Author Topic: Wikileaks, Stratfor and Anonymous (Read 4303 times)

Maizar · « **on:** February 26, 2012, 09:52:55 PM »

Anonymous hacked Stratfor's computers and in so doing obtained a massive email dump (5 million emails). It has handed these emails to Wikileaks which plans to release them today. From their front page:

Quote

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

The emails also reveal the US government's attempts at bringing Julian Assange into their hands so they can try him for various things they have accused him of.

None of this is very exciting, except when one takes into account the following possibilities:

George Soros is the money behind the Occupy Movement

and

George Soros is the money behind Anonymous

and

George Soros is the money behind Wikileaks (along with others which are even more obvious)

The connections of course go further and run deeper, and help to explain the current geopolitical landscape and the contrived tensions that we are being told exist in the Middle East. World War III will be a fight between secret friends.

Maizar · « **Reply #1 on:** February 27, 2012, 12:15:48 AM »

From early analysis of Wikeleaks Stratfor Files:

Quote

Mr. Friedman also proposed that Iran is “going out of control” due to the elite crisis, that “no decision making is going on” and that decisions being made “won’t be supported by the public”.

This makes me think that Mr. Friedman allowed the hack, with the broader aim of uniting the panicked and disgruntled masons who don't want to do Israel's bidding this time around. After all, Stratfor is not real intelligence. You can't buy that, you have to get your own.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #2 on:** February 27, 2012, 12:39:46 AM »

What's shocking to me is that the average person isn't gobsmacked by

A)the audacity of the organization

B)The people like the DIA were paying *Stratfor* for intel

C)that organizations with their own intel like the air force, marines, DIA, etc were willing to do business with an organization that operated in such a way. These organizations either knew and didn't care or didn't know and were obtuse. Neither are comforting.

D)If they (Stratfor) are all ex-Intel (and they are) and these are their tactics, does anyone need further proof that our own agencies operate like this? How else would they learn such asset management techniques?

E)If they're private, they operate with even fewer legal fetters than state organizations (minus diplomatic pouches), one can only imagine the depravity of their operations.

F)Lastly, the average person seems to fail to recognize the import of the story: a serious *private* intelligence organization has been exposed, one that rivals the assets of state intel organization. That such power and operations would be carried out by private organizations should concern those with deluded notions of their precious (masonic) democracy

Maizar · « **Reply #3 on:** February 27, 2012, 01:46:38 AM »

There isn't enough information to know exactly what the motives of this leak are, but a fair guess would be to humiliate the western leadership and shepherd it into the slaughterhouse that is its final stand against Iran (and Russia and China). Interesting that this is timed with the failure to mount a successful insurgency within Syria, which has been swiftly cut down with Russian help. Maybe Pike was right after all.

Maizar · « **Reply #4 on:** February 27, 2012, 03:02:37 AM »

Quote

F)Lastly, the average person seems to fail to recognize the import of the story: a serious *private* intelligence organization has been exposed, one that rivals the assets of state intel organization. That such power and operations would be carried out by private organizations should concern those with deluded notions of their precious (masonic) democracy

Yes. They are hoping people (including all those stupid masons blinded by pride, pomp and status) don't realize all this is orchestrated. They are hoping that people will send their kids to the armed forces to spill the blood of naive youth on an altar to a false deity, to worship Zionism and Satan by committing heinous mortal sins and then dying violently. Whereas God leads souls to heaven by revealing to them his Truth and, Hope and Love, Satan wins them through deception, hatred and despair. If people reading this are STILL not going to confession and receiving communion, then I don't know what else will inspire them to do so!

Maizar · « **Reply #5 on:** February 27, 2012, 05:15:15 AM »

An interesting read, but don't waste your time if you are in a hurry because I am sure it will be right in our faces sooner than later:

Wikileaks reveals privately run CIA's dirty secrets:

Quote

"[Y]ou have to take control of him. Control means financial, sɛҳuąƖ or psychological control... This is intended to start our conversation on your next phase" – CEO George Friedman to Stratfor analyst Reva Bhalla on 6 December 2011, on how to exploit an Israeli intelligence informant providing information on the medical condition of the President of Venezuala, Hugo Chavez.

The amusing thing here is that here we have an organization (Anonymous), helping another organization (Wikileaks) to discredit an organization (Stratfor), where all of the above more or less have the same masters! The Circus is in full swing.

Busillis · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2012, 06:29:58 PM »

Lot of interesting information here!

