Assange & Wikileaks: CIA/Mossad Asset & Psyops? Refuted by Source in 2010.


On Facebook I was given a link to a recent article on The Daily Bell suggesting Julian Assange is a CIA/Mossad agent, and WikiLeaks is a New World Order psyop to justify and validate the International Criminal Court (ICC). Here is my extensive research into this claim, and other’s like it, and my response to the Daily Bell article.

Firstly, The Daily Bell article asks me to take a huge leap-of-faith from the outset … that Julian Assange/Wikileaks is a CIA/Mossad asset – no evidence or sources, just take it as a given. This rumour has been around since Wikileaks began releasing US leaks and Embassy cables during 2010 – but Wikileaks had leaked on many nations before then … and that seemed okay (theory posited – to establish their credibility – more about that later). There is a document from 2008 (and other leaks since – the famed HB Gary scandal being one example) which indicate the CIA planned to discredit Wikileaks in just this way – to make out it was an intelligence psyops. Most people purporting this rumour dismiss the document because it was leaked by Wikileaks. It’s a classic Catch-22. Personally, I have to say, if I was running such a site and came across such a document, I would release it too. Wouldn’t you?

So I decided to do some in-depth research into this psyops allegation. I started at the Daily Bell. I read heaps and heaps of articles there to get a feel for the site. I love the information about the Gutenberg Press and the reformation (both historically and now with the internet). I really like their model of free market thinking – but like the Venus project – I think it is a rather idealistic utopia … one I would love to see implemented, but unrealistic nonetheless (at least at this point of social evolution). If we are to implement any of these idealist models we must consider how to achieve that peacefully – I will not become a criminal to eliminate criminals from society, I will not become a psychopath to eliminate psychopaths. On the whole, Daily Bell writers appear genuine in their desires and believe in what they publish – in other words, they have certain principles to which they adhere and are trying to do the right thing in that regard.

Next I tracked down the seemingly original source of this rumour. Most cited was Gordon Duff at Veterans Today. I’ll admit I’ve never really liked the site … it’s anti-anti …. but I have seen a couple of good articles over the years. A lot of theorising going on there but not always the best with solid sources. It’s a bit like Natural News in that way. Before reading Duff’s analogy, I went back to various forums and discussion boards from 2010 onward – places like Above Top Secret (ATS), Project Avalon/Camelot, Godlike Productions (GLP) and more. I wanted to get an overall feel of how people perceived this theory of Assange/Wikileaks as CIA/Mossad psyops asset, and any insight into their personal thoughts and further theories, before reading Duff’s evidence.

Various suspicions are based in Julian’s comments about 9/11, the apparent lack of Israeli leaks, source of funding, mainstream media (MSM) spotlight, his sketchy past (it’s not that sketchy – his Wikipedia bio is quite extensive), his early run-in with authorities for hacking which ultimately led to his assisting the Australian Federal police to bust a child pornography operation, and that the Embassy cables support the US “terrorism” narrative.  All fair critique, but nothing concrete – all substantial evidence. Oh, and I can’t forget the Monarch programming he received at the hands of his mother’s ex-partner – a member of “The Family“, the supposedly Australian wing of the Illuminati (hint: they ran away from him and hid for years – which doesnt sound like very effective brainwashing).

First off, many supporters of Wikileaks (I would even say ‘most’) do not believe the official story of 9/11, regardless of Julian’s comments. There are over 3000 Israeli/Palestinian related cables – and some are quite damning. I think by being dismissive about them, and the sheer size of the haul, meant Netanyahu’s nonchalance intended to misdirect – he was counting on the fact most people would not look, and most would wait for the controlled MSM to reveal anything worthy of attention. Wikileaks cannot be blamed for the apathy or complicity of society. Next. Of course the cables support the US narrative. They are, afterall, written by the very people who believe in it. It is called compartmentalisation and works well. It’s how and why your neighbour supports the Nanny/Police State by calling anonymous “Dob-in xxx” hotlines. It was essential to McCarthyism and every other fascist system implemented throughout history. Many truthers think the media were “in” on the scam of 9/11 – that the media told deliberate lies – I very much doubt this. The narrative of that day, again, was directed by compartmentalisation. In other words, these people have all been duped into believing USG fallacies to begin with – that’s why they report on it like it is fact. And surely, people cannot deny that “extremists” do exist – they have a valid reason to be angry too – but they certainly do not realise/understand their re/actions are being utilised by propaganda media … neither do those who believe the narrative and fear the extremists, but don’t care about or (don’t want to) understand the reasons why it’s happening.

