Friday, April 12, 2019


Yesterday morning, we woke up to the (delightful) news that Russian GRU asset and creator of Russian intelligence front Wikileaks, Julian Assange, was arrested and calmly escorted from the Ecuadorian embassy.

Included in the indightment:




The mainstream media failed in several ways.  Some got caught up in the information op.  Some believed that what Wikileaks and its creator Julian Assange were doing was somehow real journalism.  Others were participants in the op, trustwashing Wikileaks and Assange despite warnings from experts in the intelligence community who had all of a sudden become, according to their narratives, America's number one enemies rather than defenders.

And so now we're at a crossroads, America.

We can continue to go down this "America's Deep State is evil" road, ignoring the now well-vetted histories of malicious actors like Eric Lichtblau, James Risen, Julian Assange, Ed Snowden and Glenn Greenwald.  Or, we can objectively reassess the past and admit we were fooled.

From this point forward, arguing that hacking into a Department of Defense database somehow qualifies as legitimate journalism is not only farcical, it's downright seditious.  We KNOW better now.  There are no more excuses.

Nevertheless, the trust-washers are coming out of the woodwork.  Not only do they not belong in journalism, they should be relegated to history's trashbin, alongside Alex Jones, where they can no longer contaminate America's information space and social media.

So let's call them out. Let's take a look at these stalwarts who continue to peddle "Deep State" rubbish.

Of course, there's Johnny-on-the-spot, Russia Today (also known as Russian state media) who was outside the Ecuadorian embassy and quick to jump to Assange's defense, along with Russia's faithful lapdog Ed Snowden.

On the more humorous side, we have Pamela Anderson, who even once visited Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy.  Among Assange's supporters, Anderson's advocacy is roughly equivalent with any of Assange's other supporters, in terms of credibility.  Call it a lesson in carefully choosing who you want to go to bat for.

If you've followed my work, you know I've been calling out subversive behavior inside MSNBC.  So Ari's tweet really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone:

This one shouldn't really come as a surprise, either:

Nor this:

Or this:

Sensible journalists are retreating from Assange and Wikileaks, because there's simply no logical argument that can justify espionage as journalism.  Anyone doubling down at this point, reinforcing doubt in our law enforcement and intelligence communities, is showing their hand.

So I'll let you enjoy the showdown and judge for yourself.  Take close note of the holdouts, the trust-washers and their actions.  They're the same people we've been warning you about for YEARS...


  1. I note the 'free' 'freedom' 'democracy' keyword appearing a lot in that mix, almost seems like the Kremlin talking point for the Ron Paul types: (see also D. Peskov: “From our point of view, [Assange’s arrest] does not correspond to ideals of media freedom and integrity,” and M. Zakharova: "The hand of ‘democracy’ squeezes the throat of freedom”)

    1. I Know what you mean. And one sees that an awful lot with the orgs collecting donations for these characters.

  2. I think there is also a point to be made about who is a useful idiot deserving re-education, and who is an agent provocateur who knows what they are doing. The first group deserves some measure of freedom of speech protection; the latter is just a hair below treason / espionage. I believe in the constitution but the fact that we treat it like some kind of religious document is what makes these kinds of information attacks feasible.

    1. I still kind of see the Constitution as a religious document, TBH.

      In my opinion, information warfare crosses into uncharted legal territory. For example, what is seditious speech? I would argue that speech occurring in tandem with racketeering, money laundering and directly-funded foreign influence for the purposes of directly influencing the country's internal politics is seditious.

      Given the sophisticated nature of information warfare, there need to be very specific guidelines that define when influence peddling becomes seditious speech. The media has failed spectacularly in self moderating themselves.

      I would add that the extent to which my own voice has been silenced is difficult for even me to believe sometimes. And I'm not just referring to Twitter, who has permanently banned me. I'm also referring to Google, who will not allow me to monetize this website. I hate to sound conspiratorial, but how else am I to see it? It is almost impossible for me to expand my audience and get my message out at this point.

      So yes, the system is broken. And I know this because I know that my message, at least as far as normals go, is one of the most accurate. But the most influential information conduits view me as a hostile entity.

    2. Once a brother fighting for democracy, always a brother and never forgotten.

      Been experiencing an overwhelming frustration over the white-washing media who are blind to transnational organized crime, and how it relates to Russia's fuqqed economy and influences over Family Klan tRUmp.

      They are pathetically incompetent or paid actors of a different sort.

      Hope u continue to shine light on TOC. You seem to be in the hot seat there in ur neck of the woods. Be well.

    3. I can totally get on board with the idea about seditious speech. But how do you suss out people who really believe something from people who are injecting that discourse into a body politic / online community on behalf of a foreign power? And I only say the religious document piece because it seems like it would be possible to identify and prosecute such bad actors but we don't at a criminal justice or political level because it is enshrined in the constitution of our free and open society. Contrary to that, there is also too much secrecy and people don't share what is known.

      That said I see people in senior intel roles and teaching at national defense colleges sharing Zerohedge content on Linkedin apparently unaware of the Russian subversion behind it; so I imagine that maybe ideology has us more fucked than even I think.

    4. (With you also on being relegated to the dustbin of Google; in my case, all my original content ends up on page 3 or later of search results. Although I would not try to make money off this job. I don't think that they would let you get high exposure in search results either.)

    5. @modernhomesia:

      Thank you! Totally agree.

      As for the folks in my neck of the woods, it's a hodgepodge of Dixie Mob meets Hezbollah, Cuba, China, North Korea, Miamiland, the Boston mob and Russian mob.

      Dixieland is a mess.

    6. @Unknown:

      You bring up an incredibly good point. Those who are taken in by influence but not necessarily bad actors are the most difficult group to both "suss out". For example, a journalist might be compensated by an accepted media outlet such as New York Magazine or the Daily Beast and be totally unaware of any subversion within the organization's upper echelon.

      For guidance, I have tended to look at RICO, for several reasons.

      Under RICO, an individual does not have to be aware that he or she is aiding and abetting the interests of organized crime in order to be culpable. This might sound harsh to most, but let me explain my thinking here...

      I see this part of RICO as an opportunity for the DOJ to intervene, not necessarily to prosecute, but to provide an opportunity to both educate the individual and recruit them as an informant. I trust the DOJ's judgement when it comes down to who to nail to the floorboards and who to offer a deal.

      On a personal level, I need to get better about how I handle situations like this. For cases win which it's unclear whether a person is knowingly misinforming people, rather than saying, "Hey buddy, you're an asshole because you're disseminating propaganda" I need to instead provide evidence demonstrating the unreliablility of the information.

  3. Just weighing in with kudos and agreement with all the comments so far as well.

    1. See Chris. We hear u.
      And, still agree w you.
      Facts are facts.

      Some nefarious folks
      no likey.

      Every time someone supports
      the unlawful Wikileaks Julian Assange
      crimes, I like to point out what
      true journalism is:
      Daphne Caruana Galizia.

      That is what whistle-blowing is about.

      Journalists don't steal their information.

      True journalists don't break the law.

      Snowden | Manning | Assange
      are just Tray Scumfuqqs.

      As the media continues to white-wash,
      I just ask, What about Daphne Caruana Galizia?

      Why aren't you reporting on that story?

      A murdered journalist who exposed mob/mafia transnational organized crime connections? No wonder Ivanka got so pissed she needed to blow up Daphne in her car.

      Why doesn't the media focus on all of the Ivanka tRUmp investments that go up in smoke? Baku, Panama, Daphne, the vacant house on Carlton Road...

      Geeze. AMI does own a lot of media, huh?

      Family Klan tRUmp will continue to trip and fall their way through their disorganized crime *franchise.

      Democracy does always expose the truth. Our country has relied on our system throughout the course. Mob folks are just stupid. Can't make it in the real world legitimately, so they work in their pathetically leveraged dark underworld, which they live. So dumb. Or should I say, too smart for their own good! LoloL

      Mr. Nethery. Enjoy your day!