Someone Is Lying To Seth Rich’s Family About Kim Dotcom

In the heat of New Zealand’s general election campaign in 2014, Kim Dotcom was scapegoated by mainstream media – obscuring Edward Snowden’s phenomenal revelations about New Zealand’s involvement in US mass surveillance, which were conveniently downplayed if not outright lost in all the furore.

The smear campaign worked so well that the lies about Dotcom’s actions surrounding Moment of Truth are being resold up to this very day – this time not just to pull the wool over the eyes of New Zealanders, but to actively deceive the entire world.

CNN is reporting that the family of the murdered DNC employee, Seth Rich, who internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom has offered to testify leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, has sent a letter to Sean Hannity’s producer at Fox News.

Hannity had famously invited Dotcom to discuss his revelations on Hannity’s show.

The letter from the Rich family to the Hannity producers is emotional and heart wrenching but is laced with demonstrable falsehoods.

How do I know this? Not by internet sleuthing. Not by hearsay. But because I am a journalist from New Zealand who was personally present before, during and after the events that are being incorrectly referenced by them.

The Letter

Screenshots of the letter appear below. Each demonstrable falsehood is sequentially numbered and addressed beneath.

Falsehood #1: “[Kim Dotcom] has been caught using fabricated email evidence to forward his own agenda and confuse people.”

Kim Dotcom didn’t use the email. It was leaked to the New Zealand Herald by an unknown source, prior. The Herald broke the story before the Moment of Truth event, claiming that Kim Dotcom would use the email at the event. He did not.

Falsehood #2: “In March, Kim Dotcom circulated a letter purporting to show a conspiracy against him.”

The email was not from March. The scandal surrounding the email happened nearly three years ago. Specifically, immediately prior to the September 15th, 2014 ‘Moment of Truth’ event. An event which was not about the email at all – but about mass surveillance. Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange, Robert Amsterdam and Kim Dotcom, all appeared at the event.

Falsehood #3: “New Zealand law enforcement officials investigated the letter thoroughly and discovered without a shadow of a doubt that the letter was a forgery.”

According to the newspaper that published the leaked email, the “thorough internal investigation” by Warner Bros. occurred within a two-hour period: “The review would have taken place in just over two hours between the Herald asking questions of the studio and the response.”

In March 2017, New Zealand’s Serious Fraud Office said that they had concluded an investigation into the email that Dotcom didn’t use. I can find no direct link to that statement on their official website. Therefore all we know is what the NZ Herald said about it:“The SFO confirms that it carried out an investigation into this matter. As a result of that investigation, the SFO is satisfied that the email was a forgery.” 

But no one seems to have any idea how the SFO went about establishing this as there are no further details about the specific investigation. The only statement that can be found is what an ex-employee of the SFO thinks might have been done:

Ironically, the allegedly standard method of gaining server access is precisely what the DNC did not allow the FBI to do in the #DNCLeaks case.

Falsehood #4: “[Dotcom’s] rush to judgment and willingness to push [the email in question] without first authenticating it shows he is all too willing to make outsized, harmful and misleading claims…”

If this statement were true, Dotcom would have gone ahead with presenting the email at the Moment of Truth event. But he simply did not.

So What About The Email?

The contents of the “forged” email made the following claims:

1. That the Warner execs had “a really good meeting with the Prime Minister.”

Prime Minister Key constantly boasted of successful outcomes at his meetings with American political and business leaders. The Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the “minutes, notes, briefings and emails” relating to the meeting to be released. As far as I can tell, they never were.

2. That the Prime Minister was “a fan” and “we’re getting what we came for.”

The long history of the Prime Minister’s willingness to accommodate Hollywood was a source of dissent in New Zealand. His government had changed labour laws to accomodate Warner’s demands, initially resulting in a boycott by the New Zealand ‘sister organisation’ of the Screen Actor’s Guild, the seriousness of which was deemed ‘ire in the Shire’, and uproar in Parliament. Business leaders lauded Prime Minister Key for giving Warner tax breaks, rebates and even government contributions to marketing costs for the movies.

3. That the Prime Minister told them “in private that they are granting Dotcom residency despite pushback from officials about his criminal past.”

Key claims not to have been aware of this, although the Campbell Live investigation seemed to indicate otherwise. But it has been proven that one of his Cabinet Ministers was briefed about it and lied about it.

4. That New Zealand’s Attorney General would “do everything in his power to assist us with our case. VIP treatment and then a one-way ticket to Virginia.”

The New Zealand government has done literally everything in its power and also things outside of its power in order to target Kim Dotcom on behalf of the US government.

Their shadiness is boundless. From illegal spying, retroactive law changes to indemnify themselves from the illegal spying and enable them to do it to other residents and citizens, to missing extradition documents, to invalid search warrants, to illegally shipping hard drives offshore, the list of shady government activities surrounding this case just goes on and on.

That, in the wake of all of this, Kim Dotcom could be accused of paranoia or conspiracy-theorising, is not only laughable but risible.

5. That “The DOJ is against the Hong Kong option. No confidence in the Chinese.

This just comes down to common sense. Would the Department of Justice rather have New Zealand, which is essentially a vassal state, and at that time was run by an ex-Federal Reserve Bank of New York (yes, New York) investment banker – Prime Minister John Key – or would they rather raid Dotcom in Hong Kong and hope the Chinese were OK with it?

What Does This Mean?

It means either that the email was real and there has been a colossal cover-up, or that someone(s) forged an email and filled it with things that were already known and thus easily believable, hoping to bait Kim Dotcom into releasing/promoting it, so that they could then reveal the fraud.

Either way, the target is Kim Dotcom.

Other Issues With The Rich Family Letter To Hannity

The “vast conspiracy” that the Rich family would understandably rather not believe exists, is of a size almost beyond imagining to the average citizen. This infographic maps only a small part of the players proved by world-renowned investigative journalist Nicky Hager to be involved in the New Zealand end of it – a political smear network which included a Knight of the Realm, PR consultants, lawyers, bloggers, at least four mainstream media reporters, government authorities including the then Minister of Justice and Police, businessmen and political pollsters. Not to mention, the scandal-plagued now ex-Prime Minister of New Zealand, John Key.

The Web Gets Bigger

Zoom out to the political players in the United States of America who kicked it all off with the original FBI raid on Kim Dotcom and it’s even bigger. Chris Dodd. Eric Holder. Joe Biden. And even Obama himself.

The above video paints a damning picture and that is not some random blogger delivering it. It is arguably one of the most beloved mainstream TV hosts in New Zealand media history. Whose top-rating show, coincidentally, was placed ‘under review’ in the wake of his extensive coverage on these issues, ultimately leading to “the last beacon of investigative hope” walking. A journalistic tragedy which resulted in massive public outcry along with petitions, protests and upset colleagues.

Not to mention the political figures involved in the 7-year-long persecution of WikiLeaks and its journalists and staff. Start naming that list of US bureaucrats and you have most of the US government, across multiple administrations.

What does this have to do with Seth Rich? Well if he did indeed leak the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, then that is the cabal he found himself up against. Especially if that connection was, as suggested, facilitated through Dotcom.

What Snowden Really Revealed At The Moment Of Truth In 2014

1. Multiple NSA bases on New Zealand soil that no one had any knowledge existed. We had assumed the Takapuna Southern Cross landing site, smack in the heart of the North Shore of New Zealand’s largest city, belonged to us. It doesn’t. Snowden also revealed a facility in Whangarei in Northland. This is a huge deal for a Commonwealth country that believed itself independent and sovereign.

2. That for Snowden, “sitting at [his] desk in Hawaii”, spying on New Zealanders (or not) was a matter of checking or unchecking a tick box.

3. Snowden said: “I could be looking at a system in Japan, I could be looking at a system in Germany, I could be looking at a system in New Zealand and what was incredible about it was the fact that I could see records of the communications from people around the world, comprehensively… a federated search system, the NSA, along with the Five Eyes alliance, which includes New Zealand as a significant part of it.”

4. Snowden said that this is all enabled by a vast sensor network. He clearly stated: “I know that there’s mass surveillance happening in New Zealand because.. one of those sensor networks is in New Zealand. So when John Key or anyone in the New Zealand government says that there is no mass surveillance in New Zealand… it’s collecting the communications of every man, woman and child in the country of New Zealand..”

5. When asked explicitly by Glenn Greenwald whether the GCSB, New Zealand’s spy agency, was a willing partner in this collection on New Zealand citizens, Snowden said: yes, absolutely, there is no question about it… and specifically yes, the GCSB not only uses XKeyScore, they’ve contributed to its development…”

But what was national news the next day? The Warner email.

At the Moment of Truth press conference immediately after the event, I filmed the New Zealand mainstream media completely ignoring Glenn Greenwald’s Snowden reporting while he sat right in front of them ready to be asked questions about it, while they instead hammered him and Kim Dotcom about the Warner email.

It was a total set up. A farce.

Why They Smeared Kim In 2014

It is important to remember the timing. Snowden has done dozens of  such events now, but back in 2014, it was a relatively new thing to have him appear on a big screen revealing secrets of the spy agencies in person. It was in fact, a really, really big deal.

The smear was also engineered to quell dissent. The pre-Snowden 2012 revelations that the GCSB had been illegally spying on Kim Dotcom expanded to the realisation that actually at least 88+ New Zealand citizens had been illegally spied on. This outraged the public. A nationwide movement against the corruption of our spy agencies and massive protests swept the country.

I know this, because just as with all the 2014 Internet Party events, I had covered all the 2013 GCSB movement Auckland events. And this is what they looked like.

That dissent spread nationwide. The government’s ability to pass its band-aid legislation to cover up the illegal spying looked in jeopardy.

Ultimately, the response of the powers that be was to promise that the 2014 general election would be our chance to right any wrongs, and then to smear Kim Dotcom on a daily basis all the way through it.

Why Are They Recycling The 2014 Smear In 2017?

Simple. Because it worked in 2014. And while completely debunked in alternate media, by citizen journalists and those who were witness to it, the New Zealand public at large are yet to discover how badly they were duped. That is one of many injustices that is going to be righted in New Zealand this year, regardless of the outcome of the Seth Rich case, or of what happens to me.

But Why Didn’t Kim Dotcom Answer The Rich Family Email?

Remember – in the Rich’s letter to Hannity they stated:

“Earlier this week, I was approached by someone claiming to be Kim Dotcom via email. In my reply to this person who claimed to be Mr. Dotcom, we asked to have a discussion with him about the evidence, either in person or through legal intermediaries in order to collect the evidence and verify it with law enforcement before he publicly goes on TV making claims that haven’t been substantiated. There has been no response to that email.” 

I wanted to know why Kim didn’t answer them. So I asked him.

His exact and total response to me:

“They replied to a message I sent to them two days ago. They asked for my lawyers to get in touch with their lawyers. I have forwarded the email to my lawyers and asked them to get in touch with the family to arrange for a conference call with the Rich family lawyers.” — Kim Dotcom

Well.

The Rich Family

I feel terrible for what the Rich family are being put through. Those aren’t just words to me. They may well have joined the ranks of a multitude of other grief-stricken families of political targets, of journalists, activists and hacktivists whose families I know personally.

It is abundantly obvious that people close to the Rich family are lying to them for reasons of political expediency and that is simply not OK.

The truth is the truth and I take the Rich family at face value when they say that they want to know it. Families usually do. The problem is, the truth is scary as hell. It also comes with grave implications.

If the choice is take on the political establishment, the media and a vast network of corrupt elites, or blame Kim Dotcom, then it is extremely tempting to take the latter option. All too easy, in fact.

Blaming Dotcom means staying on the good side of those who wield huge powers.

Taking on the establishment means inevitably becoming one of their targets, perhaps even more so than, knowingly or unknowingly, they already have.

No one envies the Rich family their situation. Everyone would forgive them for wanting nothing more to do with it.  Many other families of targets have felt exactly the same way, or still do.

But there are many people who will rise to protect the Rich family, should they decide to start loudly asking the hardest of questions.

Foremost, I believe, the American people.

Written by Suzie Dawson

Twitter: @Suzi3D

Official Website: Suzi3d.com

Additional recommended background reading by the same author:
FVEY vs. Kim Dotcom
The Desecration of New Zealand
Just As Intended: The U.S. Election Is Tearing Us To Shreds

Journalists who write truth pay a high price to do so. If you respect and value this work, please consider supporting the Courage Foundation via credit card or Bitcoin donation at this link. They are at-risk journalists themselves who despite their own targeting, spend their time and resources on advocating for and protecting other whistleblowers around the world and they deserve your assistance. You can also donate directly to the Rich family’s attempt to find justice for Seth Rich at this link. Thank you!

[Update/January 2018] This post is now available at my Steemit blog

Every Single Line Of The Latest Guardian Assange Smear Debunked

It seems the closer we come to people rising up en masse to demand Julian Assange’s freedom, the more desperate his detractors become.

This isn’t the first time I’ve debunked a Guardian smear piece on Julian Assange but it’s certainly the first time that I’ve been able to debunk literally every single written line – including the caption.

Everything in italics and quotation marks below is from this audacious piece of tripe: “Julian Assange Is Not Alone In Lack Of Empathy For Women” by Deborah Orr, in her weekly column in The Guardian.

The regular text is my response.

“Photo Caption: Assange’s position is that the charges have been trumped up, because he is viewed by the US establishment as a dangerous and powerful insurgent.”

That is not Assange’s position. Because there are no charges. As has been repeatedly pointed out to members of the mainstream press who, as demonstrated in this very instance, continue to this day to write about and report on charges that have never been laid and do not exist.

From the Assange case “Fact-Checker” at Justice4Assange.com:

Screen Shot 2016-12-10 at 12.42.47 AM

“Six years on from the leak of accounts by two women of allegations of sexual assault and rape, Julian Assange has released his own interview with Swedish prosecutors, offering an alternative narrative to that offered by one of the women.”

Actually, he is offering the same narrative that he has espoused all along. The contents of his statement entirely align with prior releases of documentation related to the case, dating back years.

Specifically, his statements in relation to his innocence, his asylum claim, the manhunt, the persecution of WikiLeaks and the grand jury, the denials of the women themselves that they had been raped and the contents of the text messages of the younger of the two women are all contained in Assange’s publically available and thoroughly annotated 2013 affidavit which can be read in full here.

It is only to journalists like Ms Orr who have clearly not done their homework on the background to this case that anything contained in the recent statement release comes as a surprise.

“Somehow he has managed to persuade himself that his testimony satisfies the questions, but all it really does is advertise that he is a man who appears to have little respect for boundaries and who, far from even beginning to recognise this in himself, casts himself wholly as a victim of the sexual machinations of others.”

Assange’s testimony satisfies beyond reasonable doubt that:

a) he is being and has been persecuted for his publishing and journalistic activities, by the highest echelons of international governments

b) he is not a rapist but was smeared as such

c) he has ample grounds for asylum, as was duly granted to him, and

d) his continued arbitrary detention is in violation of human rights, international law, and common decency

The ‘sexual machinations’ Ms Orr refers to are not of the women involved but in fact that of the police officers, politicians, bureaucrats and intelligence agencies involved in branding Assange a ‘rapist’ in order to serve their own political motives.

Indeed, GCHQ staff famously bragged about (and were reprimanded for) the Assange case having been a ‘fit-up’.

“Rather in the manner of Blanche DuBois in A Streetcar Named Desire, Assange portrays himself as someone who always relies on the comfort of strangers.”

Actually, he portrayed himself as someone forced by the circumstance of persecution and pursuit by intelligence agencies wielding vast state powers, into seeking refuge wherever able.

Ms Orr’s supposition that he “always” does so is entirely disingenuous. Denied access to his own funds and with a huge target on his back, Assange had little choice but to rely on the sympathy of others.

“His argument is that during his time in Sweden he was a marked man.”

It is ridiculous to depict this as ‘his argument‘ when the Pentagon’s own releases announced that there was a manhunt for him. Yet again Ms Orr attempts to lay the responsibility for the persecution at the feet of the persecuted. The correct way to frame the statement would simply be to state the undeniable: he was a marked man.

“He had to be careful where he stayed, in case his cohort of known supporters was being monitored, in order that they would lead the spies to Assange. I don’t dispute that this worry might have been real and important for Assange.”

Gracious of her to depict this as real and important, but Ms Orr still personifies this to Assange, intimating that there were alternative approaches when there clearly weren’t any available.

“Nevertheless, quite why the perfect answer was to stay at the homes of women who wanted to have sex with him is completely glossed over.”

In fact it is Ms Orr doing the glossing over, as it is clear from Assange’s statement that the arrangements were made on his behalf.

His release clearly states in point 70:

“My contacts in Sweden had arranged for me to stay in two safe houses during the few days I had intended to stay in Sweden. One of the safe houses belonged to a journalist who I knew and another to a Social Democrat party figure unknown to me who had lent her apartment while she was away, or so I had been told. However, because these two original safe houses arranged prior to my arrival became known very soon, I stayed in three additional safe houses between 11 and 20 August 2010.” – Julian Assange

A far cry from Ms Orr’s depiction, which continues:

“In fact, he said one of the women was so “very clear” that she wanted to have intercourse that he “felt concerned about the intensity of her  interest”.”

This quote has been partially selected for convenience. The full context is that the woman:

“…made it very clear that she wanted to have sexual intercourse with me. I felt concerned about the intensity of [her] interest and I also deeply loved another woman, which played on my mind and left me emotionally distracted. [She] knew an unusual amount of detail about me and appeared annoyed with me when I was on my phone searching for news related to the US official government statements about me. I perceived she was irritated when I wasn’t giving her my full attention. I felt there was a risk my location would be revealed and that she might act unpredictably if she believed I was rejecting her.” – Julian Assange

What Assange is saying is that the situation was a double-edged sword. While much-needed temporary sanctuary and companionship was being offered, he also felt threatened by his physical safety being dependent upon the goodwill of his host.

“Now, plenty of people ignore “red flags” in the undertaking of sexual dalliances, as Assange apparently did.”

As above, his situation was more than merely the “undertaking” of a “sexual dalliance”, such as people who are not being hunted by the US Empire might indulge in or undertake. His overarching situation was downright precarious and dangerous.

What Assange is illustrating is that he felt that neither rejecting her nor staying with her guaranteed his personal safety. Both were fraught with risk.

“An emotionally healthy person would understand that this concern was something to be heeded, and that it was a situation to be avoided.”

This is a further display of blaming the persecuted rather than examining the circumstances of the persecution. Exactly how “emotionally healthy” is one supposed to be when one is being man-hunted by billion dollar international intelligence agencies? Would Ms Orr be “emotionally healthy” in such a position? Holding  Assange’s decisions and mental state up against that of any random member of the public is disingenuous and misleading. It was an extreme situation and thus the status quo test constantly being applied by Ms Orr is irrelevant and a distraction.

“Assange did not choose to take that course.”

Assange chose to take the course that he felt was most likely to increase his physical safety at the time. God knows he was not looking ahead six years to what Ms Orr and her kind would think about it after the fact – he was too busy trying to stay alive in that week.

“This in itself suggests a man who does not shrink from entering into situations that some may view as exploitative.”

What it suggests is a man travelling a path with no map, that few have ever walked before him, surrounded by strangers and tenuous plans and promises that too often fell through, doing the best he could under the most direst of circumstance.

“Assange’s position is that the charges have been trumped up, because he is viewed by the US establishment as a dangerous and powerful insurgent.”

As per my response to the misleading caption; once again, this is not Assange’s position. Because, to this day, no charges have been laid.

“Yet even his own supposedly vindicatory evidence reflects wider sexually exploitative attitudes.”

What his evidence reflects is that:

a) he has never been charged with any crime, yet was branded a rapist, including in the very publication in which Ms Orr writes

b) he left Sweden after consulting with the prosecutor first and receiving advance permission to depart, yet was then deemed a fugitive regardless

c) the first prosecutor cancelled the investigation as it was deemed without merit, only to later on be reopened after political intervention

d) Assange has been trying to give his statement for six years but has until now been denied the opportunity to do so, and

e) a ton of other material factors, all of which are completely absent from the content of Ms Orr’s article, which instead focuses on supposition and the projection onto Assange of assumed motives imagined by Ms Orr, among various other disparagements

“It’s not a crime to be sexually exploitative, to have little regard for the emotions or the boundaries of others, or to decide to have sex with someone because you need a place to spend the night.”

There is no evidence whatsoever that Assange was any more sexually exploitative than those who complained about him; both of whom have said that they were not raped, one of whom has claimed the police manufactured the investigation in order to tarnish Assange and the other of whom supplied a broken condom which was found to contain no DNA of either party whatsoever and had discussed taking their stories to the tabloids within a matter of days. Despite this and to his credit, Assange himself still does not accuse either woman of sexual exploitation.

“Indeed, this sort of behaviour seems pretty widespread, and hardly particular to Assange. And that is the really depressing thing.”

And here is the crux. Ms Orr is now expanding the playing field beyond Assange, to the wider sexual practices of millions. Which means she is taking general attitudes that she already held about society at large which appear to have coloured her opinions relating to the Assange case.

“People in the public eye are far more likely to be exposed for indulging in this sort of behaviour.”

Absolutely. They are. Which is what infuriates rape victims and survivor advocates like myself. Where I hail from, New Zealand, 95% of rape survivors never see their rapists charged and 99% of rape survivors never see their rapists convicted. Why? Because police agencies and indeed intelligence services and the governments who fund them, only have a vested interest in pursuing ‘justice’ in the few, select cases where it is politically expedient to do so. Thus seeing a man whose ‘victims’ state empirically that they are not victims at all be persecuted for six years while the overwhelming majority of actual rapists walk free amongst us is extremely exasperating and disappointing. This is then exacerbated by callous media personalities who indulge in furthering that persecution of the innocent targets of these political machinations, in the name of protecting women. The irony is rife and it is frankly a sick, Orwellian joke.

“Of course they defend themselves – and when they do so, they tend to feel they are being held to a different standard to others, and an unfair one.”

In this case it is worse. Assange is being held to the standards of others who have never been man-hunted by the US Empire, then what scraps of his experiences filter through to the public realm are then obsessively analysed by writers like Ms Orr who have also never been man-hunted by the US Empire.

“Often, a high-profile individual who has been implicated in a sexual scandal will attract many sympathisers, who understand that the behaviour of their hero is not so very unusual, and therefore believe there is nothing wrong with it. That’s depressing too – there is something wrong with it.”

To the contrary, other than solidarity from close friends and family, these people usually end up universally loathed. In the cases of Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, Bill Cosby, these men were protected for decades by the very establishment that they served. It took decades for their victims to raise awareness of what happened to them yet once they finally managed to achieve mainstream awareness, their attackers became reviled, etched in history as the monsters they are. The very speed and ferocity with which the Swedish (and other) governments targeted and persecuted Assange speaks volumes. Were he an actual everyday common rapist it is more likely than not that the police would have taken little to no action. Were he a high society predator, it would have taken decades for the public to become aware of it. But because he is neither, and is in fact a target of Empire, he was smeared internationally by the entire world’s media within 24 hours of the allegations and six years later is still fighting for the most basic acknowledgements of the facts – such as that he has still never been charged with any crime, which Ms Orr fails to mention even once in her entire piece.

“Interpersonal exploitation – emotional, sexual or physically violent – is a blight on human relations and on human psychological health, for perpetrators as well as victims. It corrupts the social bonds that are so important to a decent society or culture.”

Absolutely. Which is why it is such a powerful tool for governments and spies when wanting to destroy the reputation of an adversary, or in this case, of a journalist and publisher who is standing in ideological opposition to their corruption and war crimes.

His testimony in aggregate details gross violation after violation of his rights. It details the negligence and maliciousness of the prosecutor, Marianne Ny, up to and including her acting in violation of Swedish law. It also displays the complete disregard for international law and disrespect for the institutions of international governance such as the United Nations, which was established by the very countries who are persecuting him. None of this is mentioned in Ms Orr’s article.

“Any person who gives himself (or herself) leave to behave in such a way is unlikely to understand quite where other lines should be drawn. And in those circumstances, it might be possible for such a person to fail to comprehend his behaviour as sexual assault or rape.”

When the alleged victims themselves deny that they are victims, what else is left? Apparently, six years of hit pieces in publications like The Guardian.

“His insight into and ability to understand his behaviour, its impact on others, and the ways in which others might experience or interpret it, is severely impaired.”

It seems that in fact Ms Orr and journalists like her are struggling with understanding the impact of their constant slew of attacks on Assange. Nor do they seem to understand the way others might interpret them. If they did have insight into this as well as to the profound importance of his contributions to journalism despite all he has been put through, they might not be so mystified at why he continues to enjoy the support he does.

“Assange’s leaked document illustrates a lack of empathy for the women he slept with.”

This is purely down to the interpretation of the reader. The leak of the allegations against Assange, prior to him even having been interviewed or made any statement, or to any charges being laid, certainly illustrated a lack of empathy for him as well as a desecration of the presumption of innocence and of Assange’s legal and human rights.

“It’s understandable if not admirable that he shouldn’t be spending much time considering the feelings of two women who have brought him so much trouble.”

The use of the word ‘admirable’ is strange in this context. There are many things about Assange that are admirable, none the least the way he has coped with such extreme prejudice, malignance and persecution over the last six years.

“But his testimony shows that he most certainly wasn’t spending much time considering their feelings long before events took the course they did.”

His testimony states of the woman involved:

“During that night and again in the morning we had consensual sexual intercourse on four or five occasions. Her words, her expressions and her physical reactions made it clear to me that she encouraged and enjoyed our interactions… In the morning she went out to pick up breakfast for us. After enjoying breakfast together, I left her home on good terms.” — Julian Assange

In light of the women stating plainly that they have not been raped, it seems the media who continue to portray them as rape victims, and Assange as being charged when he has not been, are the ones not “spending much time considering their feelings.”

“This may not be a crime.”

The original prosecutor determined that no crime had been committed. The only crimes appear to be those manufactured by malicious entities and the intense and concerted pressure applied by mainstream media outlets like The Guardian.

“The courts or prosecuting authorities will pronounce on that. But it is an attitude of mind that is pretty abject, very destructive and horribly widespread.”

Unfortunately, so is the attitudes of the vast majority of the journalists who have been cashing in on this story for more than half a decade.

Written by Suzie Dawson

Twitter: @Suzi3D

Official Website: Suzi3d.com

Journalists who write truth pay a high price to do so. If you respect and value this work, please consider supporting Suzie’s efforts via credit card or Bitcoin donation at this link. Thank you!

How Liberal Media Turned Trump’s Natural Opposition Into Supporters

Not so long before the mainstream media was lying the United States into a war with Iraq, I had purchased a book called ‘What Liberal Media‘?

The book made its case exhaustively; that there was not a liberal media bias but in fact a neoconservative one.

