Stratfor was not breached in order to obtain customer credit card numbers, which the hackers in question could not have expected to be as easily obtainable as they were. Rather, the operation was pursued in order to obtain the 2.7 million e-mails that exist on the firm's servers. This wealth of data includes correspondence with untold thousands of contacts who have spoken to Stratfor's employees off the record over more than a decade. Many of those contacts work for major corporations within the intelligence and military contracting sectors, government agencies, and other institutions for which Anonymous and associated parties have developed an interest since February of 2011, when another hack against the intelligence contractor/security firm HBGary revealed, among many other things, a widespread conspiracy by the Justice Department, Bank of America, and other parties to attack and discredit Wikileaks and other activist groups. Since that time, many of us in the movement have dedicated our lives to investigating this state-corporate alliance against the free information movement. – Anonymous
Dominant Social Theme: Stratfor doesn't support WikiLeaks, but we do.
Free-Market Analysis: Here is a strange case. Anonymous has apparently attacked the famous, web-based Intel-analyzer Stratfor in support of WikiLeaks, and yet WikiLeaks is evidently and obviously (to us anyway) a kind of false-flag facility. We've had our doubts about Anonymous as well. Here's something about Anonymous on Wikipedia:
In January 2011, Anonymous launches DDOS attacks against the Tunisian government websites due to censorship of the Wikileaks documents and the 2010–2011 Tunisian protests ... In January 2011, Anonymous, in response to the 2011 Egyptian protests, attacked Egyptian government websites and voiced support for the people of Egypt ..
.
This is interesting to us because the only evidence we can find for government hacking involves the Tunisian and Egyptian governments (and maybe Zimbabwe – hard to tell). You would think an anarchic group like Anonymous would be targeting government groups around the world.
There is a good deal of evidence, in fact, that these Middle Eastern and African youth movements are to some extent engineered via the CIA and that AYM is a control group of the US State Department. So why would Anonymous support movements apparently controlled via the Anglosphere? Surely Anonymous gives such movements additional credibility by supporting them. Or is that the point?
Other questions. The security measures in place when it comes to government "security" are likely fairly ludicrous – given governments' general competence. An autistic teenager cracked the Pentagon's innermost computers a few years ago. Yet Anonymous stays away. Additionally, in Britain, a participant in Anonymous hack attacks was apparently tracked down and fined US$500.
These are the kinds of indicators we look for when it comes to analyzing the dominant and sub-dominant social themes of the Anglosphere power elite. Most elite themes are fear-based but in the past few years there have been a plethora of phony "alternative" websites and facilities that have sprung up pretending to participate in the Internet'salternative media, but that are actually spreading misinformation and confusion.
The fear-based promotions of the Anglosphere power elite span the world. With affiliates in DC, Rome and Tel Aviv, the power families of London's City control the world's central banks and use fear-based, scarcity tactics to stampede middle classes into giving up wealth and power to globalist institutions.
The goal is world government and a pretty good start has been made! But the Internet has interrupted what otherwise might have been smooth ascension toward full-fledged internationalism by exposing what might be called the "back story" – the actual manipulations taking place.
The elites have struck back – hurriedly, in our view, and with some level of clumsiness. Many of the promotions we've identified recently have only been placed into circulation recently and without the usual meticulous planning (and decades of buildup) that we are used to seeing. In our view, it is as if the elites are reacting rather than controlling the pace of events – in some ways, anyway.
Some of this sort of analysis takes place at a "gut" level. If you follow these sorts of conversations, you can see them occurring – and you can notice when they veer off track. We keep pretty good track of them here at the Daily Bell, or we try to, because that's our focus. The false-flag elite facilities are usually revealed by the kinds of information they pro-offer and the way they demonize some issues but not others.
For instance, a false-flag facility (website, blogger, etc.) might rail against an "unholy alliance" between Big Oil and "government" and then suggest at a different time (or even in the same article) that government regulators ought to crack down on this "corruption."
Another example revolves around the current protests against Wall Street. This is a VERY clever meme, in our view (and has been amply exposed as controlled by many alternative websites). OWS operatives (at the top anyway) are focused furiously on Wall Street "corruption" – but also more recently on regulatory and central bank corruption.
But the "catch" is that OWS protestors want to use the most corrupt of US agencies – the judicial system – to bring "crooks" to justice. The idea apparently is that the FBI and local and federal police agencies, judges and the US judicial system in general is somehow exempt from the invidious, authoritarian decay that has overtaken every other part of the US system.
And the larger idea, of course, that is inherent in these false-flag facilities is that there is always ONE PART of government that works. All government is "bad" and "corrupt" except the regulatory arm, or the judiciary, or the military (keeping citizens safe), or civilian policing (keeping citizens safe), etc.
As regards WikiLeaks itself, we long ago found much to question about Julian Assange and his purported activism. The signs to us were obvious. He'd been arrested for hacking as a young man and there were indications that he'd begun working with Western governments.
Other signs: WikiLeaks itself was apparently purchased by Assange only a few years before the Assange phenomenon blew up. And, notably, Assange attacked those who question 9/11 – even though there are plenty of questions about the "official story" – and indicated that WikiLeaks had bigger issues to focus on.
Still, the very biggest reason to distrust the kind of "alternative" or "outlaw" facility represented by Anonymous and Assange has to do with PUBLICITY. The mainstream media is controlled by an Anglosphere power elite that has been building up its control network for at least a century. NOTHING is produced and marketed by this network that is not meant to be publicized. That's our view, after studying this phenomenon.
Lady Gaga, Julian Assange, Barack Obama – they seem to come from nowhere and are celebrated with thunderous hosannas despite modest or even questionable accomplishments. This is a prime hallmark of elite promotions. We are to believe that such celebrity status is the result of "talent." And yet often the talent or uniqueness is shared by numerous other individuals or agencies. You can see some of our articles on Assange here:
Comes a Blond Stranger ...
Goes the Dark Leader? ...
WikiLeaks: Clever PsyOps?
Assange, Hero or Trickster?
We do not know if Anonymous (in aggregate) is a kind of power elite false flag, distracting people from the real global-governance goals of the elite. Heck, we do not know for sure that Julian Assange is part of a false-flag network. Obviously, we have our suspicions – and about Stratfor, as well. Here's some more from Anonymous's statement regarding Stratfor:
Although Stratfor is not necessarily among the parties at fault in the larger movement against transparency and individual liberty, it has long been a "subject of interest" in our necessary investigation. The e-mails obtained before Christmas Day will vastly improve our ability to continue that investigation and thereby bring to light other instances of corruption, crime, and deception on the part of certain powerful actors based in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Unlike the various agents of the U.S. Government, the hacking team that obtained this information did not break down the doors of the target, point guns at children, and shoot down any dogs that might have been present; Anonymous does not resort to SWAT tactics, and this is simply one of many attributes that separate the movement from the governments that have sought to end our campaign and imprison our participants.
Of course, such points as these will not prevent our movement from being subjected to harsher scrutiny than is given to those governments which are largely forgiven their more intrusive tactics by virtue of their status as de facto holders of power in a world that has long been governed in accordance with the dictate that might makes right.
So indeed, this is a strange case. There are three elements to this story and one could raise questions regarding them all: Stratfor, Anonymous and Assange. And by the way ... For the record - as we don't want Anonymous mad at us, if they do happen to notice this article - we believe Anonymous is doing a wonderful job in its own way (so long as it doesn't break any laws!) and is a fearless and courageous organization.
What is real? What is false in the whacky world of the ever-expanding (and continually attacked) blogosphere? It is hard to say. The only way to sort through the realities is to read what's out there and build up a large-enough frame of reference to make your own decisions.
Conclusion: We hope we've contributed to the construction of those reference points over these past years with the Daily Bell and other editorial efforts. So many others have. In aggregate, we have named this explosion of information and revelations the Internet Reformation ...
Dominant Social Theme: Stratfor doesn't support WikiLeaks, but we do.
Free-Market Analysis: Here is a strange case. Anonymous has apparently attacked the famous, web-based Intel-analyzer Stratfor in support of WikiLeaks, and yet WikiLeaks is evidently and obviously (to us anyway) a kind of false-flag facility. We've had our doubts about Anonymous as well. Here's something about Anonymous on Wikipedia:
In January 2011, Anonymous launches DDOS attacks against the Tunisian government websites due to censorship of the Wikileaks documents and the 2010–2011 Tunisian protests ... In January 2011, Anonymous, in response to the 2011 Egyptian protests, attacked Egyptian government websites and voiced support for the people of Egypt ..
.
This is interesting to us because the only evidence we can find for government hacking involves the Tunisian and Egyptian governments (and maybe Zimbabwe – hard to tell). You would think an anarchic group like Anonymous would be targeting government groups around the world.
There is a good deal of evidence, in fact, that these Middle Eastern and African youth movements are to some extent engineered via the CIA and that AYM is a control group of the US State Department. So why would Anonymous support movements apparently controlled via the Anglosphere? Surely Anonymous gives such movements additional credibility by supporting them. Or is that the point?
Other questions. The security measures in place when it comes to government "security" are likely fairly ludicrous – given governments' general competence. An autistic teenager cracked the Pentagon's innermost computers a few years ago. Yet Anonymous stays away. Additionally, in Britain, a participant in Anonymous hack attacks was apparently tracked down and fined US$500.
These are the kinds of indicators we look for when it comes to analyzing the dominant and sub-dominant social themes of the Anglosphere power elite. Most elite themes are fear-based but in the past few years there have been a plethora of phony "alternative" websites and facilities that have sprung up pretending to participate in the Internet'salternative media, but that are actually spreading misinformation and confusion.
The fear-based promotions of the Anglosphere power elite span the world. With affiliates in DC, Rome and Tel Aviv, the power families of London's City control the world's central banks and use fear-based, scarcity tactics to stampede middle classes into giving up wealth and power to globalist institutions.
The goal is world government and a pretty good start has been made! But the Internet has interrupted what otherwise might have been smooth ascension toward full-fledged internationalism by exposing what might be called the "back story" – the actual manipulations taking place.
The elites have struck back – hurriedly, in our view, and with some level of clumsiness. Many of the promotions we've identified recently have only been placed into circulation recently and without the usual meticulous planning (and decades of buildup) that we are used to seeing. In our view, it is as if the elites are reacting rather than controlling the pace of events – in some ways, anyway.
Some of this sort of analysis takes place at a "gut" level. If you follow these sorts of conversations, you can see them occurring – and you can notice when they veer off track. We keep pretty good track of them here at the Daily Bell, or we try to, because that's our focus. The false-flag elite facilities are usually revealed by the kinds of information they pro-offer and the way they demonize some issues but not others.
For instance, a false-flag facility (website, blogger, etc.) might rail against an "unholy alliance" between Big Oil and "government" and then suggest at a different time (or even in the same article) that government regulators ought to crack down on this "corruption."
Another example revolves around the current protests against Wall Street. This is a VERY clever meme, in our view (and has been amply exposed as controlled by many alternative websites). OWS operatives (at the top anyway) are focused furiously on Wall Street "corruption" – but also more recently on regulatory and central bank corruption.
But the "catch" is that OWS protestors want to use the most corrupt of US agencies – the judicial system – to bring "crooks" to justice. The idea apparently is that the FBI and local and federal police agencies, judges and the US judicial system in general is somehow exempt from the invidious, authoritarian decay that has overtaken every other part of the US system.
And the larger idea, of course, that is inherent in these false-flag facilities is that there is always ONE PART of government that works. All government is "bad" and "corrupt" except the regulatory arm, or the judiciary, or the military (keeping citizens safe), or civilian policing (keeping citizens safe), etc.
As regards WikiLeaks itself, we long ago found much to question about Julian Assange and his purported activism. The signs to us were obvious. He'd been arrested for hacking as a young man and there were indications that he'd begun working with Western governments.
Other signs: WikiLeaks itself was apparently purchased by Assange only a few years before the Assange phenomenon blew up. And, notably, Assange attacked those who question 9/11 – even though there are plenty of questions about the "official story" – and indicated that WikiLeaks had bigger issues to focus on.
Still, the very biggest reason to distrust the kind of "alternative" or "outlaw" facility represented by Anonymous and Assange has to do with PUBLICITY. The mainstream media is controlled by an Anglosphere power elite that has been building up its control network for at least a century. NOTHING is produced and marketed by this network that is not meant to be publicized. That's our view, after studying this phenomenon.
Lady Gaga, Julian Assange, Barack Obama – they seem to come from nowhere and are celebrated with thunderous hosannas despite modest or even questionable accomplishments. This is a prime hallmark of elite promotions. We are to believe that such celebrity status is the result of "talent." And yet often the talent or uniqueness is shared by numerous other individuals or agencies. You can see some of our articles on Assange here:
Comes a Blond Stranger ...
Goes the Dark Leader? ...
WikiLeaks: Clever PsyOps?
Assange, Hero or Trickster?
We do not know if Anonymous (in aggregate) is a kind of power elite false flag, distracting people from the real global-governance goals of the elite. Heck, we do not know for sure that Julian Assange is part of a false-flag network. Obviously, we have our suspicions – and about Stratfor, as well. Here's some more from Anonymous's statement regarding Stratfor:
Although Stratfor is not necessarily among the parties at fault in the larger movement against transparency and individual liberty, it has long been a "subject of interest" in our necessary investigation. The e-mails obtained before Christmas Day will vastly improve our ability to continue that investigation and thereby bring to light other instances of corruption, crime, and deception on the part of certain powerful actors based in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Unlike the various agents of the U.S. Government, the hacking team that obtained this information did not break down the doors of the target, point guns at children, and shoot down any dogs that might have been present; Anonymous does not resort to SWAT tactics, and this is simply one of many attributes that separate the movement from the governments that have sought to end our campaign and imprison our participants.
Of course, such points as these will not prevent our movement from being subjected to harsher scrutiny than is given to those governments which are largely forgiven their more intrusive tactics by virtue of their status as de facto holders of power in a world that has long been governed in accordance with the dictate that might makes right.
So indeed, this is a strange case. There are three elements to this story and one could raise questions regarding them all: Stratfor, Anonymous and Assange. And by the way ... For the record - as we don't want Anonymous mad at us, if they do happen to notice this article - we believe Anonymous is doing a wonderful job in its own way (so long as it doesn't break any laws!) and is a fearless and courageous organization.
What is real? What is false in the whacky world of the ever-expanding (and continually attacked) blogosphere? It is hard to say. The only way to sort through the realities is to read what's out there and build up a large-enough frame of reference to make your own decisions.
Conclusion: We hope we've contributed to the construction of those reference points over these past years with the Daily Bell and other editorial efforts. So many others have. In aggregate, we have named this explosion of information and revelations the Internet Reformation ...
