Panama Toilet Papers & the Capitalist Bastards With An Eye On Global Markets, Funding Destruction of European Societies

TRANSCRIPT [confirm audio, for quotation purposes] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNvWxZ_bhAI Al-Jazeera English [Qatar state media  / indirect funding also from Thani ruling family via third entity] Julian Assange on the Panama Papers [skip Al-Jazeera introduction] What kind of person would reveal those secrets & why? 1:24 Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Assuming they were an insider, or they were an individual computer hacker coming from the outside, this a technical person.  Or this person had help from a technical person.  I think it's likely that this represents radicalisation of a technical class.  That's something that we've seen, for example, with Snowden. So these are usually young men, who are technically educated, know how to extract material.  But, of course, they have to have the idea and the idea is given to them by successful examples and now there have been a range of successful examples. Al-Jazeera Interviewer It's also to do with hardware, though, isn't it.  Because back in 2010, most journalists at most news organisations wouldn't have had a clue about encryption. Back in 2013 when Snowden came out, most Guardian journalists he was dealing with, he had to school on encryption.  Now so many news outlets are providing these boxes, these (for lack of a better term) 'safe havens' for data, that five years ago only organisations like yours and a few others did.  That's a big change, as well, isn't it? Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Well, I don't believe that  Sueddeutsche [Sueddeutsche Zeitung] got their material that way.  However, their journalists have been educated in the technology. But it's no surprise that it was a German newspaper, because Germany is the centre of technical education of journalists and is also the centre of the political radicalisation of the technical class.  Both of those two things combined. Al-Jazeera Interviewer The head of the ICIJ said ICIJ, the consortium, has no plans to release the full data set.  He said:  "We're not WikiLeaks. We're trying to show that journalism can be done responsibly." Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Yeah, that's a concern.  So we're very pleased about the work that SZ -- Sueddeutsche Zeitung -- did in beginning and developing that source.  We think that's really good work.  The work of the source, of course, is the most impressive and then pulling together that collaboration is also impressive work. Saying that you're going to censor and not release a lot of the material -- in fact, what must be 99% of the material -- that's a big problem. It's fine to have some kind of staggered release because you want to balance the supply and demand curve. But what I want to hear is that there is a path -- a transparent path -- to publishing the vast majority of that data set, because that's what's interesting from a legal perspective, from a historical perspective. One of the fundamental missed lessons from the WikiLeaks experience is about how to deal with scale.  OK, one part of dealing with scale is stitch together a big international collaboration:  get more bodies, more eyeballs on the material.  The other way to deal with scale is that scale is inherent in the material:  when you've got millions of documents, you need to make millions of documents available [and] citable, so it's not just a few hundred journalists, it's all the lawyers in the world, it's all the police in the world. Al-Jazeera Interviewer As someone who pretty much wrote the book on multimedia outlet collaborations, you knew that this stuff was coming. When you saw the first wave -- the first two or three days of reporting  -- what stood out for you and what did you not see that you thought you would in the reporting? Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks We've been covering the offshore sector for a long time, since 2007.  In fact, WikiLeaks has used the offshore sector for protection from banking blockades, so we even had to research it for our own purposes. But in terms of the initial angling of the story, that can be a bit strange.  There was clearly a conscious effort to go with the Putin-bashing, North Korea bashing, sanctions-bashing etc. For some reason, some papers, like The Guardian thought that was necessary. Al-Jazeera Interviewer Have we seen any other examples in the parochial reporting media outlets from various countries doing what The Guardian appears to have done, which is point at a distant target while not paying as much attention, proportionally speaking, to a domestic target much closer to home? Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Sure, that was done in Sweden with SVT -- the Swedish state TV -- beating up on Iceland. Iceland's a small Scandinavian neighbour, sort of a -- you know, viewed as quite provincial and fun to beat up on.  But the Swedish trusts were not really examined. Al-Jazeera Interviewer Am I the only one who's surprised that more than 100 news organisations can get involved with a story like this and somehow, in an industry that is famous for rumour-mongering and incurable gossip, they managed to keep a lid on the whole story until it came out. Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks I think it is interesting.  We knew. We know other people in other news organisations who knew, but who didn't say anything. I think because no-one knows of the law-firm concerned [Mossack Fonseca]; it doesn't have name recognition. Then the individual details are -- they're quite technical.  You can't tweet this story.  You can't spill the beans with just a small comment.  So I think there just wasn't the market to do it.  It could also be that so many news organisations were involved, so they had incentives to not report. Al-Jazeera Interviewer The item that strikes me about this is that we're sitting in an embassy in London that you are not free to leave, and a lot of politicians -- primarily in the United States, but also elsewhere -- when the leaks came out in 2010, they turned you into the embodiment of the problem and, in a way, it kind of reminds me of that Napster story, the free music service that the music industry went after in a big way, destroyed in a court of law and woke up the next morning and found out that Napster wasn't their problem:  that technology was their problem.   There is no music industry per se, compared to what there was before today, and I'm wondering if you feel like that now would be a good time to point out that you weren't necessarily their problem.  Their problem is the technology and you can't lock that up in an embassy in west London. Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Look, WikiLeaks set an example and the example was the threat, and the example was a threat because the technology, over time, became more available to other people who could then follow the example. Looking forward as to how I think the Panama Papers will go, it's going to be hard to go forward without a bulk publishing effort.  There's just not the mass to deal with the reliance that the establishment of the UK, United States and, in fact, most countries have in the offshore sector. Now, what you have in practice at the moment is basically a two-tiered tax system, where the middle class and the working poor pay income tax and the wealthy essentially don't pay anything. That's a question about the structure of society, and that big picture is not being engaged with in the journalism that it has done.  It is 'Oh, North Korea', 'Oh, Russia', 'Oh, sanctions breaking', 'Oh, --' maybe someone dodging inheritance tax a little bit.  But there is a big picture here as well.  Al-Jazeera Interviewer Stories that we can put a face on.  They like to do the stories that they can put a face on. Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Stories and scandals that you can put a face on can be good for marketing reasons, but what are you marketing in the end? What WikiLeaks does and what I believe should have been done with this story is that the scandals are there to MARKET THE ARCHIVE, because the ARCHIVE that has the SCALE that can deal with the problem. -- end audio:  9:12 --    SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNvWxZ_bhAI PRIME REASON NOT TO LEAK TO HAMSTRUNG MAINSTREAM PRESS TRADE SECRETS LAWS - USED TO SILENCE PUBLISHERS TRANSCRIPT [confirm audio, for quotation purposes] Video Source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyQCX05MxLM [where audio unclear gaps left ] Male Because of the activity of WikiLeaks -- [cuts to] 0:04 Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks The question is, how much can a cashed up oligarch or company tax people who engage in publishing material about it, by abusing the process, grabbing onto hooks like trade secret law, to force publishers (and in this case service providers and individuals), into very expensive litigation. The experience from the United States has been a disastrous one. Trade secrets law is used to create taxes on publishers who publish quotes, say, from internal e-mails -- like we've seen ... with the Panama Papers. Now, the situation, however, is already bad here in Europe. One of our partner publications, Deutsche [Süddeutsche ?] Zeitungen in Germany (SZ), who was the principal who got hold of the Panama Papers, who developed that source.  How many did they publish? How many Panama Papers did they publish, the principal indy organisation involved?  Zero. They have published zero.  They have published an occasional quote, but they have released zero Panama Papers. So, why is that?  Because of fears of litigation risk. Already we are at the stage, where a fairly strong mainstream press organisation in Germany that is willing at least to take on some of the stories coming from ... feels it's not in a position to be able to publish a single document. Video Source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyQCX05MxLM Translation "... scandal machinery starts against all enemies of the West from Russia via North Korea to Syria reveals a view of the parties. Both criticized for state near NDR [Norddeutscher Rundfunk / North German Broadcasting], and strictly pro-American media are involved."  "Also interesting are the donors. CPI and ICIJ with which the SZ cooperated for research, "financed by donations, more recently, among other foundations from Australia, Britain, the Netherlands and the US, including the Ford Foundation, the Adessium Foundation, founded by George Soros Open Society Foundation; also. "it says on the by the Pulitzer Center of Crisis Reporting"" http://www.neopresse.com/medien/die-anti-russland-kampagne-hinter-panama-papers/ http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/04/panama-papers-mainstream-media-focuses-putin-link-leak-group-funded-pro-open-borders-george-soros/ EXTRACT Questions must be asked of the tactics of the ICIJ, and indeed, their backers. The organisation, which describes itself as “a global network of more than 190 investigative journalists in more than 65 countries who collaborate on in-depth investigative stories” lists as some of its recent financial funders: Adessium Foundation Funds big green, as well as financial industry lobbyists, often in partnership with the George Soros-backed Open Society initiatives or foundations. The group also supports the EUObserver website, which dedicates itself to non-biased European Union reporting, though receives 64 per cent of its funding from predominantly pro-EU foundations. Open Society Foundations Chaired by Hungarian-American billionaire and Hillary Clinton donor George Soros, the Open Society Foundations back hundreds of pro open borders, mass immigration groups across the European Union, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Mr. Soros is a known rival of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and has recently written about how Mr. Putin is a “greater threat” to the West than Islamic State. The Sigrid Rausing Trust The Sigrid Rausing Trust, similarly to the Open Society Foundations, backs open borders and pro mass migration groups across the United Kingdom, and funds anti-Israel groups in the Middle East. The organisation funds “No Borders” in Ukraine, “Reprieve” in the UK – which defends Guantanamo Bay detainees, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the radical left group “Southall Black Sisters” in Britain.   