Agent Assange

Certain alternative media stars either fail to realize or selectively black out the fact Julian Assange was a critical gear in the intelligence agency (primarily CIA & MOSSAD) information operations responsible for the so-called "Arab Spring", leading to not only revolution and counter-revolution in Egypt but also the overthrow of Gaddafi and the Syrian "civil war".

How do Glen Greenwald, Caitlin Johnstone, Elizabeth Vos, Chris Hedges, Vanessa Beeley and Raul Ilargi Meijer (among others), when defending their perception of Assange as a hero, drive their square peg into the round hole of Wikileaks supported the intelligence agency geopolitical engineering called the Arab Spring?

A thumbnail history of a western intelligence asset:

How does Julian Assange both; take credit for the cables release (cablegate) giving important momentum to the so-called "Arab Spring" and deny he had been an agent of US intelligence who'd been instigating and engineering the very same Arab Spring via CIA fronts like Freedom House?

In 2008 the USA Department of State had begun training future Arab Spring leaders in the USA, instructing them how to organize demonstrations via social media, with the assistance of CIA fronts Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy, coordinated with the National Security Council by the Department of State's Shaarik Zafar.

Subsequent to this, the WikiLeaks Arab Spring fable begins with the 2010 release of diplomatic cables as the demiurge creating a universal movement for democracy in the Arab world. Meanwhile, in 2007 Julian Assange had been the house guest of Miss Egypt, that nations number one corporate prostitute whose commercial sponsor (Pantene) ties directly to Procter and Gamble. Amy Goodman sucks up Assange's story of Miss Egypt's concerns for social justice and how he managed live with her literally wedged into American security, and what he was up to supposedly unbeknownst to them:

Amy Goodman: "You lived in Egypt for a time"

Julian Assange: "I lived in Egypt during 2007, so I'm familiar with the Mubarak regime and the tensions within the Egyptian environment. Actually, I was staying at the time, rather unusual circumstance, I was staying in Ms. Egypt's house. And, Ms. Egypt's house – other than having paintings of Ms. Egypt all throughout – was clustered right between the U.S. Embassy and the U.N. High Commission with a van outside fueled with 24 soldiers in front of my front door. So, for the type of work we were doing, this seemed to be the ultimate cover to be nested right amongst this"

Assange's "cover"

NOT. You don't live with Procter and Gamble's premier Arab World corporate prostitute located between buildings crawling with American, United Nations, and Egyptian security & intelligence, other than with an official nod of approval. I think it's very clear who was "providing cover".

Timeline:

2007 Assange is living literally next door to the US Embassy in Egypt in an area overrun with American intelligence and security.

2008 the future Arab Spring leaderships' training in social media is initiated by the USA.

2010 WikiLeaks releases the "cables" inspiring the Egyptian (and other Arab) youth to join the Arab Spring under USA trained leadership, already in place.

Trying to square Julian Assange with his message is like trying to drive a square peg into a round hole. How does this toilet spin? Let's try:

"CIA, via Freedom House is training and coordinating the Arab Spring leadership. Julian Assange is releasing cables towards motivating the larger Arab youth to join the Arab Spring under that very same CIA trained and coordinated leadership. What the CIA is doing is bad. What Assange is doing is good."

Somehow that works for alternative and progressive media.

In espionage, there are three basic means of penetrating and/or using a hostile organization to one's advantage:

1) Turning an employee through some means such as blackmail, sex, bribery or appeal to a psychological weakness such as working on someone's conscience or ideology and convince them to become your organization's asset (agent/traitor)

2) Using psychology and/or disinformation to convince an organization's staff to work to your advantage and/or commit acts against its own interests (false flag/sale)

3) Placing your own officer within the organization as an employee (spy)

Assange's organization, WikiLeaks, would be the target of each of these methods by multiple intelligence agencies. How do the symptoms stack up? Assange's judgement, when dealing with what turns out to have been a FBI "asset" (to avoid confusion, we won't say "agent") ...

In January 2011, Thordarson was implicated in a bizarre political scandal in which a mysterious "spy computer" laptop was found running unattended in an empty office in the parliament building. "If you did (it), don't tell me," Assange told Thordarson, according to unauthenticated chat logs provided by Thordarson.

"I will defend you against all accusations, ring (sic) and wrong, and stick by you, as I have done," Assange told him in another chat the next month. "But I expect total loyalty in return"

Prior to this, Assange had been warned by a former WikiLeaks ally:

"When Julian met him for the first or second time, I was there", says Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of Icelandic Parliament who worked with WikiLeaks on Collateral Murder, the Wikileaks release of footage of a US helicopter attack in Iraq. "And I warned Julian from day one, there's something not right about this guy... I asked not to have him as part of the Collateral Murder team."

Now we have to ask; is Assange just stupid or does he tolerate moles in his organization? Which brings us to another glaring inconsistency.

