↓ Archives ↓

Archive → December 14th, 2016

No evidence of WikiLeaks working with Russian hackers other than The Washington Post report.

news022415There’s no doubt Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump. How do we know? Well, an unnamed intelligence source told mainstream media; and mainstream media disseminated the information to the masses.

Last week, The Washington Post reported that it had gotten its hands on information from the CIA’s “secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency.”

From the report: “Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.”

The only problem with this is that WikiLeaks, arguably one of the only organizations in recent history to provide Americans with raw unfiltered information about shady government actions, has steadfastly denied that there was any Russian involvement in its obtaining the DNC/Clinton/Podesta emails.

In fact, by Sunday staunch WikiLeaks supporter and former British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray published a piece skewering international media parroting the CIA leak claims along with anyone dumb enough to believe them.

In his column “The CIA’s Absence of Conviction” Murray, a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, noted that the CIA is pushing information from an unnamed source on mainstream media. Meanwhile, he and Assange are two of the only people on the planet with concrete knowledge of the identity of the source of the leaks.

“Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access,” he said.

The actual source, as we’ve been told by people close to WikiLeaks all along, is a Democratic insider disgruntled that the DNC colluded with Hillary Clinton to damage Bernie Sanders’ chances in the primary.

Murray wrote: “As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.

“The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of ‘Russia’, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.”

Murray also pointed out that it should be very difficult for anyone to accept that following “an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals…”

Of course, Murray’s column must’ve gotten pegged as “fake news,” a conspiracy commentary unfit for dissemination via social media.

Murray called Facebook out in a later post after realizing that his original column was being suppressed by the social media giant.  According to an update to that post, Facebook quietly undid its ghostbanning of his WaPo/CIA piece.

Here’s the thing. WikiLeaks has long been a thorn in the side of the federal government’s attempts to keep Americans on board with the government’s official story. After all, until WikiLeaks published the Chelsea Manning documents detailing certain U.S. military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, many people believed that America was always the good guy in the Middle East. Since those leaks, calling what has happened in the Middle East in recent decades at behest of U.S. military adventurism “spreading democracy” hasn’t been so easy.

Russia seized on the Manning leaks. The country also heavily criticized the U.S. government’s subsequent treatment of whistleblowers. This was all, according to the Russians, proof of American leaders hiding totalitarian actions behind false democracy.

And why wouldn’t the Kremlin have jumped at such an opportunity to criticize the U.S.? As evidenced by U.S. condemnations of Russian actions in Ukraine and Syria in recent years, it was only a matter of time until the American intelligence and military complex would use the same sort of criticisms against Vladimir Putin and company.

Unfortunately, because Russia offered praise to U.S. whistleblowers (in, it’s worth noting, the same way U.S. institutions praised Russian social dissidents like the members of the punk rock group Pussy Riot for breaking the law) it has become very easy for government officials to tie any significant leak to Russia. And Russia is a longtime boogeyman.

But decide for yourself whose information you’d rather trust.

On one hand, you have a whistleblower group that has repeatedly upset U.S. power players and caused populist backlash against the political establishments biggest lies. One of its associates is sitting in jail and its founder is holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

On the other, you have the CIA, unnamed sources and the U.S. media establishment.

Wikileaks leaks documents in raw form. The CIA leaks secrets to media… and media interprets.

We have no evidence of WikiLeaks working with Russian hackers other than The Washington Post report. Oddly enough, The Washington Post report mentioned at the onset of this column looks a lot like the evidence we do have of the CIA working hand-in-hand with mainstream media in the past to influence public opinion.

Really, your choice simply boils down to whose definition of fake news you’re inclined to believe.

Source: Will County News

What is the real purpose behind the ‘fake news’ attack?

Fake news cartoonHere is the first problem with modern political discourse — too many people want to “win” arguments instead of getting to the greater truth of the matter. Discussions become brinkmanship. Opponents launch into immediate attacks instead of simply asking valid questions. They assert immediately that their position is the only valid position without verification. When confronted with rational responses and ample evidence, they dismiss everything instead of pondering what you have handed them. After this line is crossed, there is no point in continuing the debate. It will go on forever.

This is one of the great tragedies of the Saul Alinsky method of political confrontation; it has bred entire generations of people who now believe that there is no objective truth. They think everything is relative. Because of this belief, they assume that there is no wrong or right side, no wrong or right goal. Instead, there are only goals that are more right than the goals of others. Everything boils down to a “lesser of two evils” mentality, and the ends therefore justify the means. Using dishonest measures to win the fight becomes acceptable.