I have another theory too. I speculate the “Collateral Murder” video was an unexpected surprise for the USG. That footage was suppressed by the Pentagon who had lied about the incident for years. How the hell did Wikileaks get hold of it? So it is possible the USG set up a honey pot to locate the leak and possibly even, the method of transfer. It is into this honey pot that Bradley Manning allegedly fell. If we are to believe the chat-logs, Manning did not obtain the Embassy data until AFTER Wikileaks published the video – after he felt the public had demonstrated concern over what they saw. He wanted to know the risk would be worth it. One person rarely mentioned by those positing the Wikileaks intelligence psyops theory, is the only person who had most recently come into contact with the authorities – former grey-hat hacker, Adrian Lamo. If you are looking for an agent of deception to out – he’s your man. So, it is possible the USG did “cherry-pick” the data – just enough scandal to lure Manning, but just right to complement the USG war agenda. If true, then in this way, Wikileaks and Manning by extension, could very well have been unwittingly used to give credibility to the USG narrative. “Useful idiots”? Maybe … but we all live and learn. And on this, let me just say, if that was the plan – to steer the masses towards a false truth – it hasn’t worked very well thus far. The disclosure has only served to awaken many to Govt lies and the MSM propaganda machine. The newly awoken are then compelled to navigate the deep recesses of the rabbit-hole searching for truth from a variety of alternative media sources, only to be further enlightened. Same can be said for Alex Jones and David Icke, both of whom are subjected to massive disinfo campaigns designed to discredit their characters and information. 

Wikileaks is not responsible for the context of the US Embassy Cables – their role is publishing, not writing the material. I believe they would publish any document with a public awareness story to tell and can be verified as authentic – regardless of the government or corporation exposed. Reading the 2007 emails from Wikileaks that were leaked by Cryptome, it seems Wikileaks has had possession of much more information than they have released. In those early days of Wikileaks, Julian says, “We’re drowing. [sic] We don’t even know a tenth of what we have or who it belongs to. We stopped storing it at 1Tb.” I’ve personally never agreed with the with-holding or slow release of information but Im guessing they want verifiable material, stuff that actually has a story to tell, and that they want to redact names so they can’t be accused of endangering lives. Wikileaks can’t seem to please people either way.

As for source of funding (or Soros ties) and MSM spotlight on Wikileaks – can any of us say we cant be tied to these groups somehow? Even loosely? For example, try as we might and without going off the grid completely, it’s damn near impossible not to buy something from a corporation we wish to boycott. Companies are subsidiaries of bigger companies, which are subsidiaries of even larger corporations and on and on. Occupy Wall St was promoted by a loosely Soros-funded activist magazine, but the Occupy movement itself was funded through public donations. Before people became aware of his investment patterns, I would hazard a guess that the majority of activists involved in these NGOs (like GetUp!, MoveOn etc) were, and still are, genuinely guided by their own moral principles – now the Soros connections makes them understandably uneasy. Still this doesn’t answer the question – does Soros fund Wikileaks through his Open Society Institute (OSI)? John Young of Crytptome contacted OSI to find out. A flat denial and tax reports say no.

