WikiLeaks and the JFK Asassination

[John Simkin]

There is a connection between WikiLeaks and the assassination of JFK. It is because of the link between the CIA and the overthrow of Fidel Castro.

The story begins when Miss A (Anna Ardin) invited Julian Assange to speak to a leftwing campaign group in the town of Enkoping. She invited him to spend the night at her flat. Both agree that consensual sex took place. The following day Arden introduced Assange to Miss W (Sofia Wilén). The couple went to the cinema where Wilén freely admits she performed oral sex on Assange. They then went back to her place where consensual sex took place that night and then again the following morning.

A few days later the two women went to a Stockholm police station where they said they were "seeking advice" on making a complaint against Assange. In the discussion that followed, Arden complained that the condom split while they were having sex and Assange did it on purpose. Wilén said they had unprotected sex without her consent. They were advised by the police officer that these allegations amounted to rape against Arden and sexual molestation against Wilén. The two women then leaked the story to a Swedish newspaper. Arden told Afonbladet that: "The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man who had attitude problems with women."

Anna Ardin has an interesting background. In the past she has worked for the Swedish Embassy in the United States. Her university thesis, finished in 2007, was on Fidel Castro. This was then published by a CIA-funded anti-Castro group. It has also been pointed out that Sofia Wilén's partner is an American.

[William Kelly]

There is a connection between WikiLeaks and the assassination of JFK. It is because of the link between the CIA and the overthrow of Fidel Castro.

The story begins when Miss A (Anna Ardin) invited Julian Assange to speak to a leftwing campaign group in the town of Enkoping. She invited him to spend the night at her flat. Both agree that consensual sex took place. The following day Arden introduced Assange to Miss W (Sofia Wilén). The couple went to the cinema where Wilén freely admits she performed oral sex on Assange. They then went back to her place where consensual sex took place that night and then again the following morning.

A few days later the two women went to a Stockholm police station where they said they were "seeking advice" on making a complaint against Assange. In the discussion that followed, Arden complained that the condom split while they were having sex and Assange did it on purpose. Wilén said they had unprotected sex without her consent. They were advised by the police officer that these allegations amounted to rape against Arden and sexual molestation against Wilén. The two women then leaked the story to a Swedish newspaper. Arden told Afonbladet that: "The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man who had attitude problems with women."

Anna Ardin has an interesting background. In the past she has worked for the Swedish Embassy in the United States. Her university thesis, finished in 2007, was on Fidel Castro. This was then published by a CIA-funded anti-Castro group. It has also been pointed out that Sofia Wilén's partner is an American.

Twitter:

http://twitter.com/annaardin/status/21987050646

Blog:

http://ardin.se/

Thesis:

http://annaardin.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/anna-ardin-thesis_final.pdf

[John Simkin]

[blog:

http://ardin.se/

I notice that she has deleted those entries about how you gain sexual revenge on men.

[Glenn Viklund]

There is a connection between WikiLeaks and the assassination of JFK. It is because of the link between the CIA and the overthrow of Fidel Castro.

The story begins when Miss A (Anna Ardin) invited Julian Assange to speak to a leftwing campaign group in the town of Enkoping. She invited him to spend the night at her flat. Both agree that consensual sex took place. The following day Arden introduced Assange to Miss W (Sofia Wilén). The couple went to the cinema where Wilén freely admits she performed oral sex on Assange. They then went back to her place where consensual sex took place that night and then again the following morning.

A few days later the two women went to a Stockholm police station where they said they were "seeking advice" on making a complaint against Assange. In the discussion that followed, Arden complained that the condom split while they were having sex and Assange did it on purpose. Wilén said they had unprotected sex without her consent. They were advised by the police officer that these allegations amounted to rape against Arden and sexual molestation against Wilén. The two women then leaked the story to a Swedish newspaper. Arden told Afonbladet that: "The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man who had attitude problems with women."

Anna Ardin has an interesting background. In the past she has worked for the Swedish Embassy in the United States. Her university thesis, finished in 2007, was on Fidel Castro. This was then published by a CIA-funded anti-Castro group. It has also been pointed out that Sofia Wilén's partner is an American.

