News & Analysis
WikiLeaks: Clever PsyOps?
WikiLeaks Drop Shows U.S. Striving to Maintain Order in Chaotic Global Relations ... Some of the diplomatic papers stolen from the State Department and leaked Sunday by WikiLeaks show more than just potentially embarrassing revelations about U.S. views of allies but disturbing developments among alleged friends as well as foes and competitive states. The details from the cables being released – among 250,000 illegally taken from secret State Department records – include discussions on the U.S. being unable to stop Syrian arms to Hezbollah, its disappointment in Qatar to stop funding terrorism and hacking by the Chinese government of U.S. computers. Other communiques passed forward by the website to several newspapers also reveal U.S. talk about individual leaders like Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who the Guardian reported was noted to be "accompanied everywhere by a 'voluptuous blonde' Ukrainian nurse." The Guardian also cites cables that call Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin an "alpha-dog," says Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai is "driven by paranoia" and describes German Chancellor Angela Merkel as one who "avoids risk and is rarely creative." The cables also suggest that the U.S. had sought to use its embassies in the global espionage network. – FOX News
Dominant Social Theme: Julian Assange is a low-life, thieving sexual pervert who has placed US security at risk, endangered the lives of hardworking US bureaucrats, shown us what the Internet really is (a place good only for use by thieving, sexual perverts who want to put the hard-working men and women of the US State Dept at risk.) The Pentagon should immediately tighten its security, refuse further requests for information and draw up plans to bomb Iran.
Free-Market Analysis: Is Julian Assange the rebel-with-a-cause that he makes himself out to be? We gave him the benefit of the doubt for months, and still do, but with less and less certainty. We don't remember when our suspicions became more pronounced, but (credit where credit is due) the ever-sleuthing blogger and Bell feedbacker Lila Rajiva was there before us, believing for one reason or another that Assange was part of a larger disinformation campaign by the powers-that-be.
Now we are not willing to suggest this is a certainty (and maybe Ms. Rajiva is still not certain either.) But every time his WikiLeaks does another one of these data dumps, Assange takes another step backward in our view. Back in July after a massive WikiLeaks "dump" seemed to set a narrative that Pakistan was at fault for the Afghan war, we'd had enough and wrote a fictional narrative in which we imagined two CIA agents coming up with the idea for an Assange-like character. You can read our analysis here: Comes a Blond Stranger.
This latest effort by Assange raises even more doubts so far as we are concerned. First, there is the constant (annoying) advance dissemination of information to the likes of mainstream leftist publications such as the UK Guardian and Le Monde ... and previously to the New York Times. Anyone who believes that the New York Times (or the Guardian for that matter) is not in cahoots with the powers-that-be, has got to be terminally naïve in our opinion. That goes for Assange, too.
Does Assange, for all his apparent cynicism, not get it? He believes that the mainstream media is worth cultivating for his purposes? Apparently, he is fairly sure of their cooperation. Not that Assange puts it that way. There's plenty of information on the Internet about the way the world works. But rather than focus on the mercantilist intrigues of the Anglosphere, which uses the levers of government to advance its own private interests, Assange focuses attention on the government itself with his endless leaks of hundreds of thousands of low-level documents that are somehow "classified."
It's early days and much more is sure to emerge from this latest massive dissemination of raw, "secret" data, but from our point of view the Anglosphere, maybe, doesn't have much to worry about. (We could still be wrong.) Here's the narrative – the COINTELPRO promotion (if that is what is) – as we see it. Below we list the "news" as it pertains to the secret data that's been revealed and then the "result" – which is often favorable to the Anglosphere and its "war on terror" in our humble view ...
• Assange provides various mainstream publications with advance information so they can "break" their stories. RESULT: Wonderful anti-establishment credibility for failing mainstream pubs that are seen more and more as mouthpieces for the elite.
• Information bluntly characterizes foreign leaders and often in a snide or patronizing manner. RESULT: This is terrible for the US diplomatic corp? To get their opinions on world leaders out in an open forum while the foreign leaders themselves have no way to respond? If it is a disinformation campaign, it's a brilliant one.
