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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


But perhaps not.

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

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

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

On June 18, 2006, he writes:

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

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

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

“Technical people, good at stacking houses of abstract cards

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some libertarianism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YouTube - Veterans Today -


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

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

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

34 Responses to "VT STAFF: ZIONIST MINDCONTROL – The Case Against Wikileaks, Part I"

  1. Lila Rajiva  December 27, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    Hi Tom –

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

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

    What major stories have you been ahead on?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Kind regards.

    Lila Rajiva

  2. Lila Rajiva  December 27, 2010 at 11:20 am

    Hi Tom –

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

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

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

  3. Dawoodi Morkas  December 18, 2010 at 12:23 am

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

  4. Lila Rajiva  December 16, 2010 at 11:30 am

    Part II is up at Veterans Today and at my blog Mindbodypolitic.com


  5. Zitawi  December 15, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Thank you Penumbra

  6. Penumbra  December 14, 2010 at 2:11 pm

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

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

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

    here is a somewhat dated article but to the point:


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

  7. John  December 14, 2010 at 12:51 pm

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

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

  8. John  December 14, 2010 at 12:44 pm

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

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

  9. Zitawi  December 14, 2010 at 2:31 am

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

  10. hareli  December 13, 2010 at 1:48 pm

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

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

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

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

  11. Lila Rajiva  December 13, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    Hi Hareli

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

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

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

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

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

  12. hareli  December 13, 2010 at 1:25 pm

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

  13. hareli  December 13, 2010 at 1:16 pm

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

  14. Josh Day  December 13, 2010 at 12:32 pm

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

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


    OpenLeaks set to rival WikiLeaks
    12 Dec 2010 – 08:53am

    Musing on Misinformation & Morons.

  15. Zitawi  December 13, 2010 at 7:56 am

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

  16. Ron Paul 2012  December 13, 2010 at 5:16 am

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

  17. Budreaux  December 13, 2010 at 12:35 am

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

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

  18. AdeUK  December 12, 2010 at 11:50 pm

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

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

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

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

    Extract from URL

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

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

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

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

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

    Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

  19. Penumbra  December 12, 2010 at 11:26 pm

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

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

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

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

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

  20. Lila Rajiva  December 12, 2010 at 11:24 pm

    JG, Budreaux, thanks

    Working on the next part…

  21. jg  December 12, 2010 at 10:49 pm

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

  22. Budreaux  December 12, 2010 at 9:50 pm

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

    Looking forward to part 2.

  23. Lila Rajiva  December 12, 2010 at 8:25 pm


  24. Lila Rajiva  December 12, 2010 at 8:21 pm

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

  25. buddy random  December 12, 2010 at 8:17 pm

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

  26. hareli  December 12, 2010 at 7:29 pm

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

  27. Lila Rajiva  November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    Thanks for comments.

    @Texas Vet.

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

    @Tea Partiers

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

    @Linda J.

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

    @Dev Sharma

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


    I think the Eurocrats are coming apart, myself


    Never heard that about Vanunu..

  28. Texas Vet  December 12, 2010 at 4:39 pm

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

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


  29. Tea Partier  December 12, 2010 at 4:31 pm

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


  30. Texas Vet  December 12, 2010 at 4:25 pm

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

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


  31. Linda J  December 12, 2010 at 3:20 pm

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

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

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

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

  32. Dev Sharma  December 12, 2010 at 2:19 pm

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

  33. Babush  December 12, 2010 at 1:04 pm

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

  34. Rerevisionist  December 12, 2010 at 12:22 pm

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

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

From Veterans Today Network