I think a good rule to follow is to not put much, if any, faith in public figures who are not loathed by either or both the left and the right. The Wikileaks guy is a darling of the left, and so that's a warning sign.

Maizar · « **Reply #7 on:** February 27, 2012, 09:57:53 PM »

A lot of this reminds me of how the Rothschild family controlled both world wars, or perhaps even more clearly, how they set Napoleon up for defeat at Waterloo. In essence they more or less controlled both sides by controlling the finances.

This current episode is showing that Israel controls America's destiny because it owns the intelligence. If the US does not cooperate, Israel leaks all the vital information to the enemies of the US and takes sides with the other superpower, ensuring its own survival at the expense of the US.

Busillis · « **Reply #8 on:** February 28, 2012, 06:58:12 PM »

Have you heard about the conspiracy theory that Hitler was an agent for the Rothschild family? Any info on that? I've also heard that Hitler didn't really die in 1945, but lived in Argentina and died in 1962:

‘There is no forensic evidence for his, or Eva Braun’s deaths, and the stories from the eyewitnesses to their continued survival in Argentina are compelling.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050137/Did-Hitler-Eva-Braun-flee-Berlin-die-old-age-Argentina.html#ixzz1njCZN4A8

Maizar · « **Reply #9 on:** February 28, 2012, 11:15:15 PM »

Quote

Have you heard about the conspiracy theory that Hitler was an agent for the Rothschild family? Any info on that? I've also heard that Hitler didn't really die in 1945, but lived in Argentina and died in 1962

Yes, that I have heard. I am not an expert on Hitler or even WW2, and we all know how strong opinions run on that one (along with disinformation), but I do know a few interesting little facts (but I won't give reference now - no time at the moment). Hitler's rise was funded by various bankers/millionaires (including Prescott Bush) who saw him as a useful leader who will get Germany working again so that it could pay off its debts. However he reneged on those debt 'obligations'. His regime was seen as one of two possibilities for World Jєωry to support in their desire to have a Zionist state in Palestine, but he was dumped in favor of Churchill. There are still uncertainties about Stalin (was he an Oksana sleeper agent?) So yes, Hitler was probably groomed and handled more or less by the Rothschilds or their agents. Did he break loose? Is that why he is so hated, compared to equally bad tyrants who barely rate a mention?

It's more than likely that when Hitler's hideout was stormed at the end of the war, he wasn't even there, or that he was captured and 'disappeared'.

The thing we can thank Hitler for, if anything, is that he cut off the almost certain invasion of the entire European continent by Stalin's forces by making a surprise attack on Moscow, once intelligence came to his attention that Stalin was massing on the border (and that he had dismantled Russia's defenses).

Maizar · « **Reply #10 on:** February 29, 2012, 05:43:33 AM »

I had a read of a post that claimed to be the Stratfor Hack Log, or at the very least a long rant about how poorly the servers at Stratfor were set up, how angry the customers are at the company for short-changing them on security, and a fair bit of humorous commentary by the authors.

I am not sure what the morality of the whole act is, actually - since it is, for the best part, a criminal organization (by any Christian standard) - from top to bottom - that was hacked, by people who are themselves criminal (certainly not moral) - unless of course this can be interpreted to be an act of just war, but it's a very complex situation. The question is, under a Christian system of government, what role is there for an intelligence service? And who should be allowed to run one? Private firms? I don't think so some how!

They are classic Anarchists, like those described in The Man Who Was Thursday.

What it does mean for the US that so much of its security service membership has been exposed?

Busillis · « **Reply #11 on:** February 29, 2012, 07:55:46 PM »

Quote from: Maizar

Quote
Have you heard about the conspiracy theory that Hitler was an agent for the Rothschild family? Any info on that? I've also heard that Hitler didn't really die in 1945, but lived in Argentina and died in 1962

Yes, that I have heard. I am not an expert on Hitler or even WW2, and we all know how strong opinions run on that one (along with disinformation), but I do know a few interesting little facts (but I won't give reference now - no time at the moment). Hitler's rise was funded by various bankers/millionaires (including Prescott Bush) who saw him as a useful leader who will get Germany working again so that it could pay off its debts. However he reneged on those debt 'obligations'. His regime was seen as one of two possibilities for World Jєωry to support in their desire to have a Zionist state in Palestine, but he was dumped in favor of Churchill. There are still uncertainties about Stalin (was he an Oksana sleeper agent?) So yes, Hitler was probably groomed and handled more or less by the Rothschilds or their agents. Did he break loose? Is that why he is so hated, compared to equally bad tyrants who barely rate a mention?