Soros has invested in, and profitted from, revolutionary causes for decades though – he’s a business man … what do people expect him to invest in? Potential for failure? Herein lies the misnomer. Revolution never means an easy ride to positive change – it gets rough – but can alter the status quo. It is reasonable for people to fear the rough period that leads to social changes. Without full understanding, many blame those hard times on the activists who worked toward revolutionary goals, therefore any groups Soros invests in must be working toward the rough period … not the resulting change. So are we to sit on our hands or attempt major changes alone? I think this hype about Soros/Kosh Brothers funding is designed to divide people – to destabilise unity and ensure the status quo. It makes people question the agenda of activist groups they support and the result makes any movement weaker. There’s your psyops. No matter what organisation people choose to support, if they stay true to their personal principles they cant go wrong. And it’s true – together we are stronger. Together, we can be a force to be reckoned with. If we weren’t, then the powers that be wouldnt be doing all they do in an attempt to control us – the propaganda, fear tactics, and fascism. These are signs “they” are worried about us – about our numbers and strength – if we finally manage to put aside all the trivial divisionary garbage, join together, and focus on the real perpetraters of crime on this planet.
Anyway, if you look through the 2007 Wikileaks emails leaked by Cryptome – Julian states, “We are going to fuck them all […] We’re going to crack the world open and let it flower into something new.”  He also says  he wants to “fleece” the CIA and shady NGOs of their money … ie. trick them into funding the very thing that was going to bite them in the arse. On this he later comments, “It’s a little anarchist.”

A December 2010 article on Bibliotecapleyades makes a concerted effort to demonise any “connections”, including an email proving Assange once worked on some programming for NASA. Oh no! Many of the questions it asks about Julian’s background are now well and truely covered on his Wikipedia page, and in even more depth in, “The Cypherpunk Revolutionary Julian Assange“, an essay by Robert Manne. Seriously, the internet is drowning with so much background and online history for Julian Assange. He conducted research for “Underground: Hacking, madness and obsession on the electronic frontier“, a 1997 book by Suelette Dreyfus, which includes tales about his own hacking escapades using the handle Mendax. BTW, noone has ever claimed him to be a saint, but it seems that is what some people expect (even though very few are free of error themselves). Dreyfus was also associate producer for the documentary, “In the Realm of the Hackers” about the elite Melbourne hacker community of the 1980’s and focusing on two teenagers going by the hacker names “Electron” and “Phoenix“. The documentary demonstrates the difficulties police faced understanding computers, let alone hacking, in those early days of the internet. It is in this early world of personal computers and hacking, which Julian found intrigue and like-minded company. The Bibliotecapleyades article asserts the transcript of his 1996 hacking court case is not available – a number of articles cover the case, and the case text can accessed or downloaded as (PDF).

The Wikileaks Advisory Board also seems to cause a stir – especially since the original website had seemingly been removed. This was never true. While the main website had changed it’s content management system with the Embassy cables release, the original Wikileaks website was always available as an archive on Wikileaks Mirrors, as it still is today. Once the new format of the main Wikileaks website was established, the original website was made available as both an online archive and complete download (ZIP File) on the main site. Changes to the About section are noted, but websites do go through changes and updates, and I’m pretty sure Julian is well aware of the Wayback Machine. Refining material over a four year period is hardly an unusual practise and “dissidents” remain listed as part of the Advisory board anyway. For some reason Asian dissidents and activists don’t seem to sit well in certain conspiracy circles – their involvement in the Tiananmen Square democracy movement and other human rights activism somehow viewed as suspicious. Phillip Adams has been a columnist for “The Australian“, a Murdoch publication, since the 60’s. It’s suggested his involvement with the International Committee of Index on Censorship is nefarious – I don’t understand how that works as the Index on Censorship is a campaigning publishing organisation for freedom of expression, as too is Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT), founded by CJ Hinke. Ben Laurie is a director of Open Rights Group – which campaigns against threats to our rights in the digital world but the group does receive partial funding from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust and the Soros founded, Open Society Institute. There it is!! Well, Ben Laurie, a software engineer, protocol designer and cryptographer, states he does not know how he came to be listed on the Wikileaks Advisory Board but thinks it is related to the anonymity software Julian asked for help designing. The software was the common pursuit in this relationship, and no funding of Wikileaks was involved. The Bibliotecapleyades article finds suspicion in Wikileaks denying any ties to intelligence organisations, so that alone adopts the misleading subhead of “Links to The Intelligence Community”. Absolutely zero proof is proffered for this defamatory suggestion. The more I read from this Bibliotecapleyades article, the more I realise I’m wasting my time on a barrage of fallacies, exaggerations, and misinformation … anyway, further bits and pieces mentioned are addressed throughout this article.