The Guardian had reported concerning the WikiLeaks supposed (reported widely in "mainstream" media) "legal expert" accompanying Edward Snowden, Sarah Harrison, on Snowden's odyssey to Moscow:

"Despite her closeness to Assange, Harrison may seem a strange choice to accompany Snowden, as unlike several people close to WikiLeaks – most notably human rights lawyer Jennifer Robinson – Harrison has no legal qualifications or background"

Yeah, that's likely why Snowden faxed perfectly useless asylum requests all over the world from the Moscow airport, not realizing (technically speaking, such as in an embassy) he had to be standing on the territory of the nation he would wish to acquire asylum in.

Now we have to ask again; is Assange just stupid? With a trained expert in international human rights law (asylum expert), Jennifer Robinson, available to WikiLeaks, instead Assange sends a rank amateur, Harrison, who is suddenly a 'legal researcher' that didn't so much as know you cannot make an asylum claim to a nation whose territory you're not standing on. This smells like an intelligence embed's cover story.

Now to a stunning example of incompetence:

"Spending time with Assange, it's hard not to start believing that dark forces are at work. According to him, everyone's emails are being read. For that reason, he encourages anyone planning to leak a document to post it the old fashioned way, to his PO Box"

From 18 July 2010, when that incredible statement was published by The Independent, about every intelligence agency in the western world (if not the entire planet) arranged to red flag any/all mail addressed to WikiLeaks "PO Box", except for the fact this would already have been the case. Julian Assange had just invited whistle-blowers, and people with whatever other motivations, to give themselves up to professional forensics analysis (fingerprints, DNA, and other possibilities such as analyzing method used to reproduce leaked information while looking for identity clues, whether USB thumb drive, paper media or whatever.)

Then, to the rest of the incredibly irresponsible paragraph:

"It's ironic that an organisation bent on blowing secrets is itself so secretive, but Wikileaks couldn't operate without reliable sources. Except that, amazingly, Wikileaks does not verify them. "We don't verify our sources, we verify the documents. As long as they are bona fide it doesn't matter where they come from. We would rather not know.""

This invites culled or customized document dumps where there had been deliberate omissions strategically calculated to mislead. Missing critical components, a collection put together by intelligence agency and dropped on WikiLeaks as an information operation would be a big temptation; recalling former Pentagon liaison to the CIA, Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty speaking of the Pentagon Papers:

(They're) "unreliable, inaccurate and marred by serious omissions. They are a contrived history"

Who would know better than one of the Pentagon Papers authors? Colonel Prouty goes on to note:

"That I had written parts of some of them proves that they were not genuine Pentagon papers, because my work at that time was devoted to support of the CIA"

Of course most those outside the intelligence world would not know military is the largest CIA cover story for its spies and that all of those in uniform who'd been writing and assembling the Pentagon Papers were working for CIA. That's the nature of the propaganda beast.

Now, to the recent 'Russians hacked the election' and 'Assange is a Russian agent' toilet spin coming out of the USA's mainstream newsrooms. The USA 'intelligence' report states:

"Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."

Or by implication, let's blame WikiLeaks and by extension, the Russians, because Assange is so poorly self-disciplined, sloppy, amateur and arrogant, he could be manipulated as an agent for ANYONE. In the case of WikiLeaks, this would appear to be true.

An agent or asset often does not even realize that is the role they serve. It is this last the USA's intelligence people would have you believe is a possibility relating to WikiLeaks in relation to the so-called hack. But one should not jump to conclusion this phenomenon has Assange working solely for the Russians, just because the report's disclaimer/weasel words essentially saying 'if it all turns out to be bs we're sorry' weren't pushed on the public by the long time CIA asset Washington Post:

All major media has run with this Washington Post story. And how would CIA journalism embeds seek to epoxy this story in the wider public's mind? It would be with followup stories making Russia the boogeyman on a wider range of related issues, particularly if there were little, nebulous or no evidence to back the original. Consequently we have:

"On Friday, the Washington Post published an earth-shattering report that Russian hackers had infiltrated the U.S. electricity grid through a Vermont utility.

"This was huge news, and for good reason. If Russian hackers, or any hackers for that matter, had found their way into the U.S. electricity grid, there would be almost no end to the harm they could cause. Not surprisingly, the Post story spread like wildfire.

"But it turns out that none of it was true. Zip. Zero. Nada."

And there you have it; "the Post story spread like wildfire." Too late to stuff that genie back in the bottle. Oh, and that's the same Washington Post that had been busted for the fake "fake news" story blaming numerous alternative news outlets for pushing Russian propaganda when in fact many were simply reporting what mainstream does not, particularly stories concerning corrupted American institutions. That one (the fake part) is embedded in the larger American psyche as though it were gospel. That's how propaganda works.

Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for $300 million. Bezos is also majority owner of Amazon, which holds a $600 million contract with the CIA. Which do you suppose is the better business move for billionaire Bezos? Calling out the CIA on its malfeasance? Or the Post taking CIA scripts for its reporting?

