In 2014, three Americans were in Budapest, Hungary organizing an international conference for the white nationalist think tank, the National Policy Institute: the contentious white supremacist and progenitor of the term “alt-right”, Richard Spencer, the refined, cosmopolitan, Ivy League-educated editor of white nationalist publication American Renaissance, Jared Taylor and enigmatic publishing heir, William Regnery II. Among those who were to speak at the event was none other than Alexander Dugin, a rabidly anti-liberal and anti-Western “Eurasianist” with very close ties to Vladimir Putin and Russia’s military and national security apparatus. Richard Spencer’s wife Nina Byzantina, who was also present at the meeting, translates Dugin’s works into English in her spare time.
Hungarian authorities believed the meeting to have been orchestrated by the CIA in an attempt to embarrass Hungary’s newly-elected right-wing government and the three Americans were swiftly intercepted and spirited out of the country.
“The government thought that it was a CIA plot,” a source with inside knowledge of Hungarian counterintelligence said in an interview. “They are completely paranoid, and when this conference was announced, they were convinced that this was an American action,” the source said. “They guessed that US intelligence services set up this conference so they can say Hungary is a home for right-wing extremist activists and then blackmail them in the international media.”
Everyone else scoffed at the idea that these three American stooges were part of a CIA plot. The idea that any of these clueless “white nationalist” oafs is even remotely connected to the CIA is absurd… right?
The Regnery Connection
The National Policy Institute was founded as a “racial realist” and “white nationalist” think tank and lobbying effort in 2005 by William Regnery II, who has used his family money to fund the rapid growth of numerous hard-right white nationalist and “anti-Semitic” groups such as the Martel Society, another think tank founded by Regnery II in 2001 which publishes The Occidental Quarterly and runs the Occidental Observer website. Immediately after founding the Martel Society, Regnery II came out swinging, advocating for a radical reconfiguring of the United States and its internal borders based on racial, religious and cultural lines. At some point, Regnery discovered heedless agitator Richard Spencer, who he fostered an intimate relationship with and in 2011 installed as the frontman and nominal head of the NPI, which established the NPI as the chief staging ground for the blossoming, rabidly pro-Trump “alternative right” movement which is characterized by an authoritarian European-style right-wing populist ideology (in contrast to the North America-exclusive libertarian ideology of say Ron Paul). While Spencer is technically the chairman of the NPI, it is still run behind the scenes by Regnery. Richard Spencer referred to him as the chairman of the organization as recently as 2014, five years after Regnery supposedly stepped down from the position.
Despite this, Regnery (who is known for his extreme secretiveness and reclusiveness) is conspicuously lacking in any kind of publicity – his name is scarcely mentioned at all on the NPI’s website and at NPI conferences, he goes almost entirely unmentioned and very rarely speaks. When he does speak, he is almost never recorded. It appears as though this reticent character handles the colorful frontman Spencer, who speaks to and consults with Regnery almost daily. According to Spencer himself, Regnery has played a “vitally important and indispensable” role in bolstering the alt-right movement and that he “wouldn’t do a big thing without consulting him.”
So just exactly who is this mysterious alt-right power broker, William Regnery II? A deep dive into his family’s background perhaps validates the Hungarian government’s understanding of Spencer and Regnery’s Central European misadventure as a potential CIA ploy.
Regnery’s family has been deeply connected to the right-wing power structure and intelligence community since the early 20th century. Regnery II’s grandfather and originator of the family’s wealth and political influence was William Henry Regnery, a wealthy Chicago textile manufacturer. William Henry was a founding member of the American Security Council, which throughout the postwar era has sat at the center of the right-wing defense establishment and seeks to influence American foreign policy through the doctrine of “peace through strength.”
Historical membership of the ASC reads like a who’s who of the intelligence and national security establishments – CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton, founding CIA member and Iran-Contra orchestrator John Singlaub, neoconservative Reagan-era diplomat Jeane Kirkpatrick, former deputy national security advisor and Nixon Secretary of State Alexander Haig, inventor of the hydrogen bomb and SDI architect Edward Teller, DoD scientist and presidential advisor John S. Foster, Jr., lead Manhattan Project physicist Eugene Wigner, father of the neutron bomb and RAND Corporation think tanker Samuel T. Cohen and dozens of others highly connected to the military, CIA, FBI, corporate America, etc. The ASC’s spin-off think tank, the Center for Security Policy, is similarly connected, featuring former CIA director and supreme neoconservative-Zionist James Woolsey, Dick Cheney, neoconservative former chairman of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle, former director of the CIA and Secretary of State James Schlesinger and Paul Wolfowitz as members.
Throughout its reign as the cream of defense establishment think tanks, the ASC and its members covertly backed Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, coordinated anti-Communist witch hunts with the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles, lobbied for anti-detente foreign policies throughout the ’60s and ’70s, almost single-handedly crafted Reagan’s foreign policy, was highly involved in Iran-Contra and CIA drug running out of Southeast Asia and factored strongly in the design of the Strategic Defense Initiative.
In 1978 the ASCF created the “National Strategy for Peace through Strength,” and has been cited numerous times with providing the overall foreign affairs theme for the administration of former President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan personally gave the ASCF credit for this on several occasions and said America won the Cold War based upon the ASCF’s “National Strategy for Peace through Strength” doctrine.
After William Henry Regnery died, his son Henry Regnery (Regnery II’s uncle), replaced him at the American Security Council and in powerful conservative political circles, but Henry’s knack was for propaganda, not defense policy. Henry’s publishing company, Regnery Publishing, which for many decades was the most prominent conservative publishing house in the US, was funded by the CIA according to intelligence officer and Watergate mastermind E. Howard Hunt. It was the first major publishing outfit to release writings of the John Birch Society and later went on to publish preeminent conservative figures William Buckley, Russell Kirk, Whittaker Chambers, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, Oliver North, Dinesh D’Souza and William Casey among others.
Henry Regnery’s son, Al Regnery (Regnery II’s cousin), became president of Regnery Publishing in the ’80s after a stint in the Reagan Justice Department and in 2003 became editor-in-chief of the elite conservative American Spectator magazine, a position he held until 2012. Al is additionally the chairman of the William F. Buckley-founded Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a Young Republicans-esque college recruitment organization that Regnery II was a member of in his college years. Through the ISI, both Regnerys became good friends with Reagan attorney general and advisor Edwin Meese, who was involved in the SDI, Iran-Contra and the bizarre Inslaw/PROMIS scandal. More recently, Meese founded the Reagan Alumni Advisory Council for Trump-Pence, which is composed of over 200 Reagan administration alumni. Among its ranks are pro-Trump CNN pundit Jeffrey Lord, “mega-lobbyist” Haley Barbour, elite GOP political consultant Ed Rollins, radical Christian Israel-booster Gary Bauer, and former Bush drug czar William Bennett. Meese’s Advisory Council promotes massive tax cuts and a rebirth of the Reagan administration’s “peace through strength” foreign policy.
Who Regnery II’s parents were is unclear, but what is sure is that one of his parents was one of Regnery I’s five children other than Henry and that Regnery II was close to his deep state family judging by the fact that he was chosen to succeed his grandfather in running the family textile empire before it went under in the ’80s.
So, to summarize, Richard Spencer’s closest advisor’s grandfather and uncle were both central members of one of the most entrenched postwar deep state think tanks, with CIA funding ran the paramount conservative publishing house for decades, helped thrust Ronald Reagan into the White House and later were part of the guild which crafted his foreign policy. Regnery II, through Richard Spencer in a 21st century digital fashion aided deep state auxiliary Donald Trump in seizing the Oval Office and has seeded and funded a network of organizations propagating a trendy new populist right-wing ideology as his ancestor’s tired Reaganesque policies and rhetorics grow tired and old.
This article is part of a two-part series. Read Part One covering Edward Snowden and the Pentagon-spawned internet privacy movement here.
Wikileaks and its odd frontman Julian Assange are part of the constellation of knowing and unknowing propagandists making up the Trump media complex, which miraculously succeeded in parlaying a deep state auxiliary into the White House by snookering the majority of the United States into believing he was a “political outsider” and “non-politician”. It has cloaked its relatively blatant political motivations and maneuvering in the robe of a dissident hactivist leak conduit and internet privacy advocacy group. As a kind of afterthought it endlessly advertises Tor (making it just as part of the phony internet privacy marketing infrastructure luring people into an NSA-FBI honeypot honeypot as Snowden & friends), but at this point its main calling is sentiment manipulation on behalf of Trump and his underwriters judging by the steady and unwavering drip of leaks damaging to Hillary Clinton. But before discussing Wikileaks, its bolstering of Trump and the myriad of indications that it’s an intelligence operation and/or proxy, it’s important to establish the mainstream media as part of the Trump media complex – keep in mind that Wikileaks and Wikileaks-seeded narratives have been frequently mentioned even in the mainstream media (and in particular Fox News).
“Russian interference” is the crux of Trump’s coverage in the media today. Although Donald Trump does have compelling connections to the post-Soviet ex KGB-Russian Jewish mob run underground government of Russia, there is clearly some kind of agenda behind the shrill drumbeat of accusations of collusion between “the Russians” and the Trump campaign/administration by the mainstream media (the foundational accusation being that Russia “hacked” the election). While most attribute this to a seething hatred of Trump by the entirety of the media and/or a witch hunt being conducted by the political establishment and deep state, CNN (the foremost Russia-monger) itself accidentally exposed that the story was largely a “bullshit” distraction but that it was pushed nonstop for ratings and viewership, both which are higher than ever.
This squares with Trump and his inner circle’s long-time cozy and well-hidden relationships with media executives and figures such as Jeff Zucker, Joe Scarborough/Mika Brzezinski, Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Lally Weymouth, Jeff Bezos, etc. whose number one priority since Trump announced his candidacy has been to cover him as much as humanly possible. At CNN, staffers complain of Jeff Zucker (Trump’s self-described friend and “personal booker“) and his insistence on constantly covering Trump. Zucker previously worked with Trump at MSNBC on The Apprentice and enjoyed a special relationship with him all throughout the election season which he used to turn CNN’s deteriorating ratings and viewership numbers around. Over at MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski (both of whom have communed with Trump at Mar-A-Lago) and their producers allow Donald Trump to personally dictate what they can and cannot ask him. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump party at the Washington Post editor’s summer house in the Hamptons despite the fact that the mainstream press is allegedly out to publicly hang them. Trump has made a habit of publicly lambasting the Washington Post and its owner, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. However, it looks as if Bezos in reality peddles influence in the Trump White House:
Then, at a tech gathering at Trump Tower during the transition in December, Bezos introduced himself as someone who is “super excited about the possibilities this could be the innovation administration” and appeared to have a positive outlook after his meeting. In a statement to Business Insider at the time, Bezos said his meeting was “very productive.”
This month, Bezos participated in Mr. Trump’s roundtable with the American Technology Council at the White House and applauded the administration’s work in technological innovation. He encouraged using commercial technology to save money and develop artificial intelligence to improve government services. 
Kingmaker and deep state abettor supreme Rupert Murdoch (who is a prominent advisor and backer of Trump’s) used his Fox News network to shamelessly boost Trump and the same right-wing authoritarian agenda it’s always endorsed (albeit with with a populist twist). Roger Ailes, former CEO of Fox News and a key architect of television as a medium for propaganda, launched Trump’s political commentary career by giving him a daily call-in segment on Fox & Friends and advised Trump all throughout the 2015-2016 campaign, all the while maintaining a sham Twitter feud with him.
As long as all the writers and producers (many of whom do probably despise Trump) focus virtually all of their attention on the president regardless of whatever petty mini-scandals they end up exposing, everyone is happy – Trump gets the exposure and attention he so craves without ever being totally destroyed, the Trump administration (which is in effect run by a colorful assortment of financial oligarchs, think tankers and defense industry NatSec boosters) has a red herring to distract from the agenda it’s working to push through and the media networks get higher ratings. And, obviously, given this deceptive agenda, you wouldn’t expect this ubiquitous Trump camp intrigue with the media to be a very big story in the media.
The media was indeed an integral part of Trump’s winning the election – the colossal, unprecedented amount of coverage (equivalent to $2 billion in free advertising) he received, regardless of whether it was positive or negative, in addition to the torrent of email leaks and scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton (many of which were seeded by Wikileaks) that were transmitted on full blast by both the alternative and ostensibly pro-Clinton mainstream media, propelled him into a position to win both the nomination and election. The ratio of negative coverage to positive Trump received was barely higher than that of any other Republican candidate’s and, contrary to what the shill altmedia says, probably lower than that of Hillary Clinton.  Many simply dismiss a conscious media role in boosting Trump through explaining the coverage as a response to higher polling numbers. Firstly, this fails to take into account that the mainstream media began heaping legendary amounts of coverage upon Trump before he ever registered in the polls or even announced his candidacy. Secondly, statistical studies have shown that, while increased media coverage has a strong statistically significant positive effect on public support for a given candidate, increased poll numbers only exert a small (but still statistically significant) effect on media coverage, meaning media coverage is the primary driver of public support. 
Coverage leads to increased public interest in a candidate, which leads to more coverage. Ultimately, this cycle results in higher poll numbers for candidates who leverage their entertainment value to reap the benefits of news coverage. Our findings demonstrate that a high volume of news coverage for candidates leads to increased support, supporting the old adage, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.”
We do not find strong evidence to support the hypothesis that media coverage changes as a function of performance in polls. 
If Trump were truly a dire threat to the deep state and the media was entirely in the pocket of the Clinton crime family as the altmedia goons suggest, subtle orders filtered down through media executives and top editors (nearly all of whom play ball with the power-elite and have intelligence connections) would have made sure that Trump be utterly blacked out in the media and treated as a mere nuisance as opposed to a legitimate threat to democracy, guaranteeing that he be relegated to obscurity, as for example Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan were. Political outsiders are simply not given full control of the news cycle. The truth is that Donald Trump, contrary to both the alternative and mainstream media, is a long-time political insider who’s throughout his life had intimate ties to some of the most powerful men in the world and installed into the Oval Office by very same kinds of people his base loathes; he’s the latest in the line of phony political outsiders which includes Ross Perot, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ted Cruz, etc. and has been thrust into power by an alliance of the American conservative/defense establishment and the international Zionist syndicate under former CIA director and top neoconservative Zionist James Woolsey. These groups are vying for power within the administration as well as consorting and scheming with the liberal “globalist” establishment, which has managed to install numerous members in the administration.
Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are similar in that they are these supposed digital anti-establishment crusaders revealing the most damning of deep state secrets, yet they’re trotted out, paraded around and given all the publicity they could ever want by the fourth estate on a regular basis (as opposed to being suicided, almost entirely ignored or eternally imprisoned, as the vast majority of whistleblowers end up), indicating that they’re either controlled assets or simply unknowing dupes being used by the deep state or a deep state faction (read: the ultra nationalist right-wing national security and Israel boosters behind the Trump presidency) to advance some kind of agenda in return for free advertising and likely large sums of money.
Wikileaks, a purported political “transparency” advocacy group and email/document leak conduit, has, along with Russia been at the center of the hacking narrative since it began leaking emails and documents belonging to the DNC (which was allegedly hacked on the order of the Kremlin, which in return indirectly handed the hacked documents over to Wikileaks), DCCC, Hillary Clinton and Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta. The release of this material had a substantial impact on the course and outcome of the 2016 election largely thanks to the alternative (or, as I call “sidestream”) media and online disinformation outlet’s widespread circulation of the emails, which of course has been accompanied by their decidedly Clinton-hostile and incredibly loose interpretation of the typically ambiguous and out-of-context contents of said emails, even going so far as to construe (based on a largely fabricated code language) a far-reaching pedophile ring operating out of the non-existent basement of a high traffic pizza parlor. Given the sidestream/alternative media’s symbiotic relationship with the right-wing power structure and the fact that Wikileaks and its exotic, almost cartoonish silver-haired celebrity spokesman Julian Assange are regularly splayed all over mainstream television (even having been mentioned by presidential debate moderators), Wikileaks should be viewed with extreme suspicion.
Julian Assange displays many of the hallmarks of an intelligence asset:
As a child, he was, for a not insignificant amount of time through a step father, exposed to (and later on the run from) Australia’s most notorious cult – “The Family”, a New Age doomsday cult based outside Melbourne that engaged in everything from attempted drug-induced mind control of its members to food deprivation to ritual sexual abuse. Additionally, members of The Family dyed their hair white, as Julian Assange does. The group miraculously evaded prosecution and eluded law enforcement for decades, which has led some to believe that it may have been protected by federal law enforcement and/or Western intelligence. There are several other indications of this: many members had multiple identities and passports, the cult was supplied free LSD (which at the time was being used all over the world in the CIA’s MKUltra mind control experiments) by the discoverer of the substance’s psychedelic effects, Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, and members of The Family at one point “nursed” Lord Casey, a prominent Australian diplomat and politician, at a Victoria psychiatric facility owned and staffed by Family cultists. Afterwards, Casey donated a large sum of money to the hospital.
Assange was compromised by law enforcement in his 20s after having been caught hacking the now-defunct Canadian telecommunications equipment giant Nortel, after which it was then discovered that Assange (whose hacker handle was “Mendax”) had also been responsible for breaching the networks of Australian telecom Telstra, MILNET/the Pentagon as well as several major American corporations and more than a few American and Australian universities. Assange racked up a prodigious amount of felonies, yet served virtually no prison time. The reason given for this was that Assange supposedly had no malicious intent, but a more plausible explanation for the courts’ leniency would be because after being discovered, Assange was “turned” and gave “technical advise” to the Victoria Police Child Exploitation unit (in other words, helped the government catch online child pornographers), after which he began writing (sabotaging?) networking and encryption software and moderating computer security forums. Odds are after such a massive bust involving American government agencies (particularly the DoD), Assange was never truly let off the hook, yet remained a prominent internet privacy advocate. 
It is extremely rare for someone accused of serious crimes in multiple countries (in the United States and Sweden on leaking/espionage and rape charges respectively) to be granted asylum by a legitimate government, in Assange’s case the Ecuadorian government. However, this isn’t the only apparent uncustomary treatment Assange has received. In 2010, while the British government was seeking to arrest Assange at the behest of INTERPOL, it seemingly allowed him to roam southeast England in plain sight for over a month despite the fact that law enforcement was aware of his whereabouts. The explanation given was incorrectly filed paperwork, but this hasn’t stopped governments with the United States breathing down their back from carrying out questionable arrests before and this conveniently gave Assange time to make arrangements for after he was arrested. Afterwards, while under house arrest awaiting bail in the UK, Assange stayed in a sprawling ten bedroom Georgian mansion supplied by Vaughan Smith, the founder of yet another dubious “independent media” organization, the Frontline Club, a highly secretive and exclusive “media club” stacked with war propagandists primarily from mainstream British media outlets. Several members of the Club were highly involved in pushing the Snowden psyop and in 2007, the Club interviewed Russian-Jewish oligarch Boris Berezovsky after he claimed to be orchestrating an apparently quite public coup against Vladimir Putin. However, there is much reason to believe that this was merely meant to further play into the anti-oligarch, anti-organized crime song and dance Putin pulls, because before Putin ascended to the Russian presidency, he met secretly with Berezovsky five times at his Spanish villa to discuss Putin’s replacing the ailing Boris Yeltsin.
In 2011, famed Zionist lawyer Alan Dershowitz, part of Jeffrey Epstein, Les Wexner and Ghislaine and Robert Maxwell’s pedophilic blackmail ring, joined Assange’s legal defense team because of Wikileaks perceived promotion of “democracy” in the Middle East, which is merely a cloak for Israel’s agenda of fracturing and dominating the Middle East.
Not only does Assange raise more than a few alarms, Wikileaks as an organization behaves in a fashion unbefitting of a legitimate whistleblower organization that at the very best suggests that Wikileaks is a merely a cynical band of digital marketers being used by and latching on to political factions and at the very worst an outright intelligence front:
Wikileaks (like Snowden and his partners in the media) release most of their information in tranches – it’s systematically doled out in a controlled fashion and release dates are opportunistically timed. This is highly suspicious behavior indicating publicity-seeking and/or cooperation with some other entity. The vast majority of whistleblowers and leakers dump all of their data at once immediately after they’re given the opportunity to release it. Most other leakers also don’t allow establishment journalists from outlets such as the New York Times (one of whom happened to be a member of the CFR and Aspen Institute) to heavily redact and edit their documents either. The content of Wikileaks material is suspect as well. Of all the Wikileaks diplomatic cable dumps, mention of Israel is curiously almost entirely absent, and instead, conveniently for Israel (even according to Benjamin Netanyahu, who says Israel “worked in advance” to prevent damage from leaks), trumped up Iranian nuclear threat propaganda is ubiquitous in its cable dumps. Perhaps this is the reason why right-wing Zionist kingmaker Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News is so friendly to Assange, on top of Assange’s friendliness towards Murdoch accessory Trump and his back-channeling with lavender mafia-linked GOP operative Roger Stone. The bottom line is that, clearly Wikileaks and/or whoever is providing Wikileaks with its content is selectively picking and choosing what to hand over. So far, all emails/documents that have been analyzed have been verified as coming where they appear to come from and lacking any alternation via authentication of cryptographic signatures attached to all emails, but with Wikileak’s possible intelligence connections and background, it (or, more likely, whoever leaked the emails to them in the first place) could very well have knowledge of various proprietary cryptographic hash functions, meaning they could’ve effectively ‘forged’ authentication signatures across many email clients.
Wikileaks is hypocritically opaque and obfuscatory about how it raises and handles funds. It taps less than 5 percent of funds received through PayPal and bank money transfers (not even bothering to pay for Chelsea Manning’s legal defense). And, according to a Wikileaks funds manager, it also likely receives sizable off-the-books donations from private sources. Even funds it procures from the public at large are collected and obscured in a complex roundabout method through the Wau Holland Foundation, a Hamburg-based nonprofit and freedom of information advocacy group. John Young of the genuine leak website Cryptome noted a pattern of behavior exhibited by Wikileaks that is similar to that of intelligence agencies and fronts. Other Wikileaks insiders have remarked on Cryptome that there is much internal strife within Wikileaks itself over Julian Assange’s mystifying and erratic behavior as well as his near total control over the group’s finances.
Ever since its inception, Wikileaks has insisted that anyone who gifts leaks to them sign a nondisclosure agreement, making unpublished leaked material “solely the property of Wikileaks.” This means that Wikileaks has full control over anything they manage to get their hands on – they can destroy it, selectively publish material, release it in tranches (not typical of real whistleblowers), etc. and there’s nothing the originator of the leaks can do about it lest they be financially and legally ruined by Wikileaks. This is a massive indicator of a sham whistleblower operation.
When Wikileaks was initially formed, it stated that it’s primary aim was to release leaked documents coming out of “China, Russia, and oppressive regimes in Eurasia, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa”, all of which incidentally happen to be the foremost targets of US intelligence, leaving out maybe only Latin America. When it initially launched, Wikileaks itself claimed to have been “founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.” Its advisory board “[included] representatives from expatriate Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers.”
Wikileaks’ recent ‘Vault 7’ CIA document dump laying out hundreds of putative CIA hacking tools appears to be nothing more than a classic limited hangout and probably partially fraudulent. Almost every single hacking technique, vulnerability and exploit “exposed” in the Vault 7 leak had been known to cybersecurity experts for years and some of the content within the documents appears to have been lifted straight off of Reddit, a disinformation hive which is itself one of the foremost proliferators and progenitors of a variety of comical Wikileaks-based conspiracy theories.
Wikileaks, as discussed in the Snowden section of this article, is intimately connected to the national security state derived and funded internet privacy hactivist movement, anchored by Edward Snowden, Pierre Omidyar, Glenn Greenwald/The Intercept, the EFF, FPF, Tor, BGG, etc.
Of course, Wikileaks is only one half of the story. It leaks the documents and emails and the defense-connected Trump digital campaign propagates them and weaves a lunatic narrative around them. The two primary anchors of the right-wing populist digital campaign (as far as we know) are Robert Mercer/Cambridge Analytica and Peter Thiel/Palantir. Before being hired by the Trump campaign (likely through its owner, Robert Mercer’s relationship with media manipulator Steve Bannon), Cambridge Analytica was employed by the Ted Cruz campaign and the pro-Brexit campaign in the UK. Analytica’s London-based parent company, SCL Group, has been involved in orchestrating military disinformation campaigns and devising “psychological warfare” techniques for the British defense establishment. Analytica essentially infers traits about internet users through analyzing browsing history, location data, purchasing habits, etc. as well as unstructured data (such as full text) in order to tailor political messages to them in a discriminate fashion. Palantir, founded and owned by PayPal co-founder turned venture capital billionaire futurist and Facebook board member Peter Thiel, is a large analytics/data mining firm contracted almost exclusively by the intelligence community (the CIA in particular), law enforcement and large banks. It is basically one of the key analytics and information processing arms of the intelligence community – it’s software is used (using the intelligence community’s gargantuan dragnet and social media user data as inputs) to detect and predict target behavior. Peter Thiel is one of Trump’s closest advisors and served on his transition team. Thiel has demonstrated that he has extensive knowledge of Trump’s analytics-driven digital media campaign, which isn’t surprising given the fact that “Thiel employees” (read: Palantir) have been seconded to work for the Trump campaign. All political candidates now utilize analytics, but the Trump campaign very likely had an upper hand having scored two (and possibly more) intelligence-connected analytics firms, which naturally will have larger data sets to toy with.
Both Cambridge Analytica and Palantir specialize in data analytics/data mining (which is essentially teasing meaningful patterns out of data) and machine learning (which is computers “learning” to generate original predictive models) which, within the context of politics, apply to psychographics (classifying people for targeting), message tailoring, sentiment manipulation, etc. This digital media campaign (along with Hillary Clinton’s) certainly featured underhanded techniques such as click farming, creating fake social media accounts/bots (almost half of Trump’s Twitter followers are bots), permeating the internet, Facebook, Twitter, etc. with suspect articles and so forth. According to federal investigators currently looking into the use of bots in the 2016 presidential campaign, bot-engineered traffic to sites such as Breitbart (which is partially owned by Robert Mercer), Infowars, RT, SputnikNews, 4chan, Reddit, YourNewsWire, Voat, etc. was a significant driver of many of the pro-Trump and anti-Clinton viral stories surrounding the election (e.g. Pizzagate, Hillary’s health, George Soros voting machines, etc.) and that it may have been “one of the most highly impactful information operations in the history of intelligence.” Of course, this is all being chalked up to an exclusively “Russian” operation based out of St. Petersburg. While some operational headquarters may very well have been based out of Russia and it may be true that Russia was used as a proxy or staging area, the real story is with Cambridge Analytica and Peter Thiel, who are both in a position in the Trump inner circle and within the analytics/internet manipulation fields to serve as architects of this kind of sophisticated digital misinformation campaign. These kind of technologies paired with high-end analytics and data mining is probably the main reason that Trump garnered so much support online and how so many pro-Trump and anti-Clinton articles went viral. So what are some of the alt-right fever dream misinformation conspiracies that have gone viral as a result of Wikileaks likely in conjunction with Palantir/Analytica?
The most infamous is probably Pizzagate, the lurid theory originating from fake Twitter accounts and ludicrous anonymous 4chan posts that John Podesta in league with James Alefantis was running a child sex ring out of Alefantis’ Comet Ping Pong pizza restaurant. It is entirely predicated upon the Wikileaks-released leaked Podesta emails, which the proliferators of the theory fabricated a pedophile code language off of. Of course, the idea that any kind of child sex ring – especially one involving high-level political operatives and politicians – would ever be operated out of a heavily trafficked consumer-facing commercial location or orchestrated over Gmail using identifiable email addresses (whose passwords weren’t even changed until months after leaks began) is patently absurd on the face of it. But this of course didn’t stop legions of self-styled “independent investigators”, “pedophile watchdogs” and “internet sleuths” from running with the idea and continuing to elaborate and build out the bogus conspiracy by correlating generic logos for Comet Ping Pong and surrounding restaurants with pedophile symbols, attempting to construe pedophilia references from Instagram posts, falsely claiming that several outlandish paintings appearing to reference pedophilia were owned by John Podesta, etc., etc. Pizzagate as well virtually every other sensational conspiracy blathered on about by the Pizzagate ilk are cleverly implanted in people’s heads through the introduction of bizarre observations that wouldn’t have been made by anyone hadn’t the idea been suggested.
Roger Stone, an astoundingly underhanded (even for politics) GOP operative and long-time collaborator of Donald Trump’s introduced to him by prominent right-wing power structure installation and blackmail ring operator, Roy Cohn, likely featured heavily in the insertion of the Pizzagate narrative into public discourse. Stone has a colorful history of inventing stories and was, according to John Podesta himself, tipped off to the release of John Podesta’s emails by Julian Assange, or at the very lease had some kind of foreknowledge. Why would this purported non-political hactivist Assange slip information to one of the GOP’s most notorious tricksters? It certainly makes more sense within the framework of Wikileaks and Assange being effective intelligence operations.
For a highly detailed refutation of Pizzagate, see this article.
The Twitter post that initially sparked the Pizzagate theory referenced the FBI’s investigation into Anthony Weiner’s laptop as being part of a wider investigation into pedophilia. This is utterly false, but it’s worth pointing out that Anthony Weiner (and his wife Huma Abedin) could very well have been the target of an orchestrated right-wing hacking and/or entrapment campaign. The metadata in the “leaked” photos of him on Yfrog and Twitter indicate that his Twitter account was indeed hacked and his Facebook account had been hacked a week earlier. Additionally, the New York Post, part of Rupert Murdoch’s right-wing media empire, has been on top of many of the Weiner embarrassments from the beginning. It has inexplicably and mysteriously obtained many text and Twitter private message conversations between Weiner and one of his unidentified victims – the New York Post does not explain how it came into possession of the conversations, which is standard practice. There’s two possibilities – 1) the “mystery brunette”, who is supposedly a Trump supporter and NRA member, was a provocateur sent in to entrap and embarrass Weiner (however, she has never acknowledged leaking the conversations); or 2) the New York Post obtained the conversations through hackers. If this is the case, the illicitly obtained conversations likely came from within Rupert Murdoch’s vast electronic surveillance and hacking network which was exposed in the UK in 2010-2011 causing a massive scandal and extends to Murdoch’s media assets in the US as well.
Roger Stone and the Trump misinformation grid’s fingerprints are all over another Wikileaks story as well – the DNC leaks. Stone admitted to having talked privately with “Guccifer 2.0”, which is supposedly a composite identity for two Russian hackers, “Fancy Bear” and “Cozy Bear”, both of whom are, according to the intelligence community, responsible for hacking the DNC and Emmanuel Macron’s campaign (whose emails were also leaked by Wikileaks). The claim that “Russians” were responsible for hacking Macron is very likely false given the fact that the head of France’s cyber-security agency told the Associated Press that “no trace” of Russian meddling and that it could have been “practically anyone”. In reality, nobody on the outside knows exactly who is responsible for this recent wave of breaches. The government has presented virtually zero evidence that the Russian government was behind the hacks of either the DNC or Macron’s campaign. If this truly were the work of sophisticated hackers deployed or hired by Russia, the NSA, CIA and/or FBI could provide evidence and detailed analysis of the attack and exfiltration and how the stolen data was routed and be able to present it in such a way that it would not compromise their methods or sources.
Because the DNC refused to give the FBI access to their servers to investigate the incident, the only “evidence” we have for Russian involvement is the analysis of the attack by Crowdstrike, a cybersecurity firm whose chief technical officer is a senior fellow with the anti-Russia think tank, The Atlantic Council. Crowdstrike’s own evidence is weak and inconclusive – Cyrillic text files, known Russian or Ukrainian cryptographic keys, Russian IP addresses, etc. could very easily have been the result of actors using proxies, the result of outsourced hackers or intentionally left in the server logs by someone who knew what they were doing so as to make it appear that Russia or anyone else was behind the attack (something that intelligence agencies are known to do), while in reality the attack could possibly have been orchestrated/directed by one of the spook entities surrounding Donald Trump, such as the Mossad, neocon-Zionist CIA spook James Woolsey, Peter Thiel or Erik Prince of Blackwater infamy. Even if the hackers were Russian, this means very little and certainly does not translate into Russian state support or sanctioning of the attacks – many for-hire hackers are located Russia and throughout Eastern Europe. But the bottom line is that any hacker that knows what they’re doing knows how to cover their tracks, meaning the indications that the hack originated from Russia are there for a reason, perhaps to serve as a smokescreen for deeper covert domestic involvement in the election.
The right-wing misinformation network, in contrast to the mainstream media’s Russia obsession, thrust the notion that deceased DNC staffer Seth Rich was the source of the DNC leak and that he passed the leaked trove along to Wikileaks (there is no hard evidence to support this). While Rich’s death was suspicious, the dubiousness of the Wikileaks angle of the story almost begins to compete with Pizzagate. All of the characters in the story are seemingly involved in an incestuous self-reinforcing circle. Rich’s family was put in touch with private investigator Rod Wheeler (the main source of the assertion that Rich was the leak) through Dallas businessman Ed Butowsky, a (surprise surprise) Fox commentator and Breitbart columnist. Butowsky additionally funded Wheeler, who himself is a Fox News contributor. Rich’s family claims that Kim Dotcom, the self-proclaimed “internet entrepreneur” of Megaupload fame living essentially in exile in New Zealand, attempted to hack their son’s email account presumably to plant evidence suggesting Rich was Wikileaks’ DNC source. A supposed FBI file investigating the relationship between Rich and Wikileaks made the rounds in the alternative media, but was later found to be fake.
Snowden, Wikileaks, Assange, Trump – what do they all have in common? They’ve all been undeniably built up by both the controlled fourth estate/mainstream media and alternative media, which, contrary to what many of the phony digital marketers and publicity seekers in the altmedia would have you believe, is highly manipulated by behind the scenes characters like Robert Mercer and completely vulnerable to digital traffic-engineering campaigns which are, unbeknown to most, regularly coordinated by political campaigns, intelligence agencies/assets, digital marketing groups, corporations, PR firms, etc. Anyone with a sense of discernment would notice the contradiction between these kinds of characters’ purported political outsider renegade anti-establishment status and the fact that they’re perpetually broadcast in the media to the public. While it is true that a large part of the reason for this is the fact that the public loves a hero, but the question must be asked – why are these people and groups specifically so favored while others are shut out of public discourse entirely? My answer is that the ones who do somehow make it through the filter are always in some way sanctioned because all of them without exception have covert deep state ties which are always buried by the media itself.
 Trump tweet highlights complex relationship with Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos
This post is part of a two-part series. Read Part Two on Wikileaks and its relation with the Trump media complex here.