Julian once did some work for “The Economist” magazine – a Rothschild publication – and also received their “New Media” award in 2008. Maybe he inadvertantly leaked about a Rothschilds competitor. “They” aren’t really all on the same side, you know? The elite compete for power. They cut each other’s throat for it. They sell their own souls. Anyway, that’s a whole other story, for which there is overwhelming evidence to be found on the internet. Basically, Julian is said to be tied to Rothschild through the magazine and award, and also through his lawyer (more about that later). Incidently, he has won several journalism awards around the world, and was Runner-up and People’s Choice for TIME magazine’s 2010 Person of the Year.

Journalists work for publishers, and if they are any good, they win awards too. Ultimately though, there arent that many mainstream publishers to choose from and, understandably, none are good in the eyes of an activist. This does not mean all mainstream journalists have intimate ties with the head of the corporation. For one thing, Gordon Duff admits his own career includes “extensive experience in international banking” and “consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic representative for UN humanitarian and economic development efforts.” Do these connections make Duff the very thing he hates? Is he just “another useful idiot” for the NWO agenda? A lot of what Duff writes identifies him as pro maintaining the status quo … hmmm.

Let’s just quickly revisit that Rothschild “connection”. When Interpol issued it’s Red Notice for the arrest of Julain Assange in 2010, he obtained legal representation from Mark Stephens, a prominent lawyer from Finers Stephens Innocent. Finers Stephens Innocent are apparently legal advisers to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust, allegedly assisting the trust to avoid payment of taxes. Waddesdon Manor was owned by James de Rothschild until he bequethed it to the National Trust in 1957. The property is administered by the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust which is overseen by Jacob Rothschild. Nevertheless, Julian fired Mark Stephens in June 2011, accusing the firm of overcharging, and hired a new legal team. Doesn’t sound like a very cozy partnership was formed between Assange and his Rothschild “connected” lawyer afterall. I cannot locate any Rothschild “connections” to his fellow Australians and long time legal representatives, Jennifer Robinson or Geoffrey Robertson, nor with the new head of his legal team – the controversial anti-establishment ex-judge from Spain, Baltasar Garzón Real.

A major source of contention with the original founders of Wikileaks and those who question it’s authenticity, was the MSM public relations method. As much as we dont like it, MSM reaches millions more average people than independent/alternative media, which is more often than not, preaching to the choir. I think Julian is trying to reach those people who dont look at alternative media – will never look. Cryptome had been on the scene for 10 years before Wikileaks came along. It’s an incredible website with a wealth of verified disclosures – unredacted material, and often explosive. But we NEVER hear about it on MSM. John Young’s 10 years of valuable work, now 16 years – has been spent whispering to the ether of the internet. Julian wants to get the information noticed – get it seen and reported on – and that’s why he deals with MSM outlets. And yes, he has a massive ego to boot, and dare I say ‘charisma’, which propels his ability to deal with mainstream outlets and get his projects noticed.

Just as the Daily Bell article theorises Wikileaks is a psyops to justify the ICC, early theories submit the Embassy cables are an attempt to justify the “Iran has nukes” narrative (not true … there is even a Dec 2009 Israeli cable saying they do not believe Iran has nukes – yet). The Iran-Israel thing has been going back and forth for decades. Nothing ever happens because they are aware the fallout (both social and otherwise) would be disastrous for all involved. Many Middle Eastern regimes do fear Iran – but it would seem it is only those who feel their lofty status in the region would be eroded, and who cooperate with the US/Israel. Regardless, as people have become more enlightened than ever, the elite agenda for war with Iran is becoming an increasingly hard sell – sounds like the goal of that psyop theory failed. Others suggest the Wikileaks psyop (and Anonymous) works to justify a regulatory clamp down of the internet. In reference to the Gutenberg Press and Internet Reformation, the Daily Bell itself says, you cant undo what has already been done. I heartily agree. Try as they might with laws and what-have-you … the internet is only going to get more free … that is its destiny. Anonymous “operations” cannot work without the backing of real people either. I agree it can be easily infiltrated by agents, however if the people don’t agree with something, they wont back it. So ultimately, all the theories about how Wikileaks is somehow going to be used to “justify” all these different things … none have yet come to fruition. Dare I predict that, in another few months, we’ll see yet another theory suggesting Wikileaks is a psyops to “justify” some other heinous Big Brother plot.

So from the forums and various articles I read, I returned to Gordon Duff’s articles at Veterans Today – inparticular his article, “Busted: Wikileaks working for Israel. Assange Accused: Took Money From Israel.” BTW Duff appears to think EVERYONE is a zionist shill. Whether they expose Israeli crimes, or not, is irrelevant. The man thinks John Pilger is a zionist. Can I roll my eyes yet? Anyway, the Israel/Mossad accusation is cited by Duff as an article on cites an Arabic media source – (which incidently is anti-Syria government – the “opposition” or “rebels” – weigh that how you will). The citation link was broken but I tracked the original article with Wayback Machine and translated it with Google. The article claims to quote Daniel Domscheit-Berg … interesting. Now this was hard to track down because it was buried so deep in the search, but I finally located a letter from Daniel on Cryptome. He denies the syriatruth interview, the quote, and the pro-Israel allegation against Wikileaks. That now refuted syriatruth article is the “evidence” which Gordon Duff, and so many others, rely on as undeniable “proof”.

As a side note, Wikileaks is also “associated with” two holocaust deniers revisionists … a father and son. They represent Wikileaks in Russia and Scandinavia. Lastly, a short note on credibility – vis-à-vis activist standards. Wikileaks has been publishing documents – none have ever been found to be forgeries – since 2006. John Young, founder of Cryptome, helped to start Wikileaks and left over PR and Julian’s desire to fund the project with millions (discussed earlier). Wikileaks server host is PRQ – established in 2004 by Gottfrid Svartholm and Fredrik Neij, two founders of The Pirate Bay … weigh that how you will, but the credibility of these men amongst activists is high. The Pirate Bay, Anonymous, and Wikileaks follow a philosophy known as the “Hacker’s Manifesto” which promotes free information and undermining Big Brother – the essay is considered a cornerstone of hacker culture. I also hold the ethical principles of the Hacker’s Manifesto in high regard. In this, I believe the overall actions of Wikileaks have never faultered, and therefore have yet to betray my personal principles either.

2 Responses to “Assange & Wikileaks: CIA/Mossad Asset & Psyops? Refuted by Source in 2010.”
  1. Art says:

    Thankyou for this article. This article is amazing as it is like a needle in the haystack compared to all the voluminous baloney out there knocking Wikileaks. Your article is very helpful as it discredits how Wikileaks is an Israeli and U.S. psyops operation providing cover for their middle east wars, etc. I was convinced of this, but now my faith in Wikileaks has been restored. Excellent work in tracking down the original source that refutes all the junk against Wikileaks. Also, I appreciate how you discredit Gordon Duff in this regard. It is interesting that this article also restores Anonymous’s credibility because it has also been charged as being a psyops/CIA operation.

  2. I like the helpful info you provide in your articles.
    I will bookmark your weblog and check again right here regularly.

    I’m relatively certain I’ll be informed plenty of new stuff right right here!
    Best of luck for the following!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: