by Ed Komarek
from ExopoliticsBlogSpot Website
I have noticed a convergence of awareness between UFO/ET investigators and general conspiracy investigators in relation to how autocratic power in today’s society exerts itself from the control of an elite few down the chain of command to the many. Globally and in America we have two very contradictory political forces that work in direct opposition to each other one being autocratic and the other democratic.
In general I believe that autocrats still dominate world governments as they have throughout human history. In some places they rule overtly but in so called democratic societies clever autocrats covertly use democracy and national security as fronts or guises to secretly manipulate and rule.
Autocrats are able to do this because the general population even today is easily intimidated and lead through a combination of fear and bribes. People in democratic societies consciously live an illusion that they are free while they still unconsciously think and act as loyal subjects of the crown seeking patronage and power from local and national government.
On occasion when the general population within a country becomes aroused, democracy can assert itself for short periods of time until the population loses interest or is otherwise distracted. In a classic case of the tail wagging the dog most of the time those autocratic corporate special economic and political interests that ideally should serve democratic society turn the tables and manipulate society into serving them.
Historically autocratic power was generally accepted as a divine right by ruling family dynasties and their subjects so feudal power could be exercised overtly as in places like North Korea even today. Increasingly as democratic and republican ideas have spread about the world the elite autocrats have been forced to move underground becoming ever more sophisticated, secret and deceptive as to how they project power and control populations.
Sophisticated mechanisms for the projection of secret autocratic power and control have evolved over time. In today’s society control revolves around covert control of finance and the media as well as covert control over the military through national security guises and deceptions based on extreme secrecy, fear, bribes, clearance, special access and need to know.
It is my opinion that the real axis of evil in the world to a large degree revolves around three very powerful autocratic controlled entrenched special interests; energy, arms and finance.
I believe that these three industries and the elite families that control these interests have a very high degree of responsibility for the general destruction of society and the global environment. These very same industries that are doing the damage to society and the environment promote themselves as the ones best suited to provide solutions to the very problems they are creating in a constant propaganda bombardment in the corporate mainstream media.
These global entrenched interests and families that control these industries comprise a covert sophisticated form of modern day royalty. Not only do these elite rule society in general through secrecy and stealth but they also appear to be the major culprits behind the 60 year old UFO/ET cover up that lies at the very heart of their secret covert power over world populations.
The elite families and the corporations that they own have the motive, the intent and the means to suppress extraterrestrial reality out of self interest just as they do in other societal domains. In a more general way they also have the motive, the intent and the means to actively, secretly suppress democracy while publicly showing support. The one thing that we can count on is that these very sophisticated autocratic gangsters are doing the exact opposite of what they say they are doing.
While some conspiracy investigators focus on how money is used to control society and the media through private central banking networks perhaps not enough attention is being paid as to how the elite control the world military and the mainstream press through the auspices of national security. In my opinion the greatest threat to national security around the globe is secret elite control over the national security establishment worldwide and not just in America.
The military just seems to now be waking up to the fact that they are being used and manipulated by civilian leadership closely tied to this economic and political axis of evil being discussed. If we just look at the present civilian leadership in America we have the energy interests the Bushes, and the Rockefellers along with their closest friends and advisers like Cheney and Gates involved in the highest levels of civilian leadership.
We have one Rockefeller in Congress that is on the Senate Intelligence Committee directly.
Gates who used to be head of the CIA and who is close to the elder Bush who was also head of the CIA is now Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney who is tied to both oil and arms through his connections to Halliburton is Vice President, and the younger Bush himself is president. I am not familiar with those in Congress and at the White House who are closely connected to banking and finance but I am sure there are plenty. We can see that oil, arms and finance are very well represented in the civilian leadership of America and elsewhere around the globe.
Then there is this revolving door between the military and the civilian leadership where elite families and servants are well infiltrated into all aspects of the military and civilian chain of command. The military through various task forces and working groups related to extraterrestrial reality and other areas involving national security seem to slowly be beginning to realize as we in the public are realizing, that the national security apparatus has been hijacked by the elite special interest.