A rather prominent theme in the news the past half decade (and particularly the past couple years) has been computer hacking and government document leaks, ranging from Wikileaks to supposed Russian hacking to Snowden/NSA leaks to a constant barrage of stories fearmongering over the alleged vulnerability of critical infrastructures to being hacked by North Korea, ISIS, Russia, or whatever other bogeyman happens to be the flavor of the day. As with pretty much anything else, coverage of supposed heroic renegade hactivists, whistleblowers and leakers is full of half-truths and subtle yet critical omissions and behind every accusation and every ostensibly “pro-transparency” leak and internet privacy advocacy outfit is a hidden agenda and several layers of intrigue that must be carefully dissected.
Edward Snowden is, in large part, the foundational myth upon which the whistleblower and internet privacy communities are based and has spawned or mainstreamed a menagerie of “pro-transparency” and internet privacy advocacy organizations and media outlets. Sure, many existed pre-Snowden, but Snowden popularized the issue and propelled many of today’s preeminent leak outlets (most notably The Intercept) into the mainstream as well as promoted (government compromised and likely partially backdoored) internet privacy tools such as Tor to the wider population. But before discussing legacy spook involvement in internet privacy, it’s important to establish some of the reasons why the Snowden story simply doesn’t add up and why the Snowden revelations were likely a limited hangout operation intended to lure those concerned with institutionalized electronic eavesdropping into honeypots, among other reasons.
Snowden’s background and story are filled with incongruities and inconsistencies and he clearly exaggerated his role in intelligence and intelligence contractor circles – he claimed to have been an ‘infrastructure analyst’ and ‘chief technologist’ conjuring up methods of working around electronic security systems, but the core of his work was as a less than glorious system administrator, of which there are about 1,000 employed by or contracted out by the NSA (meaning that about 1 in 40 NSA employees are system administrators). Despite this, a general picture can be sussed out. He was born into a family of lifelong federal government and military employees and lived near to NSA headquarters at Fort Meade throughout most of his childhood and adolescence. Perhaps this family background explains how Snowden was able to, early in his life, land highly technical jobs that typically require at least a 4-year degree and a decent amount of relevant experience without either. Snowden had muddled and cavalier political views and attitudes – he displayed some libertarian tendencies, supported Ron Paul’s economic policies and virulently despised Barack Obama, in particular his action to place “a politician” in charge of the CIA (referring to Leon Panetta). He was active on Arstechnica’s forums from 2001 through 2012, where he, on top of having generally been “a dick”, exhibited at least up until 2009 strong support for the national security apparatus, American covert operations in the Middle East (particularly Iran) and at one point claimed that leakers “should be shot in the balls.” This is all in clear contradiction to the restrained, highly tailored rhetoric wherein he vaunted the practice of whistlelowing and the polished, refined persona Snowden began putting out in 2013, indicating some kind of deception (i.e., putting on an act) and perhaps coaching.
This isn’t to say that Snowden was fully aware of the entire scheme, in fact he may have had pure intentions and perhaps did on his own accord begin collecting documents to leak, but was discovered and compromised at some point along the way and brought into a limited hangout operation. It’s rather hard to believe that, having been downloading top secret documents onto flash drives for over year, Snowden could have gotten away with what he did without ever being caught. As a system administrator at both Dell (which has an NSA contracting division) and Booz Allen, Snowden had elevated privileges beyond that of your average analyst – he had root access to whichever systems he worked on as well as the NSA’s intranet (it’s internal communications network separate from the internet). However, this doesn’t fully explain how Snowden accessed and exfiltrated everything he did. In order to gain access to documents in systems he didn’t have access to, Snowden allegedly convinced other NSA contractors to give him their system user passwords, giving him access to their self-signed SSH/secure shell certificates (SSH is a network cryptographic and security protocol that essentially authenticates users), after which he was able to combine them with his own fabricated SSH keys to successfully exfiltrate the documents.
This is a possible (but still somewhat doubtful in the context of the NSA) explanation for how Snowden gained access to the documents, but further problems arise when you consider the fact that this highly illegal activity was going on for over a year at two different employers and that Snowden was regularly downloading documents onto flash storage and taking them out of his building. The NSA doesn’t rely only on passwords and network security protocols to keep data secure. It also employs highly sophisticated threat detection systems and software (in addition to human supervisors) that monitor and analyze file storage and network traffic, detecting anomalous patterns indicating suspicious behavior (which surely includes downloading large amounts of data onto flash storage, irregular SSH certs, failed login attempts, etc.). All of this indicates that Snowden’s stealing of documents was perhaps sanctioned and facilitated by some higher authority, or that his entire story was simply fabricated and that all of the documents were preloaded for him by someone else. Or, perhaps, Snowden was conveniently reassigned by the NSA to a location (Hawaii) where the latest in threat detection software was allegedly not installed so that he could more easily get away with what he did. This could merely be an excuse thought up by the NSA’s PR team, and you would still have to account for how Snowden was able to get away with downloading tens of thousands of documents while in Maryland in early 2012 before he moved to Hawaii, but it’s still worth considering nonetheless.
After obtaining leave from work under the guise of getting epilepsy treatment, Snowden fled to Hong Kong (of all places to flee the US government from) where he worked with Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian in releasing the first tranche of documents as well as filming the documentary Citizenfour. In Hong Kong, Snowden instructed his lawyers to reach out to Wikileaks – another problematic leak outlet which will be discussed later – which was responsible for obtaining special refugee papers for Snowden, knowing he would likely end up a stateless person. Sarah Harrison, Julian Assange’s top aide, was dispatched to Hong Kong to interface with Snowden and Greenwald & associates. Harrison accompanied Snowden on his flight to Moscow from Hong Kong, which Snowden only boarded because the US government curiously waited to revoke his passport until he had already left the somewhat cooperative Hong Kong for Moscow on June 22, two weeks after he had come out as The Guardian’s source.
By far the most telling aspect of the Snowden case is the anomalous treatment he received from the media – firstly, the utterly enormous deluge of coverage and free advertising Snowden received from the mainstream media is in complete contradiction with how the press treated previous legitimate whistleblowers such as Tom Drake, William Binney, etc. Not only that, but a chorus of support rang out for Snowden – he was exalted by much of the press and propelled into celebrity status, and this positive coverage easily drowned out the shrill cries of right-wing national security boosters to hang Snowden in the middle of Times Square. This exceptional media treatment of Snowden is probably the most suspicious part of the Snowden narrative and very strongly suggests that there is more than meets the eye with this far-fetched character.
Snowden’s collaborators in the media who have been responsible for the methodical, staggered release of the leaked documents are even more questionable than Snowden himself. Glenn Greenwald, who allegedly initially turned Snowden down because he couldn’t be bothered to communicate with Snowden over encrypted email, later came crawling back to him after Snowden contacted filmmaker Laura Poitras. Greenwald, in league with Snowden, is releasing documents at a glacial pace (first and foremost to milk them for all the ad revenue they’re worth). Many of these documents have been published through The Intercept, Greenwald’s joint venture with the reticent national security apparatus connected billionaire and eBay founder, Pierre Omidyar. Omidyar, through his Omidyar Network (which is essentially a lobbying effort seeking political influence), provides funding for The Intercept as well as many other ostensible internet privacy and government whistleblower support groups, such as the Freedom of the Press Foundation, First Look Media and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and actively facilitates overseas USAID ventures, most notably aiding it in funding revolutionary Ukrainian groups prior to the 2014 overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych. Omidyar frequented the Obama White House, clocking in more (official) visits than even Warren Buffet or Google’s Eric Schmidt and only one less visit than alt media phantasm, George Soros.
Omidyar and his network (and therefore Greenwald indirectly) have several worrying connections to Snowden’s former employer, Booz Allen Hamilton. The first are through Globant, a Latin American software development outsourcing firm, and Innocentive, a Massachusetts-based contract R&D firm:
Sal Gambianco, one of the principal investment partners with the Omidyar Network, actually sits on the board of advisors of Globant, a software company in which both the Omidyar Network and Booz Allen Hamilton, Snowden’s former employer, are major shareholders. Philip Odeen, one of the Booz Allen Hamilton board members, also sits on the Board of Directors of Globant. The Omidyar Network and Booz Allen Hamilton are also both major investors in Innocentive.
Omidyar’s Hawaiian venture capital fund, the Ulupono Initiative, which regularly hosts defense contractor expos in Hawaii, lists a former Booz Allen vice president as a general partner. As if it couldn’t get any more incestuous, in 2015, one of Edward Snowden’s former bosses (a director at Booz Allen’s Hawaii branch where Snowden was previously employed) was named an Omidyar Fellow.
The above information comports with a generalized pattern of government/military development and financing of internet privacy technology and tools. Many today are aware of Silicon Valley and the technology industry’s concert with the national security/defense apparatus as well as the fact that much of the industry and the technology it is founded upon were seeded in military/defense research labs and/or funded and loosely directed in some way by government. The most instructive example today is probably Google, which originated as a Department of Defense directed and funded data mining project, received significant funding from the DoD in its early years as a company and to this day remains a multi billion dollar intelligence contractor and collaborator in government research (although Google’s PR team has made sure to keep this for the most part obscured). Seemingly every single major technology company has at one point consulted with, received funding from or adopted executives or researchers from the Pentagon (DARPA most often), In-Q-Tel (the CIA’s venture capital arm) or the Highlands Forum (the Pentagon’s unofficial, highly secretive technology think tank). This of course all flies in the face of the trendy, funky and pure image the technology industry has fostered – behind the smokescreen of bean bag chairs, free-spirited dresscodes, organic lunches, pro-privacy tokenism and free market innovation overtones and innuendo is something quite sinister.
For an in-depth analysis of the relationship between the technology sector (in particular Google) and the intelligence & defense communities, read Nafeez Ahmed’s excellent, comprehensive two-part series:
However, fewer are aware of the intelligence community’s bolstering of popular internet privacy advocacy groups and anonymity tools, in financial, engineering/development and advertising capacities. The most glaring example is anonymous communications network Tor, which is endlessly promulgated by Edward Snowden, who admitted to running multiple Tor exit nodes while at the NSA. A Tor sticker is displayed prominently on his laptop, and, bizarrely, while in Hawaii in the process of stealing a trove of top secret documents, Snowden contacted a Tor developer in an attempt to get more of his NSA colleagues to begin setting up their own personal Tor nodes.
The NSA, GCHQ, FBI and probably many other intelligence entities throughout the globe run a significant portion of Tor nodes and in particular exit nodes, which fully decrypt traffic after it’s been circuitously routed through the Tor network, giving them the capability to potentially infer through web request information and other traffic (such as that of targeted servers) the IP address that the request came from (thus defeating the purpose of Tor) as well as the ability to stage man-in-the-middle attacks to compromise passwords. Through statistical analysis/traffic correlation, intelligence agencies and even academic researchers running fake (or, in the NSA’s case more likely compromised) websites/servers and observing the traffic exiting the Tor network have been able to determine at a very high rate of success the beginning and endpoints at which traffic flows through the Tor network, thus compromising anonymity. Tor is known to be totally defenseless against adversaries observing and correlating traffic entering and exiting the Tor network, a capability the NSA very often has given the fact that it runs a significant number of Tor nodes, has compromised many websites/servers and internet users, and taps virtually every major internet exchange point – all of these are a rich source of traffic to analyze and correlate, making it that much easier. And it’s not just the NSA and GCHQ Tor should be worried about – part of the FBI’s Silk Road operation included taking complete control of a server run in the Tor cloud, something Tor claims is impossible to do.
Curious then that Edward Snowden vigorously proselytizes an anonymity tool that he must know the NSA has at least partially compromised even according to one of the documents he leaked. (Although I, for one, am skeptical of the veracity of some of the documents for the reasons above.) The NSA itself suggests that it would be “counterproductive” if Tor were to be discouraged because it concentrates many of its targets into one convenient pot. After this document was authored, a fishy former NSA contractor comes out ceaselessly promoting Tor without cautioning his audience that it doesn’t in the slightest guarantee end-to-end anonymity and is not an end-to-end encryption protocol. Additionally, according to a German expose, the NSA exploits the existence Tor and another anonymity tools and networks by tracking near everyone who downloads the software in order to more efficiently narrow down a range of targets.
Tor in fact originated as a mid-90s Naval Research Laboratory project that intended to prevent assorted intelligence and law enforcement operatives from being unmasked while using the internet (i.e., providing cover for intelligence gathering as well as for deployed agents accessing the internet). In 2002, two MIT graduates on contract from DARPA and the US Naval Research Laboratory came on board and spawned what is today known as Tor and were responsible for expanding its size and scope and therefore its use beyond spooks to foreign agents, hackers, activists, drug dealers, child pornographers, terrorists, etc. Not only did it cloak American intelligence operatives using the internet, it also became a veritable honeypot. Later, in the mid-2000s, Naval Research officially disassociated itself from Tor and handed its management over to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which proceeded along with Tor’s developers to omit and downplay Tor’s origins and original intended use and instead quite literally marketed it as an online anonymity tool for anti-surveillance digital crusaders.
“I forgot to mention earlier something that will make you look at me in a new light. I contract for the United States Government to built anonymity technology for them and deploy it. They don’t think of it as anonymity technology, although we use that term. They think of it as security technology. They need these technologies so they can research people they are interested in, so they can have anonymous tip lines, so that they can buy things from people without other countries knowing what they are buying, how much they are buying and where it is going, that sort of thing.” – Roger Dingledine, principal Tor developer
To this day, Tor (as well as dozens of other trendy anonymity apps and tools such as CryptoCat and Open Whisper Systems) is almost entirely funded by the defense-surveillance apparatus (100% if you count Google as part of that apparatus) and therefore all of its employees and developers work indirectly for the national security state. Among its underwriters include the DoD/Pentagon, State Department, Google, Stanford Research Institute (a Pentagon satellite institution) and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, a CIA spin-off and successor to the former official US propaganda agency, the USIA of Radio Free Asia and Radio Free Europe infamy. The BGG is primarily involved in funding the counterfeit internet privacy marketing infrastructure through organizations like the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which works round-the-clock to promote tools like Tor and foster its pro-privacy image and was, interestingly enough, founded the very same week Edward Snowden emailed Glenn Greenwald for the intent purpose of funding Wikileaks.