In the end, ideological combat actually prevents people from learning rather than helping them get to the root of the issue. We live in a world where truth is superfluous to the overall narrative. The only thing that is important is destroying your rivals.

A classic strategy of dishonest debate and disinformation is to use every method possible to avoid confronting your ideological opponents legitimate arguments and to attack him personally. If you can’t beat him on fair ground using reason and evidence, then why not undermine his character so that the public will be influenced to avoid listening to him at all.  This is sometimes called “inoculation.”

At first glance, this is what the entire “fake news” meme supported by the mainstream media seems to be about.

The MSM has proven itself utterly ineffective against the rise of the alternative media. And as I have explained in recent articles, there is a very good and obvious reason for this. The alternative media is the closest thing to a “free market” of ideas that the world has had in a very long time.  Before web media, the public was strictly limited to a handful of corporate outlets that dictated information flow with an iron fist.  If you wanted to learn anything beyond the mainstream narrative, you had to data mine at the library in an infinitely slower fashion, or try to personally seek out people who represented sources and witnesses.

Today, data mining happens at light speed. Facts and evidence are uncovered in real time. Video interviews and transcripts can be achieved as quickly as a phone call. They can be examined and witnesses can be cited without traveling across the country. The prevalence of visual media also makes it difficult for witnesses to lie about their original claims later down the road.

Beyond this, the alternative media offers something the masses have rarely ever had — choice. People can now look at all sides of an issue and all available evidence and decide for themselves what conclusions make the most sense. The mainstream media has only ever offered one side, with highly regulated information and cherry-picked evidence.

The mainstream media’s purpose has never been to convey the unfettered “news.”  Rather, their purpose has always been to manipulate public opinion, and we saw this revealed undeniably during the 2016 election as Wikileaks exposed journalist after journalist using their position of public trust as a weapon to influence the election outcome.

Instead of admitting wrongdoing after this embarrassment, the MSM has decided to double down and escalate the accusation that the alternative media is “fake news.” Meaning, the MSM wants people to believe that we are liars and amateurs, that they are the “professionals,” and that the public should ignore everything the alternative media has to say from now on.  I have to point out, though, that the narrative of mainstream news versus “fake news” seems a little thin to me. Meaning, I believe there is more going on here than the MSM simply trying to save itself.

Call me a “conspiracy theorist,” but the elitist controlled mainstream media does little to help itself through this strategy. Think about it; the MSM is already clearly dying if one looks at the ever shrinking size of their audience and the loss of younger viewers and readers. They have been deteriorating for years, while the alternative media has been exploding in influence. The promotion of the fake news meme requires these mainstream media outlets to actually list which sources they believe represent fake news.  This is what the Washington Post did with their promotion of liberal professor Melissa Zimdar’s list.

So, forgive me if I am making too much of a leap here, but it seems that this tactic will only bring more web traffic to the sites listed, because the list does not really include any specific examples of “fake news” trespasses.  People who are curious will be compelled to then visit the alternative sites to see what all the fuss is about. Perhaps many of them will find something they like, rather than something they hate. To me, the entire set-up of the fake news meme hurts the mainstream news more than it helps them.

The next major story linked to fake news has been the assertion by some in government (including the CIA) that the alternative media is actually a front for Russian propaganda. I predicted this development two years ago in my article When War Erupts Patriots Will Be Accused Of  Aiding “The Enemy.”

In that article, I argued that a war is being engineered between Eastern and Western powers (Russia and China vs. the U.S. and parts of Europe), and that this war will likely be an economic war.  I also point out that such a conflict might be used by the elites in the West to rout out the alternative media as agents of Russian propaganda.  Here’s a quote:

“Another aspect of this plan, I believe, involves the hijacking of the image of the liberty movement. The liberty movement is essentially the most dangerous unknown element on the elite’s global chessboard. In fact, because we understand that international financiers and central bankers are the real enemy, we have the ability to leave the chessboard entirely and play by our own rules. Widespread economic or military conflict provides an opportunity to neutralize liberty activists who might turn revolutionary.

Recently, I came across an article from The Atlantic titled Russia And The Menace Of Unreality. Now, some alternative analysts would read this article and immediately shrug it off as yet another attempt by the Western media machine to propagandize against Russia. Though their motivations are genuine, these analysts would be cementing the delusion that Russia is the “good guy” and the U.S. is the ever present “bad guy.” The Atlantic piece is a far more intricate manipulation than they would be giving credit for.”