• The US diplo corps is shown as pleading with allies for more responsibility and less support for terrorism. RESULT: A perception that the Americans seem to be fighting a valiant uphill battle. The world is encouraging terrorism and Foggy Bottom is doing its level best to protect the American people.
• The Chinese are suspected of hacking US computers. RESULT: And how exactly is this a black eye from the Anglosphere's standpoint? The Chinese are "bad guys." This is a negative for the Anglo-American axis how exactly?
• The US is using its embassies for spying. RESULT: The perception that the US is pulling out all the stops to keep its citizens safe from terrorism. Diplomacy is an ugly business, but the US is doing what it needs to do.
• Iran seems to be winning in Iraq, and US diplo and military correspondence seems to indicate that. RESULT: Evidence accumulating that it will be necessary to bomb Iran. In fact, bomb now. Before its leaders can do more damage.
• US allies like Saudi Arabia have been pleading with the US to take out Iran by any means necessary. RESULT: Evidence accumulating that even Islamic countries are alarmed by this crazy, out-of-control-nation Iran. Bomb Iran now! – Before its leaders can do more damage.
• The data being released by Assange is dangerous and his methodology is unforgivable. He is jeopardizing many lives. RESULT: The perception is increasingly clarified that the Internet is a dangerous instrument that must be brought under control so that people like Assange don't abuse it.
• Who is this man, Assange? This blond stranger? His actions are questionable to say the least, and he may be a rapist as well, according to Swedish prosecutors ... RESULT: We begin to see that he is in fact quite obviously and evidently a sexual pervert. This is the sort of riffraff that the Internet attracts. Only a pervert would seek to do this kind of damage to the national security of the US. The Internet attracts perverts of this sort, that seek to use the Internet perversely, causing great damage to national security, embarrassing hard-working bureaucrats, making it difficult for soldiers to kill more Taliban and generally threatening the lives and reputations of those who have supported America's serial wars and quasi-genocidal campaigns at great risk to themselves ...
• These revelations are simply out of control. The US intelligence agencies (all 16 of them) are seeking Assange and are constantly releasing "open letters" to Assange asking him to stop it. RESULT: Where is this massive and feared US intel operation? Where is the evidence of its fiercesome power – all the renditions, all the torture. Doesn't seem so terrible after all. Paper tiger? Pussycat. Nothing to fear here. Heck, nothing to see.
• These revelations must stop. The US government in particular has been very lax about security. But from now on the Pentagon in particular is simply not going to release much information pertaining to its operations at home and abroad. RESULT: Can those in leadership positions at the Pentagon be blamed for acting this way? Sure the Pentagon has been virtually transparent all these years, but now, well ... no more Mr. Nice Guy. The walls are going up. What we can't burn, we're gonna shred. And not a morsel is going to be provided to the press. Hey, what else can we do?
These are just some of the points that we have noticed the mainstream media making. The "results" are not being stated in so many words, but of course they don't have to be. The "data dump" speaks for itself. Of course in the days to follow, maybe we shall be proven wrong and there will be revelations that won't be "embarrassing" but that will actually prove detrimental to the US war-making effort, especially in Afghanistan. (Alternatively, there ARE such revelations, but the mainstream press is simply not covering them; this latter possibility makes certainty regarding WikiLeaks' role harder to define. We will be glad to write a followup article if we begin to believe our current analysis is incorrect, as we do believe the US has been waging unjustifiable wars, creating more enemies for the West and contributing to rising military tensions around the globe.)
Conclusion: But for now these leaks seem to: ridicule diplomats and leaders outside the US; show that the US is not an all-powerful global entity but a paper tiger that cannot even track down Assange; show that the Internet is being employed by perverts like Assange to ruin the credibility of the US and Foggy Bottom's ability to protect US citizens from harm; illustrate clearly a need to go to war with Iran; proffer evidence of China's perfidy in attacking US military/Internet facilities; make the point that US and European mainstream media organizations are "where the action is" when it comes to wholesale revelations of the US military-industrial complex. None of this is bad for the US as we see it, or Assange's intelligence handlers, if that is indeed what is going on.