John,

Personally I'd prefer to call this a coincidence, hardly a connection. Ardin is a somewhat typical leftist from the academia, with a degree in political science. A feminist, a Christian and someone who's not apologizing for being quite successful with her career. It's not particularly unusual that leftists in Sweden still have some quite positive views on Cuba.

I can see absolutely nothing beside Swedish normalcy about who she is and her record. I've noticed the speculations in international media that one or both of these women could have some sort of connection to the US, thus squeezing Assange on behalf the US. I don't buy any of that, at all. On the contrary, the US would probably be one of the last countries either one of these women would do anything for, whatsoever. US foreign policy is still a hard act to swallow for leftists over here.

To speculate further, I don't think anything will come out of this. The DA, as far as I can see by what's official, doesn't seem to have much evidence at all.

[John Simkin]

John,

Personally I'd prefer to call this a coincidence, hardly a connection. Ardin is a somewhat typical leftist from the academia, with a degree in political science. A feminist, a Christian and someone who's not apologizing for being quite successful with her career. It's not particularly unusual that leftists in Sweden still have some quite positive views on Cuba.

I can see absolutely nothing beside Swedish normalcy about who she is and her record. I've noticed the speculations in international media that one or both of these women could have some sort of connection to the US, thus squeezing Assange on behalf the US. I don't buy any of that, at all. On the contrary, the US would probably be one of the last countries either one of these women would do anything for, whatsoever. US foreign policy is still a hard act to swallow for leftists over here.

To speculate further, I don't think anything will come out of this. The DA, as far as I can see by what's official, doesn't seem to have much evidence at all.

The evidence is indeed very flimsy and this why the original investigation launched by the Swedish prosecutor was dropped. The original prosecutor judged that the evidence did not meet the criterion of a rape or sexual molestation charge and Julian Assange was allowed to leave Sweden. It seemed that the CIA honey-pot plan had failed. The women were then put into contact with Claes Borgström, a lawyer who is known to like cases that produce a lot of publicity. Under Swedish law it seems that lawyers can reopen cases that have been dropped by the government prosecutor.

Borgström has admitted that there is little chance of Assange ever being found guilty of this charge in a Swedish court. However, that is not the point, the main objective is for the United States to get him extradited from the UK. The main problem is that it seems that Assange has not broken any US laws.

[Glenn Viklund]

John,

Personally I'd prefer to call this a coincidence, hardly a connection. Ardin is a somewhat typical leftist from the academia, with a degree in political science. A feminist, a Christian and someone who's not apologizing for being quite successful with her career. It's not particularly unusual that leftists in Sweden still have some quite positive views on Cuba.

I can see absolutely nothing beside Swedish normalcy about who she is and her record. I've noticed the speculations in international media that one or both of these women could have some sort of connection to the US, thus squeezing Assange on behalf the US. I don't buy any of that, at all. On the contrary, the US would probably be one of the last countries either one of these women would do anything for, whatsoever. US foreign policy is still a hard act to swallow for leftists over here.

To speculate further, I don't think anything will come out of this. The DA, as far as I can see by what's official, doesn't seem to have much evidence at all.

The evidence is indeed very flimsy and this why the original investigation launched by the Swedish prosecutor was dropped. The original prosecutor judged that the evidence did not meet the criterion of a rape or sexual molestation charge and Julian Assange was allowed to leave Sweden. It seemed that the CIA honey-pot plan had failed. The women were then put into contact with Claes Borgström, a lawyer who is known to like cases that produce a lot of publicity. Under Swedish law it seems that lawyers can reopen cases that have been dropped by the government prosecutor.

Borgström has admitted that there is little chance of Assange ever being found guilty of this charge in a Swedish court. However, that is not the point, the main objective is for the United States to get him extradited from the UK. The main problem is that it seems that Assange has not broken any US laws.

Yes, Borgström is a well known lawyer. But not so much because he likes publicity. But because he's obviously a man, and still he used to be the "jämställdhetsombudsman" over here for many years:

"The Equality Ombudsman (DO) is a government agency that seeks to combat discrimination on grounds of sex, transgender identity or expression, ethnicity, religion or other belief, disability, sexual orientation or age"

Which perhaps could be a surprising position for a man, in most of the western world...

But flimsy, yes I agree. Apparently there was consensual sexual relations in both cases. So really, it's not clear to me exactly what it is these women think Assange did wrong here... But it looks like another couple of cases of the familiar "she says.." and "he says.." -type. Such cases are very often dropped due to lack of evidence.

Edit: I should add that Assange is sought after by the Swedes for questioning, that's at this point all. So my guess would be that he does not necessarily need to go to Sweden in order to meet this obligation. It could very well be done directly from London PD, as far as I understand the situation. After this I assume they'll release him pronto.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[John Simkin]

But flimsy, yes I agree. Apparently there was consensual sexual relations in both cases. So really, it's not clear to me exactly what it is these women think Assange did wrong here... But it looks like another couple of cases of the familiar "she says.." and "he says.." -type. Such cases are very often dropped due to lack of evidence.

Arden has complained that the condom split while they were having sex and Assange did it on purpose. Wilén said they had unprotected sex without her consent.

[Guest Tom Scully]

...Borgström has admitted that there is little chance of Assange ever being found guilty of this charge in a Swedish court. However, that is not the point, the main objective is for the United States to get him extradited from the UK. The main problem is that it seems that Assange has not broken any US laws.

(I apologize for posting so much text from one source, but not knowing how long this post and thread will be available to readers into the future, I think the official, textbook campaign to discredit Assange in the classic, "shoot the messenger" tradition, needs to be laid out here. They collect our money in taxes and fees and then use it to attempt to hide their corruption from us and avoid accountability for their illegal acts.)

I think the main problem is that the trumped up prosecutorial campaign against Assange, combined with the media campaign of distortion and blatant lies will backfire as Assange is pushed to the point where he decides to move closer to what the states and their pathetic media goons tar him as being....

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/08/wikileaks/index.html

...UPDATE V: Time Magazine this morning has a new article by Michael Lindenberger -- lamenting the oh-so-inconvenient fact that WikiLeaks likely hasn't actually broken any laws -- that repeatedly affirms the central lie being propagated to demonize WikiLeaks. First we have this:

[W]hat would it take for the U.S. government to prosecute him for publishing -- and disseminating to newspapers around the world -- thousands of classified State Department cables? . . . .several members of Congress and the Obama Administration suggested that Assange should indeed face criminal prosecution for posting and disseminating to the media thousands of secret diplomatic cables .

Just as a mathematical matter, the claim that WikiLeaks has "posted" or "published" "thousands of secret diplomatic cables" is absolutely false. All one has to do to know this is go to their website where the diplomatic cables have been posted. There is a large, prominent box which keeps a running daily total of how many cables have actually been posted. This is what it reads right this minute:

They have not released "thousands" of cables; they've released 1,193 -- less than 1/2 of 1% of the total they possess.

Worse, the Time article then refers to "a distinction between WikiLeaks' indiscriminate posting of the cables -- which [Nicholas] Burns called 'nihilistic' -- and the more careful vetting evidenced by The New York Times." This is a "distinction" that exists only in the minds of establishment-serving, falsehood-spewing "journalists."

He will release secrets of the powerful of a disturbing and numerous enough nature (if that is possible, given the success of the disinformation to dull all curiosity and potential for grassroots militancy) to ultimately take the focus off of demonizing the messenger and placing it where it belongs, on the criminals and their crimes.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/08/wikileaks/index.html

...UPDATE: The To the Point segment I just did included not only James Rubin, but also The New York Times' John Burns, who quite obviously has not even come close to getting over his seething anger about the criticisms I voiced about his Assange article several weeks ago. Now this was a contentious debate -- one that made the WNYC one I did earlier today look like a lovefest by comparison. Rubin -- as is true for so many WikiLeaks critics -- made statements when denouncing them that were simply false, and as soon as the audio of this segment is available, I'm going to post it along with the evidence proving that, just as I said I would. Both the dispute itself -- and the way in which this media figure (Burns) and former government official (Rubin) were (as always) on the exact same page -- were quite illuminating.

...UPDATE II: Below is the audio from the To the Point segment. ...

