News & Analysis
Truth About WikiLeaks?
Who is Behind Wikileaks? ... Wikleaks is upheld as a breakthrough in the battle against media disinformation and the lies of the US government. Unquestionably, the released documents constitute an important and valuable data bank. The documents have been used by critical researchers since the outset of the Wikileaks project. ... Progressive organizations have praised the Wikileaks endeavor. Our own website Global Research has provided extensive coverage of the Wikileaks project. The leaks are heralded as an immeasurable victory against corporate media censorship. But there is more than meets the eye. – Global Research, Michel Chossudovsky
Dominant Social Theme: It's a great organization and questions should be ignored.
Free-Market Analysis: We were pleased to see that Michel Chossudovsky has weighed in on WikiLeaks with a six page opus posted at Global Research. At least some of his issues, in fact, have already been presented within these modest pages, and below we provide some links to our staff reports and a trilogy about an Assange-like character that make similar points:
It is instructive to see what Chossudovsky has concluded. Admittedly, he raises issues that we have mentioned only generally or in passing. His general conclusion like ours is that Julian Assange (Pictured above left) is probably NOT what he appears to be, but some good is coming out of L'affaire Assange nonetheless – and we agree. From our point of view, Assange may possibly have links to the Anglo-American power-elite, but if so, his arrival on the scene shows once more the difficulty of the challenges that the Anglosphere is now encountering.
Because of the truth-telling of the Internet, more than a century of mind control (the 20th century) has been diminished. Accept, as we do, that there is an Anglo-American inter-generational elite whose goal is to build a kind of one world order and Assange becomes a statement as much as the head of a powerful debunking movement. Acquiesce hypothetically to Assange-as-elite-ally and one can see how far away from its goals the elite has been forced to move.
The elite has attempted to nudge the world toward global governance by using fear-based promotions, dominant social themes, that frighten the middle class into giving up wealth and power to a variety of specially created global facilities – the UN, WHO, World Bank, etc. These fear-based promotions are promulgated via what is called the Hegelian Dialectic, a public conversation that is controlled by the elite on both sides. Gradually the dialogue – argument – is moved toward the goals and objectives of the elite and away from undesirable conclusions.
While the Hegelian Dialectic is a great society molding tool, it has one logical flaw: At certain times of great social stress the elite has to readjust the dialectic to include arguments that it had dealt with previously but which are reappearing. What this means practically is that it has to reintroduce spokespeople to represent the side of the argument that it has already left behind. If society in some fashion has reignited a debate that the elite believed was already doused, then the elite is a position of re-endorsing perspectives that it had intentionally done away with. This is what is happening now.
What the elite may have failed to grasp is that the control mechanisms of the 20th century are not configuring the conversation in the desired manner in the 21st. Why is this the case? Because the Internet is a process not an episode. The Anglo-American axis is a linear enterprise with a single focus, apparently: world government. But linear solutions are not going to work in the Internet era. In fact, there is an argument that such solutions will actually make things worse from the Anglosphere's point of view.
Grant Assange is in some way a controlled entity; nonetheless, a group of his peers have split away from WikiLeaks and are setting up their own enterprise, OpenLeaks. If this enterprise is not controlled as well then any control over Assange will make little difference. The larger conversation still remains out of control.
Is Assange in a sense being positioned – knowingly or not – as the controlled opposition? (Perhaps he is merely a courageous individual motivated by strong convictions; and we have acknowledged this possibility as well.) Our suspicions regarding Assange are reinforced, nonetheless, by Chossudovsky, as follows. The following are direct quotes from the article:
• There are reports from published email exchanges that Wikileaks had entered into negotiations with several corporate foundations for funding. (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007). The linchpin of WikiLeaks's financial network is Germany's Wau Holland Foundation. ... "We're registered as a library in Australia, we're registered as a foundation in France, we're registered as a newspaper in Sweden," Mr. Assange said. WikiLeaks has two tax exempt = charitable organizations in the U.S., known as 501C3s, that "act as a front" for the website, he said. He declined to give their names, saying they could "lose some of their grant money because of political sensitivities."
