TOKYO MASTER BANNER

MINISTRY OF TOKYO
US-ANGLO CAPITALISMEU-NATO IMPERIALISM
Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies
Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships
Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY
[LINK | Article]

*U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR*

Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
[info from Craig Murray video appearance, follows]  US-Anglo Alliance DELIBERATELY STOKING ANTI-RUSSIAN FEELING & RAMPING UP TENSION BETWEEN EASTERN EUROPE & RUSSIA.  British military/government feeding media PROPAGANDA.  Media choosing to PUBLISH government PROPAGANDA.  US naval aggression against Russia:  Baltic Sea — US naval aggression against China:  South China Sea.  Continued NATO pressure on Russia:  US missile systems moving into Eastern Europe.     [info from John Pilger interview follows]  War Hawk:  Hillary Clinton — embodiment of seamless aggressive American imperialist post-WWII system.  USA in frenzy of preparation for a conflict.  Greatest US-led build-up of forces since WWII gathered in Eastern Europe and in Baltic states.  US expansion & military preparation HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED IN THE WEST.  Since US paid for & controlled US coup, UKRAINE has become an American preserve and CIA Theme Park, on Russia's borderland, through which Germans invaded in the 1940s, costing 27 million Russian lives.  Imagine equivalent occurring on US borders in Canada or Mexico.  US military preparations against RUSSIA and against CHINA have NOT been reported by MEDIA.  US has sent guided missile ships to diputed zone in South China Sea.  DANGER OF US PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKES.  China is on HIGH NUCLEAR ALERT.  US spy plane intercepted by Chinese fighter jets.  Public is primed to accept so-called 'aggressive' moves by China, when these are in fact defensive moves:  US 400 major bases encircling China; Okinawa has 32 American military installations; Japan has 130 American military bases in all.  WARNING PENTAGON MILITARY THINKING DOMINATES WASHINGTON. ⟴  
Showing posts with label Transcript. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Transcript. Show all posts

October 05, 2016

Gaddafi's 2011 Prophesy: "Europe Will Turn Black" (Video)





ministry of tokyo






"Europe Will Turn Black"
2011 Gaddafi Prophesy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLflLdIJeMw 

US Ambassador
Thumbs-Up Gaddafi Corpse


GADDAFI & FRIENDS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxzDme7tq20
US Ambassador
Thumbs-Up Gaddafi Corpse










US Consulate, Benghazi 2012
 


US Media 'Justice' Spin 2012
Bitch of Benghazi
HILLARY CLINTON

JULIAN ASSANGE
WIKILEAKS
WAR BY MEDIA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLflLdIJeMw



DOCUMENTARY
TRANSCRIPT
[For Quotes, Confirm Audio]


SOURCE MATERIAL
Russian Documentary Video Clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLflLdIJeMw

Muammar Gaddafi:

Now you people in NATO, listen to me.

You are bombing the wall that stopped African migration into Europe.

This wall stopped the terrorists from al-Qaeda. This wall was Libya.

You are destroying it, you fools.

For the many thousands of migrants from Africa, for your support of al-Qaeda, you will burn in hell. This is how it will be.

Narrator:

Until 1968, Libya was a monarchy.

Seventy percent (70%) of the population lived below the poverty line.

Many were illiterate and lived in simple nomadic tents.

It was a typically underdeveloped African country.

Gaddafi provided the Libyans with the kind of life that made the rest of the dark continent envious.

Out of the desert arose the 'Eight Wonder of the World' - the Great Man-Made River (the world's largest irrigation project).

Interview Subject (Male) c. 0:50:

He was able to create a system of irrigation throughout the desert, through an underground pipe network.

Interview Subject (Female) c. 0:57:

Factories and enterprises began operating throughout Libya, none of which were there before.

Narrator:

Not having paid a single Dinar, Libyans moved from tents into apartment blocks.

'Rent' did not exist. Everything, including utilities and power, was covered by the government.

Interview Subject (Male, elderly) c. 1:17:

If we were to compare the way cities, such as Tripoli, looked before he came to power and after, you would see that it went from an ugly village to a city with high-rises, 30 years later.

So you want to get married?

The government would give newly-wed couples USD$64,000 towards buying a home and USD$7,000 towards each child born.

You want a car?

The government will cover 50% of the cost.

Petrol in Libya used to be cheaper than water: 3 cents per litre.

Interview Subject (Male) c. 17:03:

Minimum wages were in the thousands of dollars, education abroad was paid for by the state, and cases where medical surgeries needed to be carried out outside of Libya, the state covered that, too.

Narrator:

"But to bring lasting peace of Libya would be impossible: this land will forever be torn apart by the leaders of these various tribes."

"They can't and don't want to be ruled by a single person."

That's what the leaders of the superpowers said in the 1970s

Colonel Gaddafi surprised everyone.

He unified 140 tribes into one country.

Each one of these tribes had their own leader (Sheik).

The option for Gadddafi was to either "scare them to death" or to buy them.

Gaddafi preferred the latter.

He promised them a heavenly existence, and he delivered on his words.


Cuts to Gaddafi:

We have oil: this is what will unite us.


Narrator:

Oil is the reason that Libya stayed as one country.

Gaddafi nationalised the oil producing industry.

He promised that the huge profits would be fairly distributed across the entire country.

All Libyans began to receive their share of Libyan oil trade.

Interview Subject (Male) c. 3:07:

When the people can see that a certain leader is raising the standard of living, of course he will have a lot of support.

Narrator:

Gaddafi kicked out the foreigners.

He closed the US and British military bases.

He confiscated property from local Italians, the offspring of the colonisers.

Then he moved onto the culture.

He changed the calender, including the names of the months, and counting the years now from the birth of the Prophet Mohammed.

He reviewed all the laws in Libya, to be in accordance with Sharia Law.

Alcohol and gambling became illegal.

Gaddafi considered himself to principal fighter for the interests of his people.

Placing hand-picked personnel amidst high ranking roles, and being in full control of the country, Gaddafi refused any kind of title for himself.

Having consolidated immense power, he only ever referred to himself as the 'servant of the people'.

Interview Subject (Male) c. 4:08:

"I'm just your 'brother of a leader', or a "brother of a ruler" - or sometimes he would title himself anything at all.

Narrator:

He considered Islam to be the highest form of moral authority; he did not drink any alcohol, which is forbidden by the Koran.

He didn't even drink tea or coffee and kept his food very simple.

But Libya was only getting richer.

The huge oil revenues allowed Gaddafi to have Napoleonic plans.


He stated that the Gulf of Sidra, in the Mediterranean Sea, is Libya's territorial waters, and vowed to take out any ship or aircraft that trespass "the line of death".

Ronald Reagan called him the "wild dog of the Middle East" and he ordered the bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi.




America’s Planned Nuclear Attack on Libya
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, March 30, 2011
30 March 2011
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-s-planned-nuclear-attack-on-libya/24049?print=1


"... planned attack on Libya using nuclear weapons, had been contemplated by the Clinton Administration in 1996, at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal"


The US military operation El Dorado Canyon (1986) lasted 11 minutes.

Around 100 aircraft dropped 150 tonnes of bombs over Libya.

It's target was Gaddafi's residence and military bases, but many innocent Libyans perished.

The little country, where people were sleepy
[from too much eating (Russian reference, likely to docile Libyans due to prosperity)]
was shocked.

Gaddafi survived. Killing him would prove more challenging.

Russian news announcement [potentially] / male voice (c. 5:31):

"Americans failed in their mission" said Mikhail Gorbachev, in a message to Muammar Gaddafi.

Narrator:

The Colonel quickly understood that Western media will never write about the positive aspects of his country: the building of infrastructure and roads, the growing birth rate, and free medical care.

Journalists like a show and he continually tried to grab their attention for interesting publications.

Interview Subject (Male) c. 5:56:

He became more and more creative.

He did strange things, and worse some interesting clothing, accompanied by battalions of security.

Narrator:

His whole life, he wrote philosophy, in what he termed his 'green book'.

Essential, he wrote a bible for the Libyan people in which he said that neither Communism nor Capitalism was suited to Libya.

"Communism is a rejection of God, and Capitalism is a rejection of the human." There must be a third option.

Interview Subject (Male, elderly) c. 6:30:

"Democracy is a sham. Representation is a sham. Political parties are a sham. Parliament is a sham.

He considered that democracy is only an illusion of "the rule by the people." Simply an illusion.

So he introduced the model of the Soviet Union - the 'soviet' [council] is where the power is."

Narrator:

In 1992, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions against Libya.

Libya's ability to sell oil ceased, and assets were frozen.

How to win back the business of the international community? Gaddafi would consider it for 10 years.

He decided to buy it.

Interview Subject (Male) c. 7:10:

I met with him in 2007 or 2008, during the world financial crisis, and I remember the last thing he said to me.

He said "I only made one mistake, and that was trusting the Americans and the Westerners."

Narrator:

Condoleezza Rice, Tony Blair, and Nicolas Sarkozy convinced Gaddafi to wrap up all his military programs in return for their loyalty [to buying oil].

They said: give up your [military] programs, and you will become a full member of the 'international community'.

Having been ostracised for so long, Gaddafi agreed.

In 2013, Sadam Hussien was tried [by kangaroo court and executed], demonstrating to Gaddafi, once again, that it is best not to be on bad terms with the West.

Interview Subject (Male) c. 7:58:

In 2010, he was hugging Obama and calling him his closest ally and friend; he loaned Sarkozy money.

Narrator:

Sarkozy approached the Libyan government when he was a Minsister of Internal Affairs.

He needed money for his election campaign.

It was Libya's money that helped Sarkozy become President.

`
Interview Subject (Male) c. 8:18:

Gaddafi gave Sarkozy a lot of money, both to the cause and in his own pocket.

And not just to Sarkozy, but other EU leaders such as Berlusconi.

He paid Germany and Britain, too.

Narrator:

Gaddafi devoted himself to the intrigues on the international arena, but within his own country he feared no one.

He knew that his people loved him, and it was true - they continued to show love for him, but it only added to his supposition of being irreplaceable.

Cuts to vieled elderly female:

"I am ready to put down my life for Muammar Gaddafi: he is a symbol of emancipation from the colonisers for every Libyan!"

Interview Subject (Male) c. 8:56:

Meanwhile, the tribes began to segregate, living their own ways and traditions.

Even though Gaddafi continued to feed them, clothe them and arm them, and they appeared to be loyal to him, that loyalty wore thin.

Narrator:

In December 2010, the entire region became engulfed by protests and demonstrators.

People became tired of poverty, the rife corruption that was taking place amongst officials, as well as lawlessness and hopelessness of their countries.

The 'Arab Spring' had arrived, complete with chaos, and flowing rivers of blood.

Opposition rebels got control of Eastern Libya in a number of days. Gaddafi was in Western Libya at the time.

He was assured that he could dispel the uprising.

Gaddafi audio:

"Prepare to defend Libya! They wanted a war; they will have a war!"

Narrator:

We are close to victory, but to speed it along, I'm ready to open up the military arsenals and private all of Libya's true patriots with weapons!"

At first, Gaddafi said they are just groups of drug addicts who are attacking police officers and stealing their weapons.

But he quickly realised, this smells like a government coup.

And there is nobody to defend him: he himself had vastly reduced his armed forces.

Interview Subject (Male elderly) c. 10:14:

The first one to act was Sarkozy: he unleashed the French airforce.

Narrator:

After the fall of Tripoli, Gaddafi remained in control of only 2 cities, around which brutal battles waged.

There were more and more casualties.

Interview Subject (Female) c. 10:30:

The West, of course, tricked Gaddafi.

He never expected this. It was a real knife in the back situation.

It isn't even clear why they did this - why was this war necessary?

Muammar Gaddafi was himself doing everything that they asked for.

They killed him in a very humiliating way; as a personality, as a man, as a soldier, as a ruler, as a leader.

Interview Subject (Female, floral dress) c. 10:59:

This version of events will never be relayed in Western media, because it is obviously embarrassing to the dignity of their own countries.

They maintain that Libyans did this to Gaddafi because they are savage, unenlightened beings.

Narrator:

Never has the death of a human being caused such over-abundance of Joy.

Thousands of people rejoiced, who once loved Gaddafi.

Hillary Clinton said "Woooow" when she heard the news.

The US Ambassador to Libya took a picture next to the dictator's body, with his thumbs up.


Interview Subject (Male) c. 11:41:

Libya got rid of Gaddafi and Gaddafi's family. The got rid of 'the green book' and the green flag.

They gained the absence of a unitary state, no governance structures, a permanent civil war and basically everything that the average 'revolutionary' never imagined.

12:13 -

Very disturbing footage of bloodied Gaddafi surrounded by rabble, gunfire, screaming, poor audio, photographs being taken of bloodied and confused Gaddafi on what appears to be back of truck; disturbing high pitched noise like ongoing screaming and gunshots fired, possibly from automatic weapons.


Vladimir Putin [13:05]:

And my final comment, Mr McCain, as is known, is a Vietnam veteran.

I would assume his hands are elbow deep in civilian blood.

It appears he just cannot get by without repeated scenese that are atrocious to us, of the murder of Gaddafi.

On TV screens around the world, we were shown his murder, where he was drenched in blood.

Is this what you call democracy?

How did they do it?

Using drones, they delivered a blow to his battalion, and then over the radio to special forces - which shouldn't have been on the territory - they brought in a camera crew, as well as opposition rebels.

And they murdered him without a trace or trial.

If he was captured, it should have been left up to the people to decide his fate via democratic methods.

Yes, it's difficult and it takes time, but nothing else is acceptable.

RT News Interview (Male) c. 13:59
Bill Dod:

"Colonel Gaddafi told Tony Blair that Jihadists would control the Mediterranean and attack Europe if his regime was allowed to collapse. The warning was revealed in released transcripts of telephone conversations between the two leaders from February 2011"

Transcript:

There are ARMED GANGS who have weapons.

Not decided to face them with force, asking their families to convince them to lay down arms.

You can't reason with them.

They keep saying things like Mohammed is the prophet. Similar to bin Laden.
They are paving the way for him in North Africa.

They want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe.

Need to explain to the 'international community'.

Gaddafi's prediction was made in two desperate telephone calls with Blair as the civil war was engulfing Libya.

Three weeks later, a NATO-led coalition that included Britain, began bombing raids that led to the overthrow and eventual killing of Gaddafi. ISIL now controls large parts of Libya.


Vladimir Putin [15:01]:
Putin on Libya
Valdai Discussion Club 2014

Look at Libya and what you did there, that got your Ambassador murdered.

Was it us that did this?

You even had a Security Council decision for this; to establish a no-fly zone.

What for?

it was so that Gaddafi's airforce couldn't fly over and bomb the rebels.

This wasn't the smartest decision.

But, OK ...

What did you proceed to do yourselves?

You started bombing the territory.

This is in clear contravention of the Security Council resolution.

It is even outright aggression over a state.

Was it us that did this?

You did this with your bare hands.

And it ended with the murder of your Ambassador.

Whose fault is it? It's your fault.

Is it a good result that your Ambassador was murdered?

It is actually a terrible catastrophe.

But do not look around for somebody to blame, when it is you making these mistakes.

You must do the opposite; rise above the endless desire to dominate.

You must stop acting out of imperialist ambitions.

Do not poison the consciousness of millions of people; that there can be no other way but imperialistic politics.


--- COMMENT ---


Зачем? Zachem?

'what for?'

(sounds like 'Ch'om) / possibly the contracted version?



COMMENT


That was a very good documentary.

I didn't know that the US Ambassador that was eventually killed in Benghazi had been photographed with a thumbs-up over Gaddafi's mutilated corpse.

What the capitalists have done to Libya is shocking.

Lessons here:

1.  Do not trust capitalists.
2.  Do not disarm or wind down military.
3.  Rule by fear and brutal force may work better than generosity.

What kind of fools receive everything they need for nothing and then take down the government that provides them with freebies that are unheard of anywhere else, to destroy their country and install rule by foreign capitalism that will mercilessly exploit Libya and the Libyan people?

I can't believe it.

Next time a Jihadi ploughs into a French crowd, I'll be thinking it is the French capitalists that are driving the bus.

What the capitalists of Europe, Britain and the US are doing abroad is disgusting.

What is even more shocking and astounding to me is that they simultaneously destroy all European societies and nobody objects.