In 2011, it became one of many books that I donated to the People’s Library at Occupy Auckland. Ill-fatedly it seems, as that library was dismantled and the books seized by private security contractors hired by the Auckland Council (the High Court in Auckland later judged the seizure and the raids to be illegal but no reparations have ever been offered to or obtained by Occupiers).

There is very little about my personal politics that would ever have indicated to anyone, let alone myself, that I could be a Trump supporter. On the surface, he stands against everything I have all but sacrificed my life fighting for.

He prides himself on his ability to throw his weight around. To effectively bully people into getting his own way. In ‘The Apprentice‘ he presided over a televisual representation of the dog-eat-dog corporate world. One where lies flow fast and freely and people are tacitly applauded for doing hatchet jobs on one another. Where only the immoral survive let alone flourish.

He is the embodiment of capitalism, a dying economic experiment that is the cause of untold misery the world over.

Yet due to the endless tirades against him in mass media, and his anti-TPP and anti-war stances, many activists including myself began to empathise with him.

Witnessing what we just have in the course of the US election, it is now impossible to deny that there is a liberal bias in the media. The obviousness of the bias, the refusal of that media to hold themselves to account and the apparent inability of anyone else to do it either, has created a massive backlash against it.

A backlash that Trump has benefited from.

In his recent CBS 60 Minutes post-election interview, Trump said that social media, particularly his massive followings on Facebook, Twitter and Instragram, had played a large part in his victory. He said he gained 100,000 followers in a day, and believed his social media footprint directly tackled, and won over, what he described as ‘a billion dollars’ spent against him by the Clinton machine.

And it wasn’t just the Clinton machine or the traditional liberal media that were out to put the knife in him. My favourite publication, The Intercept, which should be acknowledged and commended for consistently running stories critical of both candidates and of the process as a whole, in fact ran a series of dozens and dozens of hit pieces against Trump.

When The Intercept‘s reporter Robert Mackey filed his first anti-Trump piece, I barely noticed. I actually had a massive antipathy towards the electoral process, which I saw as entirely flawed and a choice between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee – or “cholera versus gonorrhea” as Assange famously described it – sympomatic of the puppet show that is modern American politics.

It had been clear to millions of us around the world in 2011 that the system was irredeemably broken and corrupt and certainly there has been no meaningful reform since that time to change our opinions.

By Mackey’s third anti-Trump piece, it seemed like more of the same. By his sixth anti-Trump piece, it was becoming abundantly clear that Mackey just plain did not like Donald Trump and did not want him elected.

gBy the 12th anti-Trump piece I was becoming convinced (wrongly, I hope!) that Mackey might be part of some conspiracy involving the Clinton-endorsing New York Times with which he was formerly employed, and utilising The Intercept for Clinton’s own ends.

As an avid The Intercept reader, by the time the 20th anti-Trump piece rolled around I had decided that I just plain did not like Mackey, that he was a pro-Clinton bully, and that this Trump guy might not be so terrible if Hillary Clinton, arguably the most corrupt candidate of all time, and her supporters, disliked him so much.

Now to be fair to Mackey, he has been openly taking on Ann Coulter so he can’t be that bad a guy after all! I also think Greenwad wouldn’t back his work if he wasn’t convinced Mackey is genuine. But Mackey’s constant filing of anti-Trump themed articles made him appear to have an unhealthy obsession, which diminished any credibility his arguments had, and they all just melded together until they were indistinguishable, into one great big serialised diatribe.

At a certain point, the anti-Trump posts became so frequent that I stopped reading them at all. Just rolled my eyes and silently said to myself ‘oh, another anti-Trump piece, what a surprise.’

For the Trump camp, Mackey’s efforts became the practical embodiment of the phrase ‘even bad press is better than no press‘.

If I had to guess, I would have said The Intercept published 20 anti-Trump pieces. But according to him, the exact number was 37. In a three-week period.

37

Pushing an average of nearly two per day, what effect was it thought this would have? Since when has over-saturation not made people sick of whatever it is being shoved down their throats? The backlash was inevitable.

Trump, who I had no affinity with whatsoever, was being turned into an underdog besieged by establishment journalists in my eyes and I had just spent years standing up for underdogs besieged by the establishment. In a bizarre and twisted way, this simply served to make people like me want to defend him, despite the fact that he is someone who wields massive power and would not otherwise have ever been viewed as an underdog at all, nor a figure in need of defending.

Such is the polarising effect of this election – even the career anarchists picked a side. If even people considered as ‘radical’ as I (enough so to end up on a list passed from one government to the next) ended up participating in the Coke versus Pepsi contest, the string-pullers really are clinking champagne glasses while those of us who have been fighting for a systemic rebuild tear our hair out.

More than ever before, the media have become The Band That Played On. As Glenn Greenwald brilliantly pointed out, introspection is a foreign concept to the liberal class. The post-election period has only served to compound that the liberal media bias does exist and was in no way cowed let alone dismantled by their total and abject failure in the lead-up to election night.

The handling by CBS of the seemingly traditional first-post-election-interview of the President-elect is a great example of this.

I took the time to analyse the 2008 CBS 60 Minutes interview of then-President-elect Obama and compare it to the 2016 60 Minutes interview of President-elect Trump.

I had hoped to put the questions up against each other in sequential order, for comparison. Except that would be impossible. Because although both interviews were roughly forty minutes in duration, 60 Minutes asked Obama 47 questions, but they asked Trump 73.

There is no greater indicator of the inherent bias of the editors than the note that each interview finished on. It’s so blatant it’s comical.

The last question asked of President-elect Trump and his family? “Let me ask if any of you think the campaign has hurt the Trump brand.”

The last question asked of President-elect Obama and his wife Michelle? As President of the United States what do you plan to do about getting a college play-off for the national championship?

Of the 47 questions asked of Obama, somewhere between 12 and 14 of them related to policy, depending on how strictly you apply the term. 3 of the questions were about his ex-apartment in DC. 2 questions were about what he was reading. Another 2 questions related to his mother-in-law and 2 more as to whether the incoming First Family would get a dog.

Despite Obama’s election win having occured in the middle of a Global Economic Crisis that drew constant comparison to the 30’s and the Great Depression (something Obama decries in the interview), the overwhelming majority of questions asked of him were jovial if not completely superfluous in nature. Each question led to a new topic, with very little pushback on any of his answers.

Of the 73 questions asked of President-elect Trump, somewhere around 6 were on policy, or if you include questions about his Cabinet appointments, about 10. How is this possible? That he would be asked substantially less about policy than Obama was, when he was asked two-thirds more total questions?

A closer look at the language is really revealing.

A question put to Obama is: “Have there been moments when you’ve wondered what did I get myself into?”

But with Trump it becomes “Are you in any way intimidated, scared, about this enormous burden, the gravity of what you’re taking on?

I could go on and on, and usually would, but now that I’m endeavouring to write daily, have to keep this short. The full list of questions in each interview speak for themselves. There was every attempt to keep Obama at ease, and every attempt to provoke or trip up Trump. But the public didn’t buy it before and won’t now. That ship has sailed.

How many members of the public would love to get the heads and top anchors of the six major media organisations into one room and tell them exactly what they think of them? Apparently Trump has done exactly that.

Trump reportedly ripped into the mainstream media in a face-to-face, off-the-record meeting this week, which for me personally was reminiscent of Kim Dotcom having ripped into equally duplicitous and biased corporate media in New Zealand.

trump2

The full story is available at the NYPost – at least what parts of it were leaked by the press organisations themselves despite their commitment to the meeting being off-the-record.

Trump, of course, would have anticipated this, and will be having the last laugh, as are all who are reading it and living vicariously. Whether or not it will be the wake-up call the press needed, remains to be seen. The most intriguing aspect of all is the extent to which the narratives of the major press corporations are an extension of the express wishes of the intelligence community and its covertly implanted members and thus what this really says about what is in store for America going forward.

trump1

The voice of reason may be John Stewart. His heartfelt appeal for people to understand how intellectually deprived it is to simply decry all Trump supporters as ‘racist’ is a must-read.

Or it may be the founder of Black Entertainment Television (BET) who has similarly appealed to his own community, drawing attention to a famous quote that African Americans should have ‘neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies, just permanent interests’.

This may be the tiny beginnings of reconciliation, though you won’t be able to tell that from today’s headlines in the New York Times, which are still scratching away at the same broken fiddle.

But funnily enough, derision doesn’t unite people and if you aren’t willing to reach out a hand to your ideological foe, you will never be able to bridge the faultlines that the elite so carefully devise and construct to divide us.

To that end, Robert Mackey, the next drink is on me.

Written by Suzie Dawson

Twitter: @Suzi3D

Official Website: Suzi3d.com

Journalists who write truth pay a high price to do so. If you respect and value this work, please consider supporting Suzie’s efforts via credit card or Bitcoin donation at this link. Thank you!

[Update/January 2018] This post is now available at my Steemit blog

Another Day, Another Two-Bit Smear On Julian Assange

Closing a week in which the world witnessed the most poorly-executed and resoundingly debunked smear plot against Julian Assange of all time, today’s junk-food-news (as Mnar Muhawesh would describe it) barely rates this mention.

But because of where it was published, I’m taking it on.

Doing The Dirty

In a self-discrediting, tabloidesque, grasping-at-straws, thoroughly compromised “article” for Buzz Feed, ex-WikiLeaks intern James Ball once again attempts to spin his short-lived six-years-ago experience with Assange into contemporary relevance.

This isn’t a first. He’s been rehashing his story year in and year out.

In an earlier anti-Assange, anti-Ecuador piece he was editorially babysat on the by-line by a London BuzzFeed editor whose last 4 credits on the site are all aged anti-WikiLeaks articles crafted in tandem with James Ball.

A disclosure at the end of Ball’s latest WikiLeaks smear reads: “James Ball, one of the authors of this article, worked for WikiLeaks for a short period between late 2010 and early 2011.” (The disclosure does not appear on earlier articles on the same topic. Such as this one.)

What the disclosure fails to mention is that James Ball was in fact fired from WikiLeaks in early 2011.

This was revealed by notes published by WikiLeaks in response to the disputed Alex Gibney portrayal of related events in the unauthorised (and disputed) biography of WikiLeaks titled “We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks”, in which James Ball was heavily featured, despite his extraordinarily brief tenure with the organisation.

jb

While omitting to mention his firing, or that his involvement with WikiLeaks spanned at best, 23 days, Ball does allude to some controversy:

To save readers a Google search or two, [Assange] would tell you I was in WikiLeaks as an “intern” for a period of “weeks”, during that time acted as mole for the Guardian, stole documents, and had potential ties to MI5.

The lack of context surrounding these nefarious references is meant to come off as both humorous and self-deprecating. They serve to diminish the impact of an inevitable discovery of the reality: Ball told a friend he had interviewed for MI5.

He leads his readers to believe that the numerous denouncements of him are just outlandish rather than rooted in long-established fact, and that it is he and not Assange, who is the true victim.

That his body of anti-WikiLeaks work fits the messaging and agenda of the very intelligence agencies who oppose WikiLeaks, is of course, mere coincidence!

In this, Ball’s writing is as misrepresentative of himself as of his subject. Almost as misrepresentative as posting the same article under multiple different titles at precisely the same time and then circulating them both:

jba

jbb

Both versions are timestamped October 23rd, 2016 at 8:11pm. Each article has its own unique URL so they are published as two seperate articles rather than just one with its headline changed. (Though by the time of writing, the former now has a redirect to the latter.)

One has a more benign title and the other an overblown, dramatic title. The former has a trending icon yet the latter earned over triple the hits and is positioned in a central position on the front page of BuzzFeed UK. Draw your own conclusions.

Going Down In History

Ball’s back catalogue of BuzzFeed work oscillates between the vacuous and the ridiculous and his WikiLeaks smears are no exception.

From the scintillating “‘Very Right Wing People’ Are Happiest With Their Sex Lives” to “8 Tory Conference Policies That Jeremy Corbyn Has Not Responded To Yet” to “The Science Of The Lambs; How The Global Elite Have Spent 80 Years Being Injected With Sheep Fetuses“, James must be expecting the Pulitzer to arrive in the post any day now.

BuzzFeed is hardly renowned for high quality content but it did once have one of the greatest investigative journalists of all time at its disposal: Michael Hastings. Courageous, witty, bold, daring and polished, Hasting’s archive of BuzzFeed work directly confronted heads of state in a truly adversarial and critical manner.

Hastings famously crafted one of the best profiles of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks ever composed, for Rolling Stone magazine. It covers, vastly more comprehensively and with a finesse far beyond James Ball’s reach, the same period of time Ball refers to in his smear.

Unfortunately, Hastings was so brilliant and supremely talented, and his writing and presentation style so infectious, inspiring and ultimately so effective, that he was killed for it.

Thus BuzzFeed, WikiLeaks and the world was robbed of a giant and historic talent, and all we are left with is… James Ball.

God help us.

Having spent all week crafting an epic about the impending World War III that Assange’s persecutors are doing their damndest to usher in, I almost appreciate the mental respite of getting to effortlessly analyse something so small-minded as the pettiness of Ball’s attacks.

Except that I also resent that these bottom-feeders are still mercilessly crapping on the few journalists who are taking the biggest and most important risks of our generation and achieving the greatest of results, despite them.

Over The Line

Ball’s opus is over 2,900 words which in the realm of click-bait is practically ‘War and Peace‘.

BuzzFeed is, of course, a website whose main navigation mechanisms are buttons that read “LOL”, “win”, “omg”, “cute”, “fail” and “wtf”.

It’s safe to say that Ball’s work could fall into at least four of those categories.

Which makes it tragically easy to dissect.

Predictably, he starts with a homage to the proclamations of power.

[Please note: block quoted text displayed in italics below is sourced from James Ball’s dual-named article: titled either ‘Here’s What I Learned About Julian Assange By Working Alongside Him’ or ‘Inside The Strange, Paranoid World Of Julian Assange’, depending on when you happened to read it.]

“On 29 November 2010, then US secretary of state Hillary Clinton stepped out in front of reporters to condemn the release of classified documents by WikiLeaks and five major news organisations the previous day.

WikiLeaks’ release, she said, “puts people’s lives in danger”, “threatens our national security”, and “undermines our efforts to work with other countries”.

“Releasing them poses real risks to real people,” she noted, adding, “We are taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who stole this information.” — James Ball

You could be forgiven for thinking that Hillary Clinton stating that she was taking “aggressive steps” against the leakers of CableGate might mean that she has some kind of vendetta.

Given that the law is not meant to be “aggressive“, but merely lawful.

Oblivious to this, James Ball instead uses much of the article advancing the mainstream state-mouthpiece strategy of attempting to convince us that it is in fact Julian Assange who has a vendetta against Hillary.

“Julian Assange watched that message on a television in the corner of a living room in Ellingham Hall, a stately home in rural Norfolk, around 120 miles away from London.

I was sitting around 8ft away from him as he did so, the room’s antique furniture and rugs strewn with laptops, cables, and the mess of a tiny organisation orchestrating the world’s biggest news story.” — James Ball

Having qualified himself as relevant by having been in Julian’s presence in that moment, the reader is expecting some grand revelation to be imminent. That Julian threw something at the television, perhaps? Or made some disgruntled commitment to vengeance?

No, of course he didn’t. So Ball has to fixate on a triviality instead.

“Minutes later, the roar of a military jet sounded sharply overhead. I looked around the room and could see everyone thinking the same thing, but no one wanting to say it. Surely not. Surely? Of course, the jet passed harmlessly overhead – Ellingham Hall is not far from a Royal Air Force base – but such was the pressure, the adrenaline, and the paranoia in the room around Assange at that time that nothing felt impossible.” — James Ball

So after watching Hillary Clinton on TV, Assange and others in the room… thought something.

James Ball knows they thought something because he could see it.

He doesn’t bother mentioning what that something was. Just intimates that it was thought.

What precisely is he suggesting with this anecdote? That the Air Force was going to bomb the mansion? No? Glitter-bomb it maybe?

In keeping with the rest of the piece, James never qualifies his suggestions with any actual conclusions. Just sets up tense scenes and quickly moves on, incapable of climax.

“Spending those few months at such close proximity to Assange and his confidants, and experiencing first-hand the pressures exerted on those there, have given me a particular insight into how WikiLeaks has become what it is today.

To an outsider, the WikiLeaks of 2016 looks totally unrelated to the WikiLeaks of 2010. Then it was a darling of many of the liberal left, working with some of the world’s most respected newspapers and exposing the truth behind drone killing, civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq, and surveillance of top UN officials.” — James Ball

Not two reading minutes earlier, Ball described WikiLeaks as “a tiny organisation orchestrating the world’s biggest news story”. Now, he is trying to drive a wholly invented ideological wedge between the ‘then’ and ‘now’.

Yet six years later, WikiLeaks is still a comparatively tiny organisation (compared to the media conglomerates that it frequently laps circles around) that is, sure enough, still orchestrating the world’s biggest news stories. Ball attempts to suggest that WikiLeaks is no longer working on exposing war crimes, despite their most recent work exposing mountains of evidence that states responsible for arming and funding ISIS are also funding Hillary Clinton’s foundation and/or election campaign.

WikiLeaks are working on the same issues they always have. The crimes of Empire. Corruption and war. But Ball needs you to believe otherwise.

“Now it is the darling of the alt-right, revealing hacked emails seemingly to influence a presidential contest, claiming the US election is “rigged”, and descending into conspiracy. Just this week on Twitter, it described the deaths by natural causes of two of its supporters as a “bloody year for WikiLeaks”, and warned of media outlets “controlled by” members of the Rothschild family – a common anti-Semitic trope.

The questions asked about the organisation and its leader are often the wrong ones: How has WikiLeaks changed so much? Is Julian Assange the catspaw of Vladimir Putin? Is WikiLeaks endorsing a president candidate who has been described as racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, and more?

These questions miss a broader truth: Neither Assange nor WikiLeaks (and the two are virtually one and the same thing) have changed – the world they operate in has. WikiLeaks is in many ways the same bold, reckless, paranoid creation that once it was, but how that manifests, and who cheers it on, has changed.” — James Ball

If the Democratic primaries were not rigged, why was there a slew of resignations of its top officials, not to mention lawsuits, as a direct result of the revelations?

If WikiLeaks is seeking to influence an election, why has it not openly endorsed a political candidate, as the New York Times and nearly every major U.S. publication (and many others around the world) do openly, every election cycle?

How inane and hypocritical, to accuse one of the few media organisations that does not endorse a candidate, of endorsing a candidate.

The questions Ball lists as “the wrong ones” – accusations of a change in philosophy or ideology, or of an association with Vladimir Putin – are the precise accusations being made by the candidate-endorsing mainstream publications that James Ball completely ignores the existence of in this article.

And with that, the man who has just informed us that he knew what every person in a room was thinking, without stating what that was, merely because a plane flew overhead, now tells us that WikiLeaks is “bold, reckless and paranoid”.

Pot, kettle.

Having smeared WikiLeaks, Ball goes back to defending Clinton.

“Clinton’s condemnation of WikiLeaks and its partners’ release of classified cables was a simple requirement of her job. Even had she privately been an ardent admirer of the site – which seems unlikely – doing anything other than strongly condemning the leak was nonetheless never an option.

That’s not how it felt to anyone inside WikiLeaks at that moment, though. It was an anxiety-inducing time. WikiLeaks was the subject of every cable TV discussion and every newspaper front page, and press packs swarmed the gates of every address even tenuously connected to it. Commentators called for arrest, deportation, rendition, or even assassination of Assange and his associates.” — James Ball

Simply: no. It is not Clinton’s job to “aggressively” pursue anyone. There is no legal mandate for that. Any more than it is her job to aggressively pursue donations, paid-for speeches, the invasion of Libya, or any of the other crazy, corrupt nonsense she got up to while employed as Secretary of State.

Nor is it the job of commentators to be using mass media to call for illegal assassinations, but this is the effect of corruption at the very top echelons of government going unchecked for so long – it trickles down. Those beholden to power become emboldened to emulate them because they know the system will forgive and protect the corrupt. This is how corruption spreads from administration to administration and from generation to generation.

This is how a black man selling loose cigarettes on a New York street can be killed by police while a modern-day political mafia operate in the White House with immunity and a blank cheque.

Just stop and think for a minute – Bill Clinton was impeached. Impeached for lying to Congress. His wife publically ‘forgave’ him his indiscretions and now she’s going to be President. And he’s going back to the White House.

An impeached President will be moving back into the White House.

Does this not seem a little strange?

Maybe there’s a bigger problem to be addressed than a publishing organisation exposing corruption? Like, maybe the actual corruption itself, should be worthy of 2,900 words of James Ball’s attention?

Apparently not. He is too busy mud-slinging for The Empire.

He continues:

“At the same time, WikiLeaks was having its payment accounts frozen by Visa and Mastercard, Amazon Web Services pulled hosting support, and Assange was jailed for a week in the UK (before being bailed) on unrelated charges relating to alleged sexual offences in Sweden.

Inside WikiLeaks, a tiny organisation with only a few hundred thousand dollars in the bank, such pressure felt immense. Most of the handful of people within came from a left-wing activist background, many were young and inexperienced, and few had much trust of the US government – especially after months of reading cables of US mistakes and overreactions in the Afghan and Iraq war logs, often with tragic consequences.”

“How might the US react, or overreact, this time? WikiLeaks was afraid of legal or extralegal consequences against Assange or other staff. WikiLeakers were angry at US corporations creating a financial blockade against the organisation with no court ruling or judgments – just a press statement from a US senator.

And the figurehead of this whole response was none other than Hillary Clinton. For Assange, to an extent, this is personal.” — James Ball

Assange has repeatedly stated that the system is broken, that the electoral process is a farce, and has described Clinton vs. Trump as Cholera vs. Gonorrhea.

By now it is pretty obvious that it is James Ball, for whom this is personal. He is yet again quite literally selling his dated, meagre WikiLeaks experience, and wants us to believe that he has a unique insight into the motivations of Julian Assange. Pffft.

“It’s unfair, or at least an oversimplification, to say Assange is anti-American. He would say he supports the American people but believes its government, its politics, and its corporations are corrupt.

A result of this is that he doesn’t see the world in the way many Americans do, and has no intrinsic aversion to Putin or other strongmen with questionable democratic credentials on the world stage.” — James Ball

What better description is there of the Clinton cabal and in fact the entire U.S. military industrial complex than “strongmen with questionable democratic credentials on the world stage“?

That is a literal definition of every single Western regime, yet it is being used to prop them up by attacking their political enemies to distract us from the obvious.

The facade of democracy lost it’s last leg in 2011 with the violent crushing of the Occupy movement.

Democracy is over. Finished. Kaput. It has been reduced to a race between a war-mongering wife of an impeached President who cheated her way to the nomination, versus a serial-groper reality TV star with a spray tan.

Democracy in 2016 is billion dollar corporations telling 400 million people that it is their civic duty to pick Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee.

No amount of burying our heads in the sand or reading James Ball articles on omg-lol-wtf-BuzzFeed is going to change that.

James Ball and the Rape Investigation

There is nothing more annoying to a survivor of rape than people who get sanctimonious on the behalf of alleged survivors, only when it is politically expedient to do so. Or worse, to cash in on it.

Of Assange’s alleged victims, Ball writes:

“Those who have faced the greatest torments are, of course, the two women who accused Assange of sexual offences in Sweden in the summer of 2010. The details of what happened over those few days remain a matter for the Swedish justice system, not speculation, but having seen and heard Assange and those around him discuss the case, having read out the court documents, and having followed the extradition case in the UK all the way to the supreme court, I know it is a real, complicated sexual assault and rape case. It is no CIA smear, and it relates to Assange’s role at WikiLeaks only in that his work there is how they met.” — James Ball

Nowhere does he mention that the women did not want Assange charged. Or that one said the police manufactured the case and that she was railroaded into it. Or that the other specifically said she was not raped.

a

Ball never once lets the facts get in the way of his story.

So Who Is James Ball?

In short, exactly what his article claims Julian Assange is. A bullshit artist.

By contrast, the following is what WikiLeaks had to say about James Ball, in their response to ‘We Steal Secrets’.

Ball lie number 1: That James Ball wouldn’t sign a non-disclosure agreement on ideological grounds

“James Ball is lying. James Ball signed a non-disclosure agreement with WikiLeaks on November 23, 2010.

WikiLeaks uses non-disclosure agreements to help protect the safety of its sources, its staff and its upcoming publications from informants. The FBI and rival media organizations have previously bribed or pressured persons they believe to be close to WikiLeaks. James Ball understood this, and saw no irony in being asked by WikiLeaks to sign his NDA in November 2010.

WikiLeaks staff suspected Ball was passing information from WikiLeaks onto others: rival media organisations or government agencies. WikiLeaks discovered that Ball had told a colleague he had a job interview with the UK intelligence service MI5 and had interned at the UK Home Office. WikiLeaks also discovered Ball was attending secret meetings with the Guardian journalist David Leigh – his former college professor at City University, and a vocal opponent of WikiLeaks.

While Assange was in prison it was discovered that someone had accessed the Sunshine Press press contacts account using an email client, and had mirrored its archive. Ball had briefly been given access to the account. Documents from the account subsequently appeared in the Guardian. Physical documents went missing, and Ball’s behaviour became erratic.

Therefore a second, special non-disclosure agreement was devised for Ball, to test his reaction. After being asked to sign it at WikiLeaks’ Norfolk office, Ball became anxious and asked to postpone signing it while he considered it. He then left for London.

It later became obvious to WikiLeaks staff that, showing malicious forethought, Ball had stolen what he thought was WikiLeaks’ copy of his original NDA (which would have given him both copies). However the document that James Ball stole was not WikiLeaks’ copy of the agreement. Ball had left his NDA out on a desk and it had been filed for security reasons. He had stolen his own copy of the NDA. The other copy had already been removed to a secure location, and is still in WikiLeaks’ possession.

Ball became unavailable for work, and stopped returning calls. He lied about his whereabouts, and invented reasons why he could not return, which were confirmed to be untrue by a mutual third party. After several weeks, it became clear that he had cashed in his favours to David Leigh, in return for which he was given a post at the Guardian and the first credit in David Leigh’s book.

Ball pursued career advancement at the Guardian by placing himself at the service of The Guardian’s institutional vendetta against WikiLeaks, publishing numerous deceitful attacks on WikiLeaks over the last two and a half years, all of which rely on heavily embellishing his role as a freelancer working as a junior intern at WikiLeaks.

During the short time he worked for WikiLeaks he insisted on being called “a journalist working with WikiLeaks” or “a freelancer working for them“. Some time after leaving, Ball reimagined his role at WikiLeaks for career advantage, changing his title in order to misrepresent himself to others as a “former spokesperson.” James Ball was never a spokesperson for WikiLeaks. Alex Gibney did not secure an interview with WikiLeaks’ actual spokesperson, Kristinn Hrafnsson.