Editor's Note: Regarding our use of the word "pervert" in this article. We have no idea if the charges against Assange are true. We believe him innocent until proven guilty. State monopoly justice, in which the state pays the prosecutor, the legislators, the judge and the penitentiary keepers means that it is almost impossible to get a fair trial in the West. Our use of the word was intended to show how the powers-that-be, in our view, are demonizing Assange (and the Internet) by smearing him sexually. it is an old trick and one the intelligence agencies inevitably use these days, to play on shame-based instincts, etc. We do not call Mr. Assange a pervert. Anyway, we would never use such language, and thus were putting the word in the mouths of others. It is disgusting and dehumanizing. The mainstream media, unfortunately, uses it all the time, especially in the US.
Further Note: Maybe, as a result of all these releases Assange will be proven to be a courageous and committed man. That would be our hope. Perhaps these releases will incite world opinion to turn more strongly against the US's serial wars and endless "collateral damage" (ongoing killings of women and children in various "theatres of war."). Yes, we wish fervently that the wars will end. They are manipulated wars in our opinion. The US needs to return to its founding Jeffersonian principles and reduce its 1,000 overseas military bases. The military industrial complex needs to be pared back. Will Assange actions help in this regard? That is what we are trying to determine as a publication devoted to tracking the promotion of the power elite and money power generallly. That is the reason for this article ...
Posted by Lila Rajiva on 11/29/10 09:42 PM
I didn't say I was skeptical about climate gate.
No, that made me believe them. I said they weren't the ones who hacked cru. A whistle blower loaded it from a russian server. But somehow, it became repeated that wikileaks hacked cru. THAT's what I was saying wasn't correct.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Yes, we understood.
Posted by Taylor on 11/29/10 09:36 PM
One curious item I noticed is that the WikiLeaks site not only offers information about how to decipher the contents of the cable leaks, but also how to discuss and share the info with others, especially via media sites like Twitter.
Whether this is simply out of the kindness of their hearts and meant to be an attempt at easing the transmission of this information while creating a "common dialect" for discussing it is questionable, but what is apparent is that, for good or for bad, this is an obvious effort to "massage" the dialog and manipulate people's response, in some small measure. Great post ...
Reply from The Daily Bell
Posted by Tawny on 11/29/10 09:27 PM
More suspicions surface about Assange, WikiLeaks ... interesting article.
CIA, Mossad and Soros Behind Wikileaks?
Click to view link
Posted by John Blenkins on 11/29/10 09:24 PM
@Siegfried 4:14, Thanks for a very enlightening post.
Backed up by DB 16 point reply.The virtue and pleasure of this site is its collective ability after dissection and discussion to blow away much of the wheat from the chaff.
A little MSM theatrical embarrassment for Hilary et al is a small price to pay to plant the seed that many regional countries secretly want America to cut the head off the snake.
To advance such a promotion that N Korea are the suppliers of WMD is a win double for the PE.
Hardly original. Blair/45 minute (sexed up) dossier.
Bush/Afghanistan/Bin laden/WMD ect ect.Nothing like a well timed war to put financial woes to one side! Seems to me this last few months have seen a speeding up of this MSM truthathon From Wikileaks to Murdoch media exposays, UFO
Almost as if we are being conditioned spoonfed to accept more to come.With good old uncle Rupert subtly corralling us.The whole lot stinks like Billinsgate (London wholesale fish market) on a hot day
Forgive me off thread. Is this just me? There appears to be a Strictly Comedancing chirography To the Dollar/Euro Click to view linkeece
the Euro falls,QE/Tensions with BRIC/Dollar falls, Ireland/Sold to IMF et al Euro falls.The timing mimics engineered collusion step mirrored by step.Tempo and rhythm orchestrated to imposed debt slavery and the Banco.
Posted by Pete 8 on 11/29/10 06:47 PM
All reasons for martial law.
Posted by PHC on 11/29/10 06:45 PM
It is all too easy to ridicule wikileaks, and to blow suspicion on their motives. To base your analysis on the fact that the mainstream media is using the wikileaks "revelations" to the advantage of the elite is falling into their trap, in my opinion.