I think this process of awaking has been hastened by the American elite’s arrogant, foolish, wasteful wars in the Middle East and has further focused military and public attention on the global elite’s covert power and destructive behavior worldwide.
It is really the arms merchants, energy industry and banking that really control secrecy, clearance, special access and need to know for everybody else down the military chain of command to the rank and file. What we really have is not a national security system but an elite control system that in itself is the greatest national security threat to civil society in the world today. We even have a horrible situation where terrorism and environmental destruction are both being assisted and manipulated to serve elite interests.
When Thomas Jefferson said,
“I know of no better repository of the truth than with the people.”
He knew what he was talking about. In order to take our country back and our world back from this axis of evil we have to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Once we get that, we then have the situational awareness necessary to combat these powerful entrenched interests that are the instruments of mass societal and environmental destruction.
We have to dismantle the bodyguard of lies both UFO/ET related and otherwise because this is what protects the global elite and the industries that they own. Both the public and the military need to stop blindly acting like loyal subjects of the King and Queen and act as a free people should.
As the lies compound one on another they become more difficult to manage and the truth more difficult to suppress. I believe it’s just a matter of time until coalescing groups seeking the truth in the civilian sector combined with groups in the military create so much heat, spontaneous smoldering truth, that a spark or several sparks will ignite the mountain of lies and become unstoppable.
I predict that the truth suppression networks of the entrenched global special interests will be overwhelmed and a general conflagration, a catastrophic process of renewal of society and a corresponding end to he UFO/ET cover up will be upon us.
It won’t be pretty and it did not have to happen this way, but it is renewal nevertheless and better than the alternative of continued slippage into an Orwellian dark future.
by Pepe Escobar
October 14, 2016
from ZeroHedge Website
Let’s cut to the chase…
Hillary Clinton is ready to go to war against Russia in Syria – with inbuilt, potentially terrifying, thermonuclear consequences.
Anticipating an outcome of the U.S. presidential election as a remix of the 1972 Nixon landslide, Hillary has also coined, George “Dubya” Bush-style, a remixed axis of evil:
Russia, Iran and “the Assad regime”.
That’s not even counting China, which, via “aggression” in the South China Sea, will also feature as a certified foe for the Founding Mother of the pivot to Asia.
And if all that was not worrying enough, Turkey now seems on the path to join the axis.
President Putin and President Erdogan met in Istanbul. Moscow positioned itself as ready to develop large-scale military-technical cooperation with Ankara.
That includes, of course, the $20 billion, Rosatom-built, four-reactor Akkuyu nuclear power plant.
And the drive to “speed up the work” on Turkish Stream – which will de facto strengthen even more Russia’s position in the European gas market, bypassing Ukraine for good, while sealing Ankara’s position as a key East-West energy crossroads.
In addition, both Moscow and Ankara back UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura‘s position that “moderate rebels” (the Beltway’s terminology) holding eastern Aleppo hostage must be eradicated.
The geopolitical game-changer is self-evident.
As much as Erdogan may be a whirling political dervish, impossible to fathom and trust, while Putin is a master of the strategic long game, Moscow’s and Ankara’s interests tend to converge in the New Great Game; and that spells out closer integration in the dawn of the Eurasian Century.
Quite a cup of hemlock for Hillary Clinton, who has already equated Putin with Hitler…
Regime change or hot war?
In the appalling spectacle that turned out to be round two of the interminable Trump/Clinton cage match, Donald Trump once again made a rational point – expressing his wish for a normalized working relationship with Russia.
Yet that is absolute anathema for the War Party, as in the neocon/neoliberalcon nebulae in the Beltway-Wall Street axis.
The Clinton (Cash) Machine-controlled Democrats once again condemned Trump as a tool of Putin while bewildered Republicans condemned Trump because he goes against,
“mainstream Republican thinking”.
Here’s what Trump said,
“I don’t like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS and Iran is killing ISIS.”
Trump’s outlook on Southwest Asia relies on only one vector; destroy ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.
That’s what adviser and former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) director, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, has been infiltrating into Trump’s notoriously short attention span.
Flynn may have admitted on the record that ISIS/ISIL/Daesh’s progress was a “willful” decision taken by the Obama administration.
Yet in his disjointed book Field of Fight, Flynn insists that,
“the Russians haven’t been very effective at fighting jihadis on their own territory”, are “in cahoots with the Iranians”, and “the great bulk of their efforts are aimed at the opponents of the Assad regime.”
This is a neocon mantra; unsurprisingly, the co-author of Flynn’s book is neocon Michael Ledeen.
From dodgy American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) armchair “experts” to former counselors at the State Department, they all subscribe to the laughable view that the remixed axis of evil – now fully adopted by Hillary – is useless against jihadis; the good guys doing the difficult work are “the U.S.-led coalition”.
And damn those who dare criticizing the “relative moderates” backed by the CIA.
What Trump said is anathema not only for establishment Republicans who despise Obama for not fighting against the Hillary-adopted remixed axis of evil. The real mortal sin is that it “disregards” core U.S. foreign policy bipartisan assumptions held to be as sacred as the Bible.
Thus the success of the neocon Ash Carter-led Pentagon in bombing the Kerry-Lavrov ceasefire deal which would imply coordinated airstrikes against both ISIS/ISIL/Daesh and the Front for the Conquest of Syria, formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al Qaeda in Syria.
Neocons and mainstream Republicans blame lame duck Team Obama for the “unholy reliance” on Russia and Iran, while neoliberalcons blame Russia outright.
And high in the altar of righteousness, hysteria rules, with the neocon president of the NED calling for the U.S. government to “summon the will” to pull a Putin regime change.
Ready to go nuclear?
Hillary Clinton continues to insist the U.S. is not at war with Islam.
The U.S. is de facto at war in,
Pakistan’s tribal areas
involved in covert war in Iran
has totally destroyed Libya
It’s not hard to do the math…
In parallel, the deafening talk about Washington now advancing a Plan C in Syria is nonsense.
There has never been a Plan C; only Plan A, which was to draw Russia into another Afghanistan. It did not work with the controlled demolition of Ukraine. And it will not work in Syria, as Moscow is willing to supply plenty of air and missile power but no boots on the ground of any consequence.
That’s a matter for the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), Iran and its Shi’ite militias, and Hezbollah.
Ash Carter has threatened Russia with “consequences”. After blowing up the ceasefire, the Pentagon – supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff – now is peddling “potential strikes” on Syria’s air force to “punish the regime” for what the Pentagon actually did; blow up the ceasefire.
One can’t make this stuff up…
Major-General Igor Konashenkov, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman, sent a swift message to “our colleagues in Washington”; think twice if you believe you can get away with launching a “shadow” hot war against Russia.
Russia will target any stealth/unidentified aircraft attacking Syrian government targets – and they will be shot down.
The only serious question then is whether an out of control Pentagon will force the Russian Air Force – false flag and otherwise – to knock out U.S. Air Force fighter jets, and whether Moscow has the fire power to take out each and every one of them.
So in this three-month window representing the “death throes” of the Obama era, before the likely enthronization of the Queen of War, the question is whether the Pentagon will risk launching WWIII because “Aleppo is falling”.
Afterwards, things are bound to get even more lethal. The U.S. government is holding open a first-strike nuclear capacity against Russia.
Hillary firmly supports it, as Trump made clear he,
“would not do first-strike”.
The prospect of having axis of evil practitioner Hillary Clinton with her fingers on the nuclear button must be seen as the most life-and-death issue in this whole circus…
by Claire Bernish
August 26, 2016
from TheFreeThoughtProject Website
In the insanity otherwise known as the 2016 presidential race, it has become common practice to label either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton with various deviant psychiatric personality disorders.