Graeme Wood An Australian billionaire who has bankrolled anti coal projects in his home country, as well as supporting the Guardian website – which critics have highlighted the hypocrisy of for their own offshore tax set up. Mr. Wood was responsible for Australia’s “biggest ever political donation of $1.6 million in 2010 to the Greens” and funded the failed Global Mail news website. The Ford Foundation The Ford Foundation is one of the largest funders on the political left, giving out over $560 million just in 2013. The Ford Foundation has funded everything from Sesame Street to the radical TV show Democracy Now. [funding] ... dozens of far left groups with agendas ranging from environmentalism to abortion, the Ford Foundation is one of the premier funders of the open borders movement, beginning with its 1968 grant to create the group MALDEF, or the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, as helping to create the group National Council of La Raza. MALDEF and La Raza have become to the most influential groups in the US open borders movement. The Ford foundation is also been a significant funder for the ACLU and the National Lawyers guild, both key legal players in the fight for open borders. Additionally, the Ford Foundation laid the intellectual groundwork for the modern open borders movement and its multiculturalist agenda with a series of grants in the 60s and 70s that created Women’s Studies and Black Studies programs at major universities across America. In a 1992 conference that Ford sponsored called “Cultural Diversity Enhancement” the closing speaker was Eve Grossman, a Princeton dean, who made the agenda very clear: “If we want to change the world, we have to change the students.” Pew Charitable Trust Like like The Ford Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trust is a major funder of a wide range of left-wing groups with focuses on arts and culture, environmental issues as well as public research opinion polling through the Pew Research group. In 2014 alone, Pew gave out over $110 million in grants. A quick look at the Pew Charitable Trust’s website includes a number of helpful articles if you’re an illegal alien and you’d like to drive, such as the recent pop quiz Do You Know the Facts About Driver’s Licenses for Unauthorized Immigrants? and Alternative Driver’s Licenses for Unauthorized Immigrants. David and Lucile Packard Foundation Another heavy hitter in the world of left-wing grant writing, the Packard Foundation gave out nearly $300 million in 2013 along. Aside from funding institutional left groups like Human Rights Watch, The Center for Reproductive Rights, And the Environmental Working Group, Packard is also funded open borders groups such as National Council of La Raza, the National Immigration Law Center, and the ACLU. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/04/panama-papers-mainstream-media-focuses-putin-link-leak-group-funded-pro-open-borders-george-soros/ ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT   Panama Toilet Papers & the Capitalist Bastards With An Eye On Global Markets, Funding Destruction of European Societies Germany as the 'centre of the political radicalisation of the technical class' I cannot buy ... unless we're talking pussy, SJW, US-Anglo oligarchy serving and new world capitalist oligarchy order nation-destroying, liberalism agenda furthering, 'radicalism'. This 'responsible' journalism refrain is one we've heard before, with the Snowden 'leaks,' amounting to pious proclamations about journalistic 'responsibility', affirmation of the wonders of what's referred to as 'democracy' (ie rule by oligarchy), and ... the withholding of  99% of the information supposedly 'leaked'.  Some 'democracy' and some 'leak' that is. Corporate journalism, government & oligarchy sponsored 'liberty' promoting NGOs, & journalistic 'responsibility' trumpeting figures and ruling establishment sponsored journalistic 'responsibility' advocating NGOs (withholding information), aren't compatible with challenging the system that is also sponsor.  What they're good for is promoting the agenda of the ruling capitalist order, and an order with an eye for dominating the 'global market' capitalist world trade monopoly they seek to establish, the manifestation of which depends on an agenda that is bent on destroying European societies. We're never going to see the bulk of this 'leaked' material, let alone have access to material in full, because these aren't genuine leaks or genuine actors, in my opinion. The leaks are likely intended to damage or eliminate those that stand in the way of establishing global capitalist trade monopoly, which depends on the existence a unipolar US-led world order -- an order pursed by the US oligarchy serving American state that is designer and nurturer of this capitalist agenda, since at least the end of WWII (if not earlier). Oops, I think WikiLeaks is taking the Panama Papers seriously? LEAKER BEWARE I think the moral of this story is:  don't leak to mainstream media.  On the one hand, you have the corporate press that has its benefactors' and government's agenda dictating and restricting output. On the other hand, it looks as though you also have mainstream 'independent' media, but this platform is unable to publish as it is legally hamstrung, in the face of risk of exposure to costly litigation. *I'm still not convinced.  LOL