Ball has consistently maintained that he never signed the WikiLeaks NDA, and has felt secure enough to lie in print and on camera because he believed he had destroyed the evidence, having stolen the NDA.

Although he lies straight to camera in “We Steal Secrets” about the NDA, in January 2013 Ball admitted that he did sign the WikiLeaks NDA, after having been challenged about it by WikiLeaks lawyer Jennifer Robinson. In admitting this, he lied again, claiming that he had never denied signing a WikiLeaks NDA. The evidence to the contrary is in the film itself.” — WikiLeaks

Ball lie number 2: re Julian’s ex-handle, ‘Mendax’

“Ball fabricates the significance of one of Julian Assange’s teenage screen names “Splendide Mendax”, this time in the mouth of an interviewee. The screen name is a joke. In Latin it means “Nobly untrue”, but as a pseudonym it describes how handles protect an author’s identity even though being inherently “untrue”. It is a phrase which describes itself, not its author, just like the word “word”.

‘Claims my teenage nickname was Mendax, “given to lying”, instead of Splendide Mendax, “nobly untruthful”, which is a teenage joke on handles being inherently untrue. It is self-referential, not a psychoanalysis 20 years ahead of its time!'” — Julian Assange, Complaint to Ofcom regarding the Guardian co-produced Secrets & Lies documentary, January 9, 2012.” — WikiLeaks

Ball lie number 3: That he was a WikiLeaks spokesperson

“The full interviews from which Gibney selects clips of James Ball talking to the media tell a different story. As James Ball makes a number of false statements in Gibney’s documentary these are worth watching in full. In one with Fox TV, for example, Ball appears alongside Kristinn Hrafnsson (as he usually did), who is introduced as “WikiLeaks spokesman” while Ball is described as “a journalist working with WikiLeaks”. James Ball never “essentially filled in” as “WikiLeaks’ principal spokesperson”.

At 2.45 mins in, Mark Stephens explains that Julian Assange is not in hiding: “the police know how to get in touch with him, the Swedish prosecutor knows how to get hold of him, so everybody knows where he is – except the media.” It is therefore false and misleading for James Ball to suggest that Julian Assange was “in hiding”.

Starting at 8.30mins, Ball refutes the suggestion that WikiLeaks has put anyone in harm’s way: “We have correspondents from all over – you know, the New York Times Chinese correspondent, the Guardian Chinese correspondent – checking those cables that are published to see what they’re like. Of course WikiLeaks takes redactions seriously. It was said on the Iraq War Logs that there were 300 names going to be in them by the Department of Defense. When they were actually published, of course, the whole things were published redacted and safe.”

Note: In this December 3, 2010 interview with ABC Lateline, James Ball makes the following remarks about Julian Assange being ‘in hiding’ and his own relationship to WikiLeaks:

“He said it to me on the way to talk to you today”

“Well, I’m a freelancer working for them, for me it’s kind of perhaps a little bit of an outside view but from what I’ve seen working with them this week…” [Ball had been interning at WikiLeaks for 10 days at this date];

Asked what would happen if Julian Assange is arrested, Ball replies:

“Asking me is a little bit like asking a Saturday sub-editor at the Guardian what happens if Alan Rusbridger resigns. It’s very obvious, you know, you don’t have to work with them for very long to see that Julian Assange is, you know, absolutely core to what they do.” — WikiLeaks

Ball lie number 4: That WikiLeaks funds and fundraising were used for Julian’s defense

“This is a deliberately false statement by James Ball. Alex Gibney does not challenge Ball on it. The facts are easy to find. The Julian Assange and Wikileaks Staff Legal Defense Fund (JADF) and the various means by which Wikileaks receives donations for its running costs are kept separate.

Donors to “Dinner for Freedom of Speech” were given a choice to donate to WikiLeaks or JADF, and this was made explicitly clear. The different donation bank details were clearly set out. There is no confusion for donors about where their money is going.

The original ‘Dinner For Free Speech’ web page is still available, having been mirrored by the internet archive on February 10, 2011. It clearly indicates where donors can choose to donate to either the Defense Fund or to WikiLeaks, and also states unequivocally:

By pledging a donation on this day, no matter how large or small, you can help support Julian’s defence fund, and/or contribute to WikiLeaks.

This fundraising idea was organised in February 2011. James Ball’s internship had expired by mid-January 2011 and he had no involvement in this initiative at all.

The JADF is administered and audited by Derek Rothera & Co. The terms of the trust and trustees can be found here.” — WikiLeaks

Ball lie number 5: That WikiLeaks didn’t support Pfc. Manning

“This is a now-classic anti-WikiLeaks argument created by James Ball, an attempt to allege that the blame for Manning’s arrest lies with WikiLeaks and not with Adrian Lamo, the FBI informant who turned Manning in after telling him that he would protect him.

Ball’s allegation that WikiLeaks does not adequately support its sources conflicts with the account that Manning presented before the military court regarding his alleged contacts with WikiLeaks. In a plea statement, February 28, 2013, Manning said this:

After a period of time, I developed what I felt was a friendly relationship with Nathaniel [Manning’s designation for his contact at WikiLeaks]. Our mutual interest in information technology and politics made our conversations enjoyable. We engaged in conversation often. Sometimes as long as an hour or more. I often looked forward to my conversations with Nathaniel after work.” — WikiLeaks

This ties in to the audacious claim in Ball’s latest article that WikiLeaks “botched” the rescue of Edward Snowden by “stranding him” in Sheremetyevo Airport.

This is so ironic, as James Ball worked for The Guardian, one of the newspapers who had direct access to Snowden and who financially benefited from his leaks.

Unfortunately, The Guardian’s staff abandoned Edward Snowden in Hong Kong. Had WikiLeaks not stepped in, the end result of Snowden’s actions would have been life imprisonment (under unimaginable conditions, such as those meted out to Pfc. Manning), or death.

Nevermind the small fact that the U.S. cancelled Snowden’s passport, preventing him from being able to travel beyond Moscow.

In June 2013, it was not clear at all that Snowden would even live. Very few people expected him to make it as far as July. Let alone to be granted temporary asylum (and subsequently, according to Snowden, permanent residency).

The lengths WikiLeaks went to to make this possible are unimaginable to any other media organisation. They put their own staff on the line to accompany him across borders, help to negotiate his asylum, and spend months on end with him to ensure his physical and mental wellbeing.

When was the last time The Guardian did that? When was the last time BuzzFeed did it?

This is a clear cut case of professional envy. Ball seeks to piss on the achievements of WikiLeaks in saving Snowden precisely because those actions were so significant and historic.

Ball goes on to reference the single instance of Snowden and WikiLeaks ever having a cross word in public. Ball claims “In recent weeks, Snowden has publicly clashed with Assange…”

Recent weeks? It was July the 28th. Less than two weeks after Ball published his puff piece on the new British Prime Minister “This Is What It’s Like To Work In Government For Theresa May.

God forbid Ball quote what Snowden has actually said about WikiLeaks, from their 10th anniversary celebration this month –

e

Ball’s claims become more and more ridiculous, the further you get into the article:

“While the extent of WikiLeaks’ role in the Arab Spring remains a matter for debate, Assange was at the forefront of an information revelation. His attempts to regain the spotlight in the meantime have largely failed.” — James Ball

WikiLeaks is garnering up to 40,000 – 50,000 retweets per tweet. They have the entire world’s media as a captive audience. They are the most talked about news organisation in the world. Their releases are poured over by millions of people on a daily basis. Assange is invited to appear on the most significant and wide-reaching of media platforms.

This is what Ball deems failure?

And success is, what? Writing about sheep fetuses for BuzzFeed?

WikiLeaks has achieved stratospheric levels of impact, attention, growth, political and historical impact.

But this two-bit ex-intern from six years ago needs you to believe otherwise.

Written by Suzie Dawson

Twitter: @Suzi3D

Official Website: Suzi3d.com

Journalists who write truth pay a high price to do so. If you respect and value this work, please consider supporting Suzie’s efforts via credit card or Bitcoin donation at this link. Thank you!

Understanding World War III

A critical look at history reveals that World War II started in 1933, not 1939.

With the invocation of a state of war and the granting of war powers to the head of state, Nazi Germany was emboldened to begin their rampage of propaganda-fueled totalitarianism and ultimately invasion, mass murder and assimilation.

The official World War II commencement date of 1st September 1939 marks the day that England and France declared war and began openly militarily opposing Germany’s aggressive, expansionist agenda.

It is the date that officials were finally allowed to confirm to the public who were subsequently engaged (and drafted) to support it, that there was in fact a World War going on.

But with a slew of countries already having been breached by invading armies, World War II had begun well prior to the public acknowledgement of it.

Similarly, World War III will not be determined by the history books to have officially begun until a country or a coalition of countries formally stand to oppose and/or declare war against the now long campaign of invasion, subversion and international destabilisation perpetrated by the United States and their allies.

But nonetheless – even in the absence of such proclamations, World War III is well underway. That fact is only now filtering through to the awareness of the global public.

My analysis of the 1933 – 1939 period in Germany’s history has grave implications. The diplomatic and military conduct of Nazi Germany eerily mirrors that of the USA & co (hereafter colloquially described as The US Empire) in the period 2001 – 2016.

The events leading up to World War II and World War III are scarily similar.

Acclaimed author Naomi Klein has often written about the 10 steps to fascism and warned that they apply to America. She lists the decline into fascism as being indicated by (paraphrasing);

  1. Otherisation (creating an enemy)
  2. Gulags (Guantanamo)
  3. Paramilitary (outsourced military)
  4. Immunised thuggery (Blackwater etc)
  5. Domestic surveillance (NSA/facial recognition systems etc),
  6. Arbitrary detention (TSA etc)
  7. Targeting individuals
  8. Subversion of media
  9. Abuse of the definition and terms of espionage and treason, and
  10. Legislative suspension of the rule of law.

This article will go beyond that, to look not just at the general trends and conditions but to compare the chronology of the specific acts of Nazi Germany with those of the modern day US Empire, in the context of World War II and the now well underway World War III.

The Naked Agenda

The most nefarious of acts are not the dastardly deeds waged covertly, in secret, but those executed publically in plain sight and then employed on a massive scale.

“Hitler never made a secret of his aims, he committed them to print and repeated them in countless speeches… he triumphed because the world was blind to the signals he constantly raised. Time and time again Hitler could have been stopped. By his fellow Germans first, and by foreign leaders later. Not until 1939 did the Allied leaders move to contain him and by then it was too late to block his road to war.” — from the documentary film ‘World War II – Germany – Road To War’

Time and time again over the last 15 years The Empire has declared that it is at war. They proclaimed that there would be multiple theatres of operation. That their “enemies” were numerous and would be hunted wherever they resided or roamed. Yet somehow we didn’t take it seriously enough.

Numbed to the overblown rhetoric of Western leaders, it never quite sunk in to the global public that America declaring a state of emergency, invoking war powers, dramatically expanding military capabilities and financing, employing legions of mercenaries, invading a string of foreign nations, upending elected governments, occupying foreign lands, incurring civilian casualties into the millions, creating massive refugee crises and incessantly lying about their motives for it, was in fact them instigating a Third World War.

Warning Signs

The subversion of constitutions and democratic principles is a common thread among all tyrants, dictators and military regimes.

When a permanent state of emergency was declared in Germany  and the “Enabling Act of 1933” passed, the stage was set for unending war.

While different in letter and inferior in scope to the far more complex USA Patriot Act of 2003, the ultimate aims were similar – to enhance the powers of the Nazi government to engage in internecine warfare, on whim.

Likewise, according to Wikipedia, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, the Bush Administration “asserted both a right and the intention to wage preemptive war, or preventive war. This became the basis for the Bush Doctrine.

The Nazis soon used their powers to justify the execution and imprisonment of their own people and this is manifest in the recent conduct of The Empire also.

2012’s National Defense Authorization Act famously included provisions for the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens and US citizens have become targets of extrajudicial killings by their own government.

The stated justification? George Bush’s 2001 ‘Authorization To Use Military Force (AUMF).’

On 14th September 2001, Congress declared that the AUMF was:

intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

An initial draft of Senate Joint Resolution 23 included language granting the power “to deter and preempt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States… Members were concerned that this would provide “a blank check to go anywhere, anytime, against anyone the Bush administration or any subsequent administration deemed capable of carrying out an attack” and the language was removed. Constitutional law specialist professor Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School has said that the Obama Administration’s use of the AUMF has so far overstepped the authorized powers of the final, enacted version of the bill as to more closely resemble the capabilities named in this draft text rejected by Congress.”

This is definitive proof that laws passed to expand the powers of the executive are carried over to subsequent administrations then employed as justifications and expanded upon, to devastating effect.

Wikipedia states that critics of the Bush Doctrine “were suspicious of the increasing willingness of the United States to use military force unilaterally. Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson argued that it reflects a turn away from international law, and marks the end of American legitimacy in foreign affairs.”

Both Nazi Germany and The US Empire share the trait of justifying their non-compliance with international law and treaties by manufactured legal caveat, to enable the abdication of their democratic responsibilities.

Germany claimed that international treaties were not adhered to by their political adversaries and therefore it need not uphold or be bound by them. The same argument has been made by Western powers about everything from the Kyoto Protocol, to torture.

Another similarity is a self-righteous contempt for established covenants governing the military conduct of nations.

In 2002 the United States openly stated that it would not abide by the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war.

Likewise Nazi Germany’s failure to abide by the 1929 Conventions have been thoroughly documented.

War Dressed As Peace

Peace is an endlessly abused idealistic concept that quite obviously cannot ever be achieved by bombs, military expansion and more recently, drone warfare, yet we hear the term invoked over and over again in the speeches of the warmongers.

Incessant talk of peace in the context of waging preemptive war is a constant with both Nazi Germany and the modern day US Empire.

Yearning for peace was greater in no other country of the world, was no more vibrant, than in the German volk” Hitler audaciously claimed, in one of countless such addresses.

‘The Road To War’ notes that Hitler “was always proclaiming his love of peace.”

Stated intentions to pursue peace while preparing for war were viscerally demonstrated at the Olympics of 1936 where Nazi Germany practised the Olympic tradition instituted in 1920 post-World War I by releasing 30,000 thousand white doves, in the immediate wake of their illegal occupation of the Rhineland.

In 2009, President Obama famously droned on for over 30 minutes about peace in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize. This despite his administration having dramatically advanced the prevalence and use of obscene and high-tech methods of achieving extrajudicial killings, an extension of that which was employed in George W. Bush’s hegemonic and interventionist foreign policy.

Conquest In Stages

Every Empire has a Grand Poobah with a master plan, supported by a vast bureaucracy with fistfuls of them.

The obsession with strategic planning reassures them of their longevity. Yet their thirst for victory and conquest is never sated. It is an addiction. Once the cogs of war are greased and in motion they become trapped in a cycle of their own inertia.

Inevitably the velocity they generate speeds them towards their undoing.

Nazi Germany’s trail of subjugation forged across Central Europe. Back to back unopposed and largely bloodless successes bolstered its aspirations to impose dominion over the greater Western European continent. The further that aim progressed, the more murderous the campaign.

Ultimately this brought them to the doorstep of the seat of power in the USSR as well as into the North Atlantic maritime channel, to the British Isles.

Photographs of Hitler’s command show him and his generals pouring over a map reminiscent of a plus-sized replica of the board game “Risk”.

‘Risk’ is a great analogy for how war planners see war. To them it is not the stark reality of their lawlessness; the blood and bone, murder and rape, mass displacement; it is a map, upon which is determined the geographical control, monopolisation, distribution and ownership of resources.

According to General Wesley Clark, back in 2001 the U.S. Department of Defense also had a plan and it went far beyond the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

“He said we’re…starting with Iraq then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran.” — General Wesley Clark

The plan is not about democracy, or security, or fighting terrorism. The plan is about control. Just like Nazi Germany and many other Empires before them; they want to rule the world.

Each conquest is a launchpad for the next.

The invasion of Iraq allowed the United States to establish bases and to prepare itself for conflict in Syria. The invasion of Poland allowed Nazi Germany to establish bases and fortifications to prepare itself for the ground invasion of the USSR.

Nowadays, Ukraine is the new Poland.

The disbandment of the invaded nation’s military is another theme. Just as the Iraqi army was famously and disastrously dismantled post-invasion, Nazi Germany disbanded the Czech army, and others.

Stress factors for ethnic and religious tensions are deliberately exacerbated, as target countries are purposefully divided along sectarian lines by their invaders. The preconditions for civil war are maximised to provide further justification for an ongoing occupation, to create “bad guys” and “fall guys” and to prevent any cohesive opposition from forming or taking hold.

This invariably leads to sectarian warfare.

The tactic is simple: divide and conquer. Both Nazi Germany and The US Empire demonstrated the effectiveness of that strategy over and over again.

"Message from the mighty palace
Settled on the dirty streets
Got you fighting with your neighbour
Not the real enemy..."
- 'Wasted In The West' from FVEY by Shihad

Inaction By International Community

Inaction can be more dangerous than action.

In World  War II the Allied powers failed to act again and again. They did not act against Hitler when he positioned his troops in the Rhineland, nor when he later occupied Austria.

“In 1936, Hitler moved his troops into the [demilitarized] zone, claiming that the recent treaty between France and Russia threatened Germany’s safety.   His commanders had orders to retreat if the French army tried to stop them, but this time it was France who did nothing.   The League of Nations, busy with the Abyssinian crisis, also did nothing.” http://www.johndclare.net/EII1.htm

The following table from JohnDClare.net explains the ‘Appeasement’ policy exercised during 1933-1939:

appeasement
From: CLARE, JOHN D. (2002/2014), ‘International Relations 1919-1939’, at http://www.johndclare.net/Basics_intrel.htm

The modern military campaigns of The Empire have until recent times also been largely unopposed.

Modeled off the above, here is my own table of recent events:

table

Notably, none of the countries in which they have intervened has achieved a peaceful outcome. Active conflict remains in all of the above, up to the time of this writing.

There is a glaringly obvious line missing from my table and that is the bottom line of the World War II table: the open declaration of war by a nation or nations willing to declare war in direct opposition to the activities of The Empire.

Propaganda and Pretexts

The inception of war is always based on propaganda. This is true for each aggressive action undertaken in both World War II and World War III.

Nazi propaganda is a thoroughly explored topic. There are literally dozens if not hundreds of full-length documentaries on the topic. From anti-semitic, anti-Jew propaganda, to pro-state, pro-fascism propaganda, to anti-whatever-the-next-country-to-be-invaded-is propaganda, were one gullible enough to be influenced by it, they could soon become convinced that each German conquest was actually all for the benefit of the nation whose borders they violated and whose populations they decimated.

Nazi Germany’s tales of Germanic peoples supposedly being repressed in neighbouring nations were used to justify its incursions into multiple European countries. These myths came replete with tailor-made news reports containing images of crying women holding babies and whole families supposedly fleeing their homes.

The US Empire uses manufactured intelligence, criticism of the conduct of other foreign governments and the constantly recycled memory of 9/11 to claim that they are the ones under attack, rather than the countries they destabilise and the regimes they politically and militarily oppose.

Another recurring theme for the US is its cyclical doomsday warnings about the mortal dangers of weapons of mass destruction. Chemical weapons in Iraq are “unacceptable”, chemical weapons in Syria are “the red line”… but there is little mention or concern for where and how these technologies were supplied to or obtained by the countries possessing them.

“The Reagan administration even allowed Saddam to purchase the ingredients for weapons of mass destruction in the US. ‘The blueprints for chemical factories were supplied by sub-contractors of American companies to help the Iraqis build their own chemical weapons… the law stops you supplying the chemical weapons but you can get away with it by supplying the actual plans.’ This is cynicism of the highest order.” — Saddam Hussein – The Truth (Documentary)

Apparently only some uses of chemical weapons are offensive to the international commu nity. Others are not. According to the then Chairman of the Chemical Weapons Commission, when Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds “not one in this whole, at that time, thirty-five state’s Conference on Disarmament… no one lifted a finger.”

I have investigated the stated justifications of Nazi Germany and of The US Empire, for each of their military incursions and created the following tables:

ww2j

wwiiijustifications

Of course, for the propaganda of the state to thrive, there must be a wholesale subjugation of the press. This can be achieved economically, through mergers and acquisitions of the corporations that own them; it can be accomplished through smear campaigns and career disadvantages for those who refuse to tow the line.

If none of that works, then there is the outright criminalisation of the truth and the persecution of those who tell it.

Hitler deemed “The Munich Post”, a publication run by some of his most vociferous critics, Social Democrats in Munich, “The Poison Kitchen“.

The Poison Kitchen’s suspicion and criticisms of Hitler date back to 1921. This half dozen journalists and editors spent a dozen years publishing truths that the world didn’t take seriously enough.

Ignoring the warnings of Hitler’s critics ultimately cost an estimated 60 million human lives.

The Holocaust Chronicle states:

“In Nazi circles, the Munich Post became known as the “Poison Kitchen.” Prior to the Nazi takeover in 1933, “the Hitler Party” tried to silence the Post with libel suits and death threats against its staff. Nevertheless, the newspaper’s anti-Nazi resistance continued. Well into February 1933, the Post continued to publish reports about political murders carried out by the Nazis. Among its final anti-Hitler accounts was a three-part series that valiantly tried to counter what the Post had long regarded as Hitler’s most destructive characteristic: his willful falsification of history. The Post foresaw Hitler’s aims as disastrous for Germany and the world. Its views, however, did not prevail. Before the 1932-33 winter had ended, the Post’s anti-Hitler reporting was smashed, its courageous journalists imprisoned or killed.”

Sara Twogood, in a history paper about the Munich Post published by the University of California Santa Barbara, writes:

“Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party rigorously censored the news and media immediately after Hitler gained power in Germany in 1933 and throughout World War II.  This extensive censorship made it impossible for any newspaper to stop or even obstruct Hitler in his political journey to exterminate non-Aryans during this powerful reign.”

Twogood continues:

“The Post was relentless in its reporting of the “secret death squad” within the NSDAP, called “Cell G”.  They had been caught “red-handed” trying to assassinate members of the Nazi party that had been exposed and held responsible for insider leaks, specifically about the sexual blackmail scandal. The last of a series of articles on this squad quoted Hitler saying, “Nothing happens in the movement without my knowledge, without my approval . . . Even more, nothing happens without my wish.”  This quote directly linked Hitler to the murders and covert violence of the NSDAP.  The Munich Post was the first newspaper to openly make this claim.”

Twogood references ‘Bernhard, Georg. “Tactics of Hitler.” New York Times, 13 December 1931, Sect III 1:8’ to show that the New York Times downplayed the significance and the risk of the Nazi’s cimes by publishing a flawed hypothesis that Hitler would just burn out or fade away of his own accord.

She writes:

“…the New York Times incorrectly predicted, “just as soon as this fostering soil becomes exhausted the National Socialists spook will vanish.  What will probably remain then will be a small, discontented bourgeois party.” This prediction was typical of other newspapers as well – it stated that Hitler would disappear and make no further impression.  The Munich Post knew he would not just disappear.  It warned that Hitler’s actions and ideas were dangerous and took them seriously, even when no one else did.”

As Hitler took power and death squads openly operated in broad daylight, the feverish warnings of The Poison Kitchen became even more desperate.

One author quoted in the text describes the Munich Post as ‘Cassandra-like‘, in reference to the Trojan prophetess who forewarns of the fall of Troy but is ignored.

As their own demise became ever more inevitable, a fact of which they must have been well aware, still they tried to diligently report on the travesties, in no uncertain terms:

“Followed were reports of the “political murder summary: eighteen dead and thirty-four badly wounded in death squad attacks.”  In February they continued to run such headlines and reports as “Nazi Party Hands Dripping with Blood” and “Germany Today: No Day without Death.”

The Post continued to fight on futilely against the onrushing strength of Hitler’s party until March 9, 1933, when the Nazis banned the last opposition papers still publishing… The Munich Post offices were turned over to an SA squad to pillage.  They gutted it completely… The writers and editors were dragged away to imprisonment in concentration camps.  That was the end of the Munich Post.  Its battle against Hitler and the Nazis had been lost.”

After 12 years of valiantly trying to warn the world about Hitler, these truth-tellers were silenced.

For another 12 years thereafter, Hitler’s regime would rampage across Europe, devastating country after country and causing the deaths of tens of milions of people.

It is important that we name the names of the courageous. Twogood concludes:

“Protesters to Hitler fought with their hearts and jeopardized their freedom and lives hoping the world would listen. These men included Martin Gruber, Erhard Auer, Edmund Goldschagg, Julius Zerfass and others, reporters and editors of the Munich Post.  They faced imprisonment and death, trying unsuccessfully to warn the world…”

With the passage of time, their truth rings ever stronger..

Even in this modern day, real journalists are often martyred for living up to the ideals of the profession. True journalism is a public service and a service to the historical record. To tell the unpopular truth about nefarious power, no matter the risk.

While the perilous days of The Poison Kitchen may seem long behind us, the preconditions for such a reoccurence surround us. Journalists around the world are being spied on and (in many cases, illegally) monitored by their governments using high-tech equipment and corresponding laws that were designed for combatting terrorism.

The death of American journalist Serena Shim and the lack of investigation into her passing; the jailing of citizen journalists who eye-witness police killings of unarmed citizens; the siege of WikiLeaks’ Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange; the litigation that brought Gawker media to its knees; the arrest and detention of Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman and the felony charges against a documentary producer at #NoDAPL, are all dire warnings that we might not be so far away from an escalation to internment camps, arbitrary detention and open military conflict as we might like to think.

At any given time, The US Empire has an ace in their pocket: for as they are well aware, bringing the press to heel can also be achieved, most potently, by harnessing galvanising events such as perceived attacks upon the country.

As with the Reichstag Fire in 1933, or the Gulf of Tonkin naval incident at the start of the Vietnam War, the culpability for the incidents can often lie a lot closer to home than the establishment ever lets on.

False Flags

The brilliant journalist Glenn Greenwald is known for his sardonic, adversarial style when exercising righteous and biting criticism of the hegemony of The US Empire.

Never more deservedly so than this last week, when reporting on an incident that very easily could have been escalated into something vastly more sinister than it initially appeared.

Greenwald’s indignant tweet is dripping with sarcasm and understandably so, given the incredible imbalances of the protracted and very one-sided conflict in Yemen.

Plagued by US drone strikes for years, the country has basically become a weapons testing lab for Western powers and particularly the airforce of Saudi Arabia, who have accordingly copped most of the criticism for their constant and unforgiving aerial bombardment of Yemen. Yet, they are dropping US munitions upon a besieged and starving population and both US and UK military advisors are reported to be present alongside them.