In fact, given the latter’s brash and often conflicting rhetoric and the former’s proclivity for blatant mendacity, questions linger about whether the two candidates are sane enough to hold office at all.
Trump has earned comparisons to Hitler on a near weekly basis, and Hillary’s Mussolini likeness hasn’t gone unnoticed.
But are these assessments accurate?
Now, thanks to an Oxford University study, we have an answer – to an extent, many of us weren’t off the mark.
Oxford University psychologist Kevin Dutton explored eight qualities of psychopathy as defined in psychological literature for the latest issue of Scientific American Mind (Of Psychopaths and Presidential Candidates), and found they are indeed common among politicians, in general.
Employing the standard tool for assessing psychopathic traits, the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI-R), Dutton compared,
and Ted Cruz,
…to 16 historical leaders (far below image).
As Dutton noted, though no exact score can determine who is or is not a psychopath, the scores provide insight into those traits – which, depending on their lack or excess, can be beneficial or potentially dangerous.
“The PPI-R does not say that someone is or is not a psychopath,” Dutton explained.
“It scores them on eight traits that contribute to a psychopathic character. Some of those traits, such as fearlessness and stress immunity, can be positive.
Others, such as blame externalization or being unconcerned about the future, are more likely to be negative. One, coldheartedness, can contribute to good and bad leadership,” depending on proportionality.
“Both great and terrible leaders score higher than the general population for psychopathic traits,” he continued, “but it is the mix of those traits that determines success.”
According to Mind:
“The first three traits,
social influence (SI)
stress immunity (STI),
…known collectively as the Fearless Dominance traits – tend to be strong in successful leaders.
The next four qualities, collectively called Self-Centered Impulsivity, can be more problematic:
Machiavellian Egocentricity (ME)
Rebellious Nonconformity (RN)
Blame Externalization (BE)
Carefree Nonplanfulness (CN)
The eighth trait is Coldheartedness (C), which can be helpful in making tough decisions such as sending a nation’s youth to war but is dangerous in excess.”
Keeping that last point in mind, Trump, Clinton, and Cruz all scored in the upper quintile – the top 20 percent – in not only the general Self-Centered Impulsivity category, but in the more telling trait, Coldheartedness.
Indeed, Trump scored in the top 20 percent across the board – landing him above both his frequent comparison, Adolf Hitler, but fairly less psychopathic than Saddam Hussein – and a higher tally in “negative” psychopathic traits than the other contenders.
However, perhaps surprising to many, he topped the other three candidates in Fearless Dominance, associated with “successful presidencies.”
Clinton landed in a psychopathic similarity to Napoleon Bonaparte and Emperor Nero, with a Coldheartedness score on par with William the Conqueror and well above both Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher.
“Allowing for gender differences in percentile cutoffs,” Denton wrote, “her score was more on par with Trump’s.”
Indeed, Clinton scored highest in the Self-Centered Impulsivity, and highest there in Machiavellian Egocentricity – indicating a lack of empathy and detachment, which for better or worse, would fuel her desire to achieve personal goals.
Certain psychopathic traits, in the right proportions, make for successful leader, Dutton notes, so scores cannot be taken in themselves as an indication a leader would go off the rails.
But what proportion of each quality can offer insight into each candidate’s personality in relation to their ability to lead successfully.
“It is interesting that these scores reflect both the praise and criticism that Trump and Clinton receive,” Dutton explained, as quoted by the Daily Mail.
“In the end, while both score relatively high, it will be up to voters to decide if whether their mix of positive and negative traits should send them to the Oval Office or the psychiatrist’s office.”
Overall, Dutton said,
“while no one likes a heartless liar, the fact is that none of these traits in and of themselves presents a serious challenge to mental health. Instead what distinguishes the cold-blooded murderer from a psychopathic president is a question of context and degree.”
Doubtless, that won’t be much comfort to voters already disturbed by the fact we have a presidential race that tacitly necessitated a test of the candidates’ psychopathy…
By Anna Miller
August 26, 2016
Research has proven that primary psychopaths have a dysfunctional amygdala and pre-frontal cortex.
The almond shaped amygdala is where a human’s conscience is located. It is very difficult for the average person to understand that genetic psychopaths CAN NOT FEEL EMOTION.
They mimic what they consider to be normal. Hollywood often portrays a serial killer as a psychopath, but the truth is a professional psychopath enjoys murdering large swaths of people.
1-4% of the human populace is psychopathic.
There is ongoing research to isolate the psychopathic gene, but these labs are underfunded.
The ban against splicing human DNA and animal DNA has been lifted in the U.S. There is ongoing research into transhumanism, yet research for a major source of historical suffering is largely ignored. (I wonder why?)
Secondary psychopaths are the result of prolonged severe abuse/neglect and are not genetic-based. Our known, recorded human history is littered with the destruction caused by psychopaths.
Psychopaths are drawn to occupations which give them,
The corporate world, military, banking & finance, are obvious fields that attracts them, but religion, law, journalism & science also attracts psychopaths.
They “get off” on power over others. They often climb to the top because they are ruthless and cunning. An intelligent psychopath is dangerous.
It appears as if our world is under the control of psychopaths…
by Tyler Durden
November 6, 2016
from ZeroHedge Website
In what may be his most provocative and incendiary interview ever given, Wikileaks founder and whistleblower Julian Assange – who realizes that if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency his prospects turn even more bleak – spoke to Australian journalist and documentary maker John Pilger, and summarized what he has gleaned from the tens of thousands of Clinton emails released by WikiLeaks this year in the following interview courtesy of RT and Dartmouth films.
John Pilger, another Australian émigré, conducted the 25-minute interview at the Ecuadorian Embassy at London, where Assange has been trapped since 2012 for fear of extradition to the US.
Last month, Assange had his internet access cut off for alleged “interference” in the American presidential election through the work of his website.
Full interview transcript
‘Clinton made FBI look weak, now there is anger’
John Pilger: What’s the significance of the FBI’s intervention in these last days of the U.S. election campaign, in the case against Hillary Clinton?
Julian Assange: If you look at the history of the FBI, it has become effectively America’s political police.
The FBI demonstrated this by taking down the former head of the CIA [General David Petraeus] over classified information given to his mistress. Almost no-one is untouchable.
The FBI is always trying to demonstrate that no-one can resist us. But Hillary Clinton very conspicuously resisted the FBI’s investigation, so there’s anger within the FBI because it made the FBI look weak.
We’ve published about 33,000 of Clinton’s emails when she was Secretary of State. They come from a batch of just over 60,000 emails, [of which] Clinton has kept about half – 30,000 – to herself, and we’ve published about half.
Then there are the Podesta emails we’ve been publishing.
[John] Podesta is Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign manager, so there’s a thread that runs through all these emails; there are quite a lot of pay-for-play, as they call it, giving access in exchange for money to states, individuals and corporations.
[These emails are] combined with the cover up of the Hillary Clinton emails when she was Secretary of State, [which] has led to an environment where the pressure on the FBI increases.
‘Russian government not the source of Clinton leaks’
JP: The Clinton campaign has said that Russia is behind all of this, that Russia has manipulated the campaign and is the source for WikiLeaks and its emails.
JA: The Clinton camp has been able to project that kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria: that Russia is responsible for everything.
Hillary Clinton stated multiple times, falsely, that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications.
That is false; we can say that the Russian government is not the source.
WikiLeaks has been publishing for ten years, and in those ten years, we have published ten million documents, several thousand individual publications, several thousand different sources, and we have never got it wrong.
‘Saudi Arabia and Qatar funding ISIS and Clinton’
JP: The emails that give evidence of access for money and how Hillary Clinton herself benefited from this and how she is benefitting politically, are quite extraordinary.
I’m thinking of when the Qatari representative was given five minutes with Bill Clinton for a million dollar cheque.
JA: And twelve million dollars from Morocco …
JP: Twelve million from Morocco yeah.
JA: For Hillary Clinton to attend [a party].
JP: In terms of the foreign policy of the United States, that’s where the emails are most revealing, where they show the direct connection between Hillary Clinton and the foundation of jihadism, of ISIL, in the Middle East.
Can you talk about how the emails demonstrate the connection between those who are meant to be fighting the jihadists of ISIL, are actually those who have helped create it.
JA: There’s an early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton, not so long after she left the State Department, to her campaign manager John Podesta that states ISIL is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Now this is the most significant email in the whole collection, and perhaps because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the Clinton Foundation. Even the U.S. government agrees that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIL, or ISIS.
But the dodge has always been that, well it’s just some rogue Princes, using their cut of the oil money to do whatever they like, but actually the government disapproves.
But that email says that no, it is the governments of Saudi and Qatar that have been funding ISIS.
JP: The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the Saudis and the Qataris, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly to Saudi Arabia.
JA: Under Hillary Clinton, the world’s largest ever arms deal was made with Saudi Arabia, [worth] more than $80 billion. In fact, during her tenure as Secretary of State, total arms exports from the United States in terms of the dollar value, doubled.
JP: Of course the consequence of that is that the notorious terrorist group called ISIl or ISIS is created largely with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation.
‘Clinton has been eaten alive by her ambition’
JP: That’s extraordinary.
JA: I actually feel quite sorry for Hillary Clinton as a person because I see someone who is eaten alive by their ambitions, tormented literally to the point where they become sick; they faint as a result of [the reaction] to their ambitions.
She represents a whole network of people and a network of relationships with particular states.
The question is how does Hillary Clinton fit in this broader network? She’s a centralizing cog (a ‘cog’ is a tooth of a gear or cogwheel or the gear itself.)
You’ve got a lot of different gears in operation from the big banks like Goldman Sachs and major elements of Wall Street, and Intelligence and people in the State Department and the Saudis.
She’s the centralizer that inter-connects all these different cogs. She’s the smooth central representation of all that, and ‘all that’ is more or less what is in power now in the United States. It’s what we call the establishment or the DC consensus.
One of the more significant Podesta emails that we released was about how the Obama cabinet was formed and how half the Obama cabinet was basically nominated by a representative from Citi Bank.
This is quite amazing.
JP: Didn’t Citibank supply a list …. ?
JP: …which turned out to be most of the Obama cabinet.
JP: So Wall Street decides the cabinet of the President of the United States?
JA: If you were following the Obama campaign back then, closely, you could see it had become very close to banking interests. So I think you can’t properly understand Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy without understanding Saudi Arabia.
The connections with Saudi Arabia are so intimate.
‘Libya is Hillary Clinton’s war’
JP: Why was she so demonstrably enthusiastic about the destruction of Libya? Can you talk a little about just what the emails have told us – told you – about what happened there?
Because Libya is such a source for so much of the mayhem now in Syria: the ISIL, jihadism, and so on. And it was almost Hillary Clinton’s invasion.
What do the emails tell us about that?
JA: Libya, more than anyone else’s war, was Hillary Clinton’s war.
Barak Obama initially opposed it. Who was the person championing it? Hillary Clinton. That’s documented throughout her emails.
She had put her favored agent, Sidney Blumenthal, on to that; there’s more than 1700 emails out of the thirty three thousand Hillary Clinton emails that we’ve published, just about Libya.
It’s not that Libya has cheap oil. She perceived the removal of Gaddafi and the overthrow of the Libyan state – something that she would use in her run-up to the general election for President.
