Have you ever wondered why the alternate media is often so wrong?
I’ve spent a lot of time over nearly 25 years reading alternate media “news” on thousands of sites and printed publications. In that time, I’ve come to view much of the alternate media with the same distrust that I reserve for the mainstream media.
I’ve shared with readers before that I don’t subscribe to much of what is reported on any website as being accurate. But this is not to say that the main stream media is accurate either, because it’s clearly not. It’s the reason the alternate media stepped forward, but many of these sites left journalistic standards behind.
The alternate media goes out of its way to claim that it is the “only truth”. That’s a pretty high standard. In point of fact, it’s too high – an impossible bar to be reached by anyone. This is the first clue however, so watch out.
Any site that does this is undoubtedly a liar and is setting you up for propaganda. It’s a technique used to create blind followers, often found within religion. Question nothing, accept everything, only “we” know “the truth”. Your job is to simply follow along.
The truth does not require an announcement by the site owner or the author(s). It will be self-evident in time. Perhaps not right away, but in time as you assess facts, reports, information and stories, and combine this with other sources and experience, you can determine the accuracy of what you’ve read.
Much of the alternative media however, does not operate on this principle, even less so than the main stream media does. This is critically important when identifying a website for accuracy.
This serves the bias of the author(s) and site owners, who are generally trying to sell you something, or simply gain advertising revenue from affiliate links and page views.
Alternative media sites to avoid share these common characteristics:
#1. They do not present any real evidence. Spinning a story around a pet theory is preferable to real evidence.
#2. Conjecture and “second-guessing” fills their “news”. This makes for entertainment and supposedly a “good read”, but it’s lousy reporting and unenlightening. It’s also incredibly inaccurate.
#3. Conspiracy “sells”. Ridiculous yarns make for motivated (fearful) buyers. The real motive here is not “truth telling”, but “profits”.
#4. The bigger the conspiracy, the better. Anything will do, since actual facts (evidence) don’t matter. This accounts for the explosion of many “alternative media sources” found online.
#5. Journalistic standards are non-existent.
Here’s an example of this “conspiracy conjecture” bullshit that I came across today. Please read this first before continuing: Fake and Faker.
We’ll easily uncover what is “fake” and “faked” now. Below the “fold” is some evidence about Julian Assange that some of you (including me) never heard before.
Julian Assange and Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning have all done something that most of us would simply not do. Most of us simply would not risk our lives or our freedom to expose anything.
Let’s examine that statement I just made. True or untrue?
Since there are very few “whistleblowers” coming forward, yet there are very high levels of known spying, corruption, assassinations, murder, toppling governments, embezzlement and many, many other crimes being committed – then this statement is factually “true”. These things are NOT happening is “secret”, there are MANY players involved, but very, very few of us are willing to take a stand and speak up. A great many of us are complicit and cooperating, and yet very few are stepping forward.
I won’t speculate “why” because it’s not relevant to the truth. Why people don’t step forward is a moral question, not a factual question. Because we are now well aware of what has been going on (thanks to thousands of leaked communications), we absolutely KNOW that these things have actually happened – involving hundreds if not thousands of people. Yet nobody else has stepped forward, therefore what I said was true – Most of us simply would not risk our lives or our freedom to expose anything.
These three individuals who did have been vilified, pilloried and exorcised by the media, and no less vilified than in the “alternative media”, who continues to do so to this day. But we’re not listening anymore, we’re too busy listening to each other and making shit up.
So, are they “fakes” as alleged? You have to make a great deal of conjecture (make shit up) to believe this. We should all be aware of the extreme conditions that these three whistleblowers have found themselves in. We are being asked to “believe” that this is all part of the conspiracy – which is utterly ridiculous.
Second-guessing becomes a prerequisite in order to support a poor theory. Yet it’s all a load of horseshit and does nothing for the readership – or most importantly – the real issue of who did what, and what is the message that they are trying to get across. The fact they all three are having to “pay” for their efforts at exposure is clear to see – and yet this evidence, this factual PROOF is deemed invalid (but only by the brain dead idiots out there).
I harbor no warm cuddly feeling for these idiotic fools, who are doing us all a GREAT disservice by casting water on the fire these three attempted to light FOR OUR BENEFIT. It’s as if they would RATHER we retained our surveillance society, kept everything in secret, continued our assassination and torture programs, bombed more civilians with drones and punished ALL whistleblowers mercilessly.
Coincidence? I don’t know. Fools will say a lot of things and never realize that they’re contributing to the problem.
Remember what I wrote previously, Occam’s Razor. The simplest explanation is probably the accurate one. Not always – but it’s a damned good place to start.
I won’t go into Manning or Snowden here due to space and time, but I did find this today also about Julian Assange. You should read it. The sexual assault case against Assange is complete bullshit.
If this is all the United States government has on Assange – they’ve got nothing and they know it. But keeping him cooped up in the London embassy is definitely to their advantage.
There is some evidence here that you may have never heard of, therefore I have published this in its entirety.
Too Many Coincidences
Dick Sundevall is editor-in-chief of Magasinet Paragraf (Paragraph Magazine) which opened its doors in April 2012. Sundevall has a long history in investigative journalism and was the first to publish links to the police protocols in the Swedish MSM. He’s now penned a lengthy article on the Assange case entitled “För många tillfälligheter” (“Too Many Coincidences”).
Sundevall’s article covers most of the bases. There are several minor misunderstandings but on the whole the article is a welcome contribution.
Julian Assange is headed for the Australian Senate. What happens at that point isn’t known. But in the meantime, let’s look closer at all the “coincidences” in the Julian Assange sex crime case. Julian Assange came to Sweden 11 August 2010. He was already a world celebrity because of his work with WikiLeaks and seen by millions around the globe as a hero helping expose the war crimes of the US. But this incurred the wrath of the US and other powerful militaristic nations.
Assange is given a reception in Sweden worthy of a rock star. He’s welcomed with open arms by the major news organisations and can be seen on television almost every day. Assange praises the Swedish principle of freedom of information and talks about making Sweden his new home base.
This of course made many people uneasy to say the very least. Assange has quickly become the #1 enemy of the US. What was considered high class journalism in Sweden is regarded in the US as espionage and can lead to the death penalty or a long prison sentence.
Sweden has a lot of defenders of the US who back up everything the US does. Some of them approach the fanaticism of yesterday’s Swedish communists who once defended everything the Soviet Union did. These “friends of the US” are commonly found in high positions in government and the media. So the plans of Assange to set up shop in Sweden are seen as a major headache. But for the moment there’s not a thing they can do about it.
Rape / Sexual Molestation
Just over a week after coming to Sweden, Assange is reported for rape and sexual molestation. To grasp the twists and turns in this story, one must remember that the two women involved are not equals in many regards.
Ardin is in her thirties and established. She does “research” and is a press and political secretary for the brotherhood movement of the Social Democratic party. She’s also part of a Cuban feminist movement. She’s the central person in arranging the Assange talk in Stockholm 14 August 2010. And the plan is Assange will live in her flat in the days leading up to the talk when she’s out of the city, and move to accommodations provided by the Swedish Pirate Party until his departure.
Wilén is younger. She’s 26. She has a simple job and earns an hourly wage at the Natural History Museum right outside Stockholm and as it turns out, she’s a bit of a groupie. She’s been that with Lou Reed and now again with Julian Assange.
After this brief introduction, Sundevall launches into his list of “coincidences”.
Ardin returns to her flat 13 August – one day earlier than agreed on. Assange is suddenly up against the wall. She takes Assange out to dinner, then brings him back to her flat and then invites him to her bed. They have sex again in the morning. And they keep “fooling around” for the rest of the week.
Ardin will later claim that the night 13-14 August Assange perpetrated sexual molestation against her by deliberately ripping a condom used for sex. But she doesn’t say this immediately. No no. For the next week she tells everyone how happy she is with Assange living with her and is in fact thrilled to have got him into her flat and into her bed, almost as if that had been her plan all along.
But a week later, in a police interview 21 August, she starts weaving a new story.
“Anna says that she’s felt terrible after sex 13-14 August, mostly because of her concern for being infected by HIV or some other STD.”
[Note: Ardin also said she believed the ripped condom was still in her flat but admitted she hadn’t checked it to see if it in fact was ripped. This despite her saying how terrible she felt. A few hours later she’d give the police a new condom ripped the way she’d described earlier but lacking genomic DNA as it had not been the one she and Assange used for sex. Ed.]
The talk goes off without a hitch 14 August. Ardin manages the media Q&A afterwards outside the venue. Then she organises a crayfish party in honour of Assange in the courtyard back of her flat. Testimony from others indicates most of the guests were feminist activists, one of which protested that men were allowed to attend.
People attending Ardin’s crayfish party offer to let Assange stay with them, and in fact the prior arrangement was that Assange would be staying with the Pirate Party as of that day, but Ardin rebuffed all suggestions, including those made by the Pirate Party who were also in attendance at the party. Assange would stay with her and that was that.
It’s now been 24 hours since what would later be called a sexual molestation and Ardin takes to Twitter to express her joy at having a new famous boyfriend.
“Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest and smartest people, it’s amazing!”
Ardin’s made herself Swedish press secretary for WikiLeaks, and the following day Sunday 15 August she works in that capacity at a photo shoot with Assange and the Swedish Pirate Party and manages to squeeze herself into one of the photographs together with Assange. But was Ardin only press secretary for a day or is it more likely she saw that position as more or less permanent?
[Note: This photograph was suppressed, likely at the behest of Ardin, and only recently surfaