A Real Treat in Store

by craig on October 14, 2012 10:55 am in Uncategorized

But I can tell you that after I am through with the piece on Jennifer I will write a piece on Craig Murray that will make people think that I was very nice to Naomi Wolf. What is important that YOU DO NOT TELL ANYBODY OF THIS AND WHAT IS COMING.

UPDATE – I published this without explanation and caused some confusion. The quote and link above are from an email exchange in which someone called Goran Rudling says he is planning to publish something about me, but it is a secret. I thought it amusing to repost it. I look forward to seeing what Mr Rudling comes up with.

Tweet this post


  1. Bit random this one craig. Can you provide a paragraph of background. Sounds ominous anyway.

  2. Yes waiting in anticipation!

  3. Martin

    If you click on the link you will know as much as I do! I was sent the link by “anonidougal”.

  4. Told you, GR is a nut-case.

  5. Who is “Jennifer”? What on earth are you talking about, Craig? was this a mistaken post? has someone else posted on your blog without your knowledge? Or do I just need a cup of cioffee this morning?

  6. Was this message from Goran, the Swedish chap?

  7. It is interesting that whoever wrote this feels the need to attack you, Craig. One wonders what they will write? Perhaps they will accuse you of being a giant lizard with eyes that rotate through 360 degrees, or of being into giant lizards (with eyes thast rotate 360 degrees), or else of being a freemasonic, illuminatory, hail-fellow-well–met, slow-bowling, Rotary Clubby, British Library card-holding, Alexander Burnes fetishistic, President of the Tuesday Transvesiture Insitution, whip-toting reptilian breast-fed dominatrix.

  8. No, no Suhayl. This is the Swedish state sponsored rabid femi-fascistoid army of brainless idiots that are upset because someone (way way smarter than them) dares to question the stinking crap they produce.

  9. I know, Sunflower (11:49am on 14.10.12), thanks.

    It is suggestive, when such entities – whether Swedish, British or American, or a combination of all three – through their various instruments, spend time attacking, or otherwise impinging upon the existence of, whistleblowers, that the whistleblowers must have something useful and effective to say. Anything to do with Assange/Wikileaks is almost certain to garner such malevolent attention from the aforementioned entities. Craig recently has referred to this dynamic on this blog. This may be a further manifestation of it, though of course we may wish to take anything coming from some other party with a pinch of salt. Nonetheless, through their songs and their silences do they reveal themselevs.

    Now, let us join in singing the Hymn of the Dominatrices.

  10. First Kevin mails Craig accusing him of”refusing” to state a position on gay marriage, now Göran Rudling accuses Craig of being a “homophobic and prejudiced bigot”. Not a description of Craig I would recognise.

    The mary rose lenore eng Rudling is corresponding with seems to have been associated with Assange at some point. There are photos of her with him on her blog, but the layout is such a mess I did not have the patience to wade through it.

  11. Thanks for the update, Craig. I thought the site had been cracked.

  12. I have by chance met the woman who writes this braingarbage blog. She is as mad as cheese.

  13. Matthew, you wrote: “She is as mad as cheese.”

    More information would be helpful. Looking at Braingarbage, yes, it looks so mad that I can’t even tell what point it’s trying to make.

  14. Michael Stephenson

    14 Oct, 2012 - 1:44 pm

    Here she is on youtube, she is quite clearly off her rocker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTDXErff59M&hd=1

  15. Crown Prince Gustaf Adolf is dead and Queen Victoria’s grand-daughter Margaret of Connaught is also dead.

    Dr.Sc. Håkan Mogren is a Knight of the British empire and King Carl XVI Gustaf’s mother, H.R.H Princess Sibylla, was born a British Princess.

    Says it all…

  16. This one is for you Ben – reminds me of the Scottish singer, Donovan with strong shades of Dylan of course.


    For the ‘Times They Are A-changin.’

  17. @ Derek 12.19pm

    “The mary rose lenore eng Rudling is corresponding with seems to have been associated with Assange at some point”

    No, never associated with him, AFAIK – just a pushy (ex-)supporter good at self-promotion and getting her photo taken with people. She claims to be a “journalist”. I heard she got into a lot of trouble for – wait for it – breaking into the media centre at the Supreme Court during the Assange hearing. She’s lucky she didn’t get extradited along with Assange for that.

    As someone else said, mad as cheese.

  18. think they are going to reveal that Craig Murray is a al queda commander who’s real name is Rashid Bin Pedal, he is a “sleeper” who can be activated if or when the word “Lollipop” is posted in the comments section of his blog.

  19. José Esteves

    14 Oct, 2012 - 3:48 pm

    Göran Rudling making a career in smear? Months ago, targeting Ferrada de Noli: http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.pt/2012/04/on-professor-marcello-ferrada-de-noli.html

  20. As for @braingarbage [https://twitter.com/braingarbage ]: she has been in a smear spree in Twitter, to the point of trolling J P Barlow https://twitter.com/JPBarlow/status/246112930863644672
    and then complaining to the EFF:
    Either informally or in some other way, @braingarbage ended up as part of a group of accounts [not sure how many of them are but sock puppets] engaged in daily relentless smearing of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Christine Assange, Jennifer Robinson, Craig Murray, Jacob Appelbaum, Nadim Kobeissi, everyone else daring to show some support for WL or Assange — including but not limited to
    https://twitter.com/PGPBOARD [a sort of ‘conductor’ for the chorus]
    https://twitter.com/Wikiwatcher [more on this below]
    and more (in addition to by now well-known UK “source based legal bloggers” even if those in a somewhat different style)

    @Wikiwatcher is the account for http://www.wikiwatch.org.uk/ which has become a common publishing ground for at least some in that ‘collective’ [wikiwatch.org.uk & pgpboard.com both having “Alan Taylor” [@PGPBOARD] as registrant].
    A text by @abuVeliki illustrating their modus operandi:
    From all I’ve been able to see (pity I lack the time to document it except for occasional tweets)
    the above is not an exception but actually quite characteristic of the way they operate. Some openly insulting & trolling, others more subtle, polishing their smear with apparent reason, even kindness — until, after some tweets of debate, one starts noticing their intellectually dishonest techniques. Anything goes.

  21. Hasten to add that I am not the ‘mary’ in the message.

  22. Pauline Barten.

    14 Oct, 2012 - 5:32 pm

    Sounds very childish.

  23. Jose Esteves 3.48pm

    “Göran Rudling making a career in smear? Months ago, targeting Ferrada de Noli”

    Here’s an even clearer breakdown from Ferrada de Noli of what Goran’s game is. Worth reading, at least the first section, in preparation for what is likely to hit if Goran’s “secret” article on Craig gets published.


    Many thanks too for supplying the Usual Suspects full rosta at 4.48pm. I ‘spect this will come in handy too if the Real Treat in Store actually shows up (v. likely – Goran is RELENTLESS, especially when his arguments have been comprehensively proven wrong).

  24. “think they are going to reveal that Craig Murray is a al queda commander who’s real name is Rashid Bin Pedal, he is a “sleeper” who can be activated if or when the word “Lollipop” is posted in the comments section of his blog.” Larry Levin at 3:45pm on 14.10.12.



  25. There are suggestions from other Swedish commentators on this blog that Göran Rudling is being paid to smear against Assange. He started off supporting Assange but his wife is apparently a journalist and Swedish people who believe the ‘condom’ business is getting Sweden a bad name are questioning who is paying him. This cartoon questions who is paying Claes Borgstrom and Marianne Ny.


    Please let me know if it does not play properly.

  26. Attention whores does that stuff for free. His reward is that some deluded people forget for a moment that he is a taxi driver.

  27. I have mentioned in previous posts that Goran Rudlings site “Samtycke” which focuses on rape, incest and other sexually related issues is very very probably receiving funds from the Swedish state. He can claim these funds if registered as a non profit idealistic organisation or entity dissiminating community value information to the general public. All swedish media are entitled to claim funding. The more traffic generated to the paper, radio or site the more funding can be claimed. I believe though not 100% certain that the Rudlig site was set up in early 2010. The Assange condom affair in August 2010 was good for his business, hence his almost fanatical committment to this matter.

  28. doug scorgie

    14 Oct, 2012 - 9:59 pm


  29. Suhayl, thanks for that link. It made your comment the most unequivocally vibrant and real comment on recent threads which sound now like chickens cackling in the barn.

  30. Poor judgment by Goran to have his private emails floating around the net! What you say Goran?

  31. I think Mary-Rose-blah-blah will be in trouble when the Duracell-powered Goran Rudling discovers she published their exchange of emails, after he admonished her for doing so before. It’s fortuitous that she did. I wonder what the GR fan club will say about his revealing statements.

  32. Sunflower @7:48
    ” Attention whores does that stuff for free. His reward is that some deluded people forget for a moment that he is a taxi driver”

    Chunky Mark is a taxi driver and he is a legend!


  33. Thank you Rico Santin for clarifying how Göran Rudling might be being funded for his website. I tried to paste comments on Samtycke but could not get past the Captcha. He claims to have fixed this but I’ve no intention of testing it out having already wasted more time than it’s worth. He must be feeling quite insecure. He claims to have proved a case which people who leave comments on Craig Murray’s blog are ignoring. But the truth is his arguments are garbled. He keeps going on about Julian Assange having been “charged”, because others don’t understand how to translate Swedish properly, but he is probably the only person in the world who thinks so, since I have not seen a single sensible comment supporting his interpretation. Most of the comments are of ridicule, centred around how this condom business has brought Sweden into disrepute.

  34. In don’t understand what this is about. Some background would be helpful.

  35. I get the impression the BrainGarbage site settings have got screwed up somehow and it has started automatically publishing correspondence. All the email postings have a publication date of 2 days ago. Older postings appear at the bottom of the page. They are just as deranged, but are not personal emails.

  36. The Rundling – box of spiders connection:

    Apologies if this was posted before – in a hurry.

  37. The swedish authorities, read government is shrewd but not stupid. They will not allow this case to reach a court of law and risk being made international laughing stocks uneless they rig the trail will “politically correct” laymen jurists on the panel and a “politically correct judge”

    This case will be dropped in due time. I feel though that Mr. assange defence team and public supporters should be putting more pressure on the swedish authorities and call for selected boycotts etc.

    I do give credit to Mr.Assange for being brilliant in insight and seeking asylum at the Equador embassy. Without this move he would have been “chicken feed” in so called neutral Sweden. Recall Hillary Clintons first US foreign minister visit to Sweden in 36 years in the run up to the last UK Appeal Court decision.

  38. I agree with you Rico. His case will be dropped and I believe that has been the plan since the beginning. The authorities in Sweden has had ample opportunity to deal with the case swiftly, but decided not to, quite contrary they have taken all opportunities to prolong the farce. Similarly, the JA side seem quite content with a status quo as long as JA is kept in the limelight. Since nothing else has come out of this saga it should be considered whether this was not the intention from the beginning, i.e. to get JA and WL in the limelight. In other words a simple psy-op.

  39. Sunflower, you don’t agree with Rico Santin very much, and I consider it dishonest that you claim that you do.

    “Similarly, the JA side seem quite content with a status quo as long as JA is kept in the limelight. Since nothing else has come out of this saga it should be considered whether this was not the intention from the beginning, i.e. to get JA and WL in the limelight. In other words a simple psy-op.”