The story coming out of mainstream sources, however, was stripped down, bland and lacking contextual information;

To hear CNN tell it, the poor, beleaguered (giant, cutting-edge) Western warship (in another country’s territorial waters) was unjustly attacked by (emaciated, underequipped) heathen natives (who just so happen to have been being picked off by flying killer robots for the last dozen years). And thus we see how in modern times, the truth often lays only in mental parentheses added by the astute reader. For everyone else, it’s – Yemen who? Where *is* the Red Sea?

In the wake of the hysteria, a different story emerged:

In this instance, the nemesis merely being the impoverished Yemen, the implications of such a misunderstanding was not on the scale of previous similar incidents.

Such as the most significant of all: the Gulf of Tonkin ‘false flag’, used to pass the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that ultimately sparked the Vietnam War:

“The commodore at the time, Herrick, did say that there was one torpedo, but one had to take that with a good deal of salt, because he had been just as certain about the next 20 torpedoes, and it really took him many years before, looking at the evidence, he finally acknowledged that he had been mistaken about the first one as well. But even on that night, we knew that what the president proceeded to say and what McNamara proceeded to say to the press in television interviews, that the attack was unequivocal, we knew that that was false, as many years later it turned out that the assertions by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld that they had unequivocal evidence of WMDs, weapons of mass destruction, in Iraq were false and known to be false at the time…” — Daniel Ellsberg, interviewed by historian Gareth Porter.

According to the same article:

“Years later, then secretary of defense Robert McNamara admitted to the incident never taking place in this documentary Fog of War…”

McNamara’s retrospective take, as quoted from the documentary referenced above:

ROBERT MCNAMARA, FMR. U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: “No, it was just confusion, and events afterwards showed that our judgment that we had been attacked that day was wrong. It didn’t happen.”

The story of an attack that wasn’t an attack, crushed and traumatised an entire generation.

American citizens were drafted to the war and compelled to fight. Over 58,000 were killed.

Some say under 2 million people died in the Vietnam War. Some count nearly 4 million.

The entire population of New Zealand.

Waging War At Home

According to the Wikipedia page for the War on Terror:

“In December 2012, Jeh Johnson, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, stated that the military fight will be replaced by a law enforcement operation when speaking at Oxford University.”

Throughout history the United States has used counterintelligence tactics to wage war against its own citizens when they congregate en masse to exercise their democratic rights. But particularly since 2011, there has been a dramatic increase in the prevalence of military-grade equipment flowing to police forces and brutal, physical oppression meted out against demonstrators and occupiers.

While it was assumed to be a profit-driven consequence of the privatisation of key aspects of the military, or just harsh policing tactics, there is now evidence that stormtrooper-like riot police serving as a domestic army is in fact in alignment with the strategic plans of the Department of Defense.

Thanks to a shocking new video released by The Intercept.

In the accompanying article, reporter Nick Turse notes the ‘dystopian’ nature of the vision portrayed and how it relates to current counter-terrorism efforts. But a closer look at the combination of audio and imagery betrays an even more sinister agenda.

At 2:09 in the video, riot police are seen grabbing a woman by the hair.  Graffiti on a wall in the background reads “Fight the Power”. Juxtaposed over this, the voiceover warns: “Social structures will be equally challenged if not dysfunctional…

Lines of riot police square off against protesters holding green, white and red flags, reminiscent of the Palestinian flag. A store behind them is labelled “Pharmacie.” The voiceover continues “…as historic ways of life clash with modern living.

Hacktivists who hack for social justice issues are equated with violent criminals and insurgents. At 2:35 a screenshot of an Anonymous video is shown as the voiceover says: “Digital security and trade will be increasingly threatened by sophisticated illicit economies and decentralised syndicates of crime..” leading to a photo of a masked black man in a tropical climate holding a huge shotgun and wearing a sling of bullets.

At 3:35, hundreds of riot cops are seen behind a barrier, while the audio says “the advice of doctrine from Sun Tzu to current field manuals has provided two fundamental options: avoid the cities or establish a cordon to either wait out the adversary or drain the swamp of non-combatants and engage the remaining adversaries in high intensity conflict within. Even our counterinsurgency doctrine, honed in the cities of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, is inadequate to address the sheer scale of population in the future urban reality.

So military counterinsurgency doctrine, designed for warzones, is lightweight by comparison to what the Army intends to unleash on urban cities. Reassuring.

But wait, there’s more.

At 4:19 we see riot police with shields, helmets, body armour and billy clubs fighting a crowd. The Oz-like voice says “Our soldiers will have to operate within these ecosystems with minimal disruption and flow.

Riot police. Our soldiers. Let that sink in.

This video was produced by the U.S. Army. If riot police in urban areas are their soldiers this can lead to only one conclusion.

America is already making open warfare in their homeland, standard practice.

The U.S. Constitution forbids the use of military on U.S. soil. It appears those pulling the strings of The US Empire have figured out how to get around that: Use civilian police forces as “soldiers”.

They are so kind as to reiterate the point: at 4:30 the video nears its climax by showing masses of helmeted riot police. The voiceover states “We are facing a threat that requires us to redefine doctrine and the force in radically new and different ways..” Shot of hundreds more black-clad riot cops. “The future army will confront a highly sophisticated urban-centric threat…”

“Our soldiers.” “The future army.” “Redefining doctrine and the force.”

By unleashing hordes of domestic police forces armed to the teeth with military-grade weapons and equipment upon unarmed civilians on domestic soil, the U.S. Army isn’t just “redefining doctrine and the force in radically new and different ways” – it is redefining Constitutional Law, without the consent of the governed.

The US Empire is not the first to have armies of black-clad police forces attacking it’s own citizens.

Nazi Germany also had them. They too operated in tandem with military objectives and made a hunting ground of their own cities.

They were called the S.S.

Overextension – The Demise Of Empire

Neither Nazi Germany or The US Empire possess an achievable long-term objective. The stated end goal is always literally impossible to obtain, yet the wars wage on nonetheless.

Empirical governors always seek to expand, expand, expand. Or in terms of the acquisition and exfiltration of resources; to usurp and consume.

Each military misadventure overplays itself into the next endeavour.

Until the breadth of the empire becomes completely unsustainable and ultimately collapses.

“The defeat of Poland gave Hitler his common frontier with Russia. He had made war.  But it was not the war he wanted. His misjudgement of the temper of Britain and France had wrecked his plan. Before the great march of conquest in the east could begin, he must eliminate both France and Britain. Either that, or plunge Germany into a prolonged two-front war.” — World War II – Germany – Road To War

For America, the Pivot to Asia is the second front. The idea that The U.S. Empire could fight on both their East (against Iran and/or Russia) as well as their West (against China) and still win, is a huge stretch of the imagination.

The much-touted 40+ member Coalition of the Wiling was more fanfare than substance and use of the term has largely faded from public discourse. But even at its heights, in the wake of 9/11, the total amount of troops and resources contributed by the coalition was a tiny fraction of that required to sustain the entire war effort.

According to Wikipedia only 3 countries provided combat troops for the initial invasion, another 3 countries did not even have standing armies, and Costa Rica and the Solomon Islands declined to participate as they were apparently not even consulted about their inclusion in the list.

Wikipedia states:

fr

It may also have been a zero sum game if not a net loss. Pundits labelled The Coalition of the Willing ‘The Coalition of The Billing‘ and ‘The Coalition of The Shilling‘ due to the large amounts of US aid being offered to some countries in order to secure participation.

While the United States currently enjoys military supremacy and thus alliance with many military partners and vassal states, that situation would change pretty quickly were The Empire to become weakened or exposed by fighting on both sides.

There is a long list of countries that The Empire has either overtly or covertly invaded or politically and economically subjugated, many with manufactured or installed pro-US puppet regimes that could easily be toppled by populaces which have not yet forgotten the crimes of the past, were the fortunes of The Empire to undergo substantial change.

Such an eventuality could make the Arab Spring look like a practice run.

Resilience

No sane person wants war. War is insanity by definition. Least of all a country that lost as many as 30 million of its people during World War II – more than every other country put together.

“There is a Soviet-era song titled ‘Do The Russians Want War?’ I think this is something the West does not understand about us… even for modern day Russians, who grew up at a peaceful time and didn’t witness World War II… there is no prospect more terrifying than war… my grandma used to tell me, ‘Remember, there is nothing more horrible than war.’ Every time I’d come to complain about something she’d tell me ‘That’s nothing. You can do anything. You can fix even the most disastrous of your mistakes but remember, there’s nothing worse in this world than war.’ Because war renders everything else irrelevant. When there is war, there’s neither good nor bad. There’s only war…

…the mere mention of war to a Russian makes our skin crawl. It gives us a sense of the world coming to an end, a sense of panic… once they realise that, if they ever do, they’ll be able to understand everything about us. We have lived through real war so many times. Not the movies or video games, the way they get to experience it. It’s not even the kind of war where they dispatch their troops elsewhere, not knowing what it’s like to fight a war at home. If they ever realise that, which I hope they will, they’re bound to feel guilty and ashamed of what they’re doing right now.” — Maria Zarakhova, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson speaking on RT.com’s ‘In The Now’

The most spectacular holiday of the Russian year is May 9th. The day that Germany conceded defeat and World War II was finally over. Even now, more than 70 years later, the end of that war is cause for celebration in Moscow. Not merely commemoration, but actual jubilance. Gratitude for peace.

Having never been a target of a large-scale ground invasion on their home soil in the 20th century, The US Empire is out of touch with the impact that the kind of devastation seen at Stalingrad has on a civilian population. The scars, the memories and the heritage, or how those scars are passed down through the generations both biologically in the physical composition of the offspring of those whom were literally starved by the war, and by word of mouth: Lest We Forget.

With each country invaded by US Empire, there has been increasing resistance, just as there was against Nazi Germany. If World War III progresses to armed conflict on Russian territory, that resistance will be raised to new heights unimaginable to the invaders.

In World War II, at Stalingrad every man, woman and child fought or aided in the fight. It was not merely an issue of a draft – or one military marching upon another. Every single resident fought tooth and nail against the invaders, for the future of their homeland.

According to Wikipedia’s retelling of the Battle of Stalingrad:

“Many women fought on the Soviet side, or were under fire. As General Chuikov acknowledged, “Remembering the defence of Stalingrad, I can’t overlook the very important question … about the role of women in war, in the rear, but also at the front. Equally with men they bore all the burdens of combat life and together with us men, they went all the way to Berlin.” At the beginning of the battle there were 75,000 women and girls from the Stalingrad area who had finished military or medical training, and all of whom were to serve in the battle. Women staffed a great many of the anti-aircraft batteries that fought not only the Luftwaffe but German tanks. Soviet nurses not only treated wounded personnel under fire but were involved in the highly dangerous work of bringing wounded soldiers back to the hospitals under enemy fire. Many of the Soviet wireless and telephone operators were women who often suffered heavy casualties when their command posts came under fire. Though women were not usually trained as infantry, many Soviet women fought as machine gunners, mortar operators, and scouts. Women were also snipers at Stalingrad. Three air regiments at Stalingrad were entirely female. At least three women won the title Hero of the Soviet Union while driving tanks at Stalingrad.”

That kind of experience remains with the population long after the war is over. They simply do not forget. The need for peace, for sanity, is urgent and enduring.

Even the citizens of the West who haven’t personally experienced war on their home soil within many generations, want peace. Some 36,000,000 people around the world marched against the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Unfortunately, mass demonstrations, while very much in the spirit of democracy, seem consistently all but ignored by the political hierarchy of The US Empire. While they may give the causes of activists lip service in campaign speeches, seldom does any action follow other than blatant tactics of oppression and suppression reminiscent of many of the other countries who they then hypocritcally decry for a supposed lack of respect for human rights.

Inevitability

The escalation of the War seems inevitable, because it is so closely following the blueprint of the past.

The biggest indicator of impending conflict is the imposition of economic sanctions.

Since the dawn of time, trade sanctions precede war.

From ForeignPolicy.com:

“As a blunt tool of diplomacy, the concept of sanctions has been around at least from the time of the ancient Greeks, when Athens imposed a trade embargo on its neighbor Megara in 432 B.C. Since then, there has been a long history of countries blockading their enemies to compel a change in behavior. But how did this tactic morph into today’s “targeted” or “smart” sanctions — measures such as arms embargoes, asset freezes, and travel bans on key individuals and organizations — now aimed at Iran and Syria? They may be more humane and high-tech than a flotilla at sea, but are sanctions any more effective today than they were 2,400 years ago? After all, Athens’s embargo didn’t cow Megara into submission — it helped trigger the Peloponnesian War.”

As stated in Saddam Hussein – The Truth documentary:

“Sanctions and war are linked to each other. If you go against sanctions, you should know – nothing against sanctions – but if you do that, you should know that there is only war left.”

Of course, some may argue that sanctions are active warfare. Certainly the method of murder – economic or military – made no difference to the half a million Iraqi children who died as a direct result of sanctions in the 90s.

Sanctions imposed by vampires, held in place even after the premises under which they were imposed had been proven to be false.

From the same documentary:

“In 1990 the U.N. voted for a strict economic blockade. Officially the embargo would remain in place until Saddam’s arsenal had been entirely destroyed. U.N. inspectors forced the Iraqis to cooperate and soon became convinced that Iraq no longer posed a real threat. And yet the sanctions were maintained…

…”There’s something comfortable about having him in the box of sanctions and a regime of international inspection… that we had come to accept”…

…”We knew we were in a losing battle, that sanctions were going to erode to the point where eventually they become a joke… if you lift sanctions you break containment, if you break containment you no longer have Saddam Hussein under control.”

Just as war relies on pretext, so does sanctions.

Polishing pretext is what politicians do best.

The Two Types Of Secretary Of State

Some Secretaries of State order pizza and directly engage in diplomacy.

Some starve entire populations and then seek to justify it. Some overtly advocate for war.

There is the statesman and the war hawk. The former acts to prevent war, the latter acts as a cheerleader for the military industrial complex, egging them on to their next conquest and has no qualms about getting their hands dirty.

Or laughing about it.

All the while, amassing top-tier military and corporate contacts and benefactors.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, there is somewhat of a chequered history to Secretaries of State becoming President.

They recount the history of the six prior Secretaries to do so:

z

So, Hillary would have been the seventh ex Secretary of State to become President, and the first to do so since 1845.

The last, as stated above, was James Buchanan. The reason the Christian Science Monitor describes him as the “worst US chief executive of all time” is because he was a one-term President who presided over the secession of states that led to the American Civil War.

The election of Donald Trump to President of the United States has been, to say the least, highly contentious. But given the hawkish international policies promoted by Clinton, it may have saved the world much blood and pain.

Now only one day after the election, no one really knows what is coming. There is almost universal dread among U.S. activists, due to Trump’s divisive domestic agenda. But among many others, there is genuine hope for a rebalancing of international power, away from the perennial misadventures of Empire – a profound change on the world stage. Only time will tell if President Trump will run the military industrial complex, or if the military industrial complex will run President Trump.

Building Bridges

So what builds bridges to peace? Failed Presidential bid aside, Clinton’s post-‘Stronger Together‘ slogan was ‘Love trumps hate‘.

The foundations of love are understanding and empathy.

Geopolitically, this requires an acknowledgement and respect for cultures foreign to our own.

Such respect for culture is not unprecedented in contemporary American history. It has been achieved most poignantly, through the arts. One example is Van Cliburn, a young American man who travelled to Moscow, where he earned the admiration of the Russian populace with a series of spectacular performances that won him an inaugural international Tchaikovsky competition for concert pianists.

The feat was considered so significant that he returned to a ticker-tape parade in New York and his subsequent studio recordings outsold even Elvis Presley.

In an interview with PBS, Cliburn distanced himself from a 1958 Time Magazine cover that had audaciously claimed that he’d ‘conquered the Russians‘. Cliburn states:

“I am so grateful because they were wonderful to me. They were such great audiences… I didn’t conquer anything. As a matter of fact, they conquered my heart.”

That kind of humility, coupled with a common humanity is how we, the citizenry, can build bridges between our nations. To boast of conquest is hollow and temporary. Even the strongest bodybuilder cannot flex impressively forever – age will eventually defy them. But to forge a friendship, an alliance based on mutual respect, is to truly win.

In 2004 Cliburn was awarded the Russian ‘Order of Friendship‘. The medal celebrates foreign nationals whose efforts strengthen international relations.

Any person can wage destruction with ease, even a toddler can. But to build something lasting, profound and historic, that spans beyond one’s personal lifetime… such as cultural understanding and friendship… or to inspire unity… that is truly remarkable.

The Nobel Peace Prize was originally intended for recipients who had “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

Unfortunately it has become little more than a status symbol for those who wield great power and often with limited (if not overtly detrimental) outcomes.

Better results come from a more pure motivation – love and genuine well-wishing – a heartfelt yearning to find common ground, not merely though diplomacy but through cultural exchange, tolerance and celebration.

Thus it is not only the leaders of our countries that must rise to find solutions and reach an outstretched hand, but the very citizens themselves.

When they do, let us promote such efforts by acknowledging, encouraging and rewarding them.

For courage is contagious.

Written by Suzie Dawson

Twitter: @Suzi3D

Official Website: Suzi3d.com

Journalists who write truth pay a high price to do so. If you respect and value this work, please consider supporting Suzie’s efforts via credit card or Bitcoin donation at this link. Thank you!

[Update/January 2018] This post is now available at my Steemit blog

The Weaponising Of Social Part 3: The Resurrection Of IOError

The genesis of this groundbreaking series was a moral obligation to highlight obvious discrepancies in the coordinated smears against Jacob Appelbaum (IOError). That smear campaign’s self-pronounced and ostensibly achieved aim was to permanently shut down his (anti-surveillance, anti-three-letter-agency) public speaking by casting him out from the very communities he has dedicated his life to supporting.

Implemented, that aim had very little to do with protecting actual rape victims but everything to do with manipulating (by asserting social control over) the speaking circuit which is the visible face of the privacy and infosec movements, as well as dominating the critical infrastructure and the corporate structure (at board level) of the Tor Project:

board1

Series In Review

The Weaponising of Social” series kicked off with the first long-form article with the guts to seriously analyse the allegations against Jacob Appelbaum. This hit a lot of nerves and got a lot of exposure, with word-of-mouth more than making up for the total lack of commercial platfom, promotion or marketing of the work.

While intended to be a 3-part series, it really turned out to be 4 parts:

1. The Weaponising of Social Part One: The Crucifixion of IOError

Performing a rudimentary linguistic analysis of the statements of the alleged victims (which range between 81 and 703 words each), the article notes that “people who are not survivors of rape cannot competently impersonate survivors of rape” and explains precisely why that is:

  • the inordinate brevity and apparently manufactured linguistic conformity of the JacobAppelbaum.net claims;
  • the profound and highly unusual absence of victim impact in those statements; and
  • the obvious presence of editing by third parties, giving the effect of multiple ‘voices’ within a single piece, when the norm is to respectfully allow the words of survivors to stand on their own merit without editorial manipulation.

The smear website’s initial exposure, then non-transparent retraction, of the name of a woman unrelated to the claims, is highlighted.

The article mentioned Meredith L. Patterson, the founder of a think-tank called “Weaponising Social“. One of three self-appointed “eye-witnesses” that famously went to media with a story about an incident that was promptly debunked by the alleged “victim herself.

The piece raised a plethora of concerns surrounding the site copy and the plagierism allegations, and pledged that a deeper look into the responses and conduct of the Tor Project and media, as well as the WikiLeaks connection, would follow.

2. The Weaponising of Social Part Two: Stomping On IOError’s Grave

Part Two dives headfirst into what it really means to be a Person of Interest – which there is no doubt Jacob Appelbaum is, especially given the context of the FBI and DoJ (amongst other agencies) investigations into WikiLeaks.

It discusses Appelbaum’s 30c3 revelations of spyware emitting up to a kilowatt of hardware radiation (which we dubbed #spycancer on Twitter at the time) – literally microwaving targets – and tells of my own experiences of being directly stalked and persecuted by state intelligence contractors when trying to amplify Jacob’s findings.

The near uniform anti-WikiLeaks positions of Jacob’s public critics are exposed, in their own words – including those of Leigh Honeywell, Valerie Aurora, Meredith L. Patterson, Andrea Shephard and Alison Macrina, just to name a few.

The article proved that Isis Lovecruft had (presumably unsuccessfully) attempted to gain access to the back-end of WikiLeaks’ secure whistleblowing platform, a year prior to her allegation against Jacob, and according to her own timeline, one year after he allegedly assaulted her.

While the smear website was designed by supposed privacy activists dedicated to anonymity, the article identified numerous security compromises inherent in its design.

Finally, it cautions that the desecration of Jacob Appelbaum is being actively used to hurt others associated with him including but not limited to Edward Snowden, and demonstrates that known FBI informants like Adrian Lamo (responsible for the arrest of beloved whistleblower Chelsea Manning) and Hector ‘Sabu’ Monsegur (whose betrayals led to the arrest of Jeremy Hammond among other whistleblowers) have been cheerleading the ostracision of Appelbaum from the outset.

3. Orwell’s Swan Song: Free Speech Activists Whitewashing Wikipedia To Silence Dissent

This much shorter piece was initially intended to cover just a single issue – that Jacob Appelbaum’s Wikipedia page was being constantly monitored and manipulated by an editor, Kenneth Freeman, who openly espoused Tor and EFF affiliations and touted a personal friendship with one of the accusers – Alison Macrina.

However, the rabbit hole got even deeper. It emerged that some of the vociferous anti-Appelbaum troll accounts which had been, on a daily basis, lambasting anyone who questioned the narrative of the smears are allegedly operated by some of the accusers themselves.

In the interim, their associates were leaking information to, of all people, the very journalists at The Daily Dot who had worked to redeem the reputation of FBI informant Hector ‘Sabu’ Monsegur (but abysmally failed – he remains almost universally reviled to this day).

Meanwhile, it was revealed that Jacob Appelbaum had been incensed by the discovery of CIA infiltration at the Tor Project.

The same CIA proven to have a track record of editing Wikipedia pages.

4. The Weaponising of Social Part 3: The Resurrection of Jacob Appelbaum

This monolithic undertaking will dive deeper into some of the above issues and cover those aspects yet to be discussed – namely:

  • The attitudes of those involved in the smears, in their own words, and further details of the extent of their involvement
  • The professional conduct of the Tor Project management and the web of associated relationships
  • The role of mainstream media, particularly the New York Times
  • The wider political environment and effects on the movements

The Worm Turns? Die Zeit Investigate

In a long-awaited move, Jacob Appelbaum has spoken with the German weekly magazine Die Zeit, who performed an in-depth investigation into the allegations against him.

The results – a depiction of that particular corner of the Berlin hacker scene as being drug-fuelled and sexually promiscuous – aren’t particularly flattering to anyone, but the findings with regards to the lack of veracity of the key allegations are utterly damning.

Speaking to eight eye-witnesses who spent the days in question with River and who vehemently deny that any sexual assault took place, many further details emerge, including some hard evidence that things may not be as she initially depicted. Particularly pertinent is that River had sent Jacob affectionate email communication after the fact, and spoke publically of wanting to return to Germany for more ‘fun’.

Furthermore, it is revealed that Alison Macrina – author of the 369-word “non-consensual washing” complaint posted under the pseudonym ‘Sam’ – is alleged to have had consensual sex with Jacob after his bath, a material factor that she did not reveal in her complaint against him, or apparently since.

When questioned about this by Zeit, she became incensed, and suggested that she did not consider her alleged omission of the consensual sex to be relevant.

The encounter between Jacob and Alison is said to have occurred in the days following what is alleged to be a consensual threesome with River that occured privately in a bedroom, rather than non-consensual sex in the lounge as had been claimed. This raises the possibility that the complainants becoming aware of the close timing of each other’s sexual encounters with Jacob may have retrospectively impacted the way they viewed, portrayed and related their interactions with him.

Taking Down An NSA Target

Regardless of the women’s motives, the net effect of their action has been the utter desecration of Jacob Appelbaum’s public image.

More, they have quite literally, now taken down an NSA target:

jansa

rd1

Appelbaum’s Tor Directory Authority had been specifically listed as an XKeyscore target in leaked NSA documents.

Jacob’s work with the documents furthered his interest and involvement in trying to curb the excesses of intelligence agencies engaging in surveillance.

There is a long, long list of reasons why the National Security State and its international counterparts are extremely pissed at him.

In the below video of an event at which he appeared with WikiLeaks’ Investigations Editor, Sarah Harrison (who is also the Acting Executive Director of the Courage Foundation) Jacob openly calls for direct action to be taken against US military bases, specifically the drone operation relay center at Rammstein, suggesting that activists should target its water supply:

Fastforward to this week and Alison Macrina tweeted:

amio

According to Zeit and others before them, after Jacob Appelbaum’s expulsion from Tor their website listed Alison Macrina in his former position:

tacp

When I had questioned Macrina about this, she replied to me via Twitter that it was not true and stated that she does not work for the Tor Project. She then promptly blocked me before I could retweet her denial or screenshot it. Her tweet then disappeared from Twitter.

Why she stated that she does not work for Tor and may have deleted the tweet, is unclear. She is published on the Tor website, directly amplified through the official @TorProject Twitter account and additionally was named by Roger Dingledine in internal communications as someone that Tor staff should speak to with regards to the accusations against Jacob Appelbaum.

The association is beyond denial. So why would she attempt to distance herself from Tor? The only distinction that can logically be drawn is that as the founder of the Library Freedom Project, she may be in fact a Tor contractor/supplier of services rather than a salaried employee. Which, for someone so visible within the organisation, is splitting hairs.

Desecrating The Heroes Who Shared Their Platforms

Alison Macrina’s rise in exposure got a giant boost via the Library Freedom Project being amplified by Edward Snowden on Twitter in October 2015. On February 8th, 2016 she officially introduced herself to the Tor community by authoring a guest post on the Tor website.

Her profile was raised even higher after her inclusion at a March 2016 CIJ speaking event alongside Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

Alison’s body language during the event was in stark contrast to the others present. Nervous laughter and fits of protracted too-loud and too-long giggling, combined with, at one point, her arms folded tightly across her chest. When it was her turn to speak, she spoke eloquently and confidently; when it was others speaking, she picked at loose strands of invisible fluff on her shoulder, kicked her crossed leg back and forth and leaned back in her seat.

At 54:35 in the video, when the person sitting next to her on the panel, David Mirza Ahmad, mentions Jacob Appelbaum by name, Alison Macrina does not even blink. There is no sign whatsoever of any recognition, discomfort, negative association, suppression of emotion or even the most subtle reaction to hearing Jacob’s name.