So in late 2011 there is an internal document called the Libya Tick Tock that was produced for Hillary Clinton, and it’s the chronological description of how she was the central figure in the destruction of the Libyan state, which resulted in around 40,000 deaths within Libya; jihadists moved in, ISIS moved in, leading to the European refugee and migrant crisis.
Not only did you have people fleeing Libya, people fleeing Syria, the destabilization of other African countries as a result of arms flows, but the Libyan state itself err was no longer able to control the movement of people through it.
Libya faces along to the Mediterranean and had been effectively the cork in the bottle of Africa.
So all problems, economic problems and civil war in Africa – previously people fleeing those problems didn’t end up in Europe because Libya policed the Mediterranean.
That was said explicitly at the time, back in early 2011 by Gaddafi:
‘What do these Europeans think they’re doing, trying to bomb and destroy the Libyan State? There’s going to be floods of migrants out of Africa and jihadists into Europe’.
And this is exactly what happened…
‘Trump won’t be permitted to win’
JP: You get complaints from people saying, ‘What is WikiLeaks doing? Are they trying to put Trump in the Whitehouse?’
JA: My answer is that Trump would not be permitted to win.
Why do I say that? Because he’s had every establishment off side; Trump doesn’t have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment, but banks, intelligence [agencies], arms companies… big foreign money… are all united behind Hillary Clinton, and the media as well, media owners and even journalists themselves.
JP: There is the accusation that WikiLeaks is in league with the Russians.
Some people say,
‘Well, why doesn’t WikiLeaks investigate and publish emails on Russia?’
JA: We have published about 800,000 documents of various kinds that relate to Russia. Most of those are critical; and a great many books have come out of our publications about Russia, most of which are critical.
Our [Russia] documents have gone on to be used in quite a number of court cases: refugee cases of people fleeing some kind of claimed political persecution in Russia, which they use our documents to back up.
JP: Do you yourself take a view of the U.S. election? Do you have a preference for Clinton or Trump?
JA: [Let’s talk about] Donald Trump.
What does he represent in the American mind and in the European mind? He represents American white trash, [which Hillary Clinton called] ‘deplorable and irredeemable’.
It means from an establishment or educated cosmopolitan, urbane perspective, these people are like the red necks, and you can never deal with them.
Because he so clearly – through his words and actions and the type of people that turn up at his rallies – represents people who are not the middle, not the upper middle educated class, there is a fear of seeming to be associated in any way with them, a social fear that lowers the class status of anyone who can be accused of somehow assisting Trump in any way, including any criticism of Hillary Clinton.
If you look at how the middle class gains its economic and social power, that makes absolute sense.
‘US attempting to squeeze WikiLeaks through my refugee status’
JP: I’d like to talk about Ecuador, the small country that has given you refuge and [political asylum] in this embassy in London.
Now Ecuador has cut off the internet from here where we’re doing this interview, in the Embassy, for the clearly obvious reason that they are concerned about appearing to intervene in the U.S. election campaign.
Can you talk about why they would take that action and your own views on Ecuador’s support for you?
JA: Let’s go back four years.
I made an asylum application to Ecuador in this embassy, because of the U.S. extradition case, and the result was that after a month, I was successful in my asylum application.
The embassy since then has been surrounded by police: quite an expensive police operation which the British government admits to spending more than £12.6 million. They admitted that over a year ago.
Now there’s undercover police and there are robot surveillance cameras of various kinds – so that there has been quite a serious conflict right here in the heart of London between Ecuador, a country of sixteen million people, and the United Kingdom, and the Americans who have been helping on the side.
So that was a brave and principled thing for Ecuador to do.
Now we have the U.S. election [campaign], the Ecuadorian election is in February next year, and you have the White House feeling the political heat as a result of the true information that we have been publishing.