....I was finally brought in at the 32:15 mark and that's when things became quite contentious and illuminating. I've written about this before, but what's most remarkable is how -- as always -- leading media figures and government officials are completely indistinguishable in what they think, say and do with regard to these controversies; that's why Burns and Rubin clung together so closely throughout the segment, because there is no real distinction between most of these establishment reporters and the government; the former serve the latter. Below is the clip itself; I'm posting the specific evidence showing that Rubin's general claim (that these cables contain no deceit or wrongdoing) as well as his specific claims about Yemen were absolutely false:...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/24/assange/index.html

Oct 24, 2010 12:25 ET

The Nixonian henchmen of today: at the NYT

....As the intelligence community reporter Tim Shorrock wrote today on Twitter: "When Dan Ellsberg leaked [the] Pentagon Papers, Nixon's henchmen tried to destroy his reputation. Today w/Wikileaks & Assange, media does the job."

Yesterday, Assange walked out of an interview with CNN, which he thought had been arranged to discuss the significance of the Iraq War revelations, because the CNN "reporter" seemed interested in asking only about petty, vapid rumors about Assange himself, not the substance of the leaks. The Nation's Greg Mitchell summarized that interview this way: "Assange to CNN: 'Do you want to talk about deaths of 104,000 people or my personal life?'" CNN's answer could not have been clearer: the latter, definitely.

But the low point of this smear campaign was led by The New York Times' John Burns, who authored a sleazy hit piece on Assange -- filled with every tawdry, scurrilous tabloid rumor about him -- that was (and still is) prominently featured in the NYT, competing for attention with the stories about the leaked documents themselves, and often receiving more attention. Here's the current iteration of the front page of the NYT website, with the Assange story receiving top billing:

It shouldn't be surprising that Burns is filling the role played in 1971 by Henry Kissinger and John Ehrichman. His courageous and high-quality war reporting from Iraq notwithstanding, it's long been clear from his U.S.-glorifying accounts that Burns was one of the media's most enthusiastic supporters of the occupation of Iraq. That's why even the NYT-hating necons regularly lavished him (along with Judy Miller's partner, Michael Gordon) with uncharacteristic praise (National Review's Michael Ledeen: "Rich [Lowry, Editor of National Review] and I share an admiration for Michael Gordon, one of three (along with Burns and Filkens) NYT reporters who really work hard to get the Iraqi story right"). To justify and excuse his and his media colleagues' gullibility about Iraq, Burns wrote two months ago -- falsely -- that "there were few, if any, who foresaw the extent of the violence that would follow or the political convulsion it would cause in Iraq, America and elsewhere" and that "[w]e could not know then, though if we had been wiser we might have guessed, the scale of the toll the invasion would unleash."

The Iraq War is John Burns' war, and for the crime of making that war look bad, Julian Assange must have his character smeared and his psychiatric health maligned. Burns -- along with his co-writer Ravi Somaiya -- is happy to viciously perform that function:

Julian Assange moves like a hunted man. . . . He demands that his dwindling number of loyalists use expensive encrypted cellphones and swaps his own as other men change shirts. He checks into hotels under false names, dyes his hair, sleeps on sofas and floors, and uses cash instead of credit cards, often borrowed from friends. . . .

Now it is not just governments that denounce him: some of his own comrades are abandoning him for what they see as erratic and imperious behavior, and a nearly delusional grandeur unmatched by an awareness that the digital secrets he reveals can have a price in flesh and blood. . . .

Effectively, as Mr. Assange pursues his fugitive's life, his leadership is enforced over the Internet. Even remotely, his style is imperious. . . .

When Herbert Snorrason, a 25-year-old political activist in Iceland, questioned Mr. Assange's judgment over a number of issues in an online exchange last month, Mr. Assange was uncompromising. "I don’t like your tone," he said, according to a transcript. "If it continues, you're out." . . . In an interview about the exchange, Mr. Snorrason’s conclusion was stark. "He is not in his right mind," he said.

Mr. Assange's detractors also accuse him of pursuing a vendetta against the United States. In London, Mr. Assange said America was an increasingly militarized society and a threat to democracy. Moreover, he said, "we have been attacked by the United States, so we are forced into a position where we must defend ourselves."

Richard Nixon and his plumbers could have only dreamed about being able to dispatch journalists to dutifully smear whistle-blowers in this manner. And all of that is totally independent of the lengthy discussion which Burns predictably includes of the unproven rape and harassment allegations against Assange. Apparently, faced with hundreds of thousands of documents vividly highlighting stomach-turning war crimes and abuses -- death squads and widespread torture and civilian slaughter all as part of a war he admired for years and which his newspaper did more than any other single media outlet to enable -- John Burns and his NYT editors decided that the most pressing question from this leak is this: what's Julian Assange really like?

"Erratic and imperious behavior." "Delusional grandeur. "Imperious." "A vendetta against the United States." "Not in his right mind." Burns didn't even bother to break into Assange's psychiatrist's office to smear the whistle-blower as a psychologically ill, America-hating subversive and paranoid narcissist. He just passed on snide rumors and accusations from disgruntled associates and -- presto -- the Nixonian smear job is complete. Of course, even for a borderline-sociopath, the guilt that one must experience for having enabled and cheered on a War that led to the amount of human suffering evident in these documents must be immense. The temptation to smear the messenger is undoubtedly a strong one. But no matter how much distracting sleaze Burns and his newspaper wallow in and spew at Assange, that damn spot won't come out.

What makes Burns' role here all the more ironic is that he was one of the media ring-leaders who attacked and condemned Michael Hastings for revealing, in Rolling Stone, the truth about the mindset of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was running America's war in Afghanistan. In the wake of the McChrystal article and resignation, Burns went on right-wing talk radio with Hugh Hewitt and blasted Hastings for violating some unspoken code -- that seems to exist only in Burns' head -- that calls for people like Gen. McChrystal to be protected by journalists from truths that may harm them. Said Burns of Hastings' article:

I think it's very unfortunate that it has impacted, and will impact so adversely, on what had been pretty good military/media relations. I think, you know, well, this will be debated down the years, the whole issue as to how it came about that Rolling Stone had that kind of access. My unease, if I can be completely frank about this, is that from my experience of traveling and talking to generals, McChrystal, Petraeus and many, many others over the past few years, is that the old on-the-record/off-the-record standard doesn't really meet the case, which is to say that by the very nature of the time you spend with the generals, the same could be said to be true of the time that a reporter spends with anybody in the public eye. There are moments which just don't fit that formula. There are long, informal periods traveling on helicopters over hostile territory with the generals chatting over their headset, bunking down for the night side by side on a piece of rough-hewn concrete. You build up a kind of trust. It's not explicit, it's just there. And my feeling is that it's the responsibility of the reporter to judge in those circumstances what is fairly reportable, and what is not, and to go beyond that, what it is necessary to report.

So when it comes to top Generals running a war, it's the duty of reporters to conceal from the public statements made by the General, even when they're not off-the-record and even when they're clearly relevant, based on the so-called "trust" that a reporter and military officials "build up" together. But when it comes to people like Julian Assange -- who are not prosecuting American wars but exposing the truth about them (which is supposed to be a journalist's job) -- no such discretion is warranted. There, everything is fair game, including posing as an amateur psychiatrist issuing diagnoses of mental illness and passing on the most scurrilous accusations about personality, character and psyche.

None of this is to say that WikiLeaks and Assange shouldn't be subject to scrutiny. Anyone playing a significant role in political life should be, including them. But Julian Assange's personality traits have absolutely nothing to do with the infinitely more significant revelations of this leak. They shed zero light on these documents, the authenticity of which is not in question. Focusing on the tabloid aspects of Assange's personal life can have no effect -- and no purpose -- other than to distract public attention away from the heinous revelations about this war and America's role in it, and to cripple WikiLeaks' ability to secure and disseminate future leaks.

It's not hard to see why The New York Times, CNN and so many other establishment media outlets are eager to do that. Serving the Government's interests, siding with government and military officials, and attacking government critics is what they do. That's their role. That's what makes them the "establishment media." Beyond that, the last thing they want is renewed recognition of what an evil travesty the attack on Iraq was, given the vital role they know they played in helping to bring it about and sustain it for all those years (that's the same reason establishment journalists, almost by consensus, opposed any investigations into the Bush crimes they ignored, when they weren't cheering them on). And by serving as the 2010 version of the White House Plumbers -- acting as attack dogs against the Pentagon's enemies -- they undoubtedly buy themselves large amounts of good will with those in power, always their overarching goal. It is indeed quite significant and revealing that the John Ehrlichmans and Henry Kissingers of today are found at America's largest media outlets. Thanks to them, the White House doesn't even need to employ its own smear artists.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Tom Scully

[Douglas Caddy]

There is a connection between WikiLeaks and the assassination of JFK. It is because of the link between the CIA and the overthrow of Fidel Castro.

The story begins when Miss A (Anna Ardin) invited Julian Assange to speak to a leftwing campaign group in the town of Enkoping. She invited him to spend the night at her flat. Both agree that consensual sex took place. The following day Arden introduced Assange to Miss W (Sofia Wilén). The couple went to the cinema where Wilén freely admits she performed oral sex on Assange. They then went back to her place where consensual sex took place that night and then again the following morning.

A few days later the two women went to a Stockholm police station where they said they were "seeking advice" on making a complaint against Assange. In the discussion that followed, Arden complained that the condom split while they were having sex and Assange did it on purpose. Wilén said they had unprotected sex without her consent. They were advised by the police officer that these allegations amounted to rape against Arden and sexual molestation against Wilén. The two women then leaked the story to a Swedish newspaper. Arden told Afonbladet that: "The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man who had attitude problems with women."

Anna Ardin has an interesting background. In the past she has worked for the Swedish Embassy in the United States. Her university thesis, finished in 2007, was on Fidel Castro. This was then published by a CIA-funded anti-Castro group. It has also been pointed out that Sofia Wilén's partner is an American.

A number of persons, including some prominent U.S. leaders and persons on a certain U.S. television network, have called for the assassination of Julian Assange.

I worry that should he be forced to return to Sweden, he may meet the same fate there as did Olof Palme, Sweden’s Prime Minister, who was assassinated in 1986. The killer was never found.

Below is an excerpt from Wikipedia about Olof Palme:

“Security had never been a major issue, and Olof Palme could often be seen without any bodyguard protection. The night of his murder was one such occasion. Walking home from a cinema with his wife Lisbet Palme on the central Stockholm street Sveavägen, close to midnight on February 28, 1986, the couple was attacked by an assassin. Palme was fatally shot in the back at close range. A second shot wounded Lisbet Palme.

Police said that a taxi driver used his mobile radio to raise the alarm. Two young girls sitting in a car close to the scene of the shooting also tried to help the prime minister. He was rushed to hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival at 00:06 CET the next day. Mrs. Palme's wound was treated and she recovered.

Deputy Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson immediately assumed the duties as Prime Minister and as new leader of the Social Democratic Party.

Two years later, Christer Pettersson, a small-time criminal and drug addict, was arrested, tried and convicted for Palme's murder. Pettersson's conviction was later overturned on appeal to the Svea Court of Appeal. As a result the crime remains unsolved and a number of alternative theories as to who carried out the murder have since been proposed.

Palme had strong opinions on both the world powers in the middle of the Cold War. In fact, the Swedish-American relations were at a record low due to Palme's rough criticism of the Vietnam War. Therefore there is a popular conspiracy theory[citation needed] that he was assassinated by either the Soviet KGB or the American CIA.”

[John Dolva]

Ther. is also the Italy North Bofors matter and Palmes reported statement that he would expose the deal. I think many Swedes immediately thought CIA, and continue to do so till today.. Palme and his government had a potent humanitarian streak that actively minimised US interference in Sweden. Gorbachov proposed that the new Russia (before the Yeltsinc oup) should look at the Swedish system, as it was then, as a model.

Slowly, following the drastic downturn of the Swedish economy during the oil crisis much of Swedish industry was in large part sold off to in many cases to US interests, so the Husquarna, the Volvo, the Saab you drive today is in many ways is no longer a Swedish product and this dependence on US financial sucess has tied Sweden into an unwelcome alliance with the US.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Ther. is also the Italy North Bofors matter and Palmes reported statement that he would expose the deal. I think many Swedes immediately thought CIA, and continue to do so till today.. Palme and his government had a potent humanitarian streak that actively minimised US interference in Sweden. Gorbachov proposed that the new Russia (before the Yeltsinc oup) should look at the Swedish system, as it was then, as a model.

