A Real Treat in Store 116

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.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

116 thoughts on “A Real Treat in Store

1 2 3 4
  • nevermind

    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….;)

  • Sunflower

    “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

  • Sunflower

    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.

  • Arbed

    @ 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?

  • Pauline Barten.

    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.

  • Sunflower

    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.

  • Clark

    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:


  • Jon

    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.

  • Clark

    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.

  • glenn

    Jon: Having read this thread all the way through, I do not understand why you’re taking this “softly, softly” approach with the character who – in one guise at least – goes by the name of Sunflower. I don’t understand why you’re telling Clark to back off all the time, when his approach is not only restrained, but thoroughly logical and honest – something Sunflower etc. treats as an amusing weakness.

    It’s particularly strange that you personally would bother exchanging e-mail with someone like that – why not stick it all out here? After all – we’re talking about a violator of email privacy, who taunted Clark that he’d reveal all their private communication. Worse still, he implies that this exchange would be damaging, and so something to hold over Clark. Get that? Betting in the meantime, of course, that Clark has far too much integrity to do what I’d do, and just stick the whole lot down here just to show what [—self edit—] sort of person he his.

    Such a person neither deserves, nor should expect, any benefit of the doubt. And let’s not even get started on the absolute bunkum s/he churns out on an industrial scale here.

  • Clark

    Glenn, I appreciate your support.

    I no longer feel any ill-will to Zoologist, who does have some reason to be upset with me, though not to anywhere near the extent given in the actual complaint; we’d been in friendly contact for several days before the incident with Sunflower that apparently triggered the problem. I’d rather be back in contact with Zoologist, but seeing what is written above, I’m not sending any more e-mails unless Zoologist comments again and publicly asks me to resume private contact.

    Why Jon expects me to go easy on Sunflower and Chris Jones I have no idea, and I disagree with that entirely. If that practice becomes accepted, anyone can stop any line of argument just by getting another contributor to complain about it, which would make the comments section of this blog a very different place.

  • Clark

    Since this looks likely to be some days before Jon gets back to this, I would like to correct one of the inaccuracies in the complaint against me. I do not know where Zoologist lives, as claimed. I know where we met, and that we each had about forty five minutes to get there, but I have no more detailed knowledge than that. The only “personal details” I have for Zoologist are two e-mail addresses.

  • Clark

    Glenn at 19 Oct, 12:52 am:

    “And let’s not even get started on the absolute bunkum s/he churns out on an industrial scale here.”

    To be fair, Glenn, Zoologist’s own posts have been mainly cut-and-paste history, and mostly factual, I think, though I haven’t attempted to check it all. However, Zoologist has been supporting and encouraging Sunflower, Chris Jones and Scouse Billy in their publication of unsubstantiated nonsense.

  • Snap

    Don’t newspapers have (sub-)editors anymore? Two years on, just when the MSM are starting to grasp the actual story, this real treat / libellous smear appeared:

    “The WikiLeaks founder, who is wanted in Sweden over alleged sex attacks on two women, has been holed up there since June and has claimed asylum.”

    Rosa Silverman
    2012-10-09 in The Telegraph

    For a female pop icon to choose to associate with Assange obviously goes against their precepts, hence the disapproval and mis-portrayal in the article.

  • Snap

    Essentially the same phrase appears in CBC News:

    “The WikiLeaks founder is wanted in Sweden over alleged sex attacks on two women and has been holed up at the embassy since June, claiming asylum.”

    2012-10-09 in CBC News (“According to The Telegraph newspaper in the U.K.”)

    However in Canada, it is obviously going too far to even suggest that Lady Gaga is wearing a costume with connotations in reference to Assange’s treatment, since:
    “… dressed in black and sporting a pointy hat.”
    replaces the original:
    “… dressed all in black and wearing a pointed witch’s hat.”

    At least CBC make reference to the alleged political motivations and the US situation and that Assange called for an end to the “witch-hunt” against his secret-spilling website.

  • nevermind

    I agree with Glenn, Jon, you are too soft on sunflower and her/his peculiar need to blackmail Clark with PM’s.

    If you so much allow posters here to drag their private scraps on to our screens then that would mean that many will leave, it is untenable and designed to undermine the information flow.
    Clark does not deserve such disorganised, spur of the moment decision making, nor does he deserve to be stabbed in the back by it. For far too long has the lack of a coordinated approach hampered this blog.

    In order of priority, maybe you Craig and Clark should now take this opportunity to sit down for dinner and hammer out a modus operandi, cause this is not going to get better.
    Further, I propose a self catering get together once/year, wherever, for whoever is turning up, to get to know each other better and get better at what we do, meet new people,etc.
    I would have loved to suggest having it at Doune the rabbit hole, but its up in Scotland and expensive to get in, its got to be easy to get to.

    If Clark is being compromised, how long do you think, Jon, before you are the next target?

  • Jon

    Ello Nevermind and Glenn, much appreciate your thoughts. I’m not too worried that we’ll see people leaving en masse, but I will certainly consider the points you’ve made.

    Anyway, the discussions are underway already in some detail, but it will take a bit of time I think. I reckon some technical solutions will help as well – if I can find the time to improve our spam control, Clark and I will have less work to do, which would be nice 🙂

  • mary eng

    i tried to keep those cookies on the top shelf, craig, but it seems you found them. goran has lots of secrets, like how finers stephens innocent wrote fictitious legal opinions for the swedish “experts” to sign. he refused and sven erik laughed mark stephens off as did bjorn hurtig. brita sundberg signed her fake opinion, and goran refused to, or so the story goes.

    don’t trust me, glad you have some distribution.
    for more cookies write [email protected]

    we have a term called “obstruction of justice” in america. knowingly covering up for coerced fictitious legal testimony, especially to obstruct justice for rape victims, is quite horrid.

    you wouldn’t do that would you?

    from a pro-assange perspective: i could see his lawyers were “doing him in” by writing such monstrous lies about sweden.

    are you aware of assange’s cyberbullying his victims?

    linking to neonazi legal opinions, and racist news magazines?

    heads up.

    you may like also
    “sweden versus assange leaks”

    or the leaked letters of peter kemp on misogyny in assange-land.

    look up “peter kemp misogyny leaks”

    that is, if you love leaks.

    if you or any of your fan base would like me to forward timestamped emails from any such persons i consider email an open medium. due to american surveillance technology, it really is.

    i will forward any such emails.

    goran rudling exposed assange’s affiliation with viagra spammer rixstep and neonazi and police killer tony olsson.

    you may enjoy reading his work.

    i have been trying to convince him that rape shield law bans the naming and humiliating and personal attacks on rape victims.

    for more on rape law visit my rape blog


  • mary eng

    also note goran rudling does not have a “wife” and i did not “break into the media centre at the supreme court” though i appreciate the valorous dramatic effect of such a characterization, so perhaps it is better to let that rumor stand?

    other comment already published over here with lots of other juicy letters:

    it is possibly unfair to call me mad for studying rape shield law, or for being a rape victim.

    raping women possibly destroys them, spiritually. bashing them for reporting rape, or exercising free speech, might also destroy them.

    i do hope your friends begin to recognize the serious neurochemical crises induced by rape, and bullying rape victims.

  • Dating

    I do not even understand how I ended up right here, however I assumed this post was good. I do not recognise who you’re but definitely you’re going to a famous blogger should you are not already. Cheers!

  • Ben Franklin (Anti-intellectual Colonial American Savage version)

    \Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis\

  • Ben Franklin (Anti-intellectual Colonial American Savage version)

    /Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis/

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.