The JSOU paper cited in our first part demonstrates that on the information battlefield, the admonition to 'consider the source' is itself an avenue of attack. Raise ad hominem questions about an opponent's motive - even suggest that the opponent is working on your side - and you have thus neutralized the opponent's arsenal. There has never been a lack of rivalry and back-biting in the conspiracy theory world - but we can wonder to what extent such rivalry is the result of simple human frailties or of deliberate "shit-stirring" on the part of dissemblers.
A case in point: we wonder about the source of this hit piece on Sibel Edmonds...
EqualPartyUSA: Blowing the Whistle on Sibel Edmonds
We ask to what extent this site fits the bill: "information strategists can consider clandestinely recruiting or hiring prominent bloggers or other persons of prominence already within the target nation, group, or community to pass the U.S. message...[or] hiring a block of bloggers to verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message..." The site administrator James Laffrey's urgent request for help - "More help, please. No, not money! Just leave comments on other websites and encourage people to check us out..." - would indeed reflect the JSOU paper's focus on gaining prominence in the infosphere...
We find on Mr. Laffrey's about page that he is based in Vietnam as an English language teacher - it could be interesting to determine whether he is operating a Vietnamese language blog as well and what its overall message might be.
Incidentally, Edmonds was recently in Vietnam where she shot a rather disturbing video (not at all flattering to U.S. interests)
Boiling Frogs Post: Another Sorry Episode in American History: Agent Orange
Perusing his EqualPartyUSA site, there is little in the way of "scoops" beyond this hit piece on Edmonds, though Laffrey also attacks other prominent oppositional figures like Ralph Nader and Alex Jones. Otherwise it is the usual regurgitated "conspiraciology" as can be found on thousands of other sites. The Rothschild cabal is behind everything evil in the world and whoever fails to focus on this is providing cover for the the Rothschilds. (Or perhaps Mr. Laffery providing cover for the Rockefellers?) Some curious biographical points are raised about Mrs. Edmonds and her husband; and the sexy, creepy photo on the about page of the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance - at which Edmonds volunteers - does raise eyebrows (but could this be a case of... "Hacking the site and subtly changing the messages and data—merely a few words or phrases—may be sufficient to begin destroying the blogger’s credibility with the audience..."?)
These biographical volleys at Edmonds do not go beyond highlighting mere curiosities, however; nothing substantial is offered to raise real doubts about Edmonds and her whistlebowing as an FBI translator. Ultimately, ye shall know them by their works, and Edmonds provides us with invaluable geopolitical analysis that is rarely matched elsewhere - her recent piece on the Kyrgyzstan situation for instance.
+
Consider another possible example of "cognitive infiltration" - to borrow Cass Sunstein's terminology - in a communication to Cryptome signed "Wikileaks Insiders," where the target would be Icelandic Parliamentarian Birgitta Jónsdóttir, who was instrumental in killing the "IceSlave" plan...
Birgitta Jonsdottir; a left wing Icelandic politician is being very economical with the truth; and is behaving true to her stereotype as a persistent and predicable anti American loud mouth. Many WIKILEAKS activists consider Birgitta Jonsdottir a liability to WIKILEAKS; responsible for introducing excessive political bias into our output. This was evident with her naming, editing, and commentary of the gunship video.
If this is such a case, however, the author has put less effort in establishing his/her oppositional cover, as it is delivered in the tone of a Rush Limbaugh.
+
A confounding case of source tainting revolves around the strange, and apparently heavily medicated figure of Adrian Lamo, the tipster who outed the alleged leaker to WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning. The cover story of how this came about is difficult enough to swallow, as noted by Glenn Greenwald...
Salon: The strange and consequential case of Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo and WikiLeaks
(To further peruse this maze, see the time-line with citations provided at Cryptome)
This case took a confusing twist however when it was "revealed" in Forbes of all places that Lamo volunteered for a shadowy semi-private Internet snoop group known as "Project Vigilant". It appears however that this of itself is a false lead, as a little bit of investigating on the part of John Young showed Project Vigilant's website to be of dubious provenance...
Cryptome: Project Vigilant is a Fraud
Of course, this does not mean that there are no Special Ops groups, very likely private contractors, or perhaps foreign services, that engage in surveillance of U.S. domestic Internet activity. "Project Vigilant" and perhaps with it the entire Lamo/Manning/WikiLeaks/Wired/Salon/Cryptome/etc. affair is but a diversion, a "dual node network"* serving to draw attention away from the central battlefield where the information war is truly being waged...
EFF: Government Uses Social Networking Sites for More than Investigations
With the amount of personal information that Internet users wittingly or unwittingly volunteer in open source mode, much can be gleaned by government agencies armed with Internet tracking algorithms, and without needing to take recourse to domestic spying as such. "Netizens" have effectively lodged themselves in glass-walled domiciles, as in the One State of Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, whence the public/private distinction has been effectively subverted, and wherein the Fourth Amendment does not apply.
* The Invisibles: A Dialectic by Thibaut D'Amiens? F. Borishinski? (or some have speculated, John Harsanyi?) Horizon Press, 1976. Pgs. 42-53.
Update: Sept. 6
Our doubts about the "Wikileaks insiders" have proven accurate; or at least, John Young has come around to admit these doubts himself:
Cryptome: Wikileaks - Birgitta Jónsdóttir Clarifies Her Position
While a little bit unusual for Cryptome to dabble in the authenticity racket, wink, the "Wikileaks insiders" are likely imposters fabricated by a person or persons unknown. Jónsdóttir is correct in asking that these persons reveal identity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi. I'm James Laffrey.
Thanks for taking a look at my website. I'm all for bringing a critical eye to everything, including my EqualPartyUSA site.
It's interesting that you seem to completely accept Sibel Edmonds and her motives. Have you followed your own advice and "considered the source" yet? I felt driven to consider the source, hence my article on her. Of course it lacks definitive factual answers to some of the questions I pose -- because Edmonds refuses to provide answers. (A link to her responses is at the end of my article.) And her prevously published interviews don't touch those important subjects. If they interviewed me, they'd ask me where my money comes from, wouldn't they? Of course. But they don't ask Edmonds.
I'd like to give you more info on a couple of things you've wondered about.
1. Covering for the Rockefellers. Funny. The criminal Rockefellers work for the Rothschilds, as I've often stated on the =party website. The Rockefellers are simply the Rothschilds' top front group in the USA.
2. Do I have a Vietnamese-language blog or the like? No. I have only the =party website.
I am exactly who I say I am on the About Page of the website. I have no outside funding or impetus of any kind. I started the website and the entire effort by myself. Everything sprang from my own mind as a result of my past experiences and research and my idea on how we Americans can re-establish a true representative democracy.
I realize that my effort has little chance of success, but it's my duty as an intelligent, former daily newspaper journalist, teacher, and brave American to share my ideas this way and hope that enough Americans will overcome their mis-education and stand up with me.
If you have any more questions, I welcome them at the =party site.
Mr. Laffrey, I think you are probably sincere, and I think the same of Sibel Edmonds. So one hit piece deserved another.
While you raise some tenuous questions relating to her history with the RVF for instance, you cannot draw any conclusive indictment out of it. Many sincere people can involve themselves with vaccination programs, thinking that they are doing good, just as many sincere people can be under the delusion that flouride in the water is good.
And, even if she were at some point in league with the Rothchilds, wittingly or unwittingly, can she not over time become a traitor to her handlers?
Again, I return to the expression: "ye shall know them by their works" - noting that you have not really addressed the issue that made Sibel famous: her whistleblowing regarding the network of Israeli/Turkish intelligence and grad-student moles who infiltrated nuclear research facilities with the crucial help of State Dept. & Pentagon officials, along with Congressional assistance. This blew the lid on many things, and it may even provide the missing link in explaining 9/11. She abided the gag order for a while, and then finally (having exhausted all other options) she spilled it out for all to see. Very few have done much in the way of follow-up to her revelations (but there is some on KRZog).
Instead of follow-up, we get the kind of tenuous "question-raising" about the source that you indulge in... So there are two people named "Matt Edmonds" on the Eastern Seaboard, one of whom does business with The Rothchilds.
"Something isn't right." Precisely, something isn't right: you are being disingenuous to the extreme.
On the other hand, there is the possibility that the whole Edmonds affair is a diversionary "dual node network," what with the ample material that it offers for skullduggery researchers. With this possibility in mind, we of course are open to any substantial allegations that can be brought. But to do this, one must raise serious questions about not just the source (because after all sources can change their allegiance) but also about their works. That you have not done.
Ahh, I've just come upon your reply. Interesting.
You are too shallow to be taken seriously anymore. How can I conclude such a thing?!
You said: "And, even if she were at some point in league with the Rothchilds, wittingly or unwittingly, can she not over time become a traitor to her handlers?"
So, you're suggesting that she may have become a traitor to her handlers when she began her career as a "whistleblower" so many years ago, and yet she's still alive and free to travel internationally?
You've outed yourself -- or is it yourselves? Whoever you are, you lack the courage and honesty to provide name and background.
On Edmonds, I connected the available black dots, and I offered for consideration the available fuzzy dots.
Mine is a long article which you have superficially reviewed. Purposely, obviously.
The bottom line is that Edmonds provided no new bombshells. She provided relatively small firecrackers. In sum: misdirection from our true enemy. And she refuses to learn about and mention the true enemy: the Rothschilds.
Of course, this is your website, not mine. So, I'll not attempt to have any "last word." I almost certainly will not add another comment here.
Thanks for allowing this response.
Sincerely,
James Laffrey
Post a Comment