“The original *QUESTION* posed that led to the invention of Onion Routing was, “Can we build a system that allows for bi-directional communications over the Internet where the source and destination cannot be determined by a mid-point?” The *PURPOSE* was for DoD / Intelligence usage (open source intelligence gathering, covering of forward deployed assets, whatever). Not helping dissidents in repressive countries. Not assisting criminals in covering their electronic tracks. Not helping bit-torrent users avoid MPAA/RIAA prosecution. Not giving a 10 year old a way to bypass an anti-porn filter. Of course, we knew those would be other unavoidable uses for the technology, but that was immaterial to the problem at hand we were trying to solve (and if those uses were going to give us more cover traffic to better hide what we wanted to use the network for, all the better…I once told a flag officer that much to his chagrin).” – Michael Reed, an inventor of “onion routing”
A critical link between the Tor-Pentagon-Snowden nexus and Wikileaks is Jacob Appelbaum, a Tor developer whose salary is provided by Pentagon and State Department grants and travels the world giving Tor-centered anonymity training sessions to pro-Western “activists” and officials in repressive states such as Qatar, yet brands himself as a punk rock hactivist rebel. Appelbaum has been an important ambassador between the Tor-Snowden camp and Wikileaks and an important Wikileaks volunteer – he’s vigorously promoted Wikileaks as he’s traveled the world giving speeches and presentations in addition to aiding it in installing Tor technology on its servers.
Appelbaum spends much of each year leading Tor training sessions around the world, often conducted in secrecy to protect activists whose lives are in danger. Some, like the sex-worker advocates from Southeast Asia he tutored, had limited knowledge of computers. Others, like a group of students Appelbaum trained at a seminar in Qatar, are highly sophisticated: One worked on the government’s censorship network, another works for a national oil company, and a third created an Al-Jazeera message board that allows citizens to post comments anonymously.
Given that the Snowden leaks didn’t really reveal much that we didn’t already know from William Binney, Tom Drake, James Bamford as well as whistleblowers from other agencies and exposes from the ’70s onward about the “Five Eyes”/ECHELON comprehensive electronic surveillance network – Snowden’s contribution was largely revealing meaninglessly broad technicalities, a few impressive special purpose NSA toys, and putting official internal names to the NSA’s activities, most of which had already been exposed and were already known by those interested. So, how materially damaging apart from a medium-term PR crisis the Snowden leaks was to the NSA and surveillance state is debatable (if anything, it instilled a sense of awe in people over its technical capabilities). So, perhaps the NSA/DoD permitted and controlled the Snowden leak so as to lure more people (read: targets) into using a basket of Pentagon-compromised, spook-funded trendy anonymity tools, most notably Tor, and away from legitimate anonymity tools and more conventional (and typically safer) VPN technology. If it’s true, as is suspected, that the intelligence community has indeed totally or even partially compromised most anonymity tools (Tor, VPN, etc.) as well as encryption protocols, then Snowden’s purpose could have been to manipulate its target base into adopting these compromised technologies to more easily trace targets through the use of these tools and assemble them in one convenient location. Of course, it’s one thing to determine that a story is fishy or that critical information is being withheld, but an entirely different thing to determine why deception is occurring – we can only theorize as to why it is and come up with our own conjecture.
The second part of this series covers Wikileaks, the media and their relationship with Donald Trump.
 In 2009, Ed Snowden said leakers “should be shot.” Then he became one
Wikileaks’ with their continual publication of Clinton/Democrat camp has become an increasingly important component of the Trump media complex, which, as I’ve explained in previous posts, is intimately connected to numerous high impact right-wing political circles (such as the CNP, John Birch Society proteges) and, in probably many cases, intelligence. Wikileaks and its unusual figurehead and supposed founder Julian Assange like their peers in the sidestream/alternative media have a long list of curious associations and a pattern of behavior unbefitting of a true transparency/leak organization.
It’s useful to start off with covering Assange’s background, although it is difficult to determine what is exaggerated or flat-out fabricated folklore and what isn’t. When Assange was a child his mother married into a Melbourne-based mind control cult called “The Family” which supposedly had moles in government, was seemingly protected by law enforcement for many years, obtained multiple passports for its members (who often had multiple identities), “cared for” the head of Australian intelligence Lord Casey at one point, and received a significant amount of secret funding (to this day, no one knows where most of The Family’s funding came from). Later, in his late teens and early 20s, Assange supposedly hacked into a number of large Australian and American companies and government bodies including the DoD and the largest telecommunications firm in Australia, Telstra. He racked up a prodigious amount of felonies while doing so, yet served basically no prison time because he was “well-behaved”. This “good behavior” involved giving “technical advise” to the Victoria Police Child Exploitation unit. This is a pattern seen often in intelligence assets – they are compromised early in life and given a choice to stay in prison for the next however many years or work for the intelligence services.
After disappearing off the radar for a while, Assange emerged from hibernation in the mid-2000s with the founding of Wikileaks after a barrage of real leaks did the government a lot of damage (Abu Ghraib, for example). Ever since its inception, Wikileaks has insisted that anyone who gifts leaks to them sign a nondisclosure agreement, making unpublished leaked material “solely the property of Wikileaks.” This means that Wikileaks has full control over anything they manage to get their hands on – they can destroy it, selectively publish material, release it in tranches (not typical of real whistleblowers), etc. and there’s nothing the originator of the leaks can do about it lest they be financially and legally ruined by Wikileaks. This is a massive indicator of a phony intelligence-backed whistleblower operation. It is around this time that John Young of Cryptome (a real leak site) called out Wikileaks as an intelligence operation.
Another indication is the ubiquitous coverage of Wikileaks in the sidestream and mainstream media. The sidestream media, given its intelligence connections and pro-Trump prerogative, is expected to push Wikileaks. The mainstream media (which includes Fox News) promotes Wikileaks as well by giving it coverage, as they have been doing with Trump. Real whistleblowers and real leaks get blacked out and ignored like the plague by the mainstream media, not put on Fox News multiple times and mentioned by Anderson Cooper in a presidential debate. Legitimate leakers also typically don’t communicate constantly and coordinate with political operatives like Roger Stone, release leaks in tranches, get to live in multi million dollar equivalent English mansions, and meander around Europe flaunting themselves in the faces of law enforcement authorities supposedly out for him (for sexual assault charges in Sweden) and then receive asylum from a legitimate government. Real leakers typically must hide in caves or third world backwaters halfway around the world if they even have a chance to leave their country.
Additionally, Wikileaks seems to be selectively releasing material for the purposes of undermining Hillary Clinton. Given the fact that it’s by far the most well-known whistleblowing organization on earth, Wikileaks likely has material pertaining to the GOP and Donald Trump, but refuses to release it. Of course, much of what has been released of the Democrats’ has been supremely underwhelming (mostly garden variety political dirty tricks media-campaign buddying which exists with Trump as well) and does not at all support the sidestream media’s assertion that John Podesta is “the shadow government” (he is a very powerful shadow democrat, but not the shadow government).