“…This was not as pressing an issue two years ago, when conflict with Russia was a ridiculous notion for many people. But today, conflict with Russia, at the very least on an economic scale, is an inevitability. If you read in full the linked Atlantic article, the narrative that is being constructed is clear — the establishment hopes to rewrite the history and image of the liberty movement by painting us as dupes radicalized by Russian propaganda, rather than being the originators of our own grassroots movement with our own philosophy and methodology. Through this, they take away our ownership of our own cause.”

It would appear that everything I warned about two years ago is now happening.  That said, I would amend my original viewpoint to include a new dynamic. 

The coming economic war will be based on a false paradigm — the false East/West paradigm.  Over the years I have outlined in great detail the evidence that Eastern nations are just as controlled by banking elites and globalist interests as Western nations, including evidence that Vladimir Putin is an avid supporter of the International Monetary Fund’s push for a single global currency system using the Special Drawing Rights basket as a bridge. He is also now suddenly a supporter of the UN’s climate change and carbon taxation agenda.

I consistently warned analysts within the liberty movement to be careful about cheerleading too much for Russia and Putin, not only because he is controlled opposition, but because eventually we would be caught up in a media war that would label us as enemy conspirators.  Remaining (rightly) critical of Putin was the best way to avoid being labeled as a member of the “fake news,” or a purveyor of Russian propaganda.

It was my original belief that the elitist media would use the alternative media’s love affair with Putin as a means to undermine our credibility. However, today I would say that the opposite is taking place.

Confusing? Yes. But look at it this way; with the predominantly leftist mainstream media dying in an irreversible way, no amount of whining about “fake news” is going to save them. The rise of the “populists” is at hand, and as I have warned for the past year, this is by design.  Just as conservative anti-establishment movements are rising in geopolitical influence, so to is the anti-establishment media. We are sort of a package deal.

My belief is that conservative movements and the alternative media are being allowed into a position of cultural authority. The globalists are stepping out of the way (for now) as we grow in power. They are doing this in preparation for the final stage of an economic collapse they have been gestating since at least 2008. They are doing this because their goal is to set us up as scapegoats for a global disaster that will be remembered for centuries to come. I was able to predict the success of the Brexit Referendum and Donald Trump’s election win based on this theory and I believe it will continue to prove itself.

The globalists know that at this stage the fake news meme will only help us, rather than hurt us. That is to say, the elites are throwing the leftist media to the wolves and the Russian propaganda claims will only make the MSM look more ridiculous.  The globalists see the writing on the wall — in fact, with the level of web analytics at their disposal, they can read and predict shifts in social consciousness before almost anyone else is aware of them.

Instead of trying to obstruct us or fight us directly, I believe the elites plan to co-opt us or co-opt our image. That is to say, they will let us grow in apparent influence, trigger a crisis and either use certain alternative outlets as the new mainstream, or simply paint all of us as complicit in the failures of conservative governments and nationalism.

The end game here is to destroy the underlying principles of liberty movements; to make future generations reel in horror at the very mention of conservatives and national sovereignty.  The elites are playing a very complex strategy of fourth-generation warfare. Nothing you see is exactly what it seems. The fake news label is not meant to disrupt the alternative media. In fact it will help us rise to a position in which we can be blamed for negative global influence.

Many people will say I am reading too much into the situation, or that I am giving the elites “too much credit,” or attributing too much “omnipotence” to their position. They will probably reference the recent passage of the Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act and claim that this is clearly meant to take down the alternative media.

I would ask these people to consider a question, though — who will really have control over this legislation in the near future?  If I am right, and Trump enters the White House in January with a Republican majority in Congress and the Senate, will it not be Trump that most benefits from the legal framework? How then will it serve to undermine the alternative and conservative media?

I predict, in fact, that conservatives are being given enough rope to hang themselves with. I predict that Trump will utilize this legislation to go after the mainstream media, not the alternative media, and that many conservatives will support him even though questions of constitutionality will increase. I believe the fake news meme will backfire and that the MSM will die off as a result.

I believe that this is all part of a carefully crafted narrative in which the right wing gains unprecedented political sway, only to be met with economic and social disaster. I believe that the game is far from over in the fight between globalists and sovereignty activists. I believe they cannot defeat us directly, so they now hope to defeat us indirectly, or, trick us into defeating ourselves. In reality, the game is just beginning.

— Brandon Smith

Source: Will County News