    Rubbish. Julian Assange is effectively imprisoned. Assange has been thrust into the limelight, but as an alleged sex offender, not as a publisher of leaked documents. Wikileaks and the documents it reveals has been pushed right out of the limelight; whose agenda does that serve? And you claim that this is what Assange, Wikileaks and their supporters wanted all along? What nonsense.

  40. If the Swedish prosecution drop the matter, what will the consequences be? Will Assange automatically be free of legal action from UK authorities regarding breach of his bail conditions? Will those who lost their bail money have grounds to recover it? And how will he deal with the allegations if he isn’t able to challenge them? I can imagine people will continue to attack him as if the allegations were still valid. The Swedish prosecution are not going to drop the matter without blaming Assange and washing themselves of their own wrongdoing. It will not be an end to their attempts to render him to the US.

  41. Ben Franklin (Anti-intellectual Colonial American Savage version)

    15 Oct, 2012 - 5:07 pm

    Donovan, yes. My beloved Sue and I are seeing Dylan on the 26th. It may be his. last appearance at Hollywood Bowl.

  42. Come on Clark. Everybody knows JA is not a sex offender. He is a martyr, and a good one at that. Even Max Kaiser wanted to give him the Nobel Peace prize the other day. His credibility is based on him being a pain is the ass of and hunted by the establishment, so a role is designed like that.

    Things don’t happen by chance they happen by design, he is just doing his job. Hopefully his employers will let him go when he has served their cause.

  43. Villager, my pleasure!

  44. Sunflower, did you “happen by chance” or are you “just doing your job”?

    Look through the Wikileaks material. It is genuine, as is the angry response from the US warmongers. What of whistleblowers? What about Daniel Ellsburg? What about Craig Murray? All just part of the Grand Conspiracy? How about Dr David Kelly? Your stupid conspiracy has to have a limit somewhere.

  45. I see many on here are still struggling to reconcile their support for wikileaks with a rational assessment of JA’s actions.

    Despite the usual conspiracy nonsense and complaints of legal bias, if anything it could be argued that the Swedish and UK authorities were too lenient with JA in allowing him to leave Sweden(expecting his return to face further questioning), and by granting him bail in the UK. The lingering feeling is that time and time again in this case JA’s actions have worsened his situation.

  46. It could also be argued that the Swedish authorities do not have a viable case, even in Swedish law, that they were told this at the outset and agreed, but a mad feminist harpy decided to get her revenge on all men everywhere and resurrect a non-issue.

    None of the Swedish actions have tended towards a speedy resolution, and although Assange may have exacerbated this, while they could have cleared this up a year ago (no court case could possibly have succeeded, and the matter could legitimately have been dropped) it still rumbles on, with complications.

  47. Komodo, I love the ‘mad feminist harpy’, but is that Borgstrom or Ny? Even Irmeli Krans fits the bill.

  48. I had Ny in mind, but as you say…

  49. @Clark 12.46 “Your stupid conspiracy has to have a limit somewhere.”

    Why? Am I challenging you Clark? Surely you are not threatened by a nut like me? Just ignore what I have to say. Or, you think I should be censored? Put in a deprogramming program, or an asylum? Maybe executed for not being scientific?

    First you groundlessly jump on me and accuse me of a bunch of sinister conspiracies made up by your own mind then you brush it over and start all over again all the while I maintain a sincere respectful tone towards you.

    I don’t expect you or anyone else share my world view but since you claim coming from the scientifically based high ground, at least show some common manners.

  50. Pauline Barten.

    16 Oct, 2012 - 6:26 pm

    Totally off thread but,I believe Assange is the real thing. Can anyone here imagine what it must be like to lose your own life?. To be under house arrest and to survive.Think about it.Spending day after day indoors.This is not a grand plan and it is insulting our intelligence to suggest as much.

  51. Clark, I’m so sick of your defamation campaign. It has become really unpleasant here for those of us who are apparently your self-declared *legitimate targets*. You are endlessly whining about your own feelings yet care nothing for the feelings of others. You actually seem to take pleasure in your vengeful sneering and anti-intellectual personal attacks.

    You are not being honest with Sunflower, Chris, Billy or anyone who disagrees with your puerile straw-man projection theories. If you were honest you would post your personal grievances publicly rather than send them in private by email. That way your vindictive little agenda would be transparent to all rather than just the unhappy few.

    Evidence indicates that YOU are the true “conspiracy theorist”. Not only are you ignorant and abusive, you are actively paranoid and delusional.

    ** Sunflower is not CIA **

    You seem to have totally forgotten the upset you caused me last Monday with your paranoid delusions and cryptic coded messages. Your cloak and dagger lunacy was intimidating and actually quite terrifying. You cost me an afternoon off work in deep anxiety and disrupted my whole working week.

    Do you deny this Clark?

    The internet has no business turning up in real life. Instead of an apology, you accuse me again and again of dishonesty.
    Your last 3 emails are offensive, irrational and quite deranged.

    You have no concept of the meaning of “respect” or “privacy”.

    Your ongoing crusade against those who have “offended” you fills me with concern. I used my real email address to post here because the “nutters” are supposed to be on the outside of the firewall. I am not at all happy that you now have my personal details, and you know where I live.

    If you are ill, see a doctor. While you are here why don’t you try “do as you would be done by”.
    Respect and you will be respected.

    And finally, I am not a liar. If you accuse me again I will publish all of your deluded little rantings and make a formal complaint to Craig.

  52. Zoologist/Clark – just popping in. I’ll post again in a few mins, but for the time being, please hold off on this thread.

  53. Zoologist, I’ve just scanned this thread, and am trying to reconcile your complaint with posts that appear here. I am happy to help try sorting out this disagreement if you reckon I can be even-handed – sometimes arbitration can help.

    You’ve not been mentioned on this thread, so I can’t see where you believe someone has called you a liar. I’ll read another thread if you can point me to it. Or was that a private communication with Clark?

    In general I think private communication with mods has value, since it removes – or tries to remove – the potential heat of public exchange. I have only done it once here, since I don’t have time to moderate at that level of detail. I do also see value in the perspective that communications should be “above-board” so everyone can see what’s going on.

    Both: in summary, let me know if I can help. Warm wishes to both of you.

  54. CE:

    I see many on here are still struggling to reconcile their support for wikileaks with a rational assessment of JA’s actions.

    How strange. I could have sworn it was you that, on another thread, felt that Wikileaks should be regarded as separate from JA, and that you believed JA was using the good name of WL to evade justice. Surely on that basis, we should not be making a judgement on WL based on his actions?

    I continue to think that JA has been set up, and if I were in his place, I’ve no idea what I would have done. Would I have gone to Sweden to clear my name? Possibly, but I take the view he is likely to have information – perhaps a leak from the US State Dept or other agencies – about what is going on under the surface. It is possible he had a good reason to run, or was advised to.

    So, for the time being, I still count myself as an Assange supporter. I’ve mentioned it before, but I would like to see the AA line of enquiry dropped – there’s overwhelming evidence it’s a fraud – and extradition guarantees put in place to answer the SW queries. I think it is a great shame the Swedish state would rather jump to the US tune than deal with a possible sexual assault correctly (especially since a fair trial is probably impossible now – which believe it or not I am not happy with).

    My view of Wikileaks – an entirely separate issue – remains supportive.

  55. “Clark, I’m so sick of your defamation campaign. It has become really unpleasant here for those of us who are apparently your self-declared *legitimate targets*. You are endlessly whining about your own feelings yet care nothing for the feelings of others. You actually seem to take pleasure in your vengeful sneering and anti-intellectual personal attacks.

    You are not being honest with Sunflower, Chris, Billy or anyone who disagrees with your puerile straw-man projection theories. If you were honest you would post your personal grievances publicly rather than send them in private by email. That way your vindictive little agenda would be transparent to all rather than just the unhappy few.”

    As a distant observer, first, no smoke without fire.

    Second, i didn’t like the way Clark jumped all over Sunflower–seemed almost as a deliberate attempt to create a larger misunderstanding than to to gain understanding, ie the essence of communication. Sad really.

    Third, i’m shocked, SHOCKED, to read of the private emails that Zoologist refers to.

    Something is definitely amiss here. I think Craig should definitely get a closer look as this is the sort of thing that could erode the ‘value’ this site.

  56. Hi Villager – I think it’s probably for the best if everyone doesn’t pile in with their penny’s worth. I am sure whatever the issue is can be sorted out.

  57. I’m glad this issue of private emails has come up. It gave me the impression that the forum wasn’t being operated with appropriate transparency and that there were some hidden dynamics that impacted on the frankness of exchanges. However, it also appears that some very private issues have inadvertantly crept into what should be a very public forum and this threatens the integrity of its operation.

    It’s all a bit late to be giving advice, I suppose. But may i suggest that people put up a firewall between this blog and their personal lives? We have our pseudonyms and alternative email addresses and a very liberal forum to exchange views. If you can’t say something here, in public, then give it up.

    @Zoologist – You can have a blast at Clark, you are obviously free to defend yourself here. But if you threaten to breach any understanding of confidentiality of private communications between you and him, there will certainly be unintended consequences that will make your ability to post here quite impossible. Even if you were able to do so, your name/s, real or fake, will be mud and you will become a target of others. So take the day off and see a movie.

    @Clark + Jon – There is a conflict of interest between being a mod and a commentator, you know this. A compromise is required to mitigate this conflict and it can’t be to the moderation. Therefore your ability to freely comment must be constrained – unless you use another pseudonym. Part of your effective work as mods is to mediate between warring parties and molify hurt feelings. You have been effective in piping me down, and putting an end to space-wasting quarreling. But this ability depends on us trusting you to be fair and some feeling of goodwill. If you get into hostile exchanges with regular visitors, your ability to negotiate with them when you need to will diminish. I enjoy watching you two having a blast at some here but unfortunately, you both know that undermines your work as mods.

    Off Topic – Can someone put a link at the top of the page that we can bookmark, which takes us straight to the bottom of the page? Some of us like to read backwards.

  58. Well, as the topic of private emails is current, and indeed the topic of the entire thread, perhaps we can go back to first base?

    Flashback has published a glorious email reply to Mary Rose Lenore Ong/Braingarbage from Brita Sundberg-Weitman. Brita Sundberg-Weitman is a highly respected Swedish jurist and was a witness at the Assange hearings. Pity we don’t also have the email by Mary Rose to which Brita is replying. Then again, I’m sure it’s probably on the Braingarbage blog somewhere – she seems to suffer from obsessive/compulsive gut spillage. Probably where Flashback sourced Brita’s reply, come to think of it…

    On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Brita Sundberg-Weitman

    Dear Mary,

    I wonder what you mean when you talk of “coercion of witnesses and breach
    of confidentiality and an erroneous allegation of state-feminism”. I was
    certainly not coerced – who say they were??? – and having reread my written opinion there is nothing in it that is not exactly what I mean today. In my opinion those who speak of State Feminism in Sweden today as an exaggerated and mad ideology, far from the original ideas of Equal Opportunities, are quite right. Do you know that the Feminist Party “Feministiskt Initiativ” has extremely few supporters: probably most ordinary Swedish women think Gudrun Schyman is absolutely unreasonable. That’s why I recommended you to read Tanja Bergkvists blog, but since it is in Swedish you may not be able to read it. By the way, Göran Rudling is no “legal scholar expert” as you say, and in my view he is a bit too much of a “Besserwisser” to be taken seriously. In his opinion all except himself ( and those who flatter him) are “idiots”.

    I think it is unfair of you to accuse Rixstep and Ferrada Noli of being in favour of rape, “honour crimes” or trafficking or even sexism. The problem of violent men and trafficking has nothing whatsoever to do with the Assange case!

    I cannot think of any ordinary Swedish woman who would be thankful to you
    for your fight for equal pay and against sexism in Sweden. If there is sex discrimination in Sweden today, it is rather against men, and there is nothing to prove that there isn’t equal pay for equal work. Both men and women make silly jokes about the opposite sex and there is in my opinion nothing much to make of it, just trivial jargon.

    Have you been “seduced” by Göran Rudling and Gudrun Schyman, I wonder.

    With love,


  59. @Arbed, thanks, may the thread continue!

    @Jemand, some useful thoughts there, thanks. I agree that the “firewall” for individuals involved, such that upsets here don’t spill into the real world, could do with a bit of strengthening. I suspect we all come here in the main for solidarity with similar thinkers, and stimulation and debate from different thinkers. Even if our purpose is simply pastime, I hope everyone derives enjoyment from it, and as such quarrels that become excessively personal should be avoided and discouraged.

    With that in mind, the advice that Clark/Zoologist have a ceasefire (or a cease-emails) is a good idea, I think. Clark’s given me some of his thoughts privately, and I’ll obtain the same from Z.

    Jemand, on private emails outside of the forum: I don’t do so outside of the moderators list, except for an instance where I thought a contributor needed some reassurance. I agree it could be more transparent, and perhaps it would be better reduced to nothing. Since Clark appears to have had discussions off the board, he and I will have a chat about that. It’s a tricky one I suppose, since some people here are bound to know each other “in real life”, and we can’t stop them emailing each other :).

    On the mod/contributor dilemma, another awkward one, and it’s been discussed here before. Being a mod is all curse and no fun, contrary to popular view. We rarely get to “play God” with the delete button, and as free-speechers we hate using that anyway (but overt racism and extreme persistent disruption has to be dealt with, otherwise the board would have no value). So if moderators were not permitted to post, we’d be working for everyone else for no reward – not ideal. In my view I think this issue is OK as it is, and once the other issues are cleared up we’ll be good again.

    Anyway, sit tight, and I’ll beaver away at some peace negotiations.

  60. Once again I would like to thank our mods for their invaluable, unpaid work at all times, a state that conforms with the majority here and our ideals.

    That nobody is a snow flake here, or has all the arguments at hand, is a given, it is inconceivable that we all agree at all times. Instead of taking Goran the Rutter Rudling to task here for his weaving, possibly working for his Government or their shekels, we diverge to question Assange’s ‘assignment?’.

    Whoever came up with this one should please come up with some tangible evidence before we carry on debating such daft conspiracy, what other possible purpose could have been served by the wikileaks releases?

    Just because Frau Schicklegruber, Adolf’s Grandmother, worked for the Rothschild family, does not mean her grandson’s madness and delusions of grandeur, was a planned conspiracy.

    That does not preclude that some here might want Assange to be in the pay of some rich ueber-Mensch, but it is a far fetched fairy tale, a diversion from what is fact.

  61. There’s an awful lot here I disagree with, from multiple contributors, but I’m keeping quiet.

  62. While we’re waiting for my fate to be decided, I propose a little poll. Who agrees with or supports in principle the following statement:

    “Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

    I’ll cast my vote now. I neither agree nor support either proposition, and in fact I am opposed to both.

  63. @Nevermind, thanks for your kind words; best wishes to you.

    @Clark, greatly appreciated. I’m awaiting an email reply from Zoologist (who is of course entitled not to answer, but we’ll cross that bridge if we come to it).

  64. @ Jon
    If you have emailed me, I have not received it. I will reply in private if you wish.
    I have no axe to grind and nothing much more to say. I have made my position perfectly clear to Clark in person and in writing. He has trust issues and I think he needs to talk to someone professionally . I don’t particularly want to post here any more anyway.
    I just wanted the normal boundaries to be respected.

  65. I have already given Clark permission to delete it last night.
    I agree that might be best all round.

  66. Actually, Zoologist, I feel like publishing our private communications myself. I wish to clear the air of your unfounded allegations, and demonstrate that you are the true aggressor. But as you know, if I publish, it will reveal information you specifically requested that I conceal.

  67. @Jon

    Thanks for clarifying some points. So am i getting a “down button” now, or what?


    ““Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.”

    Well the first part is self-contradicting and the second part is disproven by the judicial system. Or am I not getting the real message here? That truth doesn’t exist so crackpot ideas should have equal opportunity to flourish unimpeded by rational thoughts and arguments..?

  68. @Clark and Zoo


    Sorry, but this is a very important point. No doubt there are issues of perceptions of fairness, but nothing that many of us have not already experienced. Unless there are ongoing ill effects from what has already transpired, apart from hurt feelings, then this should end now or be taken into the private sphere to thrash out IN PRIVATE. Protraction of this issue will contribute nothing to the core purpose of this forum.

  69. Zoologist, thanks. Yes, I emailed you using your usual email here, seems the gremlins ate it. The technology rarely works when one needs it to (you use a provider that I’ve had problems delivering to in the past, but I’ve checked the spam blocklists and it seems ok at the moment).

    May I suggest to you both then, the following solution.

    Let me preface it by saying it would be ideal if everyone could talk to anyone on any subject, but sometimes some subjects are difficult, and sometimes pairs of people have a persona clash or some other issue that makes communication harder than it would otherwise be. Equally our work is harder here than more focussed forums, since we frequently go off-topic in a productive way, the variety of political thought here is much wider than most other places, and our free speech is a great deal freer. So conflicting opinion is much more likely.

    Both: With that in mind, I suggest that both of you agree on a ceasefire, and refrain from meeting up and emailing each other. This continuing appears to be upsetting to both parties.