Slowly, following the drastic downturn of the Swedish economy during the oil crisis much of Swedish industry was in large part sold off to in many cases to US interests, so the Husquarna, the Volvo, the Saab you drive today is in many ways is no longer a Swedish product and this dependence on US financial sucess has tied Sweden into an unwelcome alliance with the US.

George Herbert Walker Bush and the CIA were probably behind the Olaf Palme murder on 3/1/86; read what former CIA Pegasus agent Chip Tatum has to say about this:

http://www.google.com/search?q=chip+tatum+Olaf+Palme&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=

Especially read this link: http://www.leopoldreport.com/JohnA.html

Edited December 9, 2010 by Robert Morrow

[William Kelly]

Julian Assange

http://jfkcountercoup.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/julian-assange/

Assange himself appears to believe he’s in the vanguard of a struggle against an entire international system that he clearly abhors. Consider this Dec. 31, 2006, blog post on the IQ.org website, owned by Assange, titled “The non linear effects of leaks on unjust systems of governance.”

“The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie,” he wrote. “This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive ‘secrecy tax’) and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power“

...They’re going to re-stovepipe, which is precisely what we spent a decade trying to stamp out, with the US government’s left hand often not knowing what the right was doing.”

Assange disagrees. Earlier this month, he told Time magazine that pushing the US towards greater secrecy is a goal, and implies that it’s more likely to push the current US system closer to collapse. ...

“Since 2006, we have been working along this philosophy that organizations which are abusive and need to be [in] the public eye. If their behavior is revealed to the public, they have one of two choices: one is to reform in such a way that they can be proud of their endeavors, and proud to display them to the public,” he told Time. “Or the other is to lock down internally and to balkanize, and as a result, of course, cease to be as efficient as they were. To me, that is a very good outcome, because organizations can either be efficient, open and honest, or they can be closed, conspiratorial and inefficient.”

Other writings of Assange make it clear he sees himself as something of a revolutionary.

In a Nov. 2006 essay called “State and Terrorist Conspiracies” (which begins quoting Teddy Rosevelt as saying “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsbility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul this unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of statesmanship”), Assange writes: “to radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly…. We must think beyond those who have gone before us, and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not.”

In this text, he appears to believe that personal liberty is severely threatened by government secrets. “A man in chains knows he should have acted sooner for his ability to influence the actions of the state is near its end,” he writes. “To deal with powerful conspiratorial actions we must think ahead and attack the process that leads to them.” He then advocates the use of misinformation, as well as “throttling” information flows within a regime by, say, leading it to increase its own internal secrecy.

That essay makes no mention of the US – referring generally to authoritarian regimes and their “conspiracies.” But the primary target of his releases so far has largely been the United States, which as the sole-remaining superpower is a good target for someone who wants to upend what they see as an unjust international order.

In Assange’s public statements and methods there are also shades of “crypto-anarchism,” an approach popular in hacker circles that aims to use computer networks and encryption to both evade controls by states and to release information that they want to keep secret, all in the service of maintaining an Internet beyond the reach of any international laws.

....At one point, thinking about some of the material leaked on WikiLeaks, I ask him how he defines national security.

"We don’t,” he says crisply. ” We’re not interested in that. We’re interested in justice. We are a super-national organisation. So we’re not interested in national security.”

...Did being arrested, and later on finding himself in a courtroom, push him into a completely different reality that he had never thought about – and in a direction that eventually saw him start thinking along the lines of a website like WikiLeaks, that would take on the world?

”That [experience] showed me how the justice system and bureaucracy worked, and did not work; what its abilities were and what its limitations were,” he replies. ”And justice wasn’t something that came out of the justice system. Justice was something that you bring to the justice system. And if you’re lucky, or skilled, and you’re in a country that isn’t too corrupt, you can do that.”

"I love classification labels, because if it says Top Secret on the front, I think ‘this is probably an interesting document,’ and legitimate,” he says. ”There’s a glut of information of low quality in the world. So information that has been restricted and suppressed – it’s interesting that people have [spent] economic effort to restrict and suppress it – so info which has extra restrictions on it, usually has an extra ability to induce reforms if it’s released.

..."We republished the material because it had been censored because of the threat of violence. Then we received threats of violence...