Of course they would! What would you do, in their position, if you had a grip on 99% of the world's mainstream media? Basic rule of the art of war and manipulation: use any situation to your advantage, make people see side B of the coin instead of side A, turn the situation upside down, insist on minor points so as to hide the important points. That's what they, the elite, are doing. Unintended consequences for everyone involved? Most probably yes, but that's reality, the ball keeps rolling, it is never still, the bull is in the china room, and it's exciting to watch. Would the world be better off without Assange?... Good question, if you really must answer.
Reply from The Daily Bell
We stand by the points we made at the end of this article. We think they are fair. If there are significant revelations (beyond what has already been reported) we may well readdress the issue and will be happy to do so.
We wrote ...
"Maybe, as a result of all these releases Assange will be proven to be a courageous and committed man. That would be our hope. Perhaps these releases will incite world opinion to turn more strongly against the US's serial wars and endless "collateral damage" (ongoing killings of women and children in various "theatres of war."). Yes, we wish fervently that the wars will end. They are manipulated wars in our opinion. The US needs to return to its founding Jeffersonian principles and reduce its 1,000 overseas military bases. The military industrial complex needs to be pared back. Will Assange actions help in this regard? That is what we are trying to determine as a publication devoted to tracking the promotion of the power elite and money power generally. That is the reason for this article ..."
Posted by Lila Rajiva on 11/29/10 06:37 PM
No. I didn't mean that. Wikileaks did not out the climate gate emails as far as I know. Someone placed them on wikileaks uploading them through a russian server..
Activists just kept repeating wikileaks outed climate gate..and it became accepted wisdom.
Reply from The Daily Bell
The elves are skeptical. Climategate was the real deal in our view and has played havoc with PE promotions.
Posted by Lila Rajiva on 11/29/10 06:31 PM
I think you are overreacting over nothing.
DB was most kind to cite me today, and they have given me ample room for my remarks.
I don't believe I have ever said anything remotely sharp, except in retaliation for some kind of insinuation and even then, I have apologized immediately.
I certainly do not think DB is providing disinformation here, or I wouldn't be posting. It might have bounds it has to respect...I understand that. It is not a problem.
No one is forced to post here. This is DB's forum and its generosity, so I think making aspersions like that is uncalled for.
Reply from The Daily Bell
The Bell welcomes alternative perspectives, especially Ms. Rajiva's, and we are sure she will continue to share her point of view - as she wishes when she wishes. That is as it should be at a free-thinking site like this. The rhetoric may heat up occasionally but at the end of the day, the dialogue remains and may be of some use ...
Posted by Bill Ross on 11/29/10 06:30 PM
DB: to the charge of Darwinists... "don't confuse us with Bill Ross who posts here"
To be clear, I am also skeptical of many grand leaps of faith perpretated by Evolution's faux interpreters, especially eugenics and anything that may imply predestination, based on attributes.
What is clear regarding evolution be it biological, social, spiritual, intellectually or in any area where change is possible, it is all about CHOICE, imposed, accidental, or by free volition:
Click to view link
That is ALL that can be objectively concluded...
And, before anyone spouts off regarding Lila, perhaps you should evaluate her on the basis of her substantial contributions. She has earned respect and is well worth considering.
Posted by Lila Rajiva on 11/29/10 06:22 PM
"Elves have left in tears..."
Ah " now this truly is strange. Can you cite this post where I have done this?
Quite the contrary. You have been extremely sharp toward me and many others..
Please cite the post. Otherwise, I will forced to think you might be helping a certain outfit in its continued campaign to undermine me....
Really, I made elves cry? Citation and footnote needed, otherwise it's an unsubstantiated slur.
You will have to show us the email and the elves' name for me to believe this. Otherwise it's just a slanderous hit-piece filled with inelegant insinuations too tawdry for the young (SHI-ITTY)
Ha ha ha ha " just a joke, dear elves!
Re " My credibility.
I have been active in a quiet way (petitions and signing) since 1991 and have been opposed since then to the Iraq sanctions, to Gulf War I and II, to Kosovo. I have met and been in correspondence with many activists right and left since then.
My first book is the first one to lay out the reasons why torture was a policy and why women were being tortured. That can be verified on the net. It was the source of Tara McElvey's work on it, something she acknowledged to me in person, as I can (and will) prove. She didn't even acknowledge my contribution in a footnote. Par for the course in American journalism, I should add.
I opposed airport pat-downs in that book. I also wrote critically about globalization and researched such controversial matters as the V-Tech shooting. I was the first journalist to point out the weirdness of the whole story.
I was the one who broke the Goldman Sachs story, and most of what I've written on it (from the AIG connection, to many other things) showed up in McClatchey and Taibbi three years later. That too is verifiable from the net.
If I were a neocon, my blog would not be shut down, multiple slanders about me would not be posted on Indymedia, I would not be minus a journalistic career or a book contract, given that two years ago, an agent at the most prominent agency in the country was interested in my work. Indian female writers are quite the flavor of the month in some circles.
Instead, I have left the field of journalism altogether, despite having written an award-winning book, broken several crucially important stories, and having numerous journalistic contacts on the right and left...many of them, corresponding me privately but afraid to endorse me in public. Now why is that?
Sounds like a neocon?
As for having conventional views:
I am far more progressive in my social views likely than anyone here. I am pro-choice, and do not believe that the nuclear family is some kind of god-given construct that cannot be improved. I am for gay marriages. I dislike pornography in the public sphere for many reasons to do with its use in controlling the population, and little to do with its private use for pleasure.
I criticize libertarians often, because self-criticism and development of ideas is more important to me than high-fiving each other like a team. I think ideology is a bigger problem than the state.
I criticize Israel and have spoken out against Zionism far more than anyone on this site.
If I'm polite about neo-cons like Sarah Palin it's because she was most unfairly bashed, and cheaply too. No one would have dreamed of trashing a black or Jewish woman like that. She was Christian, white and middle-class, so it was considered legitimate.
So that makes me a neocon? I don't support neocon war mongering. That doesn't mean I think they are all evil.
I don't buy the idea that the world is divided into two camps of the purely good (Libertarians) and the purely evil and stupid (statists). And I think libertarians should criticize corporations when they are anti-individualist. What's so wrong about that?
Besides, I've never said I was an orthodox libertarian or any other -an....
I've worked with progressives and like and respect many of them.
I've often found them to be more ethical and concerned with social problems, by virtue of their beliefs, than others.
Libertarians seem to have a better grasp of the world. But they are often nativist, arrogant, and limited in their grasp of things.
Anyway, in my view the "libertarians' I bash aren't concerned with "liberty" but with protecting corporations...or speculators from the very same ethical demands they impose on individuals.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Being a writer (an educated one, as Ms. Rajiva is) and speaking one's truth is increasingly difficult in this day and age. Certain people are driven to do it and cannot stop (no matter what).
It is true, also, that Ms. Rajiva as an Indian woman and person of color could have a terrific career bashing the Western, white, male establishment as so many others might have done in her position (see Maya Angelou, etc., etc.).
We have always respected her for not taking this route (since we became aware of her). She has our condolences for her professional setbacks, which are beyond what most would put up with.
She deserves better.
Posted by Memehunter on 11/29/10 06:12 PM
"But what else is there? Links? Insights? You brought it up ... "
Point taken. Please allow me to take up that challenge. However, I think I will need time to organize my thoughts. I will get back to you on that. Ideally, I would want to write a short piece or post that would be so compelling that readers would want to check the links and read the relevant information for themselves, rather than having me try and impose my views on them.
As I said, this was written tongue-in-cheek, but there is a reason why I am somewhat obsessed with this topic: this is a much, much, bigger promotion than anything DB covers on a regular basis, and many of our attitudes and beliefs flow from the acceptance of Darwinism as a self-evident truth. Let me also remind you that it not necessary to propose a fully-fledged competing theory to refute Darwinism; following Popper, it is sufficient to provide enough evidence to falsify Darwinism (note that I said "Darwinism", not "evolution"). Having said that, I cannot directly falsify Darwinism (actually, nobody can, and that is one of the problems...), but I can provide a list of issues that show such fundamental flaws in the theory that it will be seen as totally implausible by any open-minded reader.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Yes, it is a logical fallacy to insist on an alternative explanation in order to make the argument that a current explanation is incorrect.
But we have examined Darwinism from numerous standpoints and it remains a puzzle.
Is evolution fast or slow? In big gulps or little pieces? Why doesn't the fossil record show evolutionary trends? Are there just not enough fossils? Why are there some records of modern-type toolmaking going back 250,000 years (and in one case, apparently, 50 MILLION years)?
We could go on and on. We aware of the anomalies. But where is the alternative theory? And what would it consist of? (Outside of the Hand of God.)
Posted by Lila Rajiva on 11/29/10 06:09 PM
When I got suspicious of Assange. I have to correct myself. Going back in my emails, I find a letter from his outfit in 2006 shortly after my first book came out, asking me to join wikileaks.
It seemed odd at the time, given that despite the importance of the subject and the fact that I was actually in touch with editors of prominent alternative sites about it, no one actually interviewed me on the subject....among many other odd and unethical things, described at my site.
Yet here was someone suddenly taking notice of my work. I thought it was probably a way to collect information on foreign -born activists, so I declined.
Even the climate-gate emails didn't fully convince me at first, because I distrusted the modus operandi. But since everyone else seemed to buy into it, I figured I was wrong.
But then I came across Young's objections and went back and researched the whole wikileaks story, and since then I'm fairly sure it's not OK.
Reply from The Daily Bell
"Even the climate-gate emails didn't fully convince me at first, because I distrusted the modus operandi. But since everyone else seemed to buy into it, I figured I was wrong."
What evidence is there that Assange was behind the release of these items? We have seen this suggested before. We remain skeptical. You have links?
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 11/29/10 05:56 PM
I was almost certain you would write this missive and if you hadn't I was actually planning to dust off my old blog and write it myself.
Congratulations. I hadn't seen Ms. Rajiva's contribution (didn't occur to me to look there, sorry Lila) and I'll claim I came to the same conclusion the two (or is it 1001?) of you did independently after reading the Guardian's coverage these past few days.
Something is disturbingly convenient about these "leaks", but then I never trusted Woodward & Bernstein either...
Reply from The Daily Bell
What is your blog address again?
Posted by Leonardo Pisano on 11/29/10 05:55 PM
What's the point in saying
"Hm-mm. Believe she has stated on these threads that she is a more or less a simple, middle class person when it comes to Western mores ... not so apt to question fundamental social and legal issues as our elves are ..."
I take that as denigrating Ms. Rajiva, especially seen in combination with "That might be the difference." To me this plain and simple hubris, yet cleverly packaged in "might".
If you felt compelled to react on Huh, you could have simply said "We don't think so", or something similar neutral.
Reply from The Daily Bell
There are dozens of Bell threads in which Ms. Rajiva heatedly contests the Daily Bell's point of view. Elves have left in tears because of her remarks.
Nonetheless, we have always tried to be polite to her because she is a first-rate mind in this business and often adds to the frame of reference we are trying to create.
But given the obviousness of the back-and-forth that occurs occasionally, and the differences of opinion, we did not consider it a breach of some sort of Internet etiquette to provide an answer that was longer than a single sentence. We thought it explanatory, not denigrating.
Anyway, our answer to you stands, as follows (see this thread above) ...
"We are not killing her softly. We just went out of our way to thank her publicly in a prominent article for her insights. You think we had to do that? We were glad to do so - and in an article that has had wide dissemination, already ...
"She is often brilliant and committed to her truth. That is unusual anywhere, let alone for a professional writer. But we do have differences with her and they are amply illustrated in various feedbacks, and she herself has explained why these might be.
"She would be an ornament to any blog, and we often say so and despite differences are grateful for her insights, as our many who stop by here, we believe. And we always look forward to her comments, differences or not, and miss them when they are not forthcoming ..."
Posted by Memehunter on 11/29/10 05:40 PM
"Can't trust anyone these days ..."