WikiLeaks does not publish from the jurisdiction of Ecuador, from this embassy or in the territory of Ecuador; we publish from France, we publish from, from Germany, we publish from The Netherlands and from a number of other countries, so that the attempted squeeze on WikiLeaks is through my refugee status; and this is, this is really intolerable.
[It means] that [they] are trying to get at a publishing organization; [they] try and prevent it from publishing true information that is of intense interest to the American people and others about an election.
JP: Tell us what would happen if you walked out of this embassy.
JA: I would be immediately arrested by the British police and I would then be extradited either immediately to the United States or to Sweden. In Sweden I am not charged, I have already been previously cleared [by the Senior Stockholm Prosecutor Eva Finne].
We were not certain exactly what would happen there, but then we know that the Swedish government has refused to say that they will not extradite me to the United States; we know they have extradited 100 per cent of people whom the U.S. has requested since at least 2000.
So over the last fifteen years, every single person the U.S. has tried to extradite from Sweden has been extradited, and they refuse to provide a guarantee [that won’t happen].
JP: People often ask me how you cope with the isolation in here.
JA: Look, one of the best attributes of human beings is that they’re adaptable; one of the worst attributes of human beings is they are adaptable.
They adapt and start to tolerate abuses, they adapt to being involved themselves in abuses, they adapt to adversity and they continue on. So in my situation, frankly, I’m a bit institutionalized – this [the embassy] is the world… it’s visually the world [for me].
JP: It’s the world without sunlight, for one thing, isn’t it?
JA: It’s the world without sunlight, but I haven’t seen sunlight in so long, I don’t remember it.
JA: So, yes, you adapt. The one real irritant is that my young children – they also adapt. They adapt to being without their father. That’s a hard, hard adaption which they didn’t ask for.
JP: Do you worry about them?
JA: Yes, I worry about them; I worry about their mother.
‘I am innocent and in arbitrary detention’
JP: Some people would say,
‘Well, why don’t you end it and simply walk out the door and allow yourself to be extradited to Sweden?’
JA: The U.N. [the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention] has looked into this whole situation.
They spent eighteen months in formal, adversarial litigation. [So it’s] me and the U.N. verses Sweden and the U.K. Who’s right?
The U.N. made a conclusion that I am being arbitrarily detained illegally, deprived of my freedom and that what has occurred has not occurred within the laws that the United Kingdom and Sweden, and that [those countries] must obey. It is an illegal abuse.
It is the United Nations formally asking,
‘What’s going on here? What is your legal explanation for this? [Assange] says that you should recognize his asylum.’
[And here is].
Sweden formally writing back to the United Nations to say,
‘No, we’re not going to [recognize the UN ruling], so leaving open their ability to extradite.’
JP: I just find it absolutely amazing that the narrative about this situation is not put out publically in the press, because it doesn’t suit the Western establishment narrative – that yes, the West has political prisoners, it’s a reality, it’s not just me, there’s a bunch of other people as well.
The West has political prisoners. Of course, no state accepts [that it should call] the people it is imprisoning or detaining for political reasons, political prisoners.
They don’t call them political prisoners in China, they don’t call them political prisoners in Azerbaijan and they don’t call them political prisoners in the United States, U.K. or Sweden; it is absolutely intolerable to have that kind of self-perception.
JA: Here we have a case, the Swedish case,
where I have never been charged with a crime
where I have already been cleared [by the Stockholm prosecutor] and found to be innocent
where the woman herself said that the police made it up
where the United Nations formally said the whole thing is illegal
where the State of Ecuador also investigated and found that I should be given asylum
Those are the facts, but what is the rhetoric?
JP: Yes, it’s different.
JA: The rhetoric is pretending, constantly pretending that I have been charged with a crime, and never mentioning that I have been already previously cleared, never mentioning that the woman herself says that the police made it up.
[The rhetoric] is trying to avoid [the truth that ] the U.N. formally found that the whole thing is illegal, never even mentioning that Ecuador made a formal assessment through its formal processes and found that yes, I am subject to persecution by the United States.