What should one look for if Assange is actually the asset of a western intelligence agency set on framing the Russians? The 1st clue would be the Washington Post putting plenty of ink into spinning the story, here's a few samples:

Julian Assange's claim that there was no Russian ... - Washington Post

3 days ago - Fact-checking Julian Assange's denial of Russian involvement in ... We will stipulate that governments regularly spy on each other, and the ...

What do we actually know about the Russia-Assange-hacking ...

4 days ago - In light of Assange's denial of Russian involvement, a look at the evidence. ... The Washington Post ... On Friday, Trump will receive a briefing articulating what government agencies know about Russia's role in hacking.

Trump allies, WikiLeaks and Russia are pushing a ... - Washington Post

Aug 12, 2016 - Trump allies, Assange, and the Russian government are somewhat ... its theory on an alleged Russian intelligence agency report about a ...

Assange's denials, counter-intuitive as this might seem, could be on the up & up and he's still an intelligence asset. Only not necessarily a Russian intelligence asset, going to:

The 2nd clue would be if there were infighting between cliques in the USA's national security establishment or a turf war. We have ample indications of that, and there is two distinct possibilities; the first being intelligence operatives aligned with the (pre-election) out of favor NSA-Pentagon-Christian Zionist-Israeli-Kissinger (Trump aligned) intelligence clique laundered the Clinton campaign [DNC] mails via a disgruntled Sanders supporter through to WikiLeaks to damage Clinton. The second possibility being the leaked mails were solely via a straightforward disgruntled Saunders Democrat; either case causing the (soon to be out of favor) Brennan-Obama-CIA-Brzezinski (Clinton aligned) clique to use the WikiLeaks release to frame Russia and damage Trump.

I'm of the opinion it is Trump aligned intelligence professionals laundered the emails through to WikiLeaks; an organization that has shown itself highly vulnerable to penetration and manipulation, in the main due to the incredible narcissism, arrogance, carelessness and associated poor judgement of Julian Assange.

WikiLeaks likely has been manipulated as an agent by several intelligence agencies on multiple occasions. In fact the organization smells so bad, Vegas should put its bookies on events surrounding Julian Assange.

Meanwhile, try driving this square peg...

"On the face of it TOR appears to be a subversive hacktivist site, offering anonymity to anarchists, political dissidents, leakers, internet activists and the underground criminal world. In fact, the systems used on the site were developed by a unit of The US Office of Naval Intelligence as part of US “Public Diplomacy”. Currently TOR's three biggest sources of funding are: The US Department of Defence, The US State Department and The Board of Broadcasting – another propaganda arm of the US Government"

...into this round hole:

Contact. If you need help using Tor you can contact WikiLeaks for assistance in setting it up using our simple webchat available at: https://wikileaks.org/talk

Tor is a supposedly secure system developed by US intelligence so their "color revolutionaries" (abroad) could communicate securely (without being intercepted by the national governments the USA was looking to overthrow.) Meanwhile it was sales-pitched as a system to elude everyone and everything. No chance. WikiLeaks inviting leaks and communications via Tor is like inviting Uncle Sam to sit at the WikiLeaks kitchen table in WikiLeaks intimate discussions with those providing leaked materials.

Finally, it would be small wonder if Assange denied a childhood cult experience that would call into account plausible frailties integrated to his underlying psychology. Should the horrors of such an experience forgo any public examination? Not if you're the man who has placed himself in position to demand answers; as to what could be the underlying cause of so many conflicts between proposed facts? Could Assange have lived 3 or so years with a cult member and NOT have been exposed to the cult? There are too many conflicts in what Assange proposes, as opposed to the more established facts, to responsibly look the other way.

Assange's exposure to the Hamilton-Byrne cult (a.k.a. The Family) as a child is both admitted and denied. It is (sort of) admitted his step-father was associated with the cult and denied by Assange he had been exposed to the cult. The step-father was in his life from ages 8 to 11, bringing up a photo throwing Assange's denials into doubt:

Drugs, sexual abuse and every child an identical blonde

It's not often I've written on WikiLeaks, however my position hasn't changed significantly since I'd first written on the subject six years ago. Whether Assange is unaware he's done the CIA large favors in the past (Assange's years 8-11 profile like an MKUltra field exercise) or is aware and has woke up to the fact Langley, Virginia, has a habit of stabbing its assets in the back, is not so important as people knowing WikiLeaks is a living, functioning urban legend ... insofar as the image versus the reality -

Screenshot from my old blog deleted by AlterNet, text HERE. Did I get it wrong? Maybe, when considering former CIA officer Robert Steele has flat-out stated Julian Assange has a history of ties to MOSSAD. More likely, in my view, is the idea Assange has served both.

Listen beginning at minute 4:55 on Assange-MOSSAD

*

Note: The group photo with the child Assange (it clearly is Julian) has been around the internet for years and I've yet to see it disputed as authentic. It's almost as though mainstream has decided if they pretend it's not there, it'll go away. Consequently, you will only find it at more extreme 'conspiracy' websites, which seems to be a means of discrediting the image by default.

29 November 2018 update: New article on the myth of wikileaks HERE