Culture Wars/Current Controversies

Reasons not to take the Julian Assange story at face value

By Adam Ormes

News from Nowhere

Witnessing the uniformity of the popular response to Assange’s removal from the Ecuadorian embassy demonstrates that precious few commentators are willing to discuss the numerous ‘red flags’ in his story. It would seem therefore that it is this reluctant sleuth’s duty to lay them out.

There are perhaps 5 main points to consider here:

  1. Assange’s connection to ‘The Family’ child LSD brainwashing cult – which was very likely an intelligence operation. Substantiating evidence for this claim is provided below.
  2. Assange’s hacker alias, which he used from the age of 16, was Mendax – meaning ‘liar’ in Latin. He was caught after a police raid in 1991, and charged in 1994 “with thirty-one counts of hacking and related crimes. In December 1996, he pleaded guilty to twenty-five charges (the other six were dropped), and was ordered to pay reparations of A$2,100 and released on a good behaviour bond. The perceived absence of malicious or mercenary intent and his disrupted childhood were cited to justify his lenient penalty.” [link]
  3. Assange’s relationships with US government. “On the 17th of November 1994, Julian Assange replied to an email from NASA employee Fred Blonder(,) the UNIX toolkit coordinator at NASIRC (NASA Automated Systems Incident Response Capability). (…) Someone from Los Alamos National Laboratories (mcn) was copied on the email (identity unknown). Also copied on the email was Quentin Fennessy from Sematech. SEMATECH was formed in 1987 as a partnership between the United States Government and 14 U.S.-based semiconductor manufacturers.” Likewise, his former hacking comrade Pieter Zaitko, who went on to work for BBN Technologies, a DARPA military contractor, claimed that Assange’s “graduate work had been funded by a US Government grant, specifically NSA and DARPA money which was supposed to be used for ‘fundamental security research’.” This was subsequently revoked; however it begs the question as to how and why such funding was obtained in the first place. [link]

4.  John Young, an early Wikileaks collaborator and founder of Cryptome, a similar site (whose own affiliations likewise merit investigation), came out in 2010 claiming that ‘Wikileaks has always been a commercial enterprise hiding behind a narcissistic “public interest” PR.’ “Speaking to US talk radio, Young compared Julian Assange to Henry Kissinger, and other “spook insiders” who have turned their insider knowledge into a lucrative sideline.” [link] It has also been alleged that Wikileaks trades under the name of Sunshine Press Productions EHF, a for-profit limited company registered in Iceland in which Assange is 94% shareholder, while claiming to be a non-profit. [link]

5. Assange refuses to discuss 9/11, in a similar manner to his supporter Noam Chomsky, stating in an interview “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.” It has likewise been noted that the Israeli government was rather pleased about the content of the Wikileaks releases. [link]


16 replies »

  1. He had a nickname. His stepfather had a religious belief. He doesn’t ride MY hobbyhorse of choice. QED he’s a government plant.

    Not terribly convincing.

    • “But they apparently posted this… so why doesn’t he discuss it?”

      WikiLeaks released FIVE MILLION Stratfor emails. And you’re asking why Julian Assange didn’t zero in on and discuss an already public op-ed by a fairly well-known writer that appeared in those five million emails because someone sent it to Stratfor via email contact form?

      • Why do you think Assange doesn’t want to discuss 9/11, Thomas L. Knapp? Don’t you think his behaviour in that video clip is mighty dubious?

        • Well, in the clip, he discusses 9/11, so I’m not sure why you think he “doesn’t want to.”

          I’m also not sure what you find “dubious” about his behavior in the clip. He was asked a question about 9/11. He answered it at length.

          • Something to consider – Assange, from a 2010 interview:

            “Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It’s important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there’s enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news.”

            What about 9/11?

            “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”


            I suppose the ability to read body language is not universal. Here’s something a commenter on the video posted:

            “His body language tells it all. He shat his pants then managed to stutter out the possibility of Saudi involvement then seemed to develop a slight paralysis of his throat and stammered and yammered about possible other states but could not bring himself to say more on the issue only to say it was ‘no longer so important’ as there were more recent events requiring our attention. The elephant in the room could have shat on his head but he would pretend not to notice it, but maybe blink a lot…You could almost see the little red Mossad sniper laser scope triangle, on his forehead that he was obviously imagining….”

            He avoided the question at length. In his answer all he said that was on-point was that 9/11 isn’t “particularly important”. Granted, he might not have seen the wikileak doc I posted, but just like Chomsky, he clearly doesn’t want to go there. Which begs the question as to why. Wouldn’t you think that the exposure of Mossad and US deep state collusion would be somewhat important in the grand scheme of things?

            Considering all of the other points raised in my article, and in the Engdahl piece I linked, this makes him a highly suspect character. This is Spookville, so caution is advised at all times. However, for some reason because he has come to represent a certain archetype, many people don’t seem to want to countenance the possibility that he isn’t what he appear to be. I don’t know whether he is or whether he isn’t, but I’m certainly not going to dig my heels in and invest into the narrative.

            • Translation:

              Since he doesn’t ride your particular hobbyhorse 24/7 to the exclusion of all else, and ride that horse to exactly the conclusions you prefer he reach, he is a “highly suspect character” rather than just someone who isn’t interested in the same things you’re interested in and in agreement with you on those things.

  2. Thanks for correcting my grammar. However otherwise you’re simply repeating yourself, and addressing none of my points. Is that a productive use of either of our time?

    • It wasn’t a matter of grammar, it was a matter of meaning. “Begging the question” is a particular logical fallacy, not another way of saying “raising the question.”

      I’m not sure what “points” you think you are making that I didn’t “address.”

      Yes, one of the five million Stratfor emails was an already publicly available opinion piece on 9/11. Why WOULD you expect Julian Assange to dig through five million emails and then comment on one of them containing nothing that anyone who cared didn’t already know about? If he commented on a specific Stratfor email, I’d expect him to comment on an internal one with some previously unknown piece of information, not an email essentially saying “hey, here’s something interesting that’s been published all over the Internet already.”

      The entirety of the case made in the OP and comments on this thread for Assange being “suspect” is that he never clambered up on a stage and told you what you want to hear about 9/11. But neither did 7.x billion of the other 8 billion people on Earth. Are they all “suspect” too?

      • I understood your point re ‘begging/raising the question’. I stand corrected. If it’s not a ‘grammatical’ error, then what would the correct adjective be? Always happy to learn.

        There are many other points made in the original article and likewise in the linked Engdahl piece that don’t relate to 9/11. You’ve gone on at length about 9/11, which we can of course agree to disagree on, even though to me the body language in the video speaks volumes, and said ‘He had a nickname. His stepfather had a religious belief’ regarding two of the others, which is a rather inaccurate representation of what was presented.

        I’m sure you’ll want the last word but I think I’ll stop here because we’re not likely to get anywhere with this.

  3. I think, the reason Assange avoids the debate about the causes and methods of 9/11 attacks is as simple and banal as it gets: to touch this topic is to destroy oneself totally in the eyes of the mainsteam, sentensing oneself to a permanent “fringe” status and a “conspiracy theorist” brand on a forehead. Yet mainstream sectors of society are exactly the ones Assange appeals to (and even with some success).

    The same with Chomsky and many others.

Leave a Reply to Thomas L. Knapp Cancel reply