September 15, 2016

Free Assange - Assange Medical and Psychological Records





ministry of tokyo









ASSANGE

[RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE.  'NEW TAB'.  MAGNIFY]


https://wikileaks.org/Medical-Reports?livenow

Assange Medical and Psychological Records

14 September 2016

Today WikiLeaks releases confidential medical and psychological reports concerning our editor Julian Assange’s situation. This part one publication consists of three documents: a twenty-seven page psycho-social and medical assessment from 10 November 2015, a report from Mr. Assange’s physician from 8 December 2015 and a dentist’s report from 31 July 2015. The in-depth assessment of the psychological and physical effects that the severely restrictive conditions of confinement within the small premises of the Embassy have had on Mr. Assange is by far the most detailed insight into the circumstances of his life inside the Embassy —including the multi-million dollar covert operation the United Kingdom admits to subjecting him to. He has been deprived of his liberty since 7 December 2010. He has not been charged with an offence.

The deterioration of Mr. Assange’s physical health has arisen as a result of the extremely restrictive conditions of his confinement. The United Kingdom has formally refused safe access to even the most basic hospital diagnostics.

On February 5th this year the United Nations found that Mr. Assange’s effective detention in the Embassy of Ecuador by the United Kingdom and Sweden is arbitrary and unlawful and that he must be freed and compensated. One of the factual elements that informed the conclusions of its 16-month investigation was Mr. Assange’s deteriorating health and the inability to safely access basic healthcare.

https://wikileaks.org/Medical-Reports?livenow




[RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE, 'NEW TAB']

LINK | source



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsgSifdbtas&feature=youtu.be


TRANSCRIPT
[third party transcript / for quotation purposes, confirm audio]

Julian #Assange If Wars can be Started by Lies Peace can be started by Truth

Julian Assange speaking at Trafalgar Square 8th October 2011

". . . and that is something I want to talk about. What can we do with our values, what can we do at all in relation to this war? Because the reality is Margaret Thatcher had it right; there is no society any more. What there is is a transnational security elite that is busy carving up the world using your tax money.

To combat that elite we must not petition; we must take it over.

We must form our own networks of strength and mutual value which can challenge those strengths and self-interested values of the warmongers in this country and in others that have formed hand in hand an alliance to take money from the United States, from every NATO country, from Australia and launder it through Afghanistan, launder it through Iraq, lander it through Somalia, launder it through Yemen, launder it through Pakistan and wash that money in people's blood.

I don't need to tell you the depravity of war, you are all too familiar with its images, with the refugees of war, with information that we have revealed showing the everyday squalor and barbarity of war.

Information such as the individual deaths of over 130,000 people in Iraq. Individual deaths that were kept secret by the US military who denied that they ever counted the deaths of civilians.

Instead I want to tell you what I think is the way that wars come to be and that wars can be undone.

In democracies, or the pseudo-democracies that we are evolving into, wars are a result of lies. The Vietnam War and the push for US involvement was the result of the Gulf of Tonkin incident . . . a lie. The Iraq War famously is the result of lies. Wars in Somalia are a result of lies. The Second World War and the German invasion of Poland was the result of carefully constructed lies.

That is war by media. Let us ask ourselves of the complicit media, which is the majority of the mainstream press, what is the average death count attributed to each journalist?

When we understand that wars come about as a result of lies peddled to the British public and the American public and the publics all over Europe and other countries, then who are the war criminals? 

It is not just leaders, it is not just soldiers, it is journalists; journalists are war criminals.

And while one might think that that should lead us to a state of despair, that the reality that is constructed around us is constructed by liars, is constructed by people who are close to those that they are meant to be policing, it should lead us also to an optimistic understanding because if wars can be started by lies, truth can be started, peace can be started by truth.

So that is our task and it is your task, go and get the truth, get into the ballpark and get the ball and give it to us and we'll spread it all over the world."

source
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsgSifdbtas&feature=youtu.be


COMMENT

Today's image play, plus additional things I found interesting.

Powerful speech. And even moreso when you can see the lies told in the capitalist-controlled media about all sorts of things.

I've not yet seen the medical stuff. Thought I'd link to it here.



April 13, 2016

Transcript: Jacob Appelbaum - Berlin Logan CIJ Symposium re: Journalism, the 'Big Tent' & The Guardian


TRANSCRIPT
[for quotation purposes, confirm audio]

Jacob Appelbaum
Berlin Logan CIJ Symposium 


Re: Journalism, the  'Big Tent' & The Guardian
VIDEO
- dur: 19:59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJValv4YQcY&feature=youtu.be


John Goetz
Moderator


So, before we go to the discussion, I would like to introduce — before we have one last speaker — Jake Appelbaum is surprisingly enough perhaps to some people, is now working on a PhD. in math at a university in the Netherlands, in Eindhoven.

Jacob Appelbaum was perhaps the first employee of the Tor Project, he was an early member of WikiLeaks, and in terms of journalism, he— it's very interesting when we think about what was the big story in Germany of 2013, we tend to think right away: oh it was the Edward Snowden revelations. But the real huge story in Germany and that kind of riveted the world was the story that appeared in Der Spiegel, and it was about the mobile phone of Angela Merkel being listened to by the NSA.

That actually was not a story that came from Edward Snowden, it was a story that came from Jake Appelbaum.

[applause]

Jacob Appelbaum

Ummm, Hi ...

So, first of all: it's really an honour to be here.

It's really fantastic to see so many colleagues in the audience that I've worked with, as well.

And to some of you, I'm sorry for some of the things that I'll say next, but not so sorry that I won't say them.

So, as a technologist in particular, I find myself often in a tech ghetto, and so I kind of expect that everyone here will expect me to talk about technology, but instead I want to talk about— I want to talk about the biggest threat to investigative journalists, and that is: other investigative journalists.

[audience titter]

2:00

And if that sounds a little bit ridiculous, I'd like to tell you a story, and the story's pretty simple.

Most of my stories are personal anecdotes that I've experienced in the last three to ten years working as a journalist independently, publishing on the internet, but also publishing with Der Spiegel, working with ProPublica or other agencies in different capacities.

And, so, I come from a background of working with WikiLeaks to these organisations, and currently WikiLeaks is — I don't know, the sixth or seven year of being investigated by the US government for espionage and terrorism.

So there's an important context there: which is, when we talk about journalism, there is a 'big tent' and that 'big tent', when you're inside of it, you have the political support — or, if you will, the privilege.

Most of the white male journalists in the room will of course know what I'm talking about when I speak of privilege, and this is a part of that privilege.

And, so, what I would say, in particular, is that I'd like to address a few realities about that.

So, one of them is literacy — which is to say that most of the people that are in this room, which I would say I have worked with, they understand to some extent, technology — but you've heard it here a little bit already, where people talk about the 'tech guys' and they bring up the 'tech guys', and there's an interesting thing there which is— actually, there's an issue of literacy.

We don't need to talk about 'tech activism,' just the same as we don't need to talk about, for example, 'grammar activism' or 'fact check activism'.

This is a fundamental core component of modern journalism — being able to use a computer, understanding operational security — and what happens is that when people don't understand that, instead of having a little bit of humility (of which I have plenty, I'm sure you can see), they will absolutely do everything that they possibly can in order to discredit and to disqualify other journalists.

And you actually see this happening all the time:  that is to say, if you know how to use a computer, you're instantly a 'nerd' and the 'nerd' is instantly out.

And this is done under the mask of so-called 'objectivity'.

3:52

And to that I say: you are rarely, if ever, fucking objective. Your politics are in everything that you write.

And, so the question is, where are the disclosures, where is the data?

So, when I speak of 'literacy' here, I don't only mean, of course, about fact-checking, or about understanding how systems work, but also literacy in understanding what is and is not political.

So, for example, when we consider that capitalism itself pits us against each other, are we questioning that?

Do we consider that the competitive models in journalism actually cause us to push people outside of the tents?

Isn't it the case that when we negotiate about our contracts?  Isn't it the case when we think about money, that that, in fact, is at the core, causing us to betray each other and to, in fact, betray the public?

I think the answer to that is:  yes.

And I think that the answer to that, for me personally, means that I have, almost every single time I have worked on stories, I have taken I would say very small amounts of money. I have tried not to make my primary living from working as an independent journalist because, in fact, I find that it compromises me.

It means that I'm tied to one editorial room, I am tied to one political viewpoint, and usually those viewpoints are hidden away. They're hidden away where it's supposedly objective.

But I tell you what, The Guardian — absolutely the shittiest publication in the English language — is shitty for not what they publish, but shitty for what they refuse to publish and pretend that it is a non-political discussion and decision.

And, so, I want to tell you a little bit about why they're shitty and give you some sourcing, which you can then, if you'd like, investigate.

I've not talked about most of these things in public, but I think it's important that after all of these great journalists have built up a tree of journalism, that we can put some fuel on the tree and then light the motherfucker on fire.

[laughter / applause]

So, first, I guess I should start by saying it's not just The Guardian. I have experienced this a lot.

5:53

Some of you have written things in papers, for example, were you call me, or Julian Assange, or Sarah Harrison, 'internet activists'.

To you that have done that, I think that you do not understand potentially what you do and, in that case, I have some forgiveness for you.

But for those of you that do, I understand that you think me your political enemy and I take that up quite seriously, and I will win.

6:17

So, with that in mind, I don't call you a 'grammar activist'.

But I would say that it is important that if we have 'disclosure activists' in the audience, I think it's important to consider, for example, that when we have bylines together in papers and later you call me an 'internet activist', it's important to remember you should probably have disclosed in your article where you called me an 'internet activist' that, actually, we were co-authors on, for example, the equivalent of the German Pulitzer Prize, or something similar to that.

6:49

To call me a 'political activist' is to consciously put me outside of the political tent of privilege and to say: go ahead, instead of being under journalism law, you're under terrorism law.

[applause]

7:06

And, of course, it's important to name names, so thank you to the sponsor:

[ Appelbaum speaks German.  Says something like: ]


Der SPIEGEL hat keine Angst vor der Wahrheit
[Der Spiegel has no fear of the truth]

7:13

I think it's important to say, Michael Sontheimer(?), that for me, when you call me an 'activist', it breaks my heart because we have worked together.

But, more importantly, it breaks my heart because you put me under threat of going to prison for the rest of my fucking life.

[enthusiastic applause]

7:37

One of my favourite journalists in Germany, his name is Tilo Jung.

He's a wonderful journalist. He has a very funny comedy show and he says:


"Alle Journalisten sind Aktivisten für die Wahrheit."

All journalists are activists for the truth.

And, so, let us address this concept of activism, and it works like this: 'activism' is used as a pejorative term in order to suggest the participation in a democratic society is somehow outside of the normal behaviour.

Fuck that. That is wrong.

[applause]

8:11

The purpose of journalism is not only to be engaged, but to engage others in that process. That is the purpose.

It is to spread the truth. It is to bring facts. It is to put forward information.

8:24

So, let us speak now of the crimes of The Guardian, who are by far much worse than anyone else in this realm, in my experience.

First, what we'll start with is David Leigh and Alan Rusbridger.

Why will we start with them?

8:34

Well, first with David Leigh, because he is an incompetent, illiterate, absolutely despicable human being, with how he has treated Julian Assange.

He has lied about facts about Julian Assange, suggesting, for example, that Julian suggested that informants 'deserved it', when in fact no such thing was said, as John [Goetz ?] being at that lunch can attest to that.

He has, for example, released encrypted files, not understanding the difference between encryption and authentication, and done so in a way that actually published information that previously had even been withheld by WikiLeaks, and then blaming WikiLeaks for that.

This is an absolutely atrocious problem, but what is worse than that, is that when confronted with it, he continued to take his ignorance with him all the way out the door at The Guardian, instead of correcting his mistake and owning his mistake.

9:24

And for that, I really hope that we never forget that.

We should never forget David Leigh's legacy is to have published things, and to have done so because he did not even understand what they were doing, and then to put Julian Assange under a bus so that that bus could run him over instead.

So, let us call that what it is: it is a political act of betrayal of Julian Assange.

[applause]

In the early days of the Snowden affair, I worked with Glen Greenwald and with Laura Poitras, and with many others — many in this room.

9:58

Two of the great journalists that I worked with, Marcel Rosenbach and Holgar Stark (?), have really honoured me.

They've helped me to have a visa in Germany, to be safe here, and I really respect that very much.

And they understood what it meant to work with me, and in the past having worked with WikiLeaks; they were extremely good about this. They were in constant communication. They absolutely told us what they understood [and] they knew. They treated us as equals. They were so respectful to us that it is in some ways beyond the pale.

An important—

[applause]

Wait a second.

And I want to thank them them for that, because that is, with the exception of John Goetz and very few other people, they are the exception of doing that.

10:38

They treated us as equals. They did not try to treat us as sources, or try to manipulate us, they actually cared very much about getting out the truth. The understood the political impacts, they understood the 'big tent', they understood the 'umbrella', and for that, I really think they deserve a round of applause.

10:53

So thank you Marcel and Holgar (I know that you're here).

[applause]

Now, let's contrast that, for example, with The Guardian.

11:06

I requested a letter from The Guardian to say that I was working on classified documents.

Now, Glenn Greenwald had passed me a number of documents for working with him. Specifically, technical-related documents which he wanted me to help elucidate what they did and what kind of crimes the NSA was committing, and The Guardian actually refused — directly refused — to give me a letter, knowing that I was in possession of classified documents.

11:28

They directly refused to put myself and other people directly under that political tent. They simply didn't want to do it.

And, so, since I am not under contractual obligation and have no loyalty to people that want to put me outside the tent, I'd like to tell you a funny story about them.

[audience laughter]

And it goes like this: when The Guardian was raided, they did not call myself, or Laura Poitras here in Germany to tell us that the GCHQ, and other political powers and police powers in the UK, had in fact come to destroy source material. They did not tell us. We had to find out in public. They left us to hang in public. They did not treat us as equals. They did not protect us. They did not care. And the continued with this, every step of the way.

And while writing technical stories, they directly consulted with the White House and with the GCHQ and other government officials, in order to do, essentially, line by line redaction of things that were for the most part not even worth redacting. They weren't worth even compromising yourself.

It reminds me of the Winston Churchill story about whether or not someone would sleep with him for a million dollars and, of course, when a person says 'no' to one dollar but 'yes' to a million, we know what kind of person that person is, and the same is true for The Guardian. They were willing to compromise and to give editorial control to the state.

What are they then? They are stenographers.

And the way, for example, they talk about Laura Poitras, who has no knowledge of me giving this talk right now.

I would just like to underscore that by reading a small thing.

I apologise for reading from a screen, but it's just too good just to not say it.


"A team of reporters and editors here at the Guardian won the Pulitzer prize for their meticulous, months-long work bringing Snowden to scale. Yet Snowden’s first confidant was a film-maker, Laura Poitras, who documented her initial contact and subsequent collaboration with Snowden in Citizenfour, the third in a trilogy of feature documentaries on war and the security state. It is the weakest film of the three, despite its Oscar ..." [The Guardian]

[audience laughter]

Now, I don't need to go on to tell you what's going on there.

13:35

Why do we tolerate this shit from these people? What arrogant British cunts. It's unbelievable. Absolutely.

[applause]

Now, in addition to not telling us about the raids, let's talk about another reality.

David Miranda, working with The Guardian, working with Glenn Greenwald.

Who do you suppose paid David Miranda's legal bills, knowing that fact?

Anyone from The Guardian care to comment?

Right. So, in the beginning, it was potentially going to be The Guardian, but later when Glenn left, it wasn't The Guardian anymore. They left them to hang. Again and again.

14:18

So think of this in this case — this case in which serious journalistic freedoms are at risk, where serious people are in extreme danger under terrorism laws, and they are simply left out in the cold. And why is that?

14:32

Because in capitalism — when competing, when we aren't actually cooperating together — we find in that political space, the ability to get rid of our competition, literally with terrorism laws.

Is that really what we want?

I think what we want is a collaborative framework, where we actually work well together.

Now, I know that what I've done here does not work for much more than retiring, but that's OK.

And I'll leave you with another story. I suppose two stories.

One is Luke Harding.

Luke Harding wrote a book about Snowden in a very exploitative, extremely negative way, and knows next to nothing about anything in the story.

But an important detail is he came here to Berlin to try to pump me for information, to ask me questions about Hawaii, to ask me questions about other details.

Now, one of the things that he told me was that all of his computers were compromised to the point that his mouse was moving on his screen without him doing that, and he dumbly asks — and I'm not even sure if it was possible that he could really believe that he didn't know the answer to this.

He said: "Do you suppose my computer is compromised when someone is editing the text and it removes critical parts of my story?"

[audience laughter]

You might want to see a doctor about that, Luke.

[audience laughter]

And, finally, the most insulting aspect, I would say, about The Guardian, is what they did to Julian Assange upon him being in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

And I can't underscore this enough. There are plenty of problems with Julian. I can barely handle Australians. They're very difficult people culturally.

[audience laughter]

And then there's Julian.

[more audience laughter]

But The Guardian, in all seriousness, sent him a basket with soap and socks — while leaving us to hang, literally, where we could face life in prison or the death penalty for the things that we have published, where alleged sources of ours are in prison, or under threat, or needing political asylum.

That is not a serious thing to do. These are very serious topics indeed.

So, I think that it is important for us to consider also, if you were to watch the film Mediastan, you will see the edges of publication in the Western world and you will see the collaboration of the New York Times editor, where they have phone calls with the CIA.

This is a political decision. This is not an objectivity fact. This is a political negotiation. Under threat. Under coercion. And then it is a lie to the public and to other journalists to say that that is a non-political thing, that there's no issue.

And if the question is the law, about sources and methods and about names, well sure, let us say then, we would love to publish their names, we would love to publish the sources and methods. But we can't, because it is illegal for us to do that. But we should, because that would help us to hold power to account.

And, so, we should work, actually, to change those laws. To better inform people in our democracies. To ensure that it is actually possible to hold CIA agents, who commit war crimes, for their crimes to account. It is absolutely a necessity to do that, and we must as a free press to do that. And when we do not, we are collaborationists who are responsible for being a part of those crimes.

And so it is David Leigh, it is Luke Harding, it is other people along these lines, like Alan Rusbridger, who collaborate with them.

For example, The Guardian holds ProPublica in a gag. You may not know this, but ProPublica has access to the Snowden archive, but they are not allowed to publish things unless The Guardian will allow them, and The Guardian has decided that they will not allow things from the Snowden archive to be published.

Things about Afghanistan or Iraq, crimes — serious war crimes — are documented in there. Crimes where civilians are killed, things that are absolutely political, and we will never see them because of the collaborationists at The Guardian, who absolutely kowtow to the British political class and the hereditary power structures in the UK, and we should not tolerate that and we should pressure them.

[applause]

Now that I've committed journalistic career suicide, I'd also just like to encourage you to encrypt your communications.

[laughter / applause]

Also, I think it's important to fight sexism in journalism quite seriously and I hope we replace most of the editors in journalistic rooms around the world with women, who have better sense and are stronger and will stand up to these fucking fascists.

[applause]

-- end audio --


---------------------- ----------------------



Snowden Data

According to reports, the documentation taken by Snowden is now in the hands of three parties: First Look Media – the news organisation set up by Poitras and Greenwald, and financed by Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay; the Guardian and the Washington Post

24 Oct 2014
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/11185627/Edward-Snowden-the-true-story-behind-his-NSA-leaks.html

 _____________________________________________________________

Sunday, Apr 8, 2012 08:37 PM AEST
U.S. filmmaker repeatedly detained at border
Laura Poitras makes award-winning controversial films, and is targeted by the U.S. government as a result
Glenn Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/


COMMENT

Despite the 1960s campus radical-inspired views that are alien and jarring to me, it was an interesting talk Appelbaum gave.  And funny.  I think.  In a pouty, cross sort of way. 
Except the bit about that guy's computer being compromised. The audience found it funny, but I didn't get what was funny about that.

Hard to know what to make of this guy.

On the other hand, I don't know how to read anyone here. 
Everybody sounds really suspicious to me:
  • Who does an NSA leak without having an advance exit plan and winds up accidentally in Moscow without a passport? 
  • Who goes to Germany to escape American harassment when Germany's an occupied state that hasn't been sovereign since WWII -- and an oppressive state that covers up mass rapes (Cologne); deploys agents to infiltrate political parties (or the ones described as 'right-wing'); deploys former East German Stasi to watch and censor so-called 'social media', which it polices in collaboration with CIA-book's Zuckerberg; Germany, which raids the homes of social media commenters; when Germany's not imprisoning old women, old men, lawyers who defend old men, or renditioning German expatiates from Canada and Britain?
  • The lady film-maker also sounds very unusual to me, from what little I know. 
  • And what's the deal with the Snowden adulation, or am I just particularly ungrateful?  As in an Oliver Stone film?  C'mon?  Hollywood attention reminds of the incongruous Hollywood sparkle bouncing off William Hague's skull, not so long ago.

Listening to Appelbaum give The Guardian a serve was entertaining.
In terms of the gag on Snowden material, it would appear that parties other than The Guardian also have possession of the Snowden NSA data, and presumably The Guardian doesn't have veto over that.  Whoever has the data [Poitras, Greenwald, Intercept, Washington Post] isn't publishing, they're not making an archive available to the public, and they're not even saying how much data they've received, which seems rather excessively secretive and controlling.  So what were all those enthusiastic accolades for?  Or am I ungrateful once again?
EDIT:  there's an archive of the 400 released documents of an 'estimated' 50,000 at this site:


The Snowden Surveillance Archive
https://snowdenarchive.cjfe.org/

collection of approx. 400 documents
of estimated 50,000 documents
to journalists:
    -- Laura Poitras - US documentary film-maker
    -- Glenn Greenwald - US lawyer-journalist
    -- Ewan MacAskill - UK journalist (The Guardian)
Archive
built to enable citizen & researcher to access documents
re US National Security Agency (NSA)
& Five Eyes partner countries (UK, Canada, Australia, NZ)

Archive built by:
George Raine
Master of Information program
University of Toronto
assisted by:  Jillian Harkness
then current student of program

various project partners & supporters listed
https://snowdenarchive.cjfe.org/
*unclear to me how an 'estimate' of documents can be made if nobody is saying what was released

Snowden turned over the data, in a round-about way, to the corporate press ... despite a history of corporate press propaganda, state and establishment service, and CIA / intelligence collaboration.