[Glenn Viklund]

"Assange himself appears to believe he’s in the vanguard of a struggle against an entire international system that he clearly abhors"

Well, considering what's going on at the moment, that doesn't seem like a bad call at all. And considering the deplorable comments from some of the US politicians, it looks like a good idea for him to have a serious approach to all of this.

[Glenn Viklund]

"We've built an overwhelming, nearly unstoppable war machine that can turn any military force that goes up against it into cat food and then we've proceeded to create mind numbingly stupid, overly legalistic rules of engagement that nullify many of our advantages. We have a military capable of reducing whole regions to rubble in days and yet we struggle to deal with Somalian pirates and Taliban cavemen because we can't bear the idea that there might be an unflattering piece in the New York Times if we accidentally kill some of the 'civilians' who, short of picking up a gun, are doing everything they can to help our enemies." (John Hawkins, "5 Reasons The CIA Should have Already Killed Julian Assange," Townhall.com, 11/30/10)

"Today I received information about Wikileaks that I want to pass on to you. This is most relevant if you are going to apply for or have already applied for federal government positions. Two big factors in hiring for many federal government positions are determining if the applicants have good judgment and if they know how to deal with confidential/classified information. The documents released by Wikileaks remain classified; thus, reading them, passing them on, commenting on them may be seen as a violation of Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information. See Section 5.5 (Sanctions).

For many federal government jobs, applicants must obtain security clearances. There are various levels of security checks, but all federal positions require background checks. As part of such checks, social media may be researched to see what you are up to, so DO NOT post links to the documents or make comments on any social media sites. Moreover, polygraphs are conducted for the highest levels of security clearance.

I have not yet heard any fallout about specific individuals, but we wanted to give you this take on the situation."

Maura Kelly, Assistant Dean for Career Development and Public Service, Boston University School of Law. (Cited in Daniel Tencer, "Students Warned: Read Wikileaks and you're out of a government job," Raw Story, December 5, 2010).

http://www.counterpunch.org/loo12102010.html

Lee,

Point taken, it is truly scary.

However there are still those in rememberance that just like Assange was threatened:

And by most of the human race are nowadays accepted...

[Glenn Viklund]

"We've built an overwhelming, nearly unstoppable war machine that can turn any military force that goes up against it into cat food and then we've proceeded to create mind numbingly stupid, overly legalistic rules of engagement that nullify many of our advantages. We have a military capable of reducing whole regions to rubble in days and yet we struggle to deal with Somalian pirates and Taliban cavemen because we can't bear the idea that there might be an unflattering piece in the New York Times if we accidentally kill some of the 'civilians' who, short of picking up a gun, are doing everything they can to help our enemies." (John Hawkins, "5 Reasons The CIA Should have Already Killed Julian Assange," Townhall.com, 11/30/10)

"Today I received information about Wikileaks that I want to pass on to you. This is most relevant if you are going to apply for or have already applied for federal government positions. Two big factors in hiring for many federal government positions are determining if the applicants have good judgment and if they know how to deal with confidential/classified information. The documents released by Wikileaks remain classified; thus, reading them, passing them on, commenting on them may be seen as a violation of Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information. See Section 5.5 (Sanctions).

For many federal government jobs, applicants must obtain security clearances. There are various levels of security checks, but all federal positions require background checks. As part of such checks, social media may be researched to see what you are up to, so DO NOT post links to the documents or make comments on any social media sites. Moreover, polygraphs are conducted for the highest levels of security clearance.

I have not yet heard any fallout about specific individuals, but we wanted to give you this take on the situation."

Maura Kelly, Assistant Dean for Career Development and Public Service, Boston University School of Law. (Cited in Daniel Tencer, "Students Warned: Read Wikileaks and you're out of a government job," Raw Story, December 5, 2010).

http://www.counterpunch.org/loo12102010.html

Lee,

Point taken, it is truly scary.

However there are still those in rememberance that just like Assange was threatened:

And by most of the human race are nowadays accepted...

Jack,

I would appreciate your take on this. At the time, what was your feelings about these english guys? Did you feel they were a threat - to you or else?

And nowadays, how do you feel about these developments since back in the sixties?

I'd appreciate your take on the sixties, Texan style.

Thanks,

//Glenn Viklund