    Zoologist: I don’t know enough about the topic of disagreement, but I assume that Clark’s robust response to Sunflower’s theory about Wikileaks prompted your first post on this thread. I would moderately agree that it could have been phrased better, but this would have impacted upon you in the context of your ongoing disagreement, which magnified it. So if the ongoing private communications can cease, and thus heal the upset over time, a slightly over-eager comment won’t cause the same level of frustration.

    I totally agree that the internet should not spill over into private lives for anyone here, unless it takes a wholly positive form.

    I am confident that Clark will not misuse your personal information.

    Clark: the ethos of our host is, I believe, opposed to alternative explanation theories such as Wikileaks being a front group, secret UN depopulation efforts, or the fraudulence of medical/climate science. So on those grounds, and that they are not generally related to the topics he does post upon, one could consider them off-topic. However, Craig is very keen for minimal deletions, so on that basis I believe everything goes if it is not overtly racist or disruptive. I agree it requires judgement, which is harder to do when mods wish to get involved in discussion themselves.

    Your efforts to get to the scientific truth of any topic are admirable, and are much in tune with many readers here. However we need as mods to know when to withdraw from a debate. I wonder then whether your exchanges with Sunflower, Scouse Billy, etc have also run their course, and that you could refrain from any exchanges with them either on or off the board. If Sunflower, SB or Zoologist make claims in the future that require extremely high standards of proof, would you let someone else ask for it? There are several people quite willing to do so, I am sure.

    I appreciate that limits your conversational sparring partners slightly, but I also operate a mental list of people who I am better not engaging in debate, and it does insulate me quite well.

    As mods we also should be as transparent as we can about private debate. Shall we say that private exchange is okay to sort out a problem between other people, but not to continue private discussion for oneself? That would help I think.

    Lastly I am aware that a “mode of discussion” problem has come up a few times. By this I mean that upset has been caused because two or more parties have believed that the other side have not been posting in good faith, is not who they claim to be, is a disinfo agent, have been moving goalposts, is avoiding standard models of proof or logic, have been too politically correct or in some other way their biases have made them impossible to reason with. I suggest that if this dynamic comes up, then the response is to withdraw rather than take the conversation to email.

    Clark/Zoologist, does that cover everything?

    Warm regards to you both.

  70. @Clark
    I asked you to respect my privacy. I have nothing to conceal.

    @ Jon
    I have not received any communication from you.

  71. Clark/Zoologist – may I suggest that you both delete your private communications. The only purpose for publishing them is to “prove” the other side wrong by forming tribes and asking for support from other people. I don’t think that will heal hurts caused.

    Read my peace proposal instead please.

  72. Jemand:

    “That truth doesn’t exist so crackpot ideas should have equal opportunity to flourish unimpeded by rational thoughts and arguments..?”

    Yes, that is what I strongly disagree with. Non-rational contributors are attempting to silence my logical arguments against their unsupportable positions by invoking my title of “moderator”.

    I’d actually prefer a title to replace “moderator”. That I clear spam, release comments from the queue, helped people to access the site when DNS went wrong, etc., seems no justification for the argument that I should keep out of the discussion. Neither does it mean that I have to be fair, if by “fair” people mean that I should take some intermediate position between supportable and insupportable arguments. Being fair is something I strive for in any case, in life, as much as on this blog.

  73. @ Jon
    You have spoken to Clark. You have proclaimed a judgement. No input from me necessary. My complaint has nothing to do with this thread. I have already agreed to back out of this blog yet the weasel words continue. Are you oblivious to this?
    I now wish to escalate my original complaint. Please email me privately and I will elaborate when I finish work.

  74. Zoologist, I’ve emailed you again – my apologies, I got your email wrong the first time.

    I’ve not proclaimed anything, the above is just a proposal.

    Email you this evening :)

  75. Jon, sorry, I’m not complying with any of that. If Craig wishes to sack me as a “moderator”, that’s fine. I’m not complying with Zoologist’s attempts to silence me, and I’m not deleting the evidence from my own e-mail folders that helps to exonerate me. And I’m not breaking off communications with any of the people I’ve come to contact through this blog, quite a few of whom I’ve become friends with.

  76. Would a reminder that we are all but pixels on the screen of destiny help?
    Thought not.

  77. @Jon – good post, helpful advice, needs time to take effect.

    @Clark – I don’t want to drag this out but you need to ask yourself what you want to achieve (realistically) and how that can be achieved in this public forum. If there is no prospect of a solution here, or in private, then you might have to cut it free. Your dignity remains intact if you let it go without further a word.

  78. The most massive arguments I have experienced in the past, either within my own life or witnessed in that of others, are over issues that are, in the scheme of things, small, something we should be able to resolve.

    Large issues attract less ire and arguments, they are too big and most are in agreeance that they need solving.

    If I would proclaim here that David Icke’s extra terrestrial theories are the bees knees, that they explain humanities failure, as lizards are amongst us, then I expect to be called all things under the sun and had to deal with it.
    Cut and thrust. In times of increasing polarisation we have to be like water to reach all parts, it is inevitable that positions harden and that we will have differences.

    We are human after all, or….are we lizards…queue the smelly dragon…

    Now what was this thread about? Goran’s naked crayfish collection?

  79. “…what other possible purpose could have been served by the wikileaks releases?”

    Hi Nevermind, that’s an intelligent question.

    If we take the US diplomatic cables, the war logs from Afghanistan and Iraq and the helicopter gun camera video from Baghdad as an example. What practical effects have these releases had on US foreign policy and on the support the US receive from its supporters around the world? None, nada, nothing has changed. It hasn’t had any real effect in that area what so ever.

    Besides, of the published information, allegedly obtained from Manning, 6% was classified as “Secret”, 40% as “Confidential” and the rest was unclassified. Nothing was classified “Top Secret” And keep in mind, military services generally have a tendency to “over-classify” information. In other words it wasn’t that secret at all.

    There has been real effects but those effects are favourable to the agenda of the increasingly fascistic US administration. WL is used to legitimise increased control and surveillance and to limit internet freedom.

    If, hypothetically, WL is an intelligence op it would serve other important functions as well, one is as a honey-pot for whistle blowers and another, as a channel to distribute disinformation.

    Either way, we will never see any direct evidence of what WL actually is, the only way to get an understanding is by analysing what is coming out of the Wikileaks phenomenon as such over time.

  80. Sunflower, your selection of Wikileaks material is very narrow. Your criticism of the Cablegate material reflects upon the source of the material, not Wikileaks. Your criticism of the effects of the material also lie with parties other than Wikileaks.

    Basically, it seems like you want to blame whatever you can on Wikileaks, and smear Assange as some sort of double-agent. But why should anyone take any notice of you, since you believe in the Bosnian pyramid hoax? It seems to me that if a proposition is rubbish, you accept it, and if it carries any authenticity, you reject it.

    A less biased summary of information published by Wikileaks can be found on Wikipedia:


  81. @Zoologist “I have already agreed to back out of this blog yet the weasel words continue. Are you oblivious to this?”

    Please don’t.

  82. [Jon/mod – not helpful in present circs]

  83. Alright you lot :)

    Sunflower, as a non-mod, could I ask you to hold off the conversations that are causing the rift at present, at least on this thread? It will only take a little while to get a resolution I think, but meantime Clark and/or Zoologist may be feeling somewhat fragile at present. Just ignore please.

    @Clark, non-mod capacity again: I hear you on not liking the whole of my proposal. But would it be so terrible to avoid communicating on the board with Sunflower and Zoologist, at least in the short term? It would make my peacemaking efforts much easier!

  84. Sure, Jon.

  85. By now I am at the top of a “death threat” fabrications page http://www.wikiwatch.org.uk/death-threats-directed-at-wikiwatch/
    My tweet had already showed up in another page there as a possible death threat, but with a little pseudo-benefit-of-doubt-let-our-readers-decide touch. Not now, after being promoted to the new glorious “death threats” page.

    Non-intestinal context gone to lunch in their literal exegesis:
    As a non-native speaker of the language, maybe I was being optimistic believing that “guts” could be, in context,understood less viscerally as “personal information generally regarded as belonging to the private sphere”?

    Victimisation tactics are quite common in the Wikiwatch & friends collective, to the point of regularly referring to personal Twitter blocking [which has no consequences for third parties] as “trying to suppress our speech while pretending to be for freedom of speech”. Meanwhile, with some of them [allegedly, @PGPBOARD too] in England, land of nasty libel law, it seems interesting how at ease they are with engaging in regular smear — maybe high expectations that their targets actually love freedom of speech enough not to be fans of exploiting libel laws? Or maybe they just have high expectations of legal immunity?

    So, y’all, be nice, lest you end up in the “death threats” hall of fame for daring to “supress” *their* speech…

  86. Jon, why do you want peace with contributors that pollute the threads with disinformation? Opposing this pernicious rubbish is what this blog is all about. Why should I just go silent because a clique of propagandists actually come and visit and post comments? Why should I yield to blackmail? That makes no sense.

    Give up your peacemaking. These people can engage logically and honestly and without threats, or not at all; it’s their choice. They can escalate if they wish. In the final evaluation, it’s us that have the delete buttons.

  87. Good breeding consists in concealing how much we think of ourselves and how little we think of the other person.

  88. Should mods have an opinion of their own? The old, old forum argument. Most mods start off as people with opinions posting on a blog/forum. Then they unwisely agree to try and keep the scum skimmed from the pool, usually if not always for free and without recompense. Then they get flak for having opinions. @twas ever thus, and the scum rejoices.

  89. Thanks for your support, Komodo. On the Sunny Hundal thread I’ve mentioned the “filter problem”. Rather than speculating about my “breeding” (which I don’t even know myself, being adopted), I’d like Sunflower to consider what it’s like actually being a major component in such a filter.

    Of course, I could stop posting my opinions here. I’d still have opinions, though.

  90. I do not agree with you sunflower. the public’s perception has changed dramatically, they are now fully versed in the two-facedness of their rulers and those who have war on top of their agenda. We know that they are blatantly lying and that they are withholding vital information back because it shows them up as criminal psychopath.

    Assange, if really employed in some sinister plot as you assume, would not need to be in the detrimental position he is in, fgs, the man can’t have a shag without MI5 listening in on it.

    As to what wikileaks really is all about, have a look at the Domscheit Berg affair and wikileaks reaction to his blatant manoeuvres.

    That said, I like many others, no doubt, would like Wikileaks to be as open about its aims, objectives, profits and tax affairs, as it proclaims to be open with us on the affairs of those they accuse of un-democratic double standards.

    Wikileaks and its aims and objectives might be irrelevant, the true impact of their revelations not measurable, or not apparent in a controlled media world, because its kept off the radar, but it is not an issue that should undermine what we have got here, a free collective of brain s, some very good thinkers amongst them and some very good sleuth to boot.

    We need thick skin and should be able to question each other, robust and with zeal, but once we had it out, the result should matter more than the path we trod to get there.

    Should we ever get to meet each other here, god beware, and dispense with our last worries and qualms, we would be one hell of a force to be reckoned with.

    this is were the princess kisses the frog….;)

  91. @nvm
    “Assange, if really employed in some sinister plot as you assume, would not need to be in the detrimental position he is in, fgs, the man can’t have a shag without MI5 listening in on it.”

    That is a weak argument. A lot of time intelligence assets are coerced into their position. It’s not like someone can go to the MI5/MI6/CIA unemployment desk and ask for a job. If a person has a profile that is interesting enough due to skill, position, access to information or influence and it fits with some current or potential plan he/she can be recruited. Sometimes by blackmail, threat or some other means.

