You are here

Does Honey-Trap Smear Suggest WikiLeaks is for Real?

Is WikiLeaks for real? Gordon Duff says the real purpose of its Afghanistan leak was “to spread imaginary stories about Pakistan, the only nuclear power in the Middle East capable of standing up to Israel and the enemy of India.” (WikiLeaks is Israel, Like We All Didn’t Know.)

Then why is Wikileaks founder Julian Assange still being smeared by some intel agency with power in Sweden?

Recent Kevin Barrett Show guest Israel Shamir explains:

“In other words,  the farcical rape charges have once again been leveled against the Pentagon’s Public Enemy Number One. Julian Assange now stands accused of: (1) not calling a young woman the day after he had enjoyed a night with her,  (2) asking her to pay for his bus ticket,  (3) having unsafe sex,  and (4) participating in two brief affairs in the course of one week. These four minor charges,  worthy of Leopold Bloom’s mock trial in the Nightown chapter in Ulysses,  have been shaken and fermented until they were able to cook up a half-baked rape case!”

Shamir and co-author Paul Bennett paint the alleged “rape victims” as probable intelligence operatives in a honey-trap sting designed to smear Assange. An orchestrated chorus of voices from the left — Assange’s home turf — follows up by yapping incoherently for his blood. Shamir again:

“For a smear that really sticks,  you need to get it from an ex-apostle. An accusation by a Caiaphas does not impress. If you are targeting a leftist,  hire leftists. For example,  Trotskyites were willing and useful tools against the Communists. Pseudo Anti-Zionists are currently being used to hamstring a genuine Pro-Palestinian movement.”

And pseudo-truthers are being used to hamstring the genuine 9/11 truth movement. Voices of 9/11 truth who have charisma, speaking and/or writing talent, academic and/or authorial credentials, money, the courage to state the truth forcefully, the ability to command media attention (say, by running for public office) or any other asset that makes them dangerous often find themselves in the gunsights of the TrueFaction crew of pseudo-truthers.  Separately or together these folks have attacked Jimmy Walter (whose ability and willingness to spend millions made him the most dangerous truther ever); Webster Tarpley (a gifted, charismatic speaker, accomplished author and sophisticated political analyst); James Fetzer (a highly-accomplished scholar and author who is also a talented public speaker); Pilots for 9/11 Truth (the second-most-important professional association after Architects and Engineers); Citizen Investigation Team (the most accomplished investigators of the attack on the Pentagon); Sofia (maker of the most effective 9/11 truth film ever, 9/11 Mysteries); yours truly (Ph.D. Arabist, decent speaker and writer, organizer of David Ray Griffin’s C-Span talk, link between the truth movement and pro-Palestinians including 1.5 billion Muslims); and generally anyone whose research demolishes the 19 hijackers myth, or implicates Israel/Zionism as the prime force behind 9/11.

Are the fake leftists and their dupes smearing Assange, just as the fake truthers and their dupes have smeared me and so many others?

Or is the “smearing” of Assange so obviously bogus that it may have been designed to backfire and bolster his credentials as a whistleblower? That’s one double-cross too many for my mind to encompass. Guess I’ll have to bring Gordon Duff back on my show and run it by him…

7 Thoughts to “Does Honey-Trap Smear Suggest WikiLeaks is for Real?”

  1. Hi Kevin, while Gordon Duff does not seem a leftist to me, his article you quoted, like many others by him, make a lot of sense.
    It is sufficient to note that Assange is a 9/11 truth-denier, that nobody knows who is funding him, that wikileaks published just stuff already known worldwide from 10 years mixed with b/s (like reports about hunting Bin Laden) to see that wikileaks smells fishy big time. I appreciate both your articles and Duff's ones, and I do not see any contradiction between your thesis up to now.

  2. Gordon Duff (whose articles I do publish) is by his own admission a close friend and associate of the former head of ISI, Pak Security Service. So his opinions in relation to Pakistan are of little value, in my view.

  3. I'm just trying to keep an open mind as I figure these things out. Gordon Duff and Israel Shamir are both brilliant and fearless, and both (like me and everyone else) may not get everything right. As far as I'm concerned the jury's still out on this one.

  4. Anonymous

    You are a fine speaker and writer, Kevin. Keep up the good work,we really appreciate it.

  5. Anonymous

    Might Lenny Charles be a pseudo-truther?

    What do you make of this,from Christopher Bollyn's site?

    "The key point is that the devoted Zionist agent Steven M. Mizel is the owner and power behind the scenes at I.N.N. and the Walker Stage. Lenny Charles' 9-11 conference is just another Zionist effort to hijack the memory of 9-11 by misinterpreting the false-flag terror atrocity that changed the world without asking who really did it or discussing the evidence of Israeli/Zionist involvement."

  6. Don't know about Mizel, but I think Lenny is honest.

    I question the premise of Bollyn, certain folks at Rediscover911, etc. that anyone who isn't pointing a finger at the Zionists is slowing down the emergence of truth. There is room for those who aren't pointing fingers as well as for those who are.

    It's those who try to "disable" the "purveyors of (true) conspiracy theories" about the Zionists who are acting out Sunstein's script. I've never seen Lenny try to disable anyone, quite the contrary.

  7. Anonymous

    Fetzer has done quite a lot in exposing the Government, the Bush administration, the senator Paul Wellstone assassination and showing how the ruling elites manipulate or even corrupt institutions like NIST and even the NTSB. He has done it so comprehensively and giving a level of detail that could even be used in a court or before a Grand Jury, so how is is contributions supposed to provide something positive working _for_ the elites and make him a "fake left" "pseudo truther"? I had no belief in mini-nukes back in 2006 but understood 911 was controlled demolition, but after going through the data and the evidence, I'm not ruling out nuclear demolition. And btw, the speeds and impacts involved on the towers does not make it plausible that any 757 or commercial airplanes were involved. Does that make me a "kook" or a "nutcase"? I have some university education and I consider that I fully comprehend laws of physics and scientific method, but yeah, smears work. But should we waste much time on it? As to Julian Assange, I have never heard him say anything comprehensive political. No support for 911 truth, no serious criticism of anything political. I heard a 20 minute BBC worldservice interview with him, but it was so bland and boring that I had trouble remembering if he said anything of consequence… I don't know, but I'm of the opinion that you need to have some serious views, some serious goals, you need to state them, and you need to state what you think is _wrong_ with things around in this world if you're at all serious about doing anything about anything. Or helping anyone else or a movement in effecting anything of consequence that can lead to any serious change. I just dont get all the smearing that's so abundant in the truth movement. Care to explain some / any of it? Yes I think Israeli elites and Mossad are in cahoots with US security services and british security "services". But I do not think that everyone who does not understand the israel connection are automatically "fake" truthers. I do think they have been brainwashed to be really afraid of critizising Israel and Jews because of the "Holocaust". Almost everyone have been brainwashed to think that. But people avoiding the Israel issue and involvement are beginning to have problems and I hope that continues. A lot if not most of internal squabble in movements can be put down to human stupidity, pride and just pure stubbornness and lack of social skills in debate, but yes, of course, the FBI and the government have a century old history of infiltrating and disrupting all popular movements. I just don't think the current level of internal accusations are completely justified…

Leave a Comment