• The Role of the Corporate Media: The Central Role of the New York Times. Wikileaks is not a typical alternative media initiative. The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel are directly involved in the editing and selection of leaked documents. The London Economist has also played an important role. While the project and its editor Julian Assange reveal a commitment and concern for truth in media, the recent Wikileaks releases of embassy cables have been carefully "redacted" by the mainstream media in liaison with the US government. (See Interview with David E. Sanger, Fresh Air, PBS, December 8, 2010). This collaboration between Wikileaks and selected mainstream media is not fortuitous; it was part of an agreement between several major US and European newspapers and Wikileaks' editor Julian Assange.
• The "redacting" role of The New York Times is candidly acknowledged by David E Sanger, Chief Washington correspondent of the NYT: "[W]e went through [the cables] so carefully to try to redact material that we thought could be damaging to individuals or undercut ongoing operations. And we even took the very unusual step of showing the 100 cables or so that we were writing from to the U.S. government and asking them if they had additional redactions to suggest." (See PBS Interview; The Redacting and Selection of Wikileaks documents by the Corporate Media, PBS interview on "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross: December 8, 2010, emphasis added).
• David E. Sanger cannot be described as a model independent journalist. He is member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Aspen Institute's Strategy Group which regroups the likes of Madeleine K. Albright, Condoleezza Rice, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, the president of the World Bank, Robert. B. Zoellick and Philip Zelikow, former executive director of the 9/11 Commission, among other prominent establishment figures. (See also F. William Engdahl, Wikileaks: A Big Dangerous US Government Con Job, Global Research, December 10, 2010).
• The leaks are being used to justify a foreign policy agenda. A case in point is Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, which is the object of numerous State Department memos, as well as Saudi Arabia's support of Islamic terrorism. The leaked cables are used to feed the disinformation campaign concerning Iran's Weapons of Mass Destruction. While the leaked cables are heralded as "evidence" that Iran constitutes a threat, the lies and fabrications of the corporate media concerning Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program are not mentioned, nor is there any mention of them in the leaked cables. The leaks, once they are funneled into the corporate news chain, edited and redacted by the New York Times, indelibly serve the broader interests of US foreign policy, including US-NATO-Israel war preparations directed against Iran.
• In recent years, the CIA's relationship to the media has become increasingly complex and sophisticated. We are dealing with a mammoth propaganda network involving a number of agencies of government. Media disinformation has become institutionalized. The lies and fabrications have become increasingly blatant when compared to the 1970s. The US media has become the mouthpiece of US foreign policy. Disinformation is routinely "planted" by CIA operatives in the newsroom of major dailies, magazines and TV channels: "A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the scoops, that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources, where the parameters of debate are set and the "official reality" is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain."(Chaim Kupferberg, The Propaganda Preparation of 9/11, Global Research, September 19, 2002).
• Wikileaks and The Economist have also entered into what seems to be a contradictory relationship. Wikileaks founder and editor Julian Assange was granted in 2008 The Economist's New Media Award. The Economist has a close relationship to Britain's financial elites. It is an establishment news outlet, which has, on balance, supported Britain's involvement in the Iraq war. It bears the stamp of the Rothschild family. Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild was chairman of The Economist from 1972 to 1989. His wife Lynn Forester de Rothschild currently sits on The Economist's board. The Rothschild family also has a sizeable shareholder interest in The Economist.
There is much more in the article, and we would encourage people to read it. Chossudovsky points out that "Limited forms of critical debate and 'transparency' are tolerated while also enforcing broad public acceptance of the basic premises of US foreign policy, including its 'Global War on Terrorism' ... We must ensure that the campaign against Wikileaks in the U.S., using the 1917 Espionage Act, will not be utilized as a means to wage a campaign to control the internet." What Chossudovsky does not suggest is that the elite in its desperation to control a freedom-oriented Internet conversation has put itself in the position of sponsoring a controlled opposition that cannot, ultimately, be controlled. (This is in part because as we understand it Chossudovsky, apparently a progressive of sorts, does not believe in an Anglo-American elite.)
When the Gutenberg press came on the scene, the elite of the day apparently contemplated Assange-like strategies. Eventually – some believe – the Venetian banking elite sponsored Martin Luther and funded the Reformation to reduce the power of the Catholic Church. But one could make the case that the Reformation itself got out of hand, causing religious schisming that created more headaches for the powers-that-be than they ever intended; eventually what the Reformation began would contribute to the settling of the New World and the creation of a new and formidable opposition to elite, one-world aspirations.
Conclusion: Even if the elite through its controlled intelligence agencies manages to control WikiLeaks, the evolution of the Internet may spawn other variants that are unexpected and potentially uncontrollable. Whatever Assange is or is not is probably not ultimately the issue (and hopefully WikiLeaks shall do some good). However, the entropy of the Internet is the real concern, and one that the Anglo-American axis has yet to solve in our humble view.
Posted by Mike88 on 12/18/10 12:48 PM
The excuse that the government always uses when they want to search or spy on the American people could also be used with Mr. Assange's leaked documents as well, "if you have nothing to hide or you haven't done anything wrong then you won't object to us searching you, your vehicle, or your home with or without a warrant(as in the case of the pATRIOT ACT).
This excuse could also be used for the government as well. If the government has done nothing wrong or has done nothing to be embarrassd about then they would not mind having this information being released. It is true that the government has lied, cheated, stole, and killed innocent people in the name of making deals for peace or in the false name of "National Security".
This is blatently illegal unconstitutional and wrong for our government officials no matter what level of government they are in to do this on the behalf of the united states and the people of which they allegedly represent. As stated earlier if the government has nothing to hide or has done nothing wrong or illegal they should not object to these leaks, and the politicians who are asking for Assange's "head on a platter" so to speak, obviously fear some or all of the information that is being released. Our government should not have secrets and should not hold secrets from the American people.
Posted by AmanfromMars on 12/16/10 11:42 PM
You have completely missed the point, which is entirely the opposite of what you have speculated ...."If WikiLeaks would justify a clampdown on internet activity, it would have served a highly valuable purpose, for the web has proven to be a thorn in the side of our Platonic Masters."
In your own vernacular, it is probably definitely Platonic Masters test drivering a new and Advanced Internet Vehicle ..... for Special Command and Control Vessels. And that is best and easiest imagined as it being a novel sort of, or if you are much more deeply into binary technologies for the digital manipulation of perception and human signalling, an innovative phorm of shake down trials, beta-testing performance and reliability parameters and environmental impact issues.
Which is surely exactly what one would expect from the likes of a philanthropic organization set up by a billionaire investor, as is typified by the likes of an Open Society Institute and George Soros. They are though, but just as one smart shark in a very crowded and active sea/field/see, and thus is any certain identification of prime moving force, immaculately clouded with myriad other possibilities/Great Game player investors.
Virtual Stealth is real big business, and you can expect all the usual smarter Great Game suspects in the Establishment to be vying for uncompetitive and overwhelming advantage in ITs New and SurReal CyberSpace Environment, with the other slower ones into such Games, taking a buffetting and a pasting and a bubble bath, and losing their fortunes trying to prop up and push a failed and disgraced, earlier sub-prime model with dodgy investment vehicles.
Posted by Dan Noel on 12/16/10 08:54 PM
Thank you, DB, for a breath of optimism. Your analysis that WikiLeaks may be a damage control tool by the secret Masters who control the global Platonic theater "we the people of the world" live makes much sense.
At the risk of appearing alarmist, I'll go further and add that the campaign by WikiLeaks' fans to disrupt cyber-business could be a little false flag. Assuming WikiLeaks is part of our Masters' arsenal, these disruptions could be to an upcoming internet shutdown what the underwear bomber was to the new sexually invading airport security procedures and what the 9/11 false flag was to the ongoing decade of gratuitous war.
If WikiLeaks would justify a clampdown on internet activity, it would have served a highly valuable purpose, for the web has proven to be a thorn in the side of our Platonic Masters. Indeed, without the web"and the VCR"virtually everybody would still toe the official "Osama bin Laden's fanatics did 9/11" myth.
Posted by Plume on 12/16/10 02:30 PM
"Mr. Assange was released on bail: £240,000, thanks in large part to an address being put forward where the Australian national could reside.
Vaughn Smith, a former Army captain who founded and runs the journalist Frontline Club, offered his 600-acre country estate as a bail address as well as a financial surety. Mr. Smith set up Frontline by borrowing £3 million ($5.7 million) against his family's estate in Norfolk, England, and has received financing for its events from the Open Society Institute, a philanthropic organization set up by the billionaire investor and philanthropist George Soros"
Now, I am not sure where I heard the name Soros before but isn't he some kinda agent for some influential ancient wealthy family?
Posted by PHC on 12/16/10 08:15 AM
@DB. I was not being sarcastic...
If Assange/Wikileaks appears to be another destabilization op from the elite, why should Chossudowsky's perma leftist discourse, which ignores the elite's obvious footprints, not be suspicious? Without "just post the iconography of a pointing finger and call it a day", what is DB's position? I'm curious.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Our position is that those with leftist sympathies often analyze the problem appropriately, but then provide problematic solutions.
Posted by John Danforth on 12/16/10 07:35 AM
"Sure. We should just post the iconography of a pointing finger and call it a day."
Hey, I'd buy a T-shirt or coffee mug with that on it!
Posted by PHC on 12/16/10 06:49 AM
@DB " Thanks for the reply and the link to "Is the Elite Destabilizing the World on Purpose? ".
It all makes sense, and we agree, it's an excellent article (which I had missed, only 24 hours a day unfortunately...).
What puzzled me was the word "apparently". Because it implies that you think that Chossudowsky and Co. may well not be what they pretend to be (a group of enthusiastic idealist leftist), although curiously you don't make that clear.
Bottom line: if you're questioning Assange, maybe you should be questioning Chossudowsky as well? Since the DB sees the Elite's hand everywhere (even in Wikileaks), and everyone is suspicious, there should be no exceptions, right?
Reply from The Daily Bell
Sure. We should just post the iconography of a pointing finger and call it a day.
Posted by AmanfromMars on 12/16/10 05:15 AM
"it is the vicious arrogance of the article that is most upsetting. It is representative in our view of the "Pentagon mindset." This is the mindset that keeps NATO in Afghanistan poisoning women and children with depleted uranium weapons and blowing up families with drones." .... Reply from the Daily Bell
Daily Bell, Good Morning,
This, and its follow up, may be of interest to you and your readers. One may find that the "Aldershot mind" is no longer possessed of the "Pentagon mindset", with it realising the slippery slope into the abyss it has been led to. And it is incumbent upon all who are minded to do something/anything about evil, to do something/anything, for it is indeed a sad truth that "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." Sloth and apathy would render to the fool, their arrogant tools.
[QUOTE][B]UK Armed Forces: Plummeting International Reputation Deserved? Does it Matter?[/B][/QUOTE]
Of course it matters. And here is the problem which needs to be addressed, although presently would the theatre of operations to address it, that which Commands Control of CyberSpace, be woefully, inadequately equipped with effective servering personnel. And that is always due to failings right at the top of the command tree structure, is it not, for it is from there that everything is energised and endorsed/fully funded and legitimised ........
16 December 2010 6:22AM
Regarding any thoughts of the UK extraditing/extraordinarily rendering Julian Assange to the US, is not the established policy of its peoples NOT to entertain or give credence to any request from an administration which practices torture and/or detains human beings in inhumane conditions?
This is then quite relevant, and must surely provide the UK with unequivocal guidance which we can surely expect to be publicly aired in an official government statement to put the matter to bed and rest? ......... Click to view link
The question mark is added because there is a growing unfortunate perception that the UK is a gutless wonder which just does as it is told because it has no leadership and no smarter intelligence of its own. This particular and peculiar case will be a very revealing test of that hypothesis, and of great interest to many listening and viewing nations, methinks.
A Turning Turing Moment, indeed.
Click to view link"]Click to view link [/QUOTE]
Of course, once one accepts that it is an Intelligence led, Great Game Play in an InterNetworking Information Space/Live Operational Virtual Environment, does the sacrifice of lives on the ground in wars, become even more perverse and subversive, and attention would then quite naturally turn to role of the Military in Intelligence and whether they exercise and display any, or whether they would need to import and engage with that which they would be deficient in, for it is not as if Great Game Players are not known and active, although one may have to accept that they are more mercenary and irregular and unconventionally disciplined in the field, than is usually the case in the ranks. Although having said that, for such as are badged Special Forces, is that par for the course and what makes them the most respected and most feared of natural enemies ...... and paradoxically, the greatest of friends imaginable.
However, there is a lot going on in loops which are more Need to Know than Top Secret in order to ensure that the mistakes which have been made, some of them fundamentally bad errors of judgement, others of them more treasonable acts of concerted spin, are rectified to never be able to happen again, and reinforced with SMARTer Learned Defences with the means and memes of attack and control for the security of an overwhelming advantage. And that the Field to deliver that Cover be Digital Mastery of the Virtual Realm should not for one moment cause you concern, for expert instruction is easily provided to all those who are willing to learn all about what Life and LOVE have to offer in C42 Quantum Control Systems .... AI@ITsWork.
Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year to All.
Click to view link
And it is slowly emerging that Sweden played no part in Julian Assange's return to prison because of an appeal against the granting of bail. That perversion of the course of justice was apparently down to the Criminal Prosecution Service and its Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, acting unilaterally apparently, and certainly not transparently, as a mercenary agent of the Swedish state. And how arrogant and subversive is that? Whatever next will they dream up in such a madness?
Posted by Al Kyder on 12/16/10 12:42 AM
@ DB lots of good comments.
Check out this link :)
Click to view link
Posted by Mpresley on 12/15/10 06:27 PM
That said, if the centrifuge facility really was the target (do we know that? do we trust the source?), then the perpetrators are obvious.
This is an interesting question, and one I can't answer. The usual suspects are Israel with US cooperation. However, one fascinating theory is China.
Google "Stuxnet Finnish Chinese Connection" and read the story on Forbes' site: The Vacon frequency converter centrifuge drive was made in China; China has the source code to Windows and could exploit the zero-day vulnerabilities; they likely have access to RealTek in order to gain the digital signatures; JMicron is a Taiwan company, and so forth.
The motive: in order to protect their recent oil/gas deals from possible involvement in a Western attack, the Chinese sabotaged the Iranian nuclear program.
Posted by PHC on 12/15/10 05:50 PM
"Chossudovsky, apparently a progressive of sorts".
Mmmhhh... DB doesn't know who Michel Chossudovsky is? The Director and Editor of Click to view link I find that very hard to believe.
Reply from The Daily Bell
We were not reciting his background but speculating about his political views.
We have written about him before. See here:
Is the Elite Destabilizing the World on Purpose?
Click to view link
Posted by BenDavid on 12/15/10 05:39 PM
Disinformation is better than datinformation.
Posted by Giustino on 12/15/10 04:55 PM
Chossudovsky's article emphasizes a major Anglo-American geopolitical target: Iran. Quote from his article:
"Moreover, in a bitter irony, the selective redacting of the Wikileaks embassy cables by the NYT has usefully served not only to dismiss the central issue of fake intelligence but also to reinforce, through media disinformation, Washington's claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons."
(The "fake intelligence" referring to documents allegedly found on a stolen Iranian laptop.)
I found this "bitter irony" interesting and addressing somehow the "Gutenberg Press argument" of the Daily Bell.
The reflection that this inspires is that Internet could possibly not be a major concern for the Anglo-American elites as the internet can also works as a useful tool for them. Wikileaks could just be one of the ways they use Internet for their own benefit.
On the costs side, we can argue that the revelations do some damage to their own side, but after the Iraq war, Abu Graib, Fallujah, raping, murdering, depleted uranium, Guantanamo, torture, renditions, assassinations, who really cares a great deal about a helicopter shooting of civilians or some petty revelation about Clinton's "security concerns" with UN diplomats. Those collateral damages are absolutely necessary to reinforce the credibility of the leaks, but they just fall like another droplet in an ocean of crimes and abuses.
On the benefit side, another important step has been taken to achieve their most coveted aim of selling the Iran war. The whole thing is also an mediatic success. Even John Pilger has included an interview of JA in his last film "The War You Don't See" and has recently publicly spoken in his favour.
Posted by MetaCynic on 12/15/10 03:57 PM
Even if the corporate media sift through, redact and sanitize the State Department cables for their dwindling customer base, who cares? The raw stuff is still out there for anyone interested in the real things. There is a reason why Newsweek, for example, recently changed hands for a dollar! The corporate media are losing their power over people's minds.
It seems to me that whether or not WikiLeaks activities are in fact to some degree controlled by the power elite has now become irrelevant. WikiLeaks might be a conduit for disinformation, but it has also made the leaking of secret data fashionable. As in all new markets, publicity and the impression of success will spawn competitors eager to, in this case, outdo each other in acquiring cloistered data to expose. Who knows where such spontaneous human action will cause all this leaking to lead?
Hounding Assange demonstrates that the elite still do not understand the nature of the internet. If the elite use WikiLeaks' revelations as an excuse to bring the internet under government control, they will unleash unpredictable forces against themselves and their agents.
It's no secret that hardcore internet users are largely libertarians who harbor no love for the government and censorship. They will strike back with hacking and denial of service attacks against government computer networks. Who knows what evidence of criminal activity residing on government hard drives is just waiting to be discovered by angry hackers?
Attempts to control the internet can backfire spectacularly and result instead in the public finding out who really killed JFK, what the Apollo moon landing program was all about and what really happened on 9/11. It's not advisable to kick the hornets' nest!
Posted by Gene on 12/15/10 03:40 PM
AH yes........"With a body guard of Lies." Didn't Winnie say that??
Posted by Jay Schmidt on 12/15/10 02:57 PM
Time Magazine named Mark Zuckerburg "Man of the Year", even though he came in #10 on an online poll and Assange came in a sold #1. This fact alone should make anyone question the idea that Assange is a CIA creation. He's the real deal.
Posted by John Danforth on 12/15/10 02:29 PM
Interesting observation about Clinton vs Obama. Of course, I'd assume Obama's handlers point out what the Clintons leave in their wake ... dead bodies. That might engender some caution.
Please don't misinterpret what I said; I didn't imply that the virus was written by a script kiddie. To clarify, what I could have said more clearly was that it does not take a sophisticated attack to violate a PLC network, just some rudimentary knowledge, it can easily be done once a scripting language is turned loose on a machine, and it could not have happened easily unless a cascade of rudimentary security precautions were ignored at the target site. That said, if the centrifuge facility really was the target (do we know that? do we trust the source?), then the perpetrators are obvious.
If the perpetrators are alphabet soup agencies, then of course it would make sense that they could add stealth, longevity, and specific targeting to their objectives and code accordingly. Even so ... not fiendishly clever. None of the machines I've put into operation are vulnerable to this kind of attack. But then, I don't work for government. I hope our missile silos aren't similarly connected!
Posted by Bill Ross on 12/15/10 01:53 PM
The major clue to recognizing Dunn's intellectual pedigree and alliances is the point of view that:
Bunch of assumptions, rationalizations, opinion posing as fact (preamble) leading to:
It is "necessary" (Machiavelli, falsely framed arguments) to mobilize vast social / economic resources to either counter a speculated threat or achieve some massive "social good", also speculated based in incorrect opinions regarding human nature.
This is in the realm of force / fraud (smiting some). Civilized viewpoints are concerned solely with peaceful cooperation to MUTUAL advantage.
Posted by Mpresley on 12/15/10 01:49 PM
One thing I've not heard much traffic on: with Hilary Clinton the nominal head of State (the department, that is), and with Obama no fan of the Clintons (he has to be seething the way Bill co-opted his recent press conference) this would be a good time for POTUS to take some revenge on the Clintons by making Hilary the fall-guy...uh...er...girl. If we was smart, he'd use the opportunity to consolidate his power at the Clinton's expense.
But I'm guessing that you don't want to make enemies of the Clintons unless you really know what you're doing, and it's not clear that Obama is that sophisticated. He may be content to play basketball the next two years, and then ride out a lucrative book deal.
As far as the Windows Iran angle. It's hard to know where the infection started. I wouldn't fault the Iranians as this was not your run of the mill attack. And even a secure Windows network can be compromised by a local (USB memory stick) infection.
To think that the attack was simply due to a "basic script" is naive. This was obviously a very sophisticated operation. Intimate knowledge of the Siemens logic controllers, and information on the centrifuge specifications had to have been available to the programmers. It was not some script kiddie hacking episode, but the work of people with a lot of money, time, and knowledge.
Posted by John Danforth on 12/15/10 01:44 PM
Yes, vicious arrogance ... Pentagon mindset ... there are so many things wrong with it that it's hard to categorize them all. Was Dunn reincarnated from the days of the Salem Witch Hunts? That's the closest analogy that I can draw.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Neither these "websites" nor their "contributors" are a coincidence.