    JA was let off the hook in the nineties and avoided a long prison sentence, in exchange for what? If I was in intelligence at that time I would certainly consider recruiting him.

    Besides, the clients he works with (the whistleblowers) are very very paranoid people, they have to be completely convinced he is for real.

    Anyway, this is all hypothetical, I’m only looking at the WL phenomenon on a macro level and what practical effects it creates in society and politics.

    I would like to see something released that has some direct personal consequences for the US President, UK PM or something along that line, but that is never ever going to happen.

    And really, if JA was the threat the Americans claim him to be, he would be dead long time ago. The don’t deal with real threats in media. Real threats get the Kelly-treatment.

    Thx for the kiss anyway. /Kermit

  92. The really sad thing is that if you are a whistle-blower you have absolutely nowhere to turn and if you somehow manage to put out some pertinent information there are so many mechanisms in the control structure to prevent it from having any effect.

  93. @ Sunflower 4.31pm

    “It’s not like someone can go to the MI5/MI6/CIA unemployment desk and ask for a job”

    Ahem. That is precisely what Jeffrey Delize – the spy caught handing the Five Eyes allies’ secrets over to Russia (for 4 years straight) – did. It’s instructive to look at the relatively ‘Ho hum’ and ‘Tut, tut’ response in Western diplomatic and political circles to Delize’ crimes and contrast it with the reaction to Wikileaks’ disclosures and the rhetoric and threats made against Assange:


    “I would like to see something released that has some direct personal consequences for the US President, UK PM or something along that line, but that is never ever going to happen”

    Your wish is granted – that’s happening right now. Or potentially it is – but you’re going to have to dig for the gold yourself, I’m afraid. Over the last two weeks, Wikileaks has been releasing all correspondence concerning the Presidential candidates contained in the Stratfor archive (Stratfor being the private US intelligence company headed up by the ex-Deputy Chief for Counter-terrorism of the DSS that was hacked by Anonymous last year). Two examples from recent days:



    Unfortunately, keeping abreast of what’s going on with Wikileaks, and for the public to get the most out of what they have to offer, requires a bit of proactive citizenship.

    “And really, if JA was the threat the Americans claim him to be, he would be dead long time ago”

    Ah, the shining, unquestionable integrity of dead martyrs, eh? Because they’re so… what’s the word? Ah yes, useful… to an ongoing cause, aren’t they?

  94. Pauline Barten.

    18 Oct, 2012 - 5:27 pm

    I think there are places for whistleblowers to turn,people are becoming more aware. It is pioneering work in some respects, and the one thing that people have which cannot be taken away is hope.
    Well, maybe there is never a smoking gun. It is human beings testimony, and that is a very powerful thing.Much better to suffer for doing the right thing.

  95. Well, that’s interesting Arbed. Let’s see what the consequences are going to be of the information released and see where it takes us.

  96. Sunflower, if you think Wikileaks is a “honeypot” to trap whistleblowers, you should gather and present convincing evidence. To make your evidence convincing, visit this list of information published by Wikileaks:


    Then see if you can find any whistleblowers connected with that list who have been prosecuted, killed, disappeared etc.. Bradley Manning? Shopped by Adrian Lamo.

    However, you seem to follow a “New Age” model of establishing the reliability of assertions, which seems to go something like this:

    # Make up an idea that holds appeal for some group.
    # Publish that idea to at least the target group.
    # Expect people to “respect” it, because “everyone’s opinions should be respected”.
    # If anyone criticises the idea, demand evidence supporting their criticism, despite the fact that you never offered evidence for your original assertion.

    Two more points:

    “And really, if JA was the threat the Americans claim him to be, he would be dead long time ago. The don’t deal with real threats in media. Real threats get the Kelly-treatment.”

    Firstly, Sunflower, you’re setting up a sort of reverse witch trial. If the whistleblower is real, they are dead. If they’re alive, they’re not a “real” whistleblower. Yeah, right. So which is Daniel Ellsberg, then? Dead, or fake? I take it that you consider Craig Murray fake, and his lack of exposure in the mainstream media, his recent treatment on Newsnight, etc. to be a complex establishment double-bluff.

    Secondly, Wikileaks is an organisation. Assange is being persecuted to make an example of him, not because doing so neutralises a threat. It’s power, stupid. You’re always going on about how far reaching power is, but you fail to recognise the mechanisms by which it operates. Assassinating Assange wouldn’t destroy the Wikileaks organisation. It would create a martyr and boost Wikileaks support. For the establishment strategy to be effective, Assange has to be discredited (Check!), attention has to be drawn away from the leaked material (Check!), and the persecution and consequent fear have to be long and drawn out (Check!).

    Finally, there are methods for whistleblowers to publish leaked material. Why are you spreading pessimism about this? If you’re not an establishment agent already, maybe you should apply to be put on a retainer. Below is an example. The Wikileaks drop-box is currently offline:


  97. Clark, easy does it please. I’m only asking you to hold off for a few days. I’ve been in email conversation with Zoologist, but no real time to discuss further until the weekend – work has been very pressing this week.

  98. Q: Why was Assange demonised, and now surrounded by police, whereas John Walker, publisher of leak site Cryptome, not persecuted?

    A(1): Wikileaks forced the establishment’s hand. They gave their material to the corporate media, and made a big public fuss about it. The did publicity. The public figure for that publicity was Julian Assange. The corporate media was forced to put the leaked material into the mainstream, or be shown up for the fraud it is.

    A(2): John Walker doesn’t do publicity. His site just sits there, assessable to whoever searches it out. However, the Cryptome site is well mirrored. If the establishment were to Kill or persecute John Walker, or force the Cryptome site off-line, it would draw attention to the published material.

  99. Jon, you’d best e-mail me. I’m not happy about being told to shut up.

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted In The Cloud