- "A closer look at the details of what has so far
been carefully leaked by the most ultra-establishment of international
media such as the New York Times reveals a clear agenda. That agenda coincidentally
serves to buttress the agenda of US geopolitics around the world from Iran
to North Korea. It is almost too perfectly scripted to be true. A discontented
22-year old US Army soldier on duty in Baghdad, Bradley Manning, a low-grade
US Army intelligence analyst, described as a loner, a gay in the military,
a disgruntled "computer geek," sifts through classified information
at Forward Operating Base Hammer. He decides to secretly download
US State Department email communications from the entire world over a period
of eight months for hours a day, onto his blank CDs while pretending to
be listening to Lady Gaga.
- In addition to diplomatic cables, Manning is believed
to have provided WikiLeaks with helicopter gun camera video of an
errant US attack in Baghdad on unarmed journalists, and with war logs from
Iraq and Afghanistan. It is almost too perfectly scripted to be true. A
discontented 22-year old US Army soldier on duty in Baghdad, Bradley Manning,
a low-grade US Army intelligence analyst, described as a loner, a gay in
the military, a disgruntled "computer geek," sifts through classified
information at Forward Operating Base Hammer. He decides to secretly
download US State Department email communications from the entire world
over a period of eight months for hours a day, onto his blank CDs while
pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. In addition to diplomatic cables,
Manning is believed to have provided WikiLeaks with helicopter gun
camera video of an errant US attack in Baghdad on unarmed journalists,
and with war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan."
- "Manning then is supposed to have tracked down a
notorious former US computer hacker to get his 250,000 pages of classified
US State Department cables out in the Internet for the whole world to see.
He allegedly told the US hacker that the documents he had contained "incredible,
awful things that belonged in the public domain and not on some server
stored in a dark room in Washington, DC." The hacker turned him in
to US authorities so the story goes. Manning is now incommunicado since
months in US military confinement so we cannot ask him, conveniently. The
Pentagon routinely hires the best hackers to design their security systems.
[Assange] selects as exclusive newspapers to decide what is to be
leaked the New York Times which did such service in promoting faked propaganda
against Saddam that led to the Iraqi war, the London Guardian and Der Spiegel.
Assange claims he had no time to sift through so many pages so handed them
to the trusted editors of the establishment media for them to decide what
should be released. Very "anti-establishment" that.
- The New York Times even assigned one of its top people,
David E. Sanger, to control the release of the Wikileaks material. Sanger
is no establishment outsider. He sits as a member of the elite Council
on Foreign Relations as well as the Aspen Institute Strategy
Group together with the likes of Condi Rice, former Defense Secretary
William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, former State Department Deputy
Secretary and now World Bank head Robert Zoellick among others.
Indeed a strange choice of media for a person who claims to be anti-establishment.
But then Assange also says he believes the US Government version of 9/11
and calls the Bilderberg Group a normal meeting of people, a
very establishment view. Most important, the 250,000 cables are not "top
secret" as we might have thought.
- Between two and three million US Government employees
are cleared to see this level of "secret" document, 
and some 500,000 people around the world have access to the Secret Internet
Protocol Router Network (SIPRnet) where the cables were stored. SIPRnet
is not recommended for distribution of top-secret information. Only 6%
or 15,000 pages of the documents have been classified as even secret, a
level below top-secret. Another 40% were the lowest level, "confidential",
while the rest were unclassified. In brief, it was not all that secret.
What is emerging from all the sound and Wikileaks fury in Washington is
that the entire scandal is serving to advance a long-standing Obama and
Bush agenda of policing the until-now free Internet. Already the US Government
has shut the Wikileaks server in the United States though no identifiable
US law has been broken."
- "The process of policing the Web was well underway
before the current leaks scandal. In 2009 Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller
and Republican Olympia Snowe introduced the Cybersecurity Act of 2009
(S.773). It would give the President unlimited power to disconnect private-sector
computers from the internet. The bill "would allow the president to
'declare a cyber-security emergency' relating to 'non-governmental' computer
networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat." We can
expect that now this controversial piece of legislation will get top priority
when a new Republican House and the Senate convene in January. US Department
of Homeland Security, an agency created in the political hysteria following
9/11 2001 that has been compared to the Gestapo, has already begun policing
the Internet. They are quietly seizing and shutting down internet websites
(web domains) without due process or a proper trial. DHS simply seizes
web domains that it wants to and posts an ominous "Department of Justice"
logo on the web site. See an example at http://torrent-finder.com (My
note: Do click on this link. It's worth checking out.)"
- On the political front, I agree with Engdahl's assessment
of Assange's leaked government cables. In the cables I have seen discussed
in various newspaper articles thus far, there is nothing more than the
occasional embarrassing quote, nothing top-secret, and nothing remotely
damaging to any US allies revealed in any of these supposedly top-secret
government cables. And regarding Assange's threat of leaking thousands
of confidential documents contained in a 5 gigabyte drive regarding a big
US bank believed to be Bank of America as an "anti-establishment"
act, I'm not buying it. According to a Forbes interview, Assange stated
that his leak would "give a true and representative insight into
how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations
and reforms, I presume." I say, so what if this big leak Assange
is in possession of pertains to Bank of America and if it reveals documents
that result in the demise of BofA? If this is how this drama plays out,
this event would ultimately be more pro-establishment and pro-elite than
anti-establishment. The demise of BofA would only mean that JP Morgan,
as they have already done with Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, would
have yet another opportunity to stamp out their competition, swoop in like
vultures, and pick up BofA's carcass for pennies on the dollar. Or perhaps
Goldman Sachs will be given this carcass to pick clean. Either
way, if this happens, it consolidates power for the elites at the top and
could not have worked out any better if Assange was a paid employee of
Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan. Remember that BofA bought up Merrill Lynch
when Merrill Lynch failed, so an acquisition of BofA would translate into
a delayed acquisition of Merrill Lynch.
- In the book, "The Great Depression of the XXI Century,"
Tanya Cariina Hsu wrote:
- "In 1907, J.P. Morgan, a private New York banker,
published a rumor that a competing unnamed large bank was about to fail.
It was a false charge but customers nonetheless raced to their banks to
withdraw their money, in case it was their bank. As they pulled out their
funds, the banks lost their cash deposits and were forced to call in their
loans. People therefore had to pay back their mortgages to fill the banks
with income, going bankrupt in the process. The 1907 panic resulted in
a crash that prompted the creation of the Federal Reserve, a private banking
cartel with the veneer of an independent government organization. Effectively,
it was a coup by elite bankers in order to control the industry."
- "When signed into law in 1913, the Federal Reserve
would loan and supply the nation's money, but with interest. The more money
it was able to print, the more "income" it generated for itself.
By its very nature, the Federal Reserve would forever keep producing debt
to stay alive. It was able to print America's monetary supply at will,
regulating its value. To control valuation, however, inflation had to be
kept in check. The Federal Reserve then doubled America's money supply
within five years, and in 1920, it called in a mass percentage of loans.
Over five thousand banks collapsed overnight. One year later, the Federal
Reserve again increased the money supply by 62 percent, but in 1929, it
again called the loans back in, en masse. This time, the crash of 1929
caused over sixteen thousand banks to fail and an 89 percent plunge on
the stock market. The private and well-protected banks within the Federal
Reserve system were able to snap up the failed banks at pennies on the
- If this sounds familiar, it should. This seems
to be the blueprint by today's banking elites for today's banking industry
as well. During the Bank Panic of 1907 and the Great Depression, JP Morgan
was one of the biggest beneficiaries of a panic that many historians claimed
they, along with the Federal Reserve, helped to manufacture (JP Morgan
is alleged to have helped engineer both the Panic of 1907 and the Great
Depression while the Federal Reserve helped engineer the Great Depression).
If the future scenario regarding Wikileaks's release of incriminating big
bank documents plays out anywhere close to the one I presented above, Julian
Assange would, in essence, be performing a massive favor for the most favored
private banks of the Federal Reserve system. One must remember that during
this manufactured global monetary crisis, not all banks are created equal
and a handful of banks are hand picked for survival and prosperity at the
expense of hundreds of others. Just because Wikileaks threatens to release
incriminating documents on a big bank that could make it look bad, this
should not be naively or blindly interpreted as an anti-establishment act.
- Admittedly, like millions of others, I was fooled by
Wikileaks's intent in the beginning. But the more and more I research them,
the more it seems as though Wikileaks is cooperating with governments and
banks rather than serving as their adversary or as their watchdog to increase
transparency. Now, if Mr. Assange releases cables that expose detailed
correspondences between the US Federal Reserve and JP Morgan regarding
silver price suppression schemes or how Goldman Sachs deliberately releases
misinformation about gold prices, or if he releases diplomatic cables exposing
secrets between the US and Israel that have been concealed from the public,
I might start once again believing that the goal of Wikileaks is to provide
greater transparency about government and banker actions. One thing I have
learned over the years about the shadowy world of banking and politics
is that if something appears to be a great coincidence, it usually is not,
and that things rarely are what they seem to be on the surface.