Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 21, 2017
Most readers of this website know that I seldom rely on Wikileaks as a source nor comment on any of its major leaks. Indeed, the organization reached a new high – or, depending on one’s lights, low – during the last American presidential election cycle when leaks began to emerge during the last days of the campaign that were particularly damaging to Darth Hillary. Granted, she didn’t need much help, for the stink of corruption and “suspicious deaths” have followed the Clintons since the Arkancides of the 1970s and 80s’ up to and including the weird “suicide” of Clinton aide Vince Foster and the strange details around the bloody massacre of the Branch Davidians at Waco, the weirdness around the Oklahoma City bombing, the dubious financial activities in Haiti, and so on. These matters have been covered by other researchers in depth, so there was no need here to comment on them.
But Wikileaks itself has not been much of a subject here, either, though most regular readers here probably suspect that to gain access to the information contained in its “leaks,” it had by the nature of the case to have “inside help,” as it were. This, at least, has been my own suspicion, which is why when I saw the following article shared by Mr. S.D., and read a certain passage within it, that I had to pass it along, together with my daily dose of high octane speculation. The article in question is by Professor Michel Chossudovsky and appears at the website Global Research; the article, you will note, was dated December 13, 2010:
Who is Behind Wikileaks?
The pattern of backers here is intriguing, for one has the usual suspects; Professor Chossudovsky writes:
Wikileaks had also entered into negotiations with several corporate foundations with a view to securing 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.”
Mr. Assange said WikiLeaks gets about half its money from modest donations processed by its website, and the other half from “personal contacts,” including “people with some millions who approach us….” (WikiLeaks Keeps Funding Secret, WSJ.com, August 23, 2010)
Acquiring covert funding from intelligence agencies was, according to the email exchanges, also contemplated. (See Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007)
At the outset in early 2007, Wikileaks acknowledged that the project had been
“founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa…. [Its advisory board] includes representatives from expat Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers.” (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007). (Emphasis added)
Note that the backers, by Wikileaks’ own admission, includes:
1) Chinese dissidents, mathematicians, and start up company technologies;
2) from the USA, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa;
3) Expat Russian and Tibetan refugees;
5) A former US intelligence analyst;
6) Cryptographers; and
7) “people with some millions who approach us.”
Chossudovsky then notes:
From the outset, Wikileaks’ geopolitical focus on “oppressive regimes” in Eurasia and the Middle East was “appealing” to America’s elites, i.e. it seemingly matched stated US foreign policy objectives. Moreover, the composition of the Wikileaks team (which included Chinese dissidents), not to mention the methodology of “exposing secrets” of foreign governments, were in tune with the practices of US covert operations geared towards triggering “regime change” and fostering “color revolutions” in different parts of the World.
In addition, further on in the article, Chossudovsky notes the ties of Wikileaks to The Economist and to the Rothschild interests:
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. The Economist’s Editor-in-Chief, John Micklethwait was a participant in the June 2010 Bilderberg conference.
The Economist also 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. Former Editor of The Economist (1974-86), Andrew Stephen Bower Knight is currently Chairman of the J. Rothschild Capital Management Fund. He is also reported to have been member of the Steering Group (1986) of the Bilderberg.
The broader question is why would Julian Assange receive the support from Britain’s foremost establishment news outfit which has consistently been involved in media disinformation?
Are we not dealing with a case of “manufactured dissent”, whereby the process of supporting and rewarding Wikileaks for its endeavors, becomes a means of controlling and manipulating the Wikileaks project, while at the same time embedding it into the mainstream media.
It is also worth mentioning another important link. Julian Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), a major London elite law firm, happens to be the legal adviser to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust. While this in itself does prove anything, it should nonetheless be examined in the broader context of Wikileaks’ social and corporate entourage: the NYT, the CFR, The Economist, Time Magazine, Forbes, Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), etc.
What caught my eye in all of this was the strangeness of these combinations of interests: Western financiers and members of the “oligrachy”, expatriates from Russia and Tibet, Chinese dissidents (including, presumably Taiwanese), South Africa, and so on. Additionally, it is to be noted that the inclusion of intelligence analysts, cryptographers, and mathematicians, would appear to give Wikileaks its own in-house encryption, decryption, and analysis capability, backed by unknown persons with “millions.” Clearly, at one level, one has all the presence of “Mr Globaloney” that could be interpreted to mean Wikileaks has an inside track to that group and, to that extent, represents their interests and agendas. The citations Professor Chossudovsky has provided in his article are alone a gold mine of information and he deserves credit for exposing it.
It’s that pattern of involvement with South Africa, Taiwan, and “Chinese dissidents”, however, that attracted my attention, for in it, one detects another pattern, one associated with the former World Anti-Communist League, which was, not surprisingly, based from much of the period of its operation in Taiwan. That organization has since changed its name, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, to the World League for Freedom and Democracy. Same organization, new name. If one searches for the organization under its new name, one comes here:
World League for Freedom and Democracy
And scrolling down, one reads this:
In 1978, Roger Pearson became the World Chairman of the WACL. Pearson was described in a Washington Post article as having neo-Nazi associations and sources report that as a result of an article in the Washington Post in 1978 critical of WACL and alleging extreme right wing politics of Pearson that either he was expelled from WACL or at least was pressured into resigning from his position as World Chairman.
The U.S. chapter of WACL, the United States Council for World Freedom (USCWF) was founded in 1981 by Major General John K. Singlaub. Singlaub was the former US Chief of Staff of both United Nations and American forces in South Korea, but was relieved in 1977 by U.S. PresidentJimmy Carter after publicly criticizing Carter’s decision to reduce the number of troops on the peninsula. Singlaub became a member of the WACL in 1980, and founded and became president of its U.S. chapter, the United States Council for World Freedom. This branch generated controversy when it supported Nicaraguan guerrillas in the Iran–Contra affair and, in 1981, the USCWF was placed under watch by the Anti-Defamation League, which said that the organization had increasingly become “a point of contact for extremists, racists, and anti-Semites”. During the 1980s, the USCWF and WACL conducted a purge of these elements, and invited ADL observers to monitor its conferences; by 1985, the Anti-Defamation League declared itself “satisfied that substantial progress has been made since 1981 in ridding the organization of racists and anti-Semites.”
It is alleged that in the mid-1980s WACL had become a supplier of arms to anti-communist rebel movements in southern Africa, Central America, Afghanistan and the Far East. During the 1980s, the WACL was particularly active in Latin America, notably by aiding the Contra forces in Nicaragua. During this period, WACL was criticized for the presence in the organization of neo-Nazis, war criminals, and people linked to death squads and assassinations. Other allegations have included reports claim that the World League for Freedom and Democracy is responsible for producing what its opponents call “troops of killers”, while ostensibly organizing to provide support for Corazon Aquino from the right-wing in the Philippines and for supporting the Mozambican National Resistance (RENAMO) movement in Mozambique.
The World Anti-Communist League held annual conferences at various locations throughout the world. Numerous groups participated, including the Unification Church of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. WACL also enjoyed support from many U.S. Congressmen, most notably 2008 presidential nominee Senator John McCain (R–AZ), who sat on the United States Council for World Freedom (USCWF) Board of Directors in the early 1980s. McCain has said previously he resigned from the council in 1984 and asked in 1986 to have his name removed from the group’s letterhead.
In other words, the organization is not only well-connected to the upper echelons of the American political and intelligence establishment, but also connected to the post-war network of Neo-Nazis and their influence over Latin American death squads.
Why should the Taiwanese and therefore, the possible World Anti-Communist League/World League for Freedom and Democracy connection concern us? In his crucial study The Beast Reawakens: Fascism’s Resurgance from Hitler’s Spymasters to Today’s Neo-Nazi Groups and Right-Wing Extremists (Routledge, 2000), Martin A. Lee notes, in an extended footnote on pp. 226-227 the following disturbing series of connections:
On rare occasions, the (Institute for Holocaust Revision) managed to entice mainstream historians, such as Pulitzer Price-winner John Toland, to present papers at its conferences. Ex-CIA agent Victor Marchetti also lecture at an IHR gathering…. Another favorite IHR speaker and collaborator was Issah Nakleh of the World Muslim Congress(WMC). Basied in Pakistan, the WMC was initially headed by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who, like his friend H. Keith Thompson, stood by the Third Reich until his death in 1974. A few years later, the WMC, then headed by Pakistani Dr. Inamullah Kahn, mailed Holocaust-denial literature to every member of the U.S. Congress and the British Parliament…. Dr. Kahn also served as an advisor to the Saudi Arabian royal family, which lavished funds on the WMC. In addition, the Saudi Arabian government retained the services of American neo-Nazi William Grimstead as a Washington lobbyist. Like many European neofascist groups, the WMC adopted a third-position stance toward the superpowers, as demonstrated by this headline from Muslim World: U.S. AND USSR – BOTH SERVE ZIONIST INTERESTS. But Khan tempered his anti-American tirades when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Soon the World Muslim Congress began working closely with U.S. intelligence and Pakistani military officials, who were covertly supporting the Afghan mujahideen in their fight against the Soviet-installed regime in Kabul. This effort was strongly endorsed by Dr. Khan, who served for many years as the Pakistani representative of the Nazi-infested World Anti-Communist League, which played an important role in the Reagan administrations “secret war” in the Golden Crescent.(Emphasis added0
Global Crescents and secret wars and Afghanistan imply a covert war for control of drug money coming from that region.
In other words, one is looking at a mouthpiece not just for globalism, but one which could conceivable have deep connections to other global networks: radical Islam and its dubious connection to the Saudis (and again, note that Saudi-Nazi connection), global terrorist networks, and, of course, global fascist networks.
And that should give everyone pause.
See you on the flip side…
Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
About Joseph P. Farrell
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.