Despite the event occurring several months after she now alleges he had sexually assaulted her and some eight to ten weeks prior to her involvement in publishing the accusations against him.

In the wake of going public with her allegations, Macrina was directly pressuring WikiLeaks for comment.

amwlem

By the end of July 2016, Appelbaum dispensed with, Macrina’s constant ribbing of and ire towards WikiLeaks, who were understandably reluctant to be drawn into the maelstrom, was being ratcheted up several notches:

ampc

amssHer above tweet – which was in defense of Edward Snowden – seemed ignorant of the fact that as a direct result of the campaign against Appelbaum, Snowden himself was being attacked by sock puppet accounts who were accusing him of being a rapist by association.

Some of the ensuing rhetoric got really, really nasty:

twss

Unfortunately, it is not just sock puppet accounts attempting to take chunks out of Snowden.

apsr2

After some discussion about ‘gatekeepers’ and leaking methodologies, this:

apsr1

The term “rapey” is itself, offensive. With its use, the definition of rape is being willfully expanded into borderline meaninglessness and obscurity. As if there can be “racisty” or “sexisty” or “homophobicy”. There cannot. Rape is an absolute, and a serious crime against humanity. The term should not be callously invoked; watered down for the social convenience of he or she exercising the privilege inherently wielded when bastardising the language of the violated.

Macrina’s participation in the desecration of the very people who helped her rise to prominence, extends to jumping on the bandwagon of any criticism against WikiLeaks whatsoever, whether or not it was subsequently proven to be founded.

amwl1

amzt

New York Times writer Zeynep Tufekci’s varying accusations of WikiLeaks having published (it didn’t) a dump of private information, have been thoroughly debunked:

nsg1

And debunked again:

nsg

Yet this has gone unacknowledged by Macrina and supporters, who lambast WikiLeaks at every opportunity.

eva

Amazingly, WikiLeaks staunch support of organisations whose staff are actively undermining it, has continued unabated. When someone tried to deny that support exists, WikiLeaks made the salient point that in fact, every single page of their website promotes the use of Tor.

wly

Unfortunately, these days WikiLeaks’ solidarity with these organisations seems to be a one-way street.

By August 2016, Alison’s original guest post on the Tor Project website had evolved into “Alison’s blog” – a dedicated space for her voice to be amplified by Tor, where she has now championed the release of official Tor internal policy documentation.

Die Zeit raises a fascinating point:

dz

The passage they quote is from what I think of as the ‘second voice’ in River’s testimony… and we’ll look into how that may have come about soon.

A ‘Come To Jesus’ Moment

So how did Alison get from sitting on a stage with Julian Assange mid-March, not even registering or flinching at the mention of Jacob Appelbaum’s name, to claiming to be a sexual assault victim?

ctjm

“I had my ‘come to Jesus’ moment months ago when I started hearing from victims.” – Alison Macrina, 6/6/2016

Herein lies a common thread in these stories.

What Alison is saying explains why she didn’t twitch a muscle at the mention of Appelbaum’s name on March 16. Because she didn’t realise she was a “victim” until later, when she heard complaints from other women.

River also says she didn’t realise she was a victim until she was told that her experiences were rape.

Isis Lovecruft says she had tried to convince herself she wasn’t a victim.

As explored in this series previously, Leigh Honeywell said she didn’t realise she was a victim until she took exception to Jacob Appelbaum’s support for Julian Assange.

So all four of the most significant claims of sexual assault, took years/months and group-think/collaboration in order to “realise” that they had been assaulted.

The strangeness doesn’t stop there. Isis’s blogpost revealing that she is the accuser ‘Forest’, simultaneously claims that she:

  • had spent “six months” collecting the stories of ‘victims’
  • didn’t initially tell the ‘victims’ who supposedly confided in her, that she was also a ‘victim’
  • didn’t intend to tell the Tor Project
  • planned to threaten Jake that they would tell the Tor Project “and other organisations”
  • told the Tor Project, but didn’t initially tell them she was a ‘victim’ either

After Jake caught wind of the intervention and, Isis alleges, threatened her, she presumably shelved the plan for an intervention. Her recounting of the so-called threats is really oblique at best, although later in her piece she subjectively lists a prospective legal count of blackmail.

In fact, she lists an entire slew of prospective legal counts against Jacob, with a final count of 35 years imprisonment as per her own calculations, all under the guise of answering why she wouldn’t pursue legal remedy. But the entire exercise just comes across as, ironically, a threat.

Especially given the sheer invention of counts such as “instructing a third-party to rape”, which do not reflect the published accusations at all.

Multi-party Edits, Manipulations and Manufactured Testimony

Researcher Janine Römer, who has been instrumental in documenting the unfolding saga, found evidence that seems to point to the presence of multiple editors making changes to the copy of the accusations published on the smear website.

The following is an excerpt of a conversation I had with her:

Janine: I noticed yesterday that the text of the entries on GitHub are coloured blue in odd places, and some have more blue text than others. Daniel’s has the least amount of blue from what I can tell. I can’t be sure about this but I suspect the blue text might be editing marks. The reason I think they’re editing marks is that places where I would expect the writer to put identifiable details (like Phoenix’s, where it describes the event), are areas where the text is blue. Same with the one that mentioned Jake’s fiancee. Actually in the one with “Jake’s fiancee,” it’s the opposite. Surrounded by blue text but then black text is inside the quotations. Either way I don’t know why the text is different colors.

Suzie: Typed/edited by multiple people?

Janine: Yes, this could support that.

Suzie: Fits with everything else I’m finding. Is there any way to show that that break in [River’s] rape testimony was typed by another person? If I’m right and it was an interjection – it says a LOT about the psychological profile of the person who did the interjecting and particularly in the powerplays of their relationship to that victim.

Janine: I’m not sure [of] it, they are images and I don’t know if the metadata would show that.

Given the obvious contentiousness of non-survivors editing or interjecting their own voice into alleged rape testimony, it is past time for the administrators of the site to come clean as to whether this indeed did happen, and to what extent.

Janine also brought to my attention the following tweet by one of the authors of the Die Zeit article:

dzgit

Janine says of the above tweet:

“It sums up my thoughts on it. People who use GitHub do so for transparency reasons – open-source code, open-source writing. But the way they did it was not transparent, as they tried very hard to erase evidence of mistakes by deleting repositories.” – Janine Römer

Additionally Janine tells me that there was “an obvious tampering” with the dates of the entries on the website:

“The GitHub copies of the entries are PNG images. Initially, all the entries were marked with the same date of December 31st, 2015; since then, newer entries have not only been given different dates but the dates on earlier entries were changed (you can [compare them in the archives](https://archive.is/https://github.com/ioerrror/jacobappelbaum.net*)). It is unclear what the date signifies.” – Janine Römer

According to Die Zeit, at least one of the ‘victim’ testimonies was manufactured on their behalf without their permission:

alice

That the creators of the site saw fit to outright concoct a testimony on the basis of hearsay and rumour, then to publish it without the consent of the so-called ‘victim’, jeopardises the integrity of all of the testimony that they published.

Of additional concern, is the 81-word testimony of ‘West’:

west

From the beginning, this account seemed anomalous. How could someone traumatised by an unwanted advance of a sexual nature only have 81 words to say about it? The reference to being ‘very wary of communicable disease‘ reads as if the writer needed to create a reason why the subject would be so offended by a surprise kiss. The reference to ‘others present voiced their disapproval of the surprise advance, especially given my concerns about disease‘ begs the question – how did these others know of said concerns?

Is West an actual complainant, willingly participating in JacobAppelbaum.net? Or has this account been manufactured to, yet again without consent, represent the subject of the later-debunked claims of what Shepherd, Patterson and Tan said they saw at a hacker event?

Regardless, the fact that such a benign allegation was ever included alongside a claim of rape, speaks volumes about the intentions of the editors. Their focus on quantity of allegations over quality has only served to dillute and detract from the severity of the accounts of River and Isis.

Revisiting The Linguistics

In the first part of this series, I published screenshots of linguistic analyses of each of the allegations. All of the originally published testimonies including Sam and Forest’s, with the exception of Daniel and West, resolved to a reading level of 9th-10th grade.

Daniel and West’s pieces were written at ‘College Student’ reading level.

Curious about the anomaly, I analysed multiple samples of each of Alison Macrina, Isis Lovecruft and Meredith Patterson’s published writings on other blogs. All of the test samples produced a ‘College Student’ reading level.

So who wrote Daniel’s testimony? Did that same person then write West’s? If so, logically these accounts would be written by Meredith. Only she can confirm whether that is true. And why would the ‘Sam’ and ‘Forest’ testimonies on JacobAppelbaum.net be written at a 9th-10th grade reading level, when their writings on other sites are all ‘College Student’ level?

Apparently, if you want your information to have impact, good writing is all about knowing your readers:

kyr

According to the below statistics (from the website linked directly above), the average adult reads at a 9th grade reading level. The maximum “tolerable limit” is 11th grade.

kyr1

According to The Clear Language Group:

readability

It appears that the core testimonies on JacobAppelbaum.net were carefully constructed to have impact with a wide, common audience, and thus needed to be dumbed down in order to be approachable.

Yet the editors apparently felt that Daniel’s either couldn’t or shouldn’t be altered, which speaks to the power dynamics within the “collective”.

In short – the site copy was constructed to achieve maximum saturation.

Maximum damage.

Meredith, Victims of Jake & Weaponising Social

What first gave me the idea to analyse the linguistics of the allegations was the early discovery that Meredith L. Patterson is a linguistics graduate.

Her widely circulated Twitter commentary on the scandal, along with her track record of many years of labelling Appelbaum a plagiarist, and later a rapist; the prominence of the accusations of plagiarism on the JacobAppelbaum.net website; and the early reference of the @VictimsofJake account (then called @TimeToDieJake) to her deceased husband, Len Sassaman, led to a logical conclusion that she may have a deeper significance in the campaign against him.

However, the @VictimsofJake tweet was not the only instance of Sassaman’s death being tied to Appelbaum by someone who dislikes him:

sassaman

According to Janine Römer:

“The VoJ account was created on June 3rd and that’s when it first tweeted and it had relatively early knowledge of the website because it tweeted a link to an early version that wasn’t live anymore. That was also the day Steele published the first blog post…

…very few knew about the website before the 4th [of June], so anyone who did is significant.” – Janine Römer

Founder of the think-tank Weaponising Social, Meredith has, funnily enough, published a 3-part blog series about the saga. It is framed as a complex theoretical-cum-practical academic discussion about psychopathy and sociopaths.

The first line of the first part is:

There’s a pattern most observers of human interaction have noticed, common enough to have earned its own aphorism: “nice guys finish last.” Or, refactored, “bad actors are unusually good at winning.” – Meredith L Patterson

She soon launches into a mini-lecture about social engineering:

mpse

She sneers at the idea that federal agents might work to engineer a scenario like this, even though the Snowden revelations re JTRIG, and many other real-world examples have proven that is precisely what they are employed to do.

“As accounts of the sociopath’s misdeeds come out, the sociopath’s narrative has to become more and more convoluted in order to keep the fanboys believing. “They’re all feds!” he shrieks. “Every last one of them!” Uh-huh. Sure. Because the feds always assign multiple agents not only to target one guy who can’t even keep his dick in his pants, but to become his coworkers, don’t they? This is not exactly an inexpensive proposition. Reality check: if the feds had wanted to pull a honeytrap (which there’d be no reason to do, given his mascot-only status at Tor), everything would have been a lot more cut-and-dried.” – Meredith Patterson

Funnily enough, the extrapolation of valid, precedented, founded fears of malicious interference by state agents into “They’re all feds… Every last one of them!” is something I have not seen suggested by any of Appelbaum’s supporters, but which is constantly touted by his detractors, in defense of themselves.

The obvious reality is that it wouldn’t have to be “all”. That is simply a smokescreen. It would only have to be one.

One who for example, dressed the “collective” action up as a good cause (defending victims! Holding a serial rapist to account!) to convince a couple of others close to them that they had been wronged and should participate. Who then collectively convinced increasing numbers of people that they should side with the ’cause’, for everyone’s benefit. While, funnily enough, the end result is to almost everyone’s detriment. Except the engineer/s of the plot and their small handful of key beneficiaries.

Patterson is right however that HUMINT infiltration of activist’s lives is not an inexpensive undertaking. That is why, literally, billions of dollars are assigned to funding U.S. Counterinsurgency strategy, which has been proven to be at play against activists and is predicated upon a theory that the target’s ideology, places of refuge or sanctuary, and resources must be relentlessly attacked and ultimately denied them.

Precisely as has happened to Jacob Appelbaum.

The sanctity of his home, his established reputation, his community affiliations and organisations, his employment and income, his reputation and even his ideology, stripped from him.

In the 3rd part of her blog series, Meredith resurrects her claim that this is somehow an unfounded fear rather than a daily reality:

“The rockstar activist plays on non-rockstars’ fears of organized state opposition to their activism, and convinces non-rockstars that any challenge to the rockstar’s status is evidence of an organized plot against the activist group.”

It defies logic that Meredith isn’t well aware of how The Empire operates. She quotes military theory in her own blogposts:

mpot

Especially in the context of her think-tank, Weaponising Social, her last sentence is really worth quoting again, as it is just so fitting to this entire situation.

“Push hard enough from enough directions, and possibly the victim even becomes overwhelmed and stops functioning – a distributed denial of service.” – Meredith Patterson

There are further edifying references to her own involvement. In the 2nd part of her blog series Meredith says:

mpadk

She continues:

mpjump

The first Twitter accounts to tweet out the ‘early version’ of the website were:

first

On 15 June 2016 @VictimsOfJake intimated that Wired magazine would be interviewing River.

vojrw

No such interview eventuated. Wired‘s June 6th article appears to be their only published piece on the scandal.

However, the suggestion that River will be coming forward to the press reinforces information provided to me by various sources. Though the subject of that information also seems to take issue with the @VictimsofJake account.

amvoj

vojamdc

s3a

voj2

One person suggested that @VictimsofJake is EFF Director and journalist Jillian C. York, although based on other evidence, it is unlikely to be the case.

vojill

vojsr

Distancing Themselves From Themselves

On August 9th, two months after the fact, Meredith finally covered off the topic everyone had been wondering about, for so long: why she hadn’t apologised for coming forward as an ‘eye-witness’ to an alleged incident that turned out to be a misrepresentation of yet another (non)victim:

mpadm

As for Andrea Shepherd, this is the closest to an (non)apology that I’ve been able to find: [note: if something more substantial exists elsewhere, I’ll happily include it here]

dist

The full-time anti-ioerror troll account @VoodooHacks seems to think Shepherd was the instigator of the scandal:

vhinst

vhpv

In Meredith’s posts, she ostensibly admits to being an organiser of the events, chides accuser Leigh Honeywell and alludes to Andrea Shepherd being a survivor of rape:

“Honeywell conveniently neglects to mention that this solution has its own critical failure mode: what happens to members of marginalized groups whom the existing affinity group considers unpersons? I can tell you, since it happened here: we had to organize on our own. Honeywell’s report came as a surprise to both me and Tor developer Andrea Shepard, because we weren’t part of that whisper network. Nor would we expect to be, given how Honeywell threw Andrea under the bus when Andrea tried to reach out to her for support in the past.” – Meredith Patterson

This seems to be reinforced by the @VictimsofJake account:

voj4rs

[UPDATE: further information has shed light on Meredith’s comment – she was apparently not intimating that Andrea had complained of rape to Honeywell, but of harrassment re the Pando crowd]

Clearly there is no love lost between the organisers of the campaign.

Or at least, as Meredith says of sociopaths:

“the opportunity to gloat over seeing one’s prey stumble is too difficult to resist.” – Meredith Patterson

It is a shame Shepherd, Tan and Patterson didn’t take Meredith’s own advice and just frankly and immediately publically apologise for what they did to Jill, who was needlessly dragged into this highly public mess through no fault of her own.

“An honest person will try to find out how to make it right, while a bad actor will try to make it all about them.” – Meredith Patterson

When Friends and Enemies Say The Same Thing

An anonymous Tor developer posted a text file to the internet which made a number of significant claims about who is behind the JacobAppelbaum.net site and what their involvement is.

at1

@VictimsOfJake promptly responded in a similar format.

vojtdl

Meanwhile, one of Alison Macrina’s friends was inadvertently corroborating some of the claims of the anonymous Tor developer and dropping Macrina in the proverbial by bragging about the extent of her involvement, on Jacob Appelbaum’s Wikipedia Talk page.

am1

He then recanted “for legal reasons”.

am2

A puzzling element regarding Macrina’s involvement, is why her ‘Sam’ story was not published when the site went live. It was in fact at that time, merely a placeholder.

Looking back at her Twitter timeline, she spent the night of the release of the allegations “excited to see the morning sunlight“. Her next tweet was a retweet of the Stanford rape survivor’s statement – seemingly a deliberate attempt to prep her audience for what would come. However, as discussed in Part One of this series, at 7,200+ words chock-full of victim impact, that statement bears absolutely no resemblence whatsoever to the so-called testimonies subsequently posted on the smear website JacobAppelbaum.net:

amsrs

So Macrina went from not realising she was a victim and not being one of the original statements posted, to being the first to ‘out’ herself as a victim publically, to being ‘OK’ with her face being plastered onto her alleged attacker’s Wikipedia page.

Branding The Take-Down

There was a clear agenda to brand Macrina as “the face of victims” – despite the fact that she had not been raped.

brand1

The attempt to have a non-survivor become a self-styled representative for the survivors of violent rapes is reprehensible.

But there is no doubt that the scandal was yet again raising Macrina’s profile.

When being called out by Shava Nerad, ironically the original Executive Director of the Tor Project, for decrying “rock stars” while quite obviously becoming one, none other than Macrina’s Wikipedia-editor friend jumps to her defense:

amrs

amtk

Becoming The Police

The unfortunate Tor employees and advocates who had nothing to do with either those being smeared or those doing the smearing, were inevitably feeling the strain.

As were the wider activist community. What was done to Appelbaum had a catastrophic effect on personal relationships between long-time colleagues and friends, and fractured solidarity between organisations and subgroups.

We’ve seen peak Berlin“, a core member who had been around for more than a decade told me.

Anyone who had visibly worked closely with Appelbaum and didn’t choose to instantly abandon him became collateral damage and subject to attacks and rumourmongering.

Even if their choice was based on knowledge that what was being said about him didn’t add up.

Tor allowing months to go by with accusations of rape hovering over the heads of unnamed persons known only as “Jake’s friends” was a callous and effective smear on everyone that knew him. Their constant refusal to this day to elaborate on precisely what those friends are supposedly guilty of or alleged to have done, on what basis two of them have now been fired, and the masking of their identities, is a brush that has tarred scores of people.

Meanwhile, the over-saturation of the story, which was being rehashed by anti-ioerror sockpuppet accounts on a daily basis, who were acting as a thought police by asked leading, open-ended questions of anyone who even mentioned him on Twitter, began to wear thin.

The controversy became more than an attack on Appelbaum – it became an existential threat to the Tor Project itself:

cong

pb

The narrative of the so-called ‘victims collective’ was ‘codes of conduct’ and ‘(un)acceptable behaviours’ and ‘safe spaces policy’ – social contracts that have ironically been used to rip activists groups apart for decades.

The introduction of safer spaces policy at Occupy had been the turning point that marked the rise of the movement becoming the demise of the movement. As soon as your personnel and resources are spent writing social contracts that then require enforcement, your focus is no longer external but internal.

Because when you start making laws, then someone has to become the police.

And having police around doesn’t make anyone feel any safer.

The message has been very clear: if you are with the newly ruling clique, they have your back. If you question them, the bees are coming.

bees

In this instance, the institution of safer spaces policy and codes of conduct is a reinforcement of the rule of those who have formed a new executive governance.

That the policies are being instituted by the same people who have wreaked havoc upon the community, is a signal: if you don’t bow down, then as Meredith says, either jump or be pushed.

am4

[Note: the social contract promoted by Macrina above is not the new code of conduct and community guidelines which is supposedly, to follow.]

Selective Solidarity and Dirt Digging

Little of the conduct evinced in this article by Tor’s new police force aligns with the creation of inclusive, safe spaces.

While perceived adversaries are mocked and mobbed instead of embraced and reconciled, the hostility culture is only going to get worse.

Likewise as ideological disagreements become highly personalised.

Throughout this series I had people come foward to me with information. I also uncovered a ton of it myself. This included veritable mountains of info about people’s intimate and sexual relationships. Some of the evidence I found blatantly contradicted other public claims they have made about them. I have decided not to publish any of it, because, as Shepherd once said of Pando:

ggt

In defense of her misrepresentations about the AKP emails “dump”, Zynep Tufekci sent me a link to a New York Times piece that was supposed to reinforce her claims. Being me, I clicked on the source links and found myself at Gawker and Gizmodo, reading about Julian Assange’s children, and his ten-year-old love letters.

Any credibility the article had went straight out the window.

The state agencies come at you through your romantic relationships, whether it be past, present or future; through your children, through your family, through your work, through your identity. That is the methodology of the unscrupulous; the immoral. Of scoundrels.

It is clear without any doubt that all personal grievances aside, the ultimate target is WikiLeaks and the aggravating factor is that the U.S. Presidential election is now a matter of mere weeks away.

The corporate media are speaking in unison against Trump and for the election of Clinton. You can find a half dozen articles decrying the former and another half dozen promoting the latter on any of the vast majority of big name American media websites.

It is not a coincidence.

Even though, to (very loosely) borrow from Sebastian Mondial, the candidates are two socks on the feet of the same person.

As this series progressed, the uniformly anti-WikiLeaks positions of Appelbaum’s accusers and their supporters became increasingly evident. Which neatly lined up with larger governmental objectives of bringing down the entire WikiLeaks publishing organisation rather than just some individuals associated with it.

But just as with the very protracted desecration of Julian Assange’s reputation, despite all the furore and spectacle the public dismemberment of Jacob Appelbaum did not stop WikiLeaks publishing, nor has it visibly hindered their work.

In the wake of the #DNCLeak, arguably WikiLeaks most successful release to date, it has become clear that yes, WikiLeaks remains the meta target, and more – that the catastrophic divisions created within the privacy and infosec community in the wake of the Appelbaum smears are falling squarely along ideological political lines.

The Circus In Full Swing

Election year madness has kicked in full-throttle, exposing the true colours of organisations and individuals alike and throwing a bunch of unlikely bedfellows together.

Wholly embracing the stage-managed divide-and-conquer dichotomy of (in Assange’s words) “Cholera versus Gonorrhea“, countless major players have thrown their full weight behind their preferred candidate.

The military industrial complex has stamped their seal of approval on Hillary Clinton. They fully intend her to be the next President of the United States of America.

So have the major New York magazines and newspapers – in particular, the New York Times, and more broadly, the vast majority of the media networks and the monopolies that own them.

In the case of the New York Times – denouncing WikiLeaks is not only ideological but a desperate attempt to distance themselves from any perceived culpability for having partnered with them, co-publishing their leaks, in the past.

It is the mass media equivalent of obtaining immunity by publically testifying against your co-accused. A corporate’s version of “turning state witness” – before the trial, in the court of public opinion.

As was beautifully articulated by the great American actor and writer John Cusack’s “What Is An Assange?, in the Huffington Post:

nytt

The same New York Times that told America in 2002 that Iraq had WMD’s, has published at least three hit pieces on WikiLeaks this month alone, and incredibly, yet somehow fittingly, became the “exclusive” publication of choice for the Tor Project’s “independent investigation” findings.

nytt1

The ties between the Tor Project and the New York Times run deep. It is well known, and was publically celebrated by those close to the individual involved, that an ex Tor Project employee took up a significant position at the NYT.

Nicole Perlroth, the author involved failed to answer as to how or why they had gained access to the ‘exclusive’ from the Tor Project, and the Tor Project refused to answer to why the findings of a rape investigation was an ‘exclusive’ at all.

ttpnyt

Perlroth has a history of propagating anti-WikiLeaks sentiment in the paper.

nytwl

In her June 4th statement, published the same day that JacobAppelbaum.net began widespread public circulation, Shari Steele wrote:

“We expect that this will be our only public statement.” – Shari Steele, Executive Director of The Tor Project

Less than two months later, Steele is exclusively interviewed by the New York Times. What happened in between, to prompt such a radical change in strategy?

Tor’s choice of mass-media outlet was almost as strange as the packaging of rape-investigation findings as an “exclusive” at all. Not to mention that, without any apparent request for retraction or correction by the Tor Project, the New York Times had recently reported that the Tor Project’s board “was pushed out“:

nyt1

…a claim that directly contradicted Executive Director Shari Steele’s statement that the board had “elected” their replacements in “a bold and selfless decision” to effectively resign en masse.

For such a claim to go unchallenged, and answered by the granting of an “exclusive”, reads as if the messaging of what had really occurred was being tacitly approved if not outright pushed through the NYT, from behind closed doors at Tor.

Selecting The New Board Members

Ideological alignment with the actions of Shari Steele and “the company” regarding Appelbaum’s exit, and/or those behind the JacobAppelbaum.net site, may have been an assumptive prerequisite of qualification for placement on the new Tor Project board.

On June 24th, renowned anthropology professor Gabriella Coleman, wrote a comprehensive blogpost, quoting feminist group theory and endorsing the actions of Steele and Tor.

Coleman begins with praise for the aforementioned:

coleman1

20 days later, she was officially announced as a member of the new board.

Also announced as a new board member, was Associate Professor Matt Blaze:

mbtb

Shari Steele’s NYT Exclusive

It is in the wake of this appointment of the new board that Shari Steele was ‘exclusively’ interviewed by the New York Times, over the outcome of the Tor Project investigation into the rape claims.

The crux of the exclusive interview with Steele isn’t even mentioned until the 15th of the 18 paragraphs in the article.

The two sparse quotes from Shari appear at the very bottom and comprise less than 10% of the total word count.

Why did the New York Times feel the need to minimise their exclusive access?

They state that their interview with Steele was undertaken “late Tuesday” – that is the day before the Tor Project announced the findings of the investigation. So there is no doubt that they indeed had exclusive access regarding the outcome. Gizmodo had knowledge of the exclusivity of the interview at least several days beforehand. Yet that fact is as downplayed as the verbiage of the original allegations.

It may have something to do with the first sentence of the article:

The Tor Project, a nonprofit digital privacy group, announced on Wednesday that an internal investigation had confirmed allegations of sexual misconduct…

“Sexual misconduct.”

The article references the official Tor Project statement that accompanied the so-called release of the findings.

“Many people inside and outside the Tor Project have reported incidents of being humiliated, intimidated, bullied and frightened by Jacob, and several experienced unwanted sexually aggressive behavior from him.”

“Sexually aggressive behaviour.”

Not sexual assault. Not rapes. Not gang rape. Not serial rape. Not instructing others to rape. Not violence, or sexual violence. Not stupefication. Or any of the other claims plastered all over social media and elsewhere, by his accusers and others.

Instead, as a result of their supposedly thorough, independent investigation, the claims have been dramatically downgraded.

I anticipate that Tor’s defenders will say that this is just the organisation trying not to get sued. Trying to limit its liability. That the statement is the result of professional advice. That they are not law enforcement and cannot label something a crime that hasn’t been tested in court by a judge and/or jury.

Which would run completely contrary to the lauding of Tor by those same defenders as having taken a strong stand for women, in support of the community and against rape and sexual assault.

As being ‘feminist’ superheroes, working for Gaia.

What is far more likely, is that the promised “dozens of victims” never manifested.

[UPDATE: the majority of the existing allegations relate to inappropriate workplace behaviour. However, with the exception of one joke at the Valencia conference where the complainant was not the person the joke was directed at, all other complaints of ‘professional misconduct’ did not occur at a place of work. There was in fact, no workplace. Jacob has been in exile for three years. There were no official Tor rules against, and indeed there was a culture of, social fraternising at pubs/clubs/private homes.)

The H.R. Leaks

On the liability front – Tor’s prior statements and conduct regarding this debacle have been highly questionable. Tor management have allowed multiple staff members to remain employed while visibly running an ongoing online smear campaign against another employee. There is evidence senior management knew about it in advance. They have tacitly endorsed, by their silence regarding it, the leaking of private human resources documents and other information from within the organisation. Leaks that were prejudicial and likely to be in the personal interest of those anonymously making the disclosures in order to support their own claims and to shore up the position of the organisation, rather than in the public interest.

Tor’s initial statement was, in the words of Roger Dingledine, “stripped down” and “bland“. It was in fact 24 words.

It was soon followed up by a much more verbose statement that vastly contrasted their intially minimalist statement.

Rape Survivors Denied Justice For Decades

It is actually highly unusual for cases, even involving large numbers of victims, to get immediate attention in mainstream press.

Bill Cosby has constantly been brought up by Appelbaum’s detractors, but what they fail to note is that Cosby’s victims, all of whom had been raped or sexually assaulted, had to organise and fight for decades in order to be heard.

Likewise with those behind the Child Sex Inquiry in Britain, which has also spanned decades and still not yet achieved any laudable outcome.

While ignoring demonstrable, provable cases of rape, those who seek to champion rape survivors in name only have a tendency to apply their sympathies only where it suits them.

Or else those same self-appointed advocates would be raising hell about the leaked audio tapes where Hillary Clinton brags about destroying the case against the rapists of a 12-year-old victim; or about the rape and harrassment of Juanita Broaddrick.

nyte

ch

Co-option By Stealth

Worse – there is a clear pattern of partisanship evidenced by key voices in other major outlets which were specifically established to provide a critical counter-narrative to the duopoly of the status quo. Partisanship to me does not mean expressing political views – by all means, journalists should have and express political views. But when their articles are running the same lines as the New York Times on a regular basis – and ignoring material facts while quoting New York Times writers – chances are, they should still be at the New York Times.

Slowly but surely, once-radical organisations which many risked their lives to establish, grow and promote, are being co-opted into reinforcing the reality TV sideshow of the election cycle.

Those who are naturally disgusted by both the obviously corrupt and dangerous Hillary Clinton and the painfully inept and equally dangerous Donald Trump are being browbeaten into supporting Clinton regardless, constantly bludgeoned by the manufactured ‘threat’ of Trump being elected.

They are told that third-party ‘protest’ votes either don’t matter, or worse. As if third-party options that have incrementally increased their vote share, maturing and ultimately rising to prominence around the world (and ultimately even winning elections) did do so by no one voting for them.

The obviousness that in order for there to be a viable third party, people have to vote for them, seems to escape these hawks, who are so obsessed by chasing their next funding round that they end up undermining their own founding objectives and principles, to the detriment of us all.

In their quest to ‘play the game’ and thus secure their own fiscal future – nothing guarantees a favoured status like promoting amongst their own ranks and supporters, hatred of and disdain for Clinton’s number one enemy: Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

CIA Employee Hired By Tor Project

As has been proven, Tor/EFF and associated organisations are now being dominated by WikiLeaks detractors. But even more menacing, is the revelation of a CIA employee literally leaving the agency one day and starting work for Tor the very next day.

His inclusion took employees by surprise, and none were more visibly incensed about it than Jacob Appelbaum.

Funnily enough, when the ‘State of the Onion’ address at HopeX rolled around this year – an update on Tor Project recent happenings that Appelbaum traditionally gives – the schedule contained absolutely no mention of the elephant in the room:

s2

The widely-perused leaked chat log of Appelbaum and others confronting the recently ex-CIA employee about his presence in Tor speaks volumes about the internal culture, and the voraciousness of Appelbaum’s understandable opposition to the hiring.

What hasn’t been widely read is the full text of the email that the ex-CIA employee sent to Tor staff, which was mentioned in the above chat transcript. You can read the full email at this link.

In short, the employee says he left the CIA because he loves Tor so much. You be the judge.

Jake’s concerns about Tor funding had predated the ex-CIA employee incident by some time:

jakedol

While the target of widespread criticism for being effectively paid by the same government that he so often railed against, it is clear that Jacob himself was deeply concerned about Tor’s funding ties and the extent to which that effected decisions made by the organisation.

[Note: Several people – none of which are Jacob – have come forward to me privately raising concerns not just about the above issues but also about other activities that Tor has been “spending money on” – including but not limited to enhanced metrics for measuring user activity and location around specific ‘events’. That project has been funded “in part by the National Science Foundation”, and as other specific project funders (“sponsors”) are marked only by pseudonymous letters, it is an entire kettle of fish in and of itself that will need people with more technical expertise than I to examine further.]

WikiLeaks and The Iraq War

Indeed, the derision Jacob has faced has not only been due to the sexual assault/rape allegations, or the funding sources of his former employer.

Rather than ask the obvious questions surrounding the revelations of the ex-CIA employee ostensibly leaving an intelligence agency one day to arrive amongst the ranks of Tor developers the next, the topic of conversation over the leaked log astonishingly instead focused on other comments made by Jacob in the log.

Particularly, where he referenced his volunteer work with WikiLeaks.

His reference to WikiLeaks having helped to scale down military conlict in Iraq were personified to him.

s4

The ridicule expounded upon Jacob’s comment: “later with WikiLeaks, I did help end the Iraq War.” This was regurgitated by @ErrataRob, to great hilarity, that Appelbaum was claiming to have “single-handedly ended the war in Iraq“.

err3

However, in the eagerness to poke fun at Appelbaum and at WikiLeaks, the facts of the matter fell by the wayside. As Glenn Greenwald had reported for Salon – WikiLeaks indeed did have a hand in events that ultimately led to decisions by the Iraqi government that led to the down-scaling of the conflict.

“..negotiations were strained following WikiLeaks’ release of a diplomatic cable that alleged Iraqi civilians, including children, were killed in a 2006 raid by American troops rather than in an airstrike as the U.S. military initially reported.” – Glenn Greenwald

s1

[UPDATE: as per WikiLeaks statement at the time, which ratifies the above: “It was WikiLeaks’ revelations – not the actions of President Obama – that forced the U.S. administration out of the Iraq War. By exposing the killing of Iraqi children, WikiLeaks directly motivated the Iraqi government to strip the U.S. military of legal immunity, which in turn forced the U.S. withdrawal.”]

err2

The above accusation that Appelbaum doesn’t back up his assertions is eerily similar to the denials by FBI informant Hector ‘Sabu’ Monsegur that Appelbaum was of interest to the FBI.

sabu

In the above thread, @ErrataRob demands logs of Appelbaum’s references to Monsegur having attempted to entrap him on behalf of the FBI.

Ironically, Sabu also asks for logs. The reason it is ironic, is because it has been widely reported that the FBI monitored all of Sabu’s interactions 24/7, throughout the time that he was entrapping and informing on activists and journalists, including myself. So the simple answer is – while we might not have the logs – the FBI sure do. But funnily enough, they aren’t forthcoming with information, as poignantly demonstrated by the FBI General Counsel’s replies to Jacob Appelbaum’s questioning of her, in the below video:

National Security Letters were served on providers requesting the personal data of Jacob Appelbaum and gagging them, as reported by the Wall Street Journal in October 2011. Well in advance of Sabu’s informing rampage which stretched at least throughout most of 2012, and well into 2013. Yet Sabu continues to maintain that Appelbaum is not an FBI target.

sabu2

Mustafa Al-Bassam promptly replied with the obvious:

mab

@ErrataRob has a long history of trying to debuff Appelbaum, only to be shot down with publically available information.

err5

It is now being reported by Violet Blue that Jacob Appelbaum has been listed as “an official Charlatan”:

vbcs

Branding Appelbaum a charlatan is an eerie throwback to years of FBI informant Monsegur slinging about the exact same term. Searching @hxmonsegur & ‘charlatan’ yields 19 results.

sob

Now that using the term ‘serial rapist’ is clearly off the cards, maybe subjective terms like ‘charlatan’ are all his detractors have left.

The long list of people the FBI informant has referred to as a “charlatan” is quite impressive.

Fastforward to this week, and the ‘rapist’ smear of Jacob Appelbaum is being downgraded to ‘sexual aggressor’.

err1

This is probably indicative of the trajectory of opinion for the vast majority of the crowds that got on the anti-Appelbaum bandwagon early, only to belatedly discover that things are not at all as they seemed.

The Voice Of Reason

There were several voices of sanity, however. Even in the heat of the campaign, Courage beneficiary, whistleblower and hacker Lauri Love made it clear the issue was not the simple black or white dichotomy that Appelbaum’s accusers had been determined to force people into.

lauri

The ‘you’re either with us or against us’ attitude espoused by @VictimsofJake, openly wielded against anyone who didn’t immediately side with the mob from the outset, is immature, hypocritical and counter-productive.

voj1

vojar

Risky Behaviour

At 01:09:51 in the first video embedded in this article featuring Sarah Harrison and Jacob Appelbaum, Jacob makes a fascinating offhand comment:

“I know that I’ve behaved completely differently knowing that there’s probably sex tapes being made in my – not just by me! – not to imply what I think I just implied but, you get the point…” – Jacob Appelbaum

This corroborates my earlier suspicion that Jacob knew full well that his home was under constant surveillance and that that surveillance may extend to the interior of his home and not just the exterior.

Germany spying on foreign journalists is beyond contention.

Making the suggestion that he was an operational serial rapist, under such conditions, even more ludicrous and difficult to believe.

Many have asked – both supporters and detractors – how could Jake have been so foolhardy, to have engaged in risky behaviours and socially grey areas like promiscuity and group sex, in his situation?

For a known Person of Interest, there is a catch-22. Due to the well-established depravities of state actors, you become quickly isolated.

Common conventional methods of forming romantic partnerships that the general public takes for granted, become simply out of the question. Dating apps, cruising bars, hooking up with strangers for one-night stands, or engaging in liaisons outside of your trusted peer group can present not just a reputational risk but even a mortal one. Many of us, as a necessary measure of self-protection, are forced into prolonged periods of abstinence purely for survival.

When meeting new people doesn’t gel with your threat model, there is no other choice but to seek comfort amongst those in your existing community. Thus, the answer as to why Jacob engaged in such ‘risky’ behaviour is likely that amongst his close friends – those he perceived as facing many of the same challenges as him – was the sole environment in which he could express his sexuality.

A lesson hard learned.

In that same video, Appelbaum comments:

“You can’t really blow the whistle these days without blowing up your own life; on really serious issues, with large state adversaries.” – Jacob Appelbaum

The massive powers that Jake Appelbaum took on, have taken the spotlight off themselves, by making a spectacle of him.

Just as they did with Julian Assange.

The Missing Dozens

FBI informant Sabu’s publication of choice The Daily Dot, claimed a female source told them there were “easily a dozen” victims of Appelbaum.

dzn

The author of this pastebin, Dell Cameron, says:

For the record, the Daily Dot has spoken to a dozen sources alleging misconduct. We have spoken to four people who have relayed personal stories of harassment and sexual assault. Some of these women have described themselves as members of an underground “victim network” that now consists of more than a dozen individuals. We understand some are discussing revealing their names and stories soon.

In Isis Lovecruft’s follow-up blogpost, she writes:

“…additional reports of extremely severe sexual assaults and rape are pouring in to The Tor Project.”

In the findings of the Tor Project’s rape investigation there is only mention of two other cases. It is not stated whether these two cases are ‘Briar’ and ‘Alice’.

Isis continues…

“It should not be required that a dozen people are harmed before any one of them is taken seriously.”

However, if we take into account the information in this series, and in the Die Zeit article, it changes that picture dramatically.

“Victim”

Nature of Complaint

Public / Anonymous

Material Factors

Sam

“Non-consensual washing”

Public
(Alison Macrina)

Allegedly omitted mention of consensual sex following the bath. Claim relates to same timeframe as River

River

Rape

Anonymous

Eye-witnesses claimed to Die Zeit: multiple consensual events over a three day period have been muddled into one misrepresentative non-consensual claim and that no rape actually occurred.

Forest

Sexual Assault

Public
(Isis Agora Lovecruft)

Organised victim statements/reported to Tor Project but didn’t disclose that she was also a victim. Later claimed victim status

Daniel

Professional grievance

Anonymous

Potentially written by one of the creators of the website or its administrators

Kiwi

Professional grievance

Anonymous

Extremely brief account that does not detail any specifics

West

Uninvited kiss

Anonymous

May have been invented by one of the creators of the website/administrators

Phoenix

Professional grievance

Anonymous

Professional improprieties including propositioning. Has been ratified by several prominent eye-witnesses.

Nick

Professional grievance

Claims was targeted after entertaining notion of snitch-jacketing Appelbaum

Alice

Withdrawn

Anonymous

‘Alice’ says her account was manufactured/ published without her knowledge or consent

Briar

Never eventuated

Anonymous

It is unknown at this time why this ‘placeholder’ account never eventuated

Leigh

Boundaries ignored
during BDSM consensual sex (particulars of claimed non-consensual activity unstated)

Public

Historical claim. Says that years after the fact, Appelbaum’s support for WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange made her realise she had been violated

Jill

Self-described “eye-witnesses” wrongly claimed that Jill was a “victim”

Public
(came forward by necessity)

The “victim” herself says she was not a “victim” and was alarmed to find that she was being misrepresented as one

In the above table:

ORANGE: Accounts that may have been misrepresented, manipulated or invented by smear organisers. (Not reflected: a ‘second’ voice may also have been inserted into middle of River’s testimony)

GREY: Claims that do not involve physical contact of any description but outline personal or professional grievances

BLUE: Complaints that don’t actually describe what happened in detail or are highly unlikely to be pursuable by law – i.e. being kissed in a bar

RED: Claims which are contested by eye-witnesses or by the ‘victim’ themselves

YELLOW: The sole remaining testimony which details a crime

Not listed above:

  • Accounts by others who say they were pressured into claiming ‘victim’ status
  • Some other historical accounts by third parties related to unprofessional or unkind speech – such as has already been admitted to by Appelbaum in the Die Zeit article and prior to that, in his original press statement

Taking the findings in the table into account, using the same colour code and looking objectively at what remains, this is what the “serial rapist” / “dozens of victims” claims now look like:

storiesnow

Isis a.k.a. ‘Forest’, who admits to spending “six months” collecting the stories of “victims”, and who didn’t reveal her own allegations to the others or to the Tor Project until after the fact, is the only one left.

Only two people know for sure whether her allegations are true.

Jake and Isis.

The Macrina Logs

Multiple sources have provided me with chat logs featuring Alison Macrina. Some I have been able to verify the authenticity of, some I have not.

There is evidence of a concerted effort not just to air the grievances of alleged rape victims, or to warn others away from having anything to do with Appelbaum, but of a conspiracy to act against him in unison with the very specific objective of damaging his career beyond repair.

Furthermore, there is evidence of pressure being applied both to people whose testimonies appear on the smear website and some who don’t, to denounce Appelbaum or to come forward publically to shore up support for the others involved.

At this time, in the interests of source protection I am withholding the full logs. It is possible that they will be released at a future date.

[UPDATE: this heartbreaking open letter by @shiromarieke cannot be ignored. It catalogues the toxic culture remaining at Tor, the failures of management, the lies and selectivity of those who created the smear campaign and the extremely disappointing end results.]

[UPDATE: posted on the same day as the above, but from half a world away, yet another Tor supporter (one who was the subject of a police raid for running a Tor exit node) has pulled his support from the project, citing gross professional misconduct on the part of Tor management.]

Yes It Is All About Us – They Make Damn Sure Of That

For Persons of Interest, it is made to be all about us because the government is desperately afraid of it being all about them.

Their illegality, their wrongdoing. Which is perpetrated on a massive scale.

So they invest ridiculous amounts of resources into creating a file that is quite literally all about us.

They undertake investigations which are internally framed as being all about us.

They plant agents and concoct situations which are all about us.

They attack us by every possible vector because to them, their very survival requires that it be all about us.

The reason for this is because having shone a spotlight on the powers that be is usually how Persons of Interest are selected in the first place.

Then, once they’ve turned our lives upside down and made a huge spectacle of us, they say “oh – so it’s all about you! You’re a narcissist!”

They called Julian Assange a narcissist, they called Edward Snowden a narcissist, now they call Jacob Appelbaum a narcissist.

In this, the post-Orwell age – where spy agencies are turned upon their own citizens just like the Stasi they used to decry, and drone murderers kill teenagers and babies and then win the Nobel Prize: to be called a narcissist by these people who are the ultimate narcissists – those who kill with impunity and lie about it with no remorse – to be told with scorn and derision in a mocking and accusatory tone that it is “all about you” – is a badge of merit and a profound honour.

One that we gratefully accept.

Written by Suzie Dawson

Twitter: @Suzi3D

Official Website: Suzi3d.com

Please note: further source links and supporting materials are still being added to this post. (Many citations yet to come)

Just As Intended: The U.S. Election Is Tearing Us To Shreds

The only credible narrative about the US election is that both the main candidates are shit and the system is fundamentally broken.

The third-party candidate, while enjoying organic growth in public support, is largely blacklisted by media and in the last election cycle was handcuffed to a chair for a prolonged period of time in order to prevent her from participating in the Presidential debates at all.

In the backwards Orwellian nightmare we live in, exercising common sense or stating things as they quite plainly are and thus expressing views that oppose the monied and complicit status quo, is deemed a ‘radical’ and untenable position.

Radical because too few have the proverbial balls to openly speak their mind or own the full extent of their true opinions in public, making those of us who do a rarity.

Untenable because doing so makes you a target for relentless persecution or worse; a deterrent which is highly effective against those who treasure their public perception or persona, possessions, property, prosperity or (perceived) privacy above the need to appease their conscience by calling a spade a spade, honouring their humanity and openly advocating for the sociopolitical evolution we so desperately need.

It was only a few years ago that millions of people were emboldened to speak up and demand radical (read: common sense) change. The relative speed with which they were largely subdued and corralled back into the political mainstream is frankly shocking and testament to the lethal efficiency of the systems of social control that surround us.

Even Occupy Has Forgotten What Occupy Is About

“No true democracy is obtainable when the process is determined by economic power.” – The Occupy Wall Street General Assembly

The founding declaration of Occupy Wall Street needs to be periodically revisited, to remind us of what birthed the movement.

It is poignantly read below, by Keith Olbermann.

Unfortunately, the societal conditions described remain to this day and have become even further entrenched; exacerbated by the passage of time. Every word of the founding statement holds true, yet the spirit of resistance in which it was authored, has been mostly co-opted by the same politicians and organisations who it once critiqued and decried.

occupy

During Occupy, the idea that our main social media accounts – @OccupyWallSt & @OccupyWallStNYC would be used to congratulate politicians, would have led to a massive outcry, but we have become so used to the blatant co-option of our movement that few barely even notice it anymore.

Our Revolution Endures” etched in the colours of a political party, above a “Paid For By Bernie 2016″ campaign disclaimer makes a complete mockery of the word revolution:

revolution

Not the billionaires” it says inside parentheses, the words spelled out in a pale grey scale – as if, as I predicted in December 2015 that he would, Bernie hasn’t just sold his campaign supporters out to Hillary and the very same billionaires he spent so long decrying.

I got the month wrong – April rather than July – but it was clear from the outset that Bernie Sanders was B.S.

bs2

Occupy was born of the betrayal of the broken promises of Obama.

Of course the elites knew that ruse would work again. It always has. Generation after generation, we never learn.

obama

And thus – when the politician full of attractive rhetoric eventually sells us out – the cycle of disillusionment, civic rage and institutional violence, oppression and then political co-option renews.

It isn’t revolution at all.

It’s a cycle and it’s perpetual. Manufactured by the elites. They just pull the levers and watch it spin, around and around again.

bs

I smelled it coming when the compositional horror story that is the band “Nickelback” released the song “Edge of a Revolution.” I can’t even embed the video here because it is so revolutionary that anyone who uploads it to You Tube is instantly hit with a copyright notice and removal.

Bless her soul, even Jill Stein isn’t immune to using the word ‘revolution’ to describe a political campaign. I retweeted and liked the tweet despite it, because I also think if Bernie was worth his salt that in the wake of the betrayal, he would have joined Stein and not Clinton.

revolution2

The real revolution started by Occupy and not yet finished can be quantified in the bodies of the literal dead – the hopes crushed, the houses lost, the citizens exiled, the relationships and careers destroyed, the homeless re-disenfranchised by the evictions, the property stolen and destroyed.

Every time a politician says the word ‘revolution’ that is all I see. Tents being ripped to shreds, the People’s library being hauled away in rubbish trucks ultimately paid for by the same People whose will was being subverted, whose dreams lay shattered.

Those who gave everything they were and had, to bring the movement to prominence, only to be completely betrayed and violated by the societal infrastructure that was supposed to protect us.

We are spat on every time the language of our struggle is misappropriated for temporary political gain.

The Age Of Hypocrisy

This is the age of hypocrisy that we live in. We know the political process is bullshit – we knew it in 2011. Prior generations knew it, railed against it and lost, just like us. But here we all are, participating in it once again nonetheless.

I know full well that it is all just a great big reality TV show. But I have still voted every election cycle of my adult life.

Most of the people who know me, with the exception of those few who are in even deeper trouble for their honesty and principles than I am, would tell you I am the most ‘radical’ person they have ever met.

Yet even I find myself writing tweets and articles – albeit criticisms, including this one – that feed the electoral monster just by giving it breath.

My own inadvertent complicity scares me almost as much as the corruption and the collusion behind the political farce – because it indicates the level of saturation of the message that participation in the political process – even the critique of it – is a requirement of a properly functioning democracy.

But we knew in 2011 that the process was irredeemably broken.

Just like we knew it in 2000. In 1986. In 1963. In 1935.

George Bush’s brother handing him the presidential election was “democracy” in action.

JFK getting shot in the head on live TV. That was “democracy” in action.

Wall Street making billions while everyone else goes bankrupt. Police beating, pepper-spraying and mass arresting protesters, while “protecting” a bronze bull statue. That was “democracy” in action.

The same nepotism, grand larceny, financial crimes and human rights violations that the USA accuses everyone else of but themselves. That, is “democracy” in action.

We don’t need or want it and desperately have to find a way to get free of the political mousewheel, for good.

In a real revolution, no one would be allowed to own luxury holiday homes in seven different cities that sit empty 50 weeks per year, while retirees and veterans sleep on park benches.

Every bedroom in the White House would be open to homeless families.

Public money paid for every luxury in that building, yet the public are restricted from even seeing the inside of it let alone enjoying it.

All politicians, including the U.S. presidents are the same ilk of usurpers, usurists and tinpot dictators that they so frequently decry.

A real revolution would put direct democracy into the hands of everyone, and undermine the power of the few.

It is long overdue.

Snowden Nailed It

The U.S. election is an illusion of choice and that fact, at least, is more widely accepted than ever before.

poll

Edward Snowden’s publically expressed distaste for both political candidates tracks back quite some time.

e1

e2

e3

e4

WikiLeaks Led The Charge

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks’ criticism of Trump tracks back even further.

Largely as backlash for the wildly successful #DNCLeak, the world’s corporate  press are currently accusing WikiLeaks of essentially being a front for Russian hackers and/or favouring Trump.

Yet in a September 13, 2015 interview with Assange by Argentinian newspaper Página/12, Assange was asked about his opinion of Trump.

A rough translation of his response was:

I look at it from the following perspective. I followed Hillary Clinton for years, you know that I have a personal issue with Hillary because she was Secretary of State when we published diplomatic cables and more recently emails refused to disclose. And she is much more warlike than Obama. What happened in Libya, the destruction of that country and the collapse of its state, it was mostly a war of Hillary. Hillary was behind it all. Pentagon generals opposed to intervene but Hillary pushed for that bombing. So now comes in Donald Trump, who is more ‘guerrero‘ than Hillary. So whoever wins will be even more aggressive than Obama. The Trump phenomenon is interesting. At this time there is not a massive flood of Latin Americans wanting to enter the United States. Then it is interesting to see where does this phenomenon. Trump is appealing to the same grotesque nationalism can be seen in discussions on refugees in Australia and Europe. The issue of immigrants really was not on the agenda significantly until Donald Trump began to lift. The rest of the Republican Party has more decency and more willing to like voters Hispanic roots.

[Note: The Google translation of the word ‘guerrero’ made little sense so I left the word in Spanish and linked to another translation of that specific term which seems to explain it]

More recently, Assange made his feelings even more plain:

wltrump

If essentially calling Donald Trump “Gonorrhea” isn’t enough to convince you – time for more hard evidence than merely opinion.

WikiLeaks, it turns out, as part of the very same leak they are copping so much criticism for, actually published Donald Trump’s donor list.

wltrumpss

WikiLeaks – A Library Besieged By Barbarians

For the Empire, WikiLeaks getting 16,202 retweets on a single tweet is a nightmare from hell. Especially when the tweet in question was an epic release of US government insider information from inside the political party of the sitting US president.

The corporate media are no doubt equally apopleptic over WikiLeaks getting 14,304 retweets on a tweet like this:

corruptmedia

Even the spelling mistake couldn’t stop such a pertinent point about the obvious mass media politically-motivated collusion and hypocrisy from going viral.

Yet politically-motivated collusion is what those already proven to be engaged in, are so eager to accuse WikiLeaks of. Along with a slew of associated accusations that ultimately just serve to distract from the actual content of the disclosures, which have been catastrophic for the Democrats.

Their subsequent National Convention has devolved into nothing short of a circus, as disillusioned Democrats find their voices and raise them in unison.

walkout

Julian Assange has famously compared WikiLeaks to the ancient Library of Alexandria. A colossal treasure trove of authentic documentation – a catalogue of human knowledge and historical documents, unmatched in modern times and besieged by barbarians who wish to bury, burn or suppress that knowledge by any means possible.

The barbarians in question are a who’s-who of the military industrial complex, as well as politicians in positions of significant power in many governments around the world who have been embarrassed, inconvenienced or angered by WikiLeaks publishing hidden truths.

The Greenwald ‘Slate’ Interview

Hyped by Snowden last night, was this 99% amazing interview with my favourite journalist, Pulitzer Prize-winner Glenn Greenwald.

His insights are really welcome and the interview is filled with original thought.

The interview debunks a slew of the criticisms against WikiLeaks.

On leaks versus hacks:

gg1

Information is constantly stolen by intelligence agencies the world over, for their own ends – yet when it is “stolen” and released to the public for the public good, the same governments who profit from the antics of their intelligence agencies, suddenly take affront at the methods by which the information in the releases are obtained.

Greenwald tackles this beautifully, with his comparison to Ellsberg and The Pentagon Papers:

gg2

With regards to criticisms (which are prevalent but for which no actual evidence has been provided by critics – only conjecture) that WikiLeaks withheld the DNC release until the most politically expedient time, for maximum damage – Greenwald entirely debunks the theory, stating that -if- this was done, that it is a common practice for news media to withhold stories, for a variety of reasons.

“I think there is a lot of hypocrisy going on in criticizing WikiLeaks for that.” – Glenn Greenwald

The journalist presses him on the issue, but Greenwald stands strong in the face of continued questioning. He goes on to tackle some of the major anti-Trump talking points also; pointing out that criticism of NATO’s interventionist escapades (especially post-Libya) and a desire to tone down the aggression against Russia does not actually make Trump an agent of Russia – that these are legitimate aspects of foreign policy debate that should be had regardless of who is standing.

The pushback gets even firmer when Greenwald states:

gg4

Burn!

It gets better. Reading the next part, I’m literally applauding in my seat. Finally, finally, a major mainstream figure is speaking the righteous rage of the people, without co-opting the message to a particular political platform.

gg5

The quote is so incredible it really needs to be read twice.

The reason [Brexit] resonated is that people have been so fucked by the prevailing order in such deep and fundamental and enduring ways that they can’t imagine that anything is worse than preservation of the status quo. – Glenn Greenwald

Absolutely correct and this sham of an election is just adding fuel to the fire.

America saw martial law in how many states last year? Three? Four? Neither Clinton nor Trump are going to address any of the prevailing social conditions that have led to that situation. As was made famous by the Occupy Oakland activist and livestreamer BellaEiko – and as I have heard repeated so many times by people around the globe – “Shit is FUCKED UP and BULLSHIT!

I don’t usually litter my articles with swear words and neither does Greenwald usually propagate them in his interviews either. But this is the level of frustration we are experiencing.

Nothing meaningful has changed since 2011. And we are all sick to death – literally – of that. No justice – no peace.

The Slate interview is long and comprehensive and there is a ton more worthy content in it than what is discussed above. It is well worth your time to read.

Old Grudges Rehashed

Unfortunately the debunking of so much of the anti-WikiLeaks hysteria has been predictably overshadowed by the singular criticism Greenwald upheld – and not for the first time.

In a media environment where few words and fast output equals easy money for beleaguered “journalists” – a single tweet by Snowden often spirals into global news.

Few journalists are interested in the “big picture” unless it can be explained in a paragraph or two and in a way that aligns with their own strategic career goals.

At a time when the temperature of establishment rage towards WikiLeaks is well past boiling point, it was inevitable that any criticism levelled at them by a usually sympathetic figure, or anyone who may have been viewed as an ally, would be immediately picked up and capitalised upon.

And whoomp – there it is:

sts

Snowden sharing the Greenwald interview? 610 retweets. Snowden concurring with the singular Greenwald criticism of WikiLeaks? 5,100 retweets.

Which really makes you wonder how many people lauding the criticism actually bothered to read the full interview.

But the point Snowden was making isn’t new. He’s said it all along.

Snowden’s tweet counts 138 characters. (Yes, I’m such a geek as to have checked). Which might account for some of the problematic language. Being, the diminutive “helped“, when WikiLeaks has arguably engineered, advanced and championed their field, at extreme risk and sacrifice; and the inflammatory “hostility“.

Hostility unfairly implies emotion rather than ideology, at least to my reading.

The tweet itself generated plenty of hostility – predictably dividing respondents into three categories – those who agree with WikiLeaks on principle, those who agree with Snowden on principle, and those who don’t want to see them criticising each other for whatever reason, and just want them to play nice and get along.

The emotiveness of the tweet is reminiscent of counter-criticisms that track back years regarding Snowden’s strategy for his release of information. I think both parties are so conditioned to receiving torrential waves of abuse regarding their every choice and utterance, that they are understandably tender from the constant bruising.

biella

Snowden and Assange are not silly people. They are in fact, the smartest and most strategic thinkers on the planet. Neither are prone to rashness. They know full well the impact and consequence of their actions. I suspect there is likely much more at play than meets the eye, more than any of us observing can know or guess at.

The Slippery Slope

WikiLeaks’ immediate and biting retort focused on the ideology of digital curation – selective redacting or editing of content.

The issue of curation is an interesting one to me, because in order to have curation, you must have a curator, or curators.

Snowden often makes the point of the behemoth surveillance apparatus – that it isn’t just about who controls the infrastructure and calls the shots now – but who will in the future.

The logical answer would be to have an editorial board, but in these times of freedom of information organisations being under siege – what guarantee is there that any such board would also remain in tact?

We have just witnessed the wholesale firing of the entire board of the Tor Project – or to be politically correct – their “graciously stepping down” en masse… on the back of revelations of a Central Intelligence Agency employee literally having left the agency one day and started work at Tor the next.

WikiLeaks is arguably THE most under-threat journalistic organisation in the entire world. (Which for the record, Greenwald has covered extensively in a long string of brilliant articles about the US persecution of Assange, WikiLeaks and associates).

So the question for me is, where would the curation start and where would it end? Every person has their own ideas of precisely how such curation should or could be done and it would be extremely difficult to get a unified consensus on every single instance.

For their particular threat model, having one fixed rule that can provide a benchmark and carry on for future generations seems the safe bet.

Then of course, there is the significant issue of resourcing. WikiLeaks has been under a historic banking blockade for years now. They can’t place ads in newspapers and hire staff. They rely on an extemely rare breed of people who are willing to quite literally dedicate their lives and risk losing everything they have, in order to skill share with the organisation.

It is high risk and often thankless work.

That they manage to produce what they do, under the circumstances they are daily confronted with, is frankly miraculous. None of their detractors could compete with their output. None are. Their tally was at over 10,000,000 documents some time last year. Over a dozen major releases in 2015 alone.

Many, many stones are cast but who can even begin to claim achievements on a similar scale?

It’s not even just a matter of their journalistic output – they somehow not only manage to keep their head above water while facing unprecedented levels of danger, obstruction, interference, infiltration, oppression and difficulty – but they also support others who are endangered.

Recently, they have constantly had the stuffing kicked out of them by some staff at organisations who they continue to support and promote on their pages.

At what point do we actually collectively pause, consider what they endure in a field few else are endeavouring to compete in and have the graciousness to say THANK YOU WIKILEAKS!!!!!!!!!!

Their publishing models and releases have been capitalised on by multiple news organisations who have made bank off their work and then stabbed them in the back. Yes, I’m looking at you New York Times and The Guardian, in particular.

News organisations all around the world have their own SecureDrop installations – and what is the genesis for the concept? WikiLeaks.

Brother Vs. Brother, Org Vs. Org, Friend Vs. Friend

I recently said on Twitter: “The US election is a public exercise in Divide & Conquer and the extent to which it is working is frankly depressing.

I can’t help but wonder how many people all over the United States are falling out with each other over the Trump-vs-Clinton dichotomy. How many family members. How many workmates? Employers and employees? Siblings? Lovers? Husbands and wives?

Does this ridiculous, unnecessary side show result in divorces? Broken homes? Is the price really worth it?

What exactly do the public stand to gain?

The obvious irrationality of both candidates, and their unsuitability for office, is so obscene it would be hilarious if it weren’t so horrific.

The wife of an impeached president versus a casino, golf club and supermodel tycoon. And it’s even worse: this is the reality that few will confront, but everyone is really having to subliminally reconcile regardless:

ff

The image on the left is a Huffington Post article begging people not to turn a blind eye to the current child rape allegations against Trump.

The image on the right is a Free Beacon article containing leaked audio of Clinton bragging about how she got a child rapist’s 30-year possible sentence reduced to 2 months time served.

The devastating follow-up article by The Daily Beast is a really, really hard read, including details of the traumatic ordeal of the victim and the manipulation and callousness she subsequently suffered.

Journalism In The School of Hard Knocks

Many people, especially this year, have been referring to me as an investigative journalist. I actually wouldn’t call myself that, because I’m not classically trained in investigative journalism and that hasn’t been my primary focus.

Nearly 5 years ago now, I began reporting live from events then blogging about them afterwards. News spotting in my spare time. Keeping a close eye on what was happening to our fellow independent media teams in occupations around the world and working with them to the best of my ability.

Amplifying for anyone I felt wasn’t getting the attention for their issues that they deserved.

I morphed into a long-form journalist by necessity – in a chronically nepotistic media microcosm (New Zealand) – telling as many people as possible about the corrupt political and media antics being wielded against people in my home town of Auckland. It wasn’t really journalism so much as whistle-blowing. Over and over and over again. Whistle-blowing on police, on civic authorities, on the intelligence agencies, on the military industrial complex.

I eventually came to the conclusion that that is what a good journalist is. Someone who blows the whistle and never stops.

It’s usually circumstantial rather than deliberate. I get curious and dig, or I accumulate scraps of information over a protracted period of time, or I witness things myself. My mental data-microwave goes “DING!” and out pops an article.

Overall what drives me is the realisation that I’m in a unique position to contribute and I feel morally obliged to, despite the obvious drawbacks.

Whenever our media team was burning out, overtired, overstressed, suffering from lack of resources and the strain constantly imposed upon us by state and private agencies and saboteurs – when we really didn’t feel like going on anymore – we would look at each other and say, “if not us, then who?” Then we’d get off our butts and go do it all again. That is the spirit in which I write.

I think the real reason I am being described as an investigative journalist is because I have a habit of unearthing significant information that corporate media haven’t or won’t. What few realise is how easy that is to do, and what an indictment it is on the mainstream press that they so often either fail at it, or refuse to look.

How did I find out WikiLeak’s position on Trump? I searched “@WikiLeaks” + “Trump” on Twitter.

The idea that the dozens if not hundreds of journalists falsely accusing WikiLeaks of being a front for Russia and/or Donald Trump didn’t do the same thing, is astonishing. Or that if they did, that they didn’t amplify the obvious.

But among the learned and free thinkers – there is consensus. Assange thinks, as does Snowden, and apparently Greenwald, that Trump is as bad as Clinton.

For what it’s worth, so do I.

As Greenwald stated in the Slate interview, much better than I could:

I think in general there is no effort on the part of media elites to communicate with [Trump sympathisers] and do anything other than tell them that they are primitive, racist, and stupid. And if the message being sent is that you are primitive, racist, and stupid, and not that you have been fucked over in ways that are really bad and need to be rectified, of course those people are not going to be receptive to the message coming from the people who view them with contempt and scorn. I think that is why Brexit won, and I think that is the real danger of Trump winning. – Glenn Greenwald

As for the accusation that WikiLeaks is in league with Russia… that has already long since been dealt to. It is an unfounded and ridiculous allegation. A smear.

If only the mainstream media would get the memo and cast off their willful blindness.

But that is merely wishful thinking. while money, promotions and status remain largely bestowed upon those most beholden to the corporatocracy that are the true string-pullers, the shadow governments of the West.

And while the vanguard of the people; namely WikiLeaks and Julian Assange; remain Public Enemy Number One.

[This post was blogged live. Thanks for watching! Further source links yet to be added.]

Written by Suzie Dawson

Twitter: @Suzi3D

Official Website: Suzi3d.com

Journalists who write truth pay a high price to do so. If you respect and value this work, please consider supporting Suzie’s efforts via credit card or Bitcoin donation at this link. Thank you!

[Update/January 2018] This post is now available at my Steemit blog

Orwell’s Swan Song: Free Speech Activists Whitewashing Wikipedia To Silence Dissent

If you’d told me a year ago that I’d be writing a blogpost in July 2016 about how EFF and TorProject supporters are actively censoring free speech on the internet, I would have thought I’d be writing it for The Onion.

Unfortunately, I’m not.

I have supported and amplified for EFF, the Tor Project and related organisations, staff members and campaigns relentlessly, for years. As a ‘Person of Interest’, I have relied on their enterprises to keep me safe. I have defended them ideologically and in principle, when they have been unfairly under attack.

However in an unbelievably Orwellian twist, recent and current events have completely transformed the situation from free speech organisations being similarly under attack by the State, to the State using free speech organisations to attack enemies of the State, and free speech as a whole.

I recently wrote two articles for Contraspin, raising numerous questions about Tor Project staffer’s extra-judicial character assassination of arguably the world’s most well-recognised Tor advocate and WikiLeaks journalist and technologist Jacob Appelbaum, known as @ioerror.

In the first part I analysed the copy of the smear website used to destroy his reputation and career. In the second part, I proved that nearly all of the main characters involved had been publicly lambasting WikiLeaks in the years prior to grouping up to take down Appelbaum.

Although the only promotion I did for the articles was a couple dozen tweets, they received many thousands of hits each, likely because they were the only serious long-form articles available providing a critical look at the allegations against Appelbaum.

Other authors and analysts were understandably shit scared of being labeled a rape apologist by the massive online lynch mob that had been assembled and unleashed upon anyone who dissented against their position. Those fears were well-founded, as a cabal of sock-puppetTwitter accounts rumoured to belong to some of the accusers themselves, relentlessly trolled the ‘ioerror’ search results, lambasting anyone who dared question the allegations or related areas of concern.

However, one publication was brave enough to pick up and republish my work – an online magazine called The Indicter, run by a group of Swedish Human Rights intellectuals, including several PhD’s.

That website was then cited on Jacob Appelbaum’s Wikipedia page. One of the most vociferous anti-ioerror sockpuppets, by the name of @VoodooHacks, picked up on it, and described my articles as ‘partisan blogs‘.

vh

A Wikipedia moderator named Kenneth Freeman, responded that he had deleted the references as ‘a biased, unreliable source.’

wiki1

According to his Twitter bio, Kenneth Freeman associates himself with both EFF (the Electronic Frontier Foundation), and the Tor Project.

wiki2

According to Wikipedia’s rules on “Conflict-of-interest editing” this should logically preclude him from making editorial decisions regarding Appelbaum’s Wikipedia page.

Indeed Wikipedia states: “If you have a Conflict of Interest, you are strongly discouraged from editing effected articles.”

Furthermore, in it’s ‘Best Practices for Editors with Close Associations‘ it is stated: “Be up-front about your associations with the subject” and “Avoid making controversial edits to articles”.

However, the edit log shows that Kenneth has edited the page more than a dozen times since the allegations against Appelbaum arose.

One person in particular was exuberant over the removal of the references to my articles: the Christian Science Monitor’s Dan Murphy.

wiki3 wiki4

Looking further into the past, it seems that Murphy had past beef with Appelbaum:

io2

I knew I’d seen Murphy on Twitter, but initially couldn’t place it. However it’s not every day you get misquoted by someone with a blue tick, so I soon remembered – it was the same person who had written the below misrepresentation of my article:

dm

To state the obvious, I have never said that “All the women accusing ioerror of rape are lying”. Those words have been wholly invented by Murphy, paraphrased and falsely attributed to me.

For starters, the statement “All the women accusing ioerror of rape” is a literal impossibility as only one person has accused ioerror of rape. One other, of sexual assault.

Every other person has accused Appelbaum of a bunch of vague actions that range from propositioning someone to embarrassing them in front of workmates, kissing them or ‘washing’ them.

As things currently stand, in order for Appelbaum to not be a rapist, only one person would have to be “lying” – and I certainly did not accuse her of that – or to have been belatedly convinced that what she experienced was rape, which would be supported by the first sentence of her own account of what happened, which describes precisely that scenario having occurred.

For Appelbaum not to be guilty of sexual assault, only Isis Lovecruft would have to be “lying”. I didn’t accuse her of that either.

Regarding the other claims against ioerror it is likely, given the content of Appelbaum’s own statement, that some of the superfluous accusations have some founding in reality, as he states:

I want to be clear: the accusations of criminal sexual misconduct against me are entirely false.

Inevitably, there may have been moments in my professional or private life when I may have inadvertently hurt or offended others’ feelings. Whenever I was aware of these instances, I have, and will continue to, apologize to the friends and colleagues in question and to continually learn how to be a better person. Though the damage to my reputation caused by these allegations alone is impossible to undo, I nonetheless take the concerns of the Tor community seriously.

But the obviousness of the above facts escape his accusers and their supporters, who have put all their eggs in the “ioerror is a rapist” basket and refuse to look critically at the wider picture.

It seems there may be a concerted effort to have me declare that the women involved are all lying, as I had received a query along these lines from another sock puppet account heavily engaged in denouncing Appelbaum:

w

As well as engaging me frequently, the above account had been particularly concerned with why I hadn’t, and then later why I had, signed ourresponse.org – a website established by journalists, academics, researchers and others in support of due process for Appelbaum.

A board member of FreeAnons has accused the above account of being a sock puppet of Isis Lovecruft herself:

ray

The account retweeted but did not deny the accusation.

If it is true, it would make an interesting partial timeline of events.

June 12: The sock-puppet account asks me why I hadn’t signed ourresponse.org

June 13: The post by Isis outing herself as an accuser of Appelbaum is written, but ostensibly not publically released.

June 14: The sock-puppet account asks why I -had- now signed ourresponse.org

June 15: Isis publically announces her self-outing.

Strangely, of all people, Dell Cameron of The Daily Dot had announced on Twitter that some victims would out themselves, several days ahead of time.

That a journalist who is infamous for defending if not openly advocating for the FBI informant ‘Sabu’, to the endless consternation of many, would be privy to such information is telling.

Why, of all people, would he become the journalist of choice for Appelbaum’s accusers? Who are supposedly pro-whistleblower pro-free speech pro-privacy activists?

As mentioned in my Contraspin articles – Sabu was one of the first to leap on the recent ioerror witch-hunt bandwagon – soon followed by @6, the informant who put Chelsea Manning behind bars.

Sabu, of course, also had a long-standing feud with Appelbaum, who said Sabu had also tried to entrap him.

While Sabu claims that Appelbaum was not an FBI target – an idea that is laughable given that years prior, the FBI had showed up at a speech Appelbaum gave in lieu of Julian Assange, hunting the latter – Appelbaum was sufficiently a target for the US Department of Justice to gag Google over the seizure of Appelbaum’s personal records, as reported by The Intercept:

gg

ti

So yes, Jacob Appelbaum was a target of the US Government, who are no doubt overjoyed not only at the desecration of his reputation, his almost wholesale removal from the stages on which he shared pleas for people to leak sensitive intelligence information, to take direct action at NSA sites, his revelations about the dystopian surveillance complex affecting us all and of the tactics being employed against persons of interest.

Likewise, those who wish to compromise the architectural integrity of the Tor network will be overjoyed at the recent removal of Jacob’s Tor directory authority.

wl

Conclusion

As usual, the rabbit hole turns out to be so much deeper than the original intention behind this post, which was just to write about the Wikipedia whitewashing being engaged in by an EFF/Tor supporter who is also a Wikipedia moderator.

The history of such whitewashing is long. According to Wikipedia itself, conflict-of-interest editing has been undertaken by many dubiously-motivated parties including the Central Intelligence Agency:

wp

That would of course, be the same CIA that is now revealed to have had an employee resign one day and become a Tor employee the next – much to Jacob Appelbaum’s chagrin at the time:

c

True free speech activists are unafraid to allow those who disagree with us, their opinions or their platform. They do not harass or abuse those who will not tow their lines.

The suppression of dissent and targeting of people like Jacob Appelbaum is par for the course for intelligence agencies and associated corporations.

It is frankly an eternal shame and disgrace that supposed free speech activists can now be added to that list.

Written by Suzie Dawson

Twitter: @Suzi3D

Official Website: Suzi3d.com

Journalists who write truth pay a high price to do so. If you respect and value this work, please consider supporting Suzie’s efforts via credit card or Bitcoin donation at this link. Thank you!

The Weaponising Of Social Part 2: Stomping On IOError’s Grave

I once tried to tell Jacob Appelbaum a funny joke. He did not think it was funny.

In fact, he was visibly mortified and uncomfortable.

My joke was a retelling of something that had happened to me when I was still on the opposite side of the planet.

I have a really dark, sardonic, acerbic Kiwi sense of humour, that has been sharpened by surviving everything that has been thrown at me to date.

Unfortunately, it didn’t translate well.

Fortunately, he didn’t make a smear website lambasting me about it.

Warning

There are Persons of Interest who the surveillance state merely monitors – and there are those who it actively harms.

The latter, and those who facilitate and inflict that harm, will instantly understand that every word of this article is true.

Everyone else is going to need to read carefully, do a lot of thinking, and click on all the links and their source links in turn.

For this post is not just about a group of women who accused Jacob Appelbaum of heinous assaults and social improprieties, although that will be extensively covered.

This article is, as promised, about the mammoth and monumental, colossal issues which are intertwined with that and are conveniently being overshadowed by it.

For we are all being polarised into a fake diametric supposition – that either Jacob Appelbaum targets people, or Jacob Appelbaum is being targeted.

But the real target is WikiLeaks.

The Joke

I was stunned by the massive and consequential ramifications of Appelbaum’s #30c3 revelations, so I was determined to get the key messages through to non-techy people.

I had been talking about what was being done to activists cellphones by spy agencies since early 2012. The reason I knew what was happening was not from reverse engineering spyware like Jake or Morgan Marquis-Boire or Jeremie Zimmerman and other clever people do, but from my own personal experience of being a target.

Quoting from the blurb of this video of “To Protect and Infect – The Militarisation of the Internet“, presented by Morgan Marquis-Boire and Claudio Guarnieri:

“Chaos Communication Congress – 29/12/2013

2013 will be remembered as the year that the Internet lost its innocence for nearly everyone as light was shed on the widespread use of dragnet surveillance by the NSA and intelligence agencies globally. With the uprisings of the Arab Spring where people raided the offices of their regimes to bring evidence to light, we’ve seen a tremendous phenomenon: a large numbers of whistleblowers have taken action to inform the public about important details. The WikiLeaks SpyFiles series also shows us important details to corroborate these claims. There is ample evidence about the use and abuses of a multi-billion dollar industry that have now come to light. This evidence includes increasing use of targeted attacks to establish even more invasive control over corporate, government or other so-called legitimate targets.”

That amazing speech was then followed by Jacob’s astonishing presentation: “To Protect and Infect Part 2“.

To have hacker-journalists discussing the intracies of the capabilities I had seen in use against me and other Kiwi activists, was incredible. As far as I was concerned, and still am, that Congress was one of the most important ever, and to this day the vast majority of people still remain willfully ignorant of the messages contained in it.

[Note: that also happened to be the very same Congress at which Nick Farr says he entertained the notion of giving airtime to someone who claimed Jacob Appelbaum was a plant. Yet Jake’s work revealed in the above talk is utterly beyond reproach.]

So I endeavoured to belatedly tweet out a point by point time-stamped, dumbed-down, layman’s-terms version of his speech, hoping that the NZ mainsteam media, who by late 2013 were avidly following my timeline in the wake of the GCSB movement, would pick it up.

As soon as I started the tweets, the stalkers/spies/private contractors who had been increasingly intruding on my life ever since I had first started documenting FBI and DHS activities in New Zealand, during Occupy, went into overdrive.

I could always tell when I was hitting a nerve by their reaction, which would be immediately reflected in the aggressiveness of their interventions in my life and by 2014, their outright physical assaults on me. On this particular occasion, I was at home alone, and once again, they began hurting me.

You see, it isn’t just as a rape victim that I had to struggle to be believed. All tellers of uncomfortable yet obvious truths not yet accepted by the mainstream face a hell of a time trying to explain what is being done to us.

For a long time I didn’t talk to anyone outside of my immediate activist circle about electronic weapons being used on me. Because they “didn’t exist” as far as the public was concerned, and as a solo mother, the stakes were twice as high for me if I disclosed it. It likely would have been used by the state as justification to question my mental health, which is a known tactic that they use to cover for their crimes and silence their victims.

So I developed my own method of coping with it when it would happen. First, I would call someone from my media team and tell them “I’m going onto TrapWire“. They would know instantly what I meant – that I would escape my house and go to somewhere as visible and as public as possible. So public in fact, that it was on public surveillance cameras (hence the TrapWire reference).

This was a deliberate tactic that we had developed to force an evidence trail if we were followed and continued to be hurt.

So in this particular instance, I went to the original site of Occupy Auckland at Aotea Square, which is an urban green space wedged between the Town Hall and the Auckland Council building. It is surrounded by cutting edge facial recognition cameras with pan, tilt, zoom, area mics and all the bells and whistles, and I continued my tweeting.

Two years later, in Berlin, what was the joke that I was trying to tell Jacob?

That when being attacked with electronic weapons by teams of private contractors intent on preventing us from spreading his truth-telling, we had evaded them by learning how to use public surveillance systems against them.

To me, especially as someone who had written about TrapWire when the GIFiles revelations came out, the irony of using The Empire’s own fascist systems to outwit them and continue my work, was delicious.

Jacob Appelbaum didn’t laugh.

He was aghast.

Beyond Any Shadow Of A Doubt

It is a testament to how well truth is hidden that many will get to this point of the article and have decided that I am certifiably nuts.

Because they will not have read this:

htew

Hacking Team is a government contractor, and they don’t hand over EUR8,800 for a weapons procurement report that is conspiracy theory.

They pay it because they know it is fact.

For those who were too lazy to check the link and read the article, here’s more:

htew1

The above is the specific list of contracts for the procurement of electronic weapons and who by.

Below is the list of manufacturers of the weapons.

htew2

So we know electronic weapons exist, that they have been tested *prior* to their roll-out for use by law enforcement 2014-2024, we know who manufactures them and who they have been sold to.

We know this because of the Hacking Team leak published by WikiLeaks.

The source email for the above article, can be found here and there are more emails related to this topic if you go to the WikiLeaks’ Hacking Team main page here and type ‘Directed Energy Weapons’.

What The Hell Does This Have To Do With IOError?

To answer that question, you have to look at what I was tweeting that day, that so enraged those paid to harm me.

This Pirate Pad contains 10 of the key points. [Other people made transcriptions of some of my tweets which were derived from Jacob’s speech].

But that’s just a drop in the bucket. To read what should technically be all of my tweets from that day of me being chased around Auckland, it seems you need to expand each one to read them all – click here to have a go at it.

(Please note – the dates are Twitter dates not New Zealand dates. Which is why this tweet is marked 4 Jan 2014, when the earlier ones are marked 3 Jan. They were in fact all tweeted on the same day.)

The content speaks for itself.

As does the fact that by attempting to translate and promote Jacob Appelbaum’s work to mainstream audiences, activists can be and are subject to such attacks.

What Total Surveillance Really Means

If you work for WikiLeaks like Jacob Appelbaum; or if you start movements against intelligence agencies; or if you write about the FBI/DHS/CIA & co without massive organisational backing, funding and visibility; or if you boldly and righteously declare to people in a position of significant governmental power that they should leak sensitive internal intelligence information about immoral government activity that should be in the public realm, then are flabbergasted and elated to find that they do so; or if you are involved in any serious research which is inconvenient or dangerous to the security state; or if you target any individual in the chain of political hierarchy and they get wind of what you’ve done; then the great Eye of Sauron feels entitled to, and does, make a point of of trying to know every single thing you do, say and think, 24 hours out of every day, 7 days a week.

It pays for the entire undertaking with a virtually limitless pool of tax money.

Even if Jacob was able to secure all his devices, his communications, his hardware and his personal spaces, he still could not do a damn thing to prevent external methods of surveillance intruding upon him. Satellite surveillance, which is used at the push of a button as readily as XKeyscore, PRISM or anything else, right down to private investigators mounting microphones and sound amplifiers pointed at Jacob’s house and wherever else he frequents, are just some of those ways. Let alone HUMINT.

Therefore it is highly unlikely that any events that occurred within the supposedly private space of his home were actually private.

In yet another great irony, if anyone knows the truth about the accusations against ioerror – it is likely to be those who control the global surveillance apparatus, and I presume he would be well aware of that fact.

Listening to the stories being told about him, you would think Jacob a callous, foolhardy, exhibitionist. Every experience I’ve had of him and his inner circle (and no, I do not know them exceedingly well however, being in Berlin, they are very visible within the community) is that they were the opposite. Careful, reserved, private. Particularly wary of outsiders and newcomers.

Well aware that they are all targets and of the ways in which they could be entrapped.

Early on in my investigation into this giant debacle, it occurred to me that taking down Jacob may be part of a continuing series of major blows against WikiLeaks, stripping it of key allies.

It is election year after-all and as far as The Empire is concerned, Julian Assange is Enemy Number One.

The WikiLeaks Connection

One of the first ‘corroborating’ public testimonies against Appelbaum was a historic claim made by Leigh Honeywell.

I was instantly struck by the following passage from her blogpost, which at the time seemed anomalous:

lhja

Leigh identifies herself as siding with Assange’s persecutors.

She says that she didn’t ‘fully realize how bad [her] own experiences with [Appelbaum] had been‘ until she saw him support Julian Assange.

The link in the above screenshot leads to a post she wrote in December, 2010.

In that post, she details the reasons why she thinks Assange is at fault, then says ‘I’m tired of my friends being assaulted’, and links to feminist blogs she has read on the issue, as well as other links she feels are pertinent to support her opinion.

The key problem with this, and which Leigh couldn’t have known in December 2010, is that Assange’s “victims” themselves say they were not raped.

From John Pilger’s special investigation:

frcjaPilger’s source is an affidavit from the case.

The following passage is from this International Business Times article:

ibja

Honeywell might not be blamed for jumping to conclusions in December 2010. Many people did and WikiLeaks themselves didn’t know about this evidence until December 2011.

But with the “victims” themselves saying they weren’t raped, it certainly shines a different light on her position.

jaa

So if Appelbaum supporting an alleged rapist tipped the balance for Honeywell, but then the alleged rapist turns out to be innocent, where does that leave us?

Yet not only does Honeywell still blame Assange, she describes the allegations against him – as recently as this month – as “sexual violence“.

Despite there being no allegation of such.

This made me wonder – what are the opinions and positions of Appelbaum’s other accusers and key supporters, on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks?

Back in December 2015 – five years after Honeywell’s post about Assange and four years after the text messages from the “victims”, Honeywell has the following exchange:

lhva

So Honeywell wouldn’t donate to Freedom of the Press Foundation because of their support for WikiLeaks.

Her tweet is ‘liked’ by one Valerie Aurora.

Appelbaum Detractor’s Takes On WikiLeaks

Vocal supporter of the alleged Appelbaum victims, Valerie Aurora has been quoted in the media about the case. From her Twitter account:

vaja

Yet as pointed out by the commenter, WikiLeaks’ first tweet had in fact linked to the website featuring the accusations against Appelbaum. Its second, linked to his denial.

They did not take a public position (and still have not, to my knowledge) as being in favour of either side. Yet Valerie Aurora ostensibly deliberately, and quite ridiculously, extrapolates the benign reporting as being an attack on anonymity and whistleblowing, even though neither are even mentioned by WikiLeaks.

Tor Project employee Alison Macrina recently disclosed that she is ‘Sam’, the ‘nonconsensual washing‘ bath story discussed in the first part of this article.

In that disclosure, she states “it took months to be honest with myself about what happened” and then alleges hearing of “often violent” behaviour by Jacob Appelbaum.

amov

Much like the original ‘Serial rapist‘ claim by @VictimsofJake, the ‘often violent‘ claim seems to be completely unsubstantiated. Taking a protracted period of time to realise she’d been allegedly violated, however, is a recurrent theme in the allegations against Appelbaum.

It seems Macrina has also displayed past hostility towards Julian Assange despite her having shared stages with him as recently as March 2016.

amwl2

Macrina recently wrote the following tweet:

amwl

The person she has cc’d into that tweet, is someone who recently disclosed that she is the Appelbaum accuser “Forest”.

ilc

Her post begins:

ilc1

…after two years spent trying to inhibt my rage and convince myself that I hadn’t been hurt, followed by seeking out other victims..” – Isis Lovecruft

In a sub-section of her disclosure titled “The Plan”, Lovecruft describes how she “first started out seeking other [alleged] victims“, and had planned to group them together to confront him at a Tor event in Spain. Jake apparently found out, and that plan was set aside.

Having run out of ideas and being threatened out of alternative options, I reported everything to the rest of The Tor Project. Well, almost everything. Originally, I only reported others’ stories (with their permission). I left my own story out, and I did not tell it until it was decided that Jake would no longer be part of The Tor Project.”

Despite repeatedly stating that she doesn’t recommend filing legal complaints, (a position endorsed by many rape victims including myself who have had horrific experiences trying to obtain justice through law enforcement) Lovecruft strangely goes on to list a whole bunch of laws and accompanying sentencing guidelines that she feels would apply to Applebaum.

Curiously, these include charges that aren’t reflected in the original allegations themselves, even if they are taken at face value, including: “Instructing a third party to rape the victim (§177 of the Strafsgesetzbuch paragraph 2, sentence 2), making it a “severe case”.

Although she attributes the application of this law to the accusations by ‘River’, those accusations do not state that Jacob instructed another party to rape the alleged victim.

Given the gravity of the situation and that both Macrina and Lovecruft are garnering hundreds of retweets effectively declaring the takedown of Appelbaum as a done deal, it is impossible to reason why the exaggeration of potential charges would be deemed necessary, or in fact the inclusion of them at all.

It is as if those references to laws and sentences exist only as an overt threat to Appelbaum.

Given the pattern of anti-WikiLeaks sentiment amongst the other accusers, I looked to see what Lovecruft’s position was.

I saw this:

wlsub

Then I saw THIS:

wlsub2

The bottom tweet on that thread is Isis Lovecruft effectively asking for access to WikiLeaks’ source code for their whistleblower submission platform.

I’m going to say that twice.

The bottom tweet on that thread is Isis Lovecruft effectively asking for access to WikiLeaks source code for their whistleblower submission platform.

Who Is Behind The Website?

The identities of most of the accusers including the lone rape accusation, and of those who co-ordinated the launch of the site are an ‘open secret’.

That said, I am not at all comfortable with revealing the name of anyone who has not already done so themselves in a public forum. I do believe that the alleged victims have a right to anonymity should they so choose to exercise it.

I have also received a number of communications from various people providing further contextual information. I am not prepared to and will not publish the names of, or information provided by, anyone whom I cannot independently verify and who has not given me express permission to do so. Therefore the information that appears in this article is restricted to what is already in the public realm.

Neither of the women who have made these recent disclosures outright admit to being a part of creating the website JacobAppelbaum.net, presumedly either for legal reasons, or because they actually weren’t involved in the creation of it, or both.

It might also be because the site itself is a travesty from a privacy perspective. Non-HTTPS, with a stated JavaScript reliance and apparently lacking a no-JS fallback, which is used to make sure a site can be displayed, and forms used, by dated or uncommon browsers.

At the present time it is still not public which person/s actually registered, built, wrote copy for, curated and edited the site, although there are certainly many clues.

Some other people who came forward to media and were named as eye-witnesses to an alleged incident (which, as discussed in the first part of this article, was later disproven) were already named in my previous article, and that incident referenced.

They are Meredith L. Patterson, Andrea Shephard and Emerson Tan.

To the best of my knowledge they are yet to issue a retraction of or apology for their very public false allegations.

Meredith appears to be the root of the ‘plagiarism’ accusations against Appelbaum, of which there seems to be a tiny bit more light shed on in this thread, which really speaks for itself, both in terms of not actually appearing to justify any accusation of plagiarism by definition, and in her refusal to continue to engage on the subject.

While great pains seem to be taken by the accusers to validate the sexual assault claim, very little seems to be forthcoming about the claims of plagiarism.

Here is the first iteration of the JacobAppelbaum.net ‘About’ page:

jan

As pointed out to me by researcher Janine Römer, the About page originally consisted of five lines of text attacking Jake for everything under the sun except rape and sexual assault, then the claims of sexual, emotional and physical abuse are shoved into the final line.

Making it really clear where the writer’s priorities, or where they felt the strength of their arguments, lay.

In this thread, Meredith explains why a person’s behaviour off the stage and on the stage should be considered seperately. When someone argues that it shouldn’t, Andrea Shepherd backs Meredith up. Meredith’s theory is that if they exhibit unsavoury behaviour off the stage, you should separate it from their public speaking. She says if they exhibit their bad traits on the stage, you can kick them off the stage. But if they don’t exhibit it on the stage, to leave them on.

I had a look to see what Meredith’s take is on WikiLeaks.

wlis

In 2012 Meredith decries “Assange supporters *attacking allies*” and says it “delights both’s mutual enemies”.

mp1

Given that the accusations against Appelbaum have been picked up and are being run with 24/7 by every known anti-Snowden anti-WikiLeaks anti-Assange anti-privacy pro-govt and anti-Tor troll under the sun, the above is just plain ironic.

Targeting an iconic essay by Assange in the book ‘Cypherpunks’ – “A Call To Cryptographic Arms”;

mp2

Given sentiments like that, it is getting harder and harder to deny that WikiLeaks, rather than Appelbaum, may be the utimate target here.

Despite the statements of the women involved in Assange’s case actually exonerating him, Andrea Shephard agrees with a commenter that she sees “parallels” between the women in both the Assange and the Appelbaum allegations:

pv1

Previously, to her credit, she had rightly been critical of the New York Times’ tabloid-style reporting about Assange.

pv2

However there is more derision of WikiLeaks by Andrea.

jcas2

Manhunting WikiLeaks

Stepping back to 2010 again, we discover where Tor and WikiLeaks really intersect.

The manhunt of Julian Assange.

pentja

prayingforja

wltor

In the same time period as FBI agents were showing up in New York looking for Assange at a conference, and he was being ‘manhunted’ by the Pentagon, WikiLeaks identified Tor as being a core part of their infrastructure, and asked their supporters to use and help strengthen it.

From Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept’s analysis of Snowden documents relating to the WikiLeaks ‘manhunt’:

manhuntingwl

So according to the US Government, “non-state actor Assange, and the human network that supports WikiLeaks” are the dangerous ones.

As opposed to everyone named in this article who publicly kick the shit out of WikiLeaks.

Women Protecting Women

As much as I would have liked to wrap up this article and never have to write about it again, it seems inevitable that there will eventually be a 3rd part.

With the creators of the site still not yet taking reponsibility for it, Jacob’s enduring silence and the key sole accusation of an actual rape occurring and the context of that remaining obscured, it is highly unlikely this is the end of the saga.

The primary complainant is being sheltered behind a periphery of other women complainants. If this is truly for her protection that is admirable. But if that person is indeed being sheltered to prevent the discovery of other profoundly mitigating information that would dramatically change the overall depiction of this situation, the effort is not only corrupt but is in vain.

The truth will out.

When it does, the 3rd part of this series will be titled “The Weaponising of Social Pt 3: The Resurrection of Jacob Appelbaum”.

What caused me to write these articles was not a wish to protect Jacob, or to befriend him. We are not in direct contact, nor have I sought to be.

The “risks” (in terms of that hideous and constantly flung-about term ‘social capital’) far outweighed the gain for me but if I was risk averse out of self-interest I wouldn’t be me.

I am speaking out because of all the reasons above, below, aforementioned, and yet to come.

Why Did I Continue Writing, When His Accusers Are Already Celebrating?

Because there is clearly more to the story than is being told, much, much more. I will not sit idly by while the life of a genuine radical is dismantled by women of privilege bizarrely aspiring to victim status who want to take him down in the name of representing rape survivors.

The initial and most serious allegation of all, that Jacob is a ‘serial rapist’ is clearly utterly without merit. It is additionally frankly offensive that an alleged ‘rape’ testimony sits alongside what by contrast seem to be frivolous complaints. Is there such doubt in the original claim that it couldn’t stand alone? Does it really need to be surrounded with circumstantial accounts of what, by comparison, are the most minor of alleged infractions?

Has sexual assault really now come to mean ‘anything I found uncomfortable, was upset by or was unable to deal with’? From being kissed, to bad jokes, to being propositioned, to being pulled into a bath and washed, to having someone out the fact that you were dating a workmate in front of your workmates?

Who hasn’t had these things happen? Why don’t we just declare everyone on Earth a victim? Because when you actually are a survivor of a violent rape, you understand clearly what the difference is.

Presenting common social occurrences as being tantamount to sexual assault, or even posting them on equal ground alongside them, profoundly trivialises what real rape and sexual assault are.

Likewise these accusations of ‘violence’ in terms of the use of the word ‘rape’ fall well short of the violent rapes that are genuinely prevalent in society – violent, horrific rapes that occur every single day all over this planet – especially to teenagers, street-workers and the homeless. Particularly to women of colour. For some people rape is a seemingly constant experience. There are women who can’t remember how many times they were raped. There are victims of domestic violence and incest who are raped for years on end.

Is it really necessary for the accusers to assemble a list of everyone their accused ever offended in his adult life, in order to lend their testimonies credibility?

The lack of victim impact in the statements is massively disturbing. It is as if the statements were written and/or edited by women who are not victims at all.

I have highlighted that in bold type because it is such a profound and obvious discrepancy. It sticks out like a sore thumb, across all of the testimonies.

There is constant complaint of power imbalance and fear of reprisal but no tangible complaint of ongoing personal emotional ramifications from these alleged experiences, other than embarrassment. No claim or description of lasting harm. This contradicts everything I have seen, witnessed and personally experienced over the years, and I find it impossible to ignore.

If you don’t understand what victim impact is, let me spell it out for you.

I was abducted from quite literally the central street of my city. I had to walk up and down that street countless times in my life since. Every time, swallowing the memories. Feeling that the concrete under my feet, my very city, had betrayed me.

I was gang raped at night in the rain on a children’s playground at what Americans would call an elementary school. I knew that the next day, little children’s feet would be skipping over the asphalt where I lay, or playing hopscotch. It haunted me for years. (Massive understatement). I still remember the feeling of the asphalt, the feeling of the rain (which far from soothing, felt like a karmic betrayal in itself; it was just wet and cold and utterly miserable), and anytime I went near a school, I relived the experience as if it was floating in front of my eyes like a translucent movie superimposing itself over my vision. For months if not years afterwards, you walk around in a semi-stupor, as if you are inebriated, out of focus, because you are seeing two things at once – what is in front of you and what is behind you.

The sign at the front of the school is forever burned into my mind’s eye. Because when I saw it, I still didn’t know whether or not they were going to kill me, so I was trying to memorise everything I saw in case I survived. I constantly had the irrational urge to go to the school and demand that they close it down, because it seemed too sick to allow young children to play every recess and lunchtime on the very ground where a woman was gang raped. Even though I knew on a subconscious level that the closure of an entire school was a ridiculous and extreme measure that would never manifest. For years I wondered inane irrelevant things… had the teachers been told? Did the caretaker know? Did the student’s parents know? Even though the school was in a part of town I had never been to in my life and would never go to again. A part of town where I knew no one. Even though the actual location where they did that to me could have been anywhere, I was transfixed on the specificities.

You see, it is not merely the act that is grotesque and destructive it is the haunting. The way in which completely normal things become utterly poisoned by the experience: in later years, going to events at my children’s school and wondering if anyone had ever been raped on their playground. Being triggered by the back seats of cars. By petrol stations. By things you have to see again every single day, and somehow have to learn to live with, or else drown in the pain.

It is this haunting, and the profound emotional after-effects, which take a horrendously long time to begin to fade, All of your relationships are affected. No matter of what type. From re-learning how to answer when a stranger says “How are you?” To how to face your parents. How to explain to your friends why you stare off blankly into space when they’re trying to talk to you. How to make love again without fearing an impending act of violence with every touch.

Your very identity is internally called into existential question.

There are a hundred, a thousand more intimate details of aspects that haunted me, which I will not detail here because they are utterly disgusting and despicable and it is frankly no ones business. It took a significant portion of my life for the memories to start to not be so jagged, the triggers to not be so visceral, all-encompassing.

Generally speaking, I actually consider myself healed. Enough so that I don’t feel physically ill anymore. I am finally able to live in the present now.

I am re-opening that old wound for the sole purpose of demonstrating for you all what victim impact is. It is hideous and embarrassing to have to do but it serves a greater good. The difference between the Stanford rape survivor’s victim impact statement and the allegations on the Appelbaum-hit site should be abundantly obvious to even the most casual observer. Seven supposed testimonies on that site and not a single one describing post-trauma victim impact. It is not a coincidence.

They have conflated common tenets of rape culture with actual rape.

There was a time when a trigger would cripple me for an entire week, then eventually just an entire day. Now when I read the Stanford rape testimony – all 7,500 words of it, I just press my clenched fist against my mouth, squeeze my eyes shut, tell myself ‘breathe, breathe’ for a few seconds and then I can resume reading.

I can tell you exactly how many triggers I had while reading that testimony. Three. And its been 17 years.

Victim impact is what made the Stanford rape victim’s account so compelling, because real rape testimony cannot be manufactured.

Sadly, with the level of co-ordination behind their efforts and realising that they’ve been seen right through, I wouldn’t be surprised if they have a belated go at it now, so vociferous is their opposition to Appelbaum, so fervent their stated desire to prevent him speaking truth on stages. Still, they will fail.

Survivor status is not something to aspire to or to claim lightly.

It is an indescribable burden.

Ending Appelbaum’s Career

The constant demand that Appelbaum, who so directly confronts superpowers, stop doing so in the name of victims is just plain suspicious.

What is being exercised by his accusers is the power to harness social media to cause mass distraction and brutal damage, to their own ends.

In practice, their demand for the utter exclusion of Appelbaum entails preventing him from continuing to explain to Persons of Interest the precise ways in which the agencies trying to torture and kill us on taxpayer dollars are doing so.

Information that has been of extreme value to targets and should be also to the public, who largely remain blissfully unaware of the full extent of what is being done on their dime.

Information that he has long been circulating that, more than an inconvenience; is an extreme danger to the perpetrators of torture, rendition and murder.

Information which cannot be replaced by a bunch of Tor developers waxing lyrical about safe spaces and self-care while ripping our community apart.

Just try self-care on for size if 3-letter agencies have decided they want to actively destroy your entire existence. I wish you the best of luck.

Mammoth resources – literally BILLIONS OF DOLLARS – are being wielded against people like us, and the too few truly combating it, those like Jacob and Julian, are constantly under life-threatening attacks, including from personalities in our own movements.

I would be far more sympathetic to a description of how the state interferes with and meddles in every single aspect of the lives of Persons of Interest as being ‘rape’, than I am someone being kissed in a bar or propositioned at dinner, or embarrassed in front of workmates.

POI’s are unable to hold down a job because the state will not allow them to have access to funds or employment. The Empire literally destroys any and every opportunity that comes their way because one of their main priorities is to not allow POI’s to have any assets or sustainable resources. They set teams of HUMINT against POI’s in the workplace, in domestic spaces, in social spaces.

(Don’t believe me? The Snowden docs aren’t academic. They are an in-practice guide of what is still happening every single day.)

At least that kind of all-encompassing trauma comes closer to the after-effects of an actual rape because it fucks up your entire life. But for those who have made a career out of privacy, those who came to it from academia or because they work for an NGO, or because it is “The Scene” – or because they heard about it in some cool videos – guess what? You might be monitored but you aren’t individually targeted. Any more than someone who has been hit on or propositioned is a sexual assault victim. You live in a bubble of luxury – a meritocracy as you call it – where you can actually make something of yourself despite being monitored.

Unless a gang of people and their group-think activism come after you and do the government’s work for them.

For first they came for Julian Assange… then they came for Jacob Appelbaum.

Real militant truth-tellers can only run and hide and seek refuge however and wherever they can, while telling as much truth about The Empire as they can, in whatever time they have left before they are taken out of the equation. The truth is not permitted in this day and age. The truth is not published by Dell Cameron in The Daily Dot. If it was, they would have Michael Hastings’d him. Yes, my hero, and that of thousands, Michael Hastings, is now a verb. You won’t see Dell running articles on how we know for a fact electronic weapons are being used on human beings, on activists and (truly radical) feminists, on journalists, and have been for years. Or how Julian Assange’s vanguardism through WikiLeaks, which the WikiLeaks detractors are all busy shitting on, is the only reason we even know that. Nor will you see the Guardian writing that, or Violet Blue, or any of the half dozen publications that it is now claimed are interested in running more stories about the accusations against Appelbaum.

Have a guess how long any mainstream journalist would remain employed if the manufacturers and sub-contractors making, distributing, experimenting with and selling electronic weapons became their subject of choice.

The last person to seriously go after that network was Barrett Brown.

Instead everyone wants to play popularity contest, and protect-my-job’ism, and be-politically-correct’ism, and listen to each other wax lyrical about power and social capital and solidarity, while the bodies of real POI’s, activists, journalists, hacktivists and lawyers stack up around them.

While they sit in comfy chairs critiquing WikiLeaks and convincing themselves that they are “dangerous together”, hardcore supporters of WikiLeaks are being taken out one by one. People are losing their LIVES, their citizenships, their liberty. The biggest investigation in US history is ongoing – remember why the FBI supposedly wants to talk to Isis Lovecruft?? Because they’re already after Jake and WikiLeaks. Yet these women are now writing congratulatory tweets about how they took down someone who is actually an FBI target.

The difference between the instances of alleged sexual assault and all the other superfluous crap that has been kicked up could stretch from the North Sea to Antarctica.

The way this campaign against Appelbaum – and let’s be frank, that’s exactly what it is – has been conducted is a disservice to rape victims, a disservice to activism, a disservice to the privacy community and a disservice to humanity.

Somewhere the heads of the agencies that harm us are rubbing their hands together with glee at our own-goals. Proposing toasts. Laughing at our collective foolishness. Exactly what Meredith once accused WikiLeaks supporters of, Appelbaum’s detractors are fulfilling. That is their legacy.

Every time this scandal is used to smear Snowden, to smear Assange by association, to hurt WikiLeaks, and subsequently all the whistleblowers and journalists they support through the Courage Foundation, Freedom of the Press and anywhere else.

six

The above tweet using the Appelbaum allegations to disparage WikiLeaks is authored by the FBI snitch Adrian Lamo. Lamo is responsible for social engineering the heroic whistleblower Chelsea Manning, who as a direct result of Lamo’s manipulations, was arrested and sentenced to decades in jail.

For the next 5 years, this hit on Appelbaum will be used to undermine everyone whose life is actually on the line. It is already happening.

Dear Jake

If someone passes you this to read and you make it past the reminder of my terrible joke, the documentation about the electronic weapons, the umpteen stupid tweets from foolish people, and the example of an actual victim impact statement, to this point: here’s my unsolicited advice.

You helped start Noisebridge? Start another collective. Make it invite only. The most skilled of the skilled will continue to work with you just as they continue to work when targeted by the same shit themselves.

Funding-dependent conferences jumping on the CIA bandwagon? Start your own conferences. They don’t even have to be attended in person. Put up a black sheet and tell us the truth Snowden-style. We will still listen, be inspired by it, and share it.

Your audience will follow you.

Because to be honest, we don’t give a flying toss how many new libraries are running Tor nodes nor do we want to spend hours on end listening to a bunch of pseudo-“victims” waxing lyrical about the inherent violence in their non-violent would-be-rapes.

We want to hear about what you described as those who operate on the dark edges of society – the agencies, the contractors, the sub-contractors, and the technology they use against anyone that they perceive is standing in the way of their fantasy of global domination.

You helped build the following that the deluded think they can usurp.

You can do it again and time will tell all truths.

Karma Rules

Karma rules and I suspect that there are many, many more revelations to come. They will come from people way smarter and more accomplished than me. So I am going to set this aside for now and do what I do best.

Writing, for free, about which country the CIA wants to pass new laws to legally-illegally kill people next, or why we are being taught to hate refugees, or what immoral weapons of torture are being used against Persons of Interest in the shadows of the mainstream, or what the Prime Minister of my country, which exiled me after trying to kill me, has been up to with his dodgy lawyer.

In the meantime, Appelbaum’s accusers will continue collecting their salaries while sticking Jake’s head on a pike and dancing on his grave. THAT is their privilege.

Trading on the profiles they have gained from sitting on stages that WikiLeaks’ support of the Tor Project put many of them on in the first place.

Click here to read Part 1: The Crucifixion Of IOError

Click here to read Part 3: The Resurrection Of IOError

Written by Suzie Dawson

Twitter: @Suzi3D

Official Website: Suzi3d.com

Please note: further source links and supporting materials may be added to this post given time.

International Spin Bin