Well, even DB is somewhat suspect (in my eyes at least) with their seemingly unflinching devotion to Darwinism (yes, this is tongue-in-cheek). But I'm sure that in time, they'll come around...
Reply from The Daily Bell
1. OK, don't confuse us with Bill Ross who posts here and has his own world view - some of which we might agree with and some of which we might not.
2. If Darwinism does not explain evolution - or if there is no such thing as evolution - enlighten us, please. How did all of this come about? Direct and endless divine intervention. Really, a serious question. Direct us to an alternative theory. We don't believe fully in the theory of evolution because something is missing. There are too many holes in it and the fossils don't add up.
But what else is there? Links? Insights? You brought it up ...
Posted by Leonardo Pisano on 11/29/10 05:36 PM
@Huh " post of 11/29/2010 4:38:03 PM
"Given Lila's persistent libertarian-bashing, I'm wondering if Lila might actually be a neocon plant? Can't trust anyone these days ..."
What a foolish remark! Ms Rajiva is not doing libertarian-bashing at all. She has a critical sharp mind, but she is always polite and plays the ball, not the person. Her anti-positions often have a point that make you think, and even if you don't agree, her replies are always educational. I am sure she is highly respected here for her qualities. She also posts under her own name, which we cannot say for everyone here, Huh?
I am disappointed by your reaction. You take her modesty out of context. Very cleverly done, I must admit, killing Ms Rajiva softly. It looks like you copy tactics from the enemy you so much despises. Your tone has changed over the last few weeks. It makes me wonder why....
Reply from The Daily Bell
We are not killing her softly. We just went out of our way to thank her publicly in a prominent article for her insights. You think we had to do that? We were glad to do so - and in an article that has had wide dissemination, already ...
She is often brilliant and committed to her truth. That is unusual anywhere, let alone for a professional writer. But we do have differences with her and they are amply illustrated in various feedbacks, and she herself has explained why these might be.
She would be an ornament to any blog, and we often say so and despite differences are grateful for her insights, as our many who stop by here, we believe. And we always look forward to her comments, differences or not, and miss them when they are not forthcoming ...
Posted by 10hawks on 11/29/10 05:33 PM
Replying to SILVER LADY Re: Alex Jones & Glen Beck
These two are not cut from the same cloth, and I want to defend Alex Jones against your charges.
I have followed his transmissions off and on for about ten years; his manner is indeed abrasive and
puts many people off, but if you get past his loud-mouth rabble-rousing persona, what you find is an unusually brilliant and sophisticated news analyst.
He also has an encyclopedic knowledge of
history, as well as an uncanny knack of forecasting geopolitical and economic trends.
Most importantly, far from being a "plant" of state agencies, his critique of same goes to the core of the fraud, malfeasance and evil they perpetrate. Why not give another listen to Click to view link ...
Take a closer look at Alex Jones. A libertarian patriot, in redneck clothing.
Posted by 10hawks on 11/29/10 05:06 PM
This is 2010-- 1984 plus 26. If they wanted him that bad, they could have had him by now, in this global surveillance grid. That should be your clue.
Posted by Bill Ross on 11/29/10 05:01 PM
LewRockwell picked up your Oath-Keeper Stewart Rhodes interview:
Click to view link
Hopefully this will motivate some patriotic whistleblowers (oops: traitors), especially when the state is forced to triage, an immediate allegiance shift.
Posted by Huh on 11/29/10 04:38 PM
Given Lila's persistent libertarian-bashing, I'm wondering if Lila might actually be a neocon plant? Can't trust anyone these days ...
Reply from The Daily Bell
Hm-mm. Believe she has stated on these threads that she is a more or less a simple, middle class person when it comes to Western mores ... not so apt to question fundamental social and legal issues as our elves are ...
But believe her too conflicted and driven, on the whole, to be a plant. And she does have an odd vision of the world, somewhat original and sometimes quite insightful. She is well read and is clever about certain things; certainly focused on specific issues of "corruption," (in the accepted sense) where the Bell might be said to focus on the "bigger picture." That might be the difference.