That being the nature of the beast, there's not much logic in  expecting the corporate press to behave as anything other than:   the corporate press.  And there's not much sense in crying foul that press snakes slither on their bellies.   Or is there?

Well, I guess it's always good to know the ugly truth.  Had I not listened to this, I'd have had no idea just how appalling the today's moralising and Putin-bashing press is, and I wouldn't have known about the concept of political protection for journalists as a collective.

Denying Appelbaum a letter in relation to the classified material he was working on is pretty low, and sending Assange the socks package is warped, when you think about the enormity of the risk to Assange and the pressure on Assange (who has now been arbitrarily detained for over five and a half years).  And not paying the legal fees of Miranda sounds dishonourable to me.

Appelbaum's right.  They sound like a pack of c*nts.

But I think maybe he ought to reconsider adulation of women:


Katharine Graham
Washington Post

Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from." Graham has been identified by some investigators as the main contact in Project Mockingbird, the CIA program to infiltrate domestic American media. In her autobiography, Katharine Graham described how her husband worked overtime at the Post during the Bay of Pigs operation to protect the reputations of his friends from Yale who had organized the ill-fated venture.

After Graham committed suicide, and his widow Katharine assumed the role of publisher, she continued her husband's policies of supporting the efforts of the intelligence community in advancing the foreign policy and economic agenda of the nation's ruling elites. In a retrospective column written after her own death, FAIR analyst Norman Solomon wrote, "Her newspaper mainly functioned as a helpmate to the war-makers in the White House, State Department and Pentagon." It accomplished this function (and continues to do so) using all the classic propaganda techniques of evasion, confusion, misdirection, targeted emphasis, disinformation, secrecy, omission of important facts, and selective leaks.

Graham herself rationalized this policy in a speech she gave at CIA headquarters in 1988. 
"We live in a dirty and dangerous world," she said. "There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."

http://www.wanttoknow.info/secrecygraham


Coincidentally, there's also an amusing story of Janet Cooke, the Washington Post ... and the Pulitzer Prize:
EXTRACTS


The Case of Janet Cooke

When "Jimmy's World," the story of an eight-year-old heroin addict, appeared on the front page of the Washington Post last…

Naomi Munson / Aug. 1, 1981

When “Jimmy’s World,” the story of an eight-year-old heroin addict, appeared on the front page of the Washington Post last September, it created quite a stir in the city. According to Janet Cooke, the young black woman who reported the story, “Jimmy” (a pseudonym) had been on heroin since the age of five ...

The local government reacted to this grisly tale by launching an intensive search for the child. When schools, social-welfare services, and police all failed to unearth any trace of him, the authorities requested that the Post reveal Jimmy’s whereabouts.

The Post refused. There was, first of all, Miss Cooke’s personal safety to consider: it seems that Ron had threatened to come after her with a knife at the first sign of police interest in him. So terrifying was this prospect that Miss Cooke had felt constrained to keep the true identity of her sources secret even from her immediate superiors. Then, of course, the Post recognized a First Amendment issue when it saw one. Where soldiers and statesmen had failed in their efforts to abridge the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, was a mere child to be permitted to open a breach in the wall? When the mayor and police chief threatened to subpoena Miss Cooke’s notes, Post staffers professed themselves ready to face jail sooner than capitulate to the pressure.

..  three weeks after the story was published, Miss Cooke was unable to produce her star witness for Coleman, and offered the flimsy excuse that the family had suddenly moved to Baltimore, Coleman’s faith was shaken.

But not shaken enough, apparently, to make Coleman think twice before recommending “Jimmy’s World” for a Pulitzer prize nomination—and for four other awards as well—more than a month after the family’s disappearing act.

...

... Criticism from outside the Post served only to send Woodward into what he described as his “Watergate mode: protect the source and back the reporter.” In fact, questions raised by the mayor and police chief hardened Woodward’s resolve to see Miss Cooke’s story nominated for the Pulitzer.

When the vote came, it was unanimous (with one abstention); the Pulitzer prize for feature writing was awarded to “Jimmy’s World.”

The Post management was jubilant.

Nobody counted on Janet Cooke—who had, it soon turned out, been less than entirely honest about her past when seeking work at the Washington Post. Not content with her own achievements in life, she had embroidered her résumé, claiming a B.A. (magna cum laude) from Vassar, an M.A. from the University of Toledo, and fluency in several languages. When the time came to provide a curriculum vitae for the Pulitzer committee, to be published if she won, she added a year at the Sorbonne and a couple of more languages for good measure.

...  Post announced it had discovered that the story was a “hoax” and requested that the Pulitzer be withdrawn. The prize was handed over to the runner-up; Janet Cooke resigned, with apologies “to my newspaper, my profession, the Pulitzer board, and all seekers of the truth”; and the Washington Post went about the business of trying to salvage some of its credibility.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-case-of-janet-cooke/