already begun to fade.

That’s unfortunate, because this shooting should remind us all of an important truth: that while much of the political anger in America today lies on the right, there are unbalanced and potentially violent people of all political persuasions. The rest of us need to be careful about hurling accusations that can stir up the crazies.

Human Rights Campaign isn’t responsible for the shooting. Neither should the organization that deemed the FRC a “hate group,” the Southern Poverty Law Center, be blamed for a madman’s act. But both are reckless in labeling as a “hate group” a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions, on issues from stem cells to euthanasia.”

A well-sourced article at Spartacus Educational asks if James Jesus Angleton chief of counter-intelligence, founder of Israel’s Mossad, and fierce foe of  another CIA chief, Bill Colby, was also a KBG mole, as some think Colby was:

“In 1976 Cleveland Cram, the former Chief of Station in the Western Hemisphere, met George T. Kalaris and Ted Shackley at a cocktail party in Washington. Kalaris, who had replaced Angleton as Chief of Counterintelligence, asked Cram if he would like to come back to work. Cram was told that the CIA wanted a study done of Angleton’s reign from 1954 to 1974. “Find out what in hell happened. What were these guys doing.”

Cram took the assignment and was given access to all CIA documents on covert operations. The study entitled History of the Counterintelligence Staff 1954-1974, took six years to complete. As David Wise points out in his book Molehunt (1992): “When Cram finally finished it in 1981… he had produced twelve legal-sized volumes, each three hundred to four hundred pages. Cram’s approximately four-thousand-page study has never been declassified. It remains locked in the CIA’s vaults.”

On 16th May, 1978, John M. Whitten appeared before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). He criticised Richard Helms for not making a full disclosure about the Rolando Cubela plot to the Warren Commission. He added ” I think that was a morally highly reprehensible act, which he cannot possibly justify under his oath of office or any other standard of professional service.”

Whitten also said that if he had been allowed to continue with the investigation he would have sought out what was going on at JM/WAVE. This would have involved the questioning of Ted Shackley, David Sanchez Morales, Carl E. Jenkins, Rip Robertson, George Joannides, Gordon Campbell and Thomas G. Clines. As Jefferson Morley has pointed out in The Good Spy: “Had Whitten been permitted to follow these leads to their logical conclusions, and had that information been included in the Warren Commission report, that report would have enjoyed more credibility with the public. Instead, Whitten’s secret testimony strengthened the HSCA’s scathing critique of the C.I.A.’s half-hearted investigation of Oswald. The HSCA concluded that Kennedy had been killed by Oswald and unidentifiable co-conspirators.”

John M. Whitten also told the HSCA that James Jesus Angleton involvement in the investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy was “improper”. Although he was placed in charge of the investigation by Richard Helms, Angleton “immediately went into action to do all the investigating”. When Whitten complained to Helms about this he refused to act.

Whitten believes that Angleton’s attempts to sabotage the investigation was linked to his relationship with the Mafia. Whitten claims that Angleton also prevented a CIA plan to trace mob money to numbered accounts in Panama. Angleton told Whitten that this investigation should be left to the FBI. When Whitten mentioned this to a senior CIA official, he replied: “Well, that’s Angleton’s excuse. The real reason is that Angleton himself has ties to the Mafia and he would not want to double-cross them.”

Whitten also pointed out that as soon as Angleton took control of the investigation he concluded that Cuba was unimportant and focused his internal investigation on Oswald’s life in the Soviet Union. If Whitten had remained in charge he would have “concentrated his attention on CIA’s JM/WAVE station in Miami, Florida, to uncover what George Joannides, the station chief, and operatives from the SIG and SAS knew about Oswald.”

James Angleton died of lung cancer at Washington’s Sibley Memorial Hospital on 11th May, 1987, and was buried in his hometown of Boise, Idaho.

In 1993 Cleveland Cram completed a study carried out on behalf of the CIA’s Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI). Of Moles and Molehunters: A Review of Counterintelligence Literature. This document was declassified in 2003. In the document Cram reveals that several senior CIA officers, including Clare Edward Petty, Angleton’s assistant, were convinced that the former Chief of Counterintelligence, was a KGB agent.

In his book, Oswald and the CIA (2008), John Newman argued: “In my view, whoever Oswald’s direct handler or handlers were, we must now seriously consider the possibility that Angleton was probably their general manager. No one else in the Agency had the access, the authority, and the diabolically ingenious mind to manage this sophisticated plot. No one else had the means necessary to plant the WWIII virus in Oswald’s files and keep it dormant for six weeks until the president’s assassination. Whoever those who were ultimately responsible for the decision to kill Kennedy were, their reach extended into the national intelligence apparatus to such a degree that they could call upon a person who knew its inner secrets and workings so well that he could design a failsafe mechanism into the fabric of the plot. The only person who could ensure that a national security cover-up of an apparent counterintelligence nightmare was the head of counterintelligence.”

From Veteran’s Today:

Wednesday, August 15th, 2012 | Posted by Kevin Barrett

————–
Barry Chamish is one of the most radical, out-of-control Zionists you’ll ever meet. Chamish is so extreme right-wing pro-settler, pro-Greater-Israel, pro-Jabotinsky, pro-Zio-terrorist, he makes Netanyahu look like a peace-loving statesman.

But one thing you can say about Chamish: He’s not stupid, he has guts, and he pretty much calls it the way he sees it. At the personal level, I actually like the guy.

So when Chamish recently wrote what he intended as a hostile review of Christopher Bollyn’s Solving 9/11, but couldn’t help admitting that Bollyn was basically right, that the big-money Zionist mob did 9/11 with the help of Mossad and its American assets…well, that’s about the highest praise Bollyn could ever get.

Chamish claims it was the “Labor Zionists” that did 9/11, and faults Bollyn for failing to exonerate the likes of Netanyahu. But the evidence shows that Bollyn is right, and Chamish is wrong: Netanyahu was obviously a key player in the 9/11 conspiracy.

Bollyn cites Netanyahu’s 1979 Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism(JCIT) where the whole game-plan for the upcoming “war on terror,” i.e. the war on Israel’s enemies, was developed. Chamish fatuously writes: “In 1980, Netanyahu was selling furniture at the RIM company and not formulating plans for 9-11.” The seminal importance of Netanyahu’s JCIT in creating the “war on terror” out of whole cloth, and setting the stage for 9/11, is obvious to anyone who reads Netanyahu’s book that came out of JCIT. In that compilation, arch-Zionist Orientalist Bernard Lewis reveals his plan, supported by the pro-Israel wing of Western intelligence agencies, to create a modern version of the medieval assassins – namely, al-CIA-duh – and use it to smash the Middle East to pieces on behalf of Israel (the Oded Yinon plan). If that isn’t the game plan for 9/11, what is? (Bernard Lewis was the first person from outside the government to meet with George W. Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11; obviously he was there to quarterback 9/11 and its intended aftermath.)

If there are any doubts that Netanyahu is at the top of the list of 9/11 criminals, they should be dispelled by the reports informing us that Netanyahu and confessed insurance fraudster and 9/11 demolition criminal Larry Silverstein is such a close friend of Netanyahu’s that they speak on the phone every single week.

Chamish claims that Bollyn fails to see that Likud and Netanyahu are the good guys, and the Labor Zionists the bad guys, due to Bollyn’s supposedly anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish ideology. But it is actually Chamish who is letting his raving-extremist Likudnik ideology blind him to some of the simple, obvious facts of 9/11, including the involvement of his heroes Sharon and Netanyahu.”

Comment:

Chamish’s admission underscores yet again that Assange’s kiss up to Netanyahu  is a sign of where his real loyalties lie. Some have called Bollyn’s work anti-Semitic disinformation. Perhaps. I don’t know enough to say. But of the foreknowledge and complicity  in 9/11 of certain elements in the  US government and the Israeli government, there is perhaps not much doubt at this stage.

An Adam Kokesh interview at Reason magazine raises a bunch of interesting concerns in the comment section:

ZacksReasonUsername| 8.28.12 @ 6:17AM |#