It's more than likely that when Hitler's hideout was stormed at the end of the war, he wasn't even there, or that he was captured and 'disappeared'.

The thing we can thank Hitler for, if anything, is that he cut off the almost certain invasion of the entire European continent by Stalin's forces by making a surprise attack on Moscow, once intelligence came to his attention that Stalin was massing on the border (and that he had dismantled Russia's defenses).

Thanks, that's interesting! I'll have to look into this sleeper agent reference.

Maizar · « **Reply #12 on:** February 29, 2012, 09:32:55 PM »

About Stalin, recommended reading: Icebreaker (Suvurov) ... hard to get, it may still be in print, or otherwise if not there are other ways of getting it. From the preface:

Quote

Even besore the nαzιs came to power, the Soviet leaders had given Hitler the unofficial name of ‘Icebreaker for the Revolution’. The name is both apt and fitting. The communists understood that Europe would be vulnerable only in the event of war and that the Icebreaker for the Revolution could make it vulnerable. Unaware of this, Adolf Hitler cleared the way for world communism by his actions. With his Blitzkrieg wars, Hitler crushed the Western democracies, scattering and dispersing his forces from Norway to Libya. This suited Stalin admirably. The Icebreaker committed the greatest crimes against the world and humanity, and, in doing so, placed in Stalin’s hands the moral right to declare himsels the liberator of Europe at any time he chose — while changing the cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs from brown to red.

...

Stalin understood better than Hitler that a war is won by the side which enters it last and not by the one which goes into it first. Stalin granted Hitler the doubtful honour of being the first, while he himself prepared for his unavoidable entry into the war after ‘all the capitalists (will) have fought amongst themselves’. (Stalin, Vol. 6, p. 158)

...

Much has been done to uncover the crimes of nαzιsm and find the butchers who perpetrated atrocities in its name. This work must be continued and stepped up. But while unmasking fascists, one must also expose the Soviet communists who encouraged the nαzιs to commit their crimes, so that they could avail themselves of the results of these crimes.

The book doesn't acceptably deal with the hidden hand of money in the war, nor really the influence of bankers, but it is a _very_ good read.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #13 on:** February 29, 2012, 09:44:49 PM »

Quote from: Maizar

I am not sure what the morality of the whole act is, actually - since it is, for the best part, a criminal organization (by any Christian standard) - from top to bottom - that was hacked, by people who are themselves criminal (certainly not moral) - unless of course this can be interpreted to be an act of just war, but it's a very complex situation. The question is, under a Christian system of government, what role is there for an intelligence service? And who should be allowed to run one? Private firms? I don't think so some how!

They are classic Anarchists, like those described in The Man Who Was Thursday.

What it does mean for the US that so much of its security service membership has been exposed?

I saw and interview one time with Robert Hanssen, he made an excellent point about espionage.

He pointed out, with all the money, human effort, agencies etc, what difference has our intelligence apparatus made to anything that matters?

Are we freer because of it? Have we ever stopped our most sensitive secrets from falling into the hands of our enemies (atomic secrets falling into the hands of the Soviets or Chicoms)? Have we crushed our enemies with it?

No.

Our intel didn't know the Berlin Wall was falling until it was in the news, they didn't stop 9-11 (whole other conversation), they didn't know the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse or their equipment was in disrepair...

More to the point, it's never saved a life even tactically.

If you've ever been in the military you'll know just how useless, or at least unreliable 'intel' is.

Maizar · « **Reply #14 on:** February 29, 2012, 09:59:24 PM »

I should have said Okhrana (Tsarist secret police). Such is the danger of reciting from memory. I can't remember anymore the name of the book which explained the connection best. I will find it later if I can.

Stalin's interactions with Okhrana, the fact he himself wasn't Jєωιѕн (despite coming from Georgia), that he was physically abused as a child, the distinct possibility (maybe even likelihood) his real father was an Orthodox priest (which is why he entered the seminary), make him an interesting character. All of this can go some way to explain his nationalism.

Iuvenalis: I think intelligence is a necessary part of statecraft (even for a kingdom). A state without a functioning intelligence system falls easily, having no information of how and why to defend itself. The problem in the world is that most intelligence services we know of today find their roots in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and central bankers. They are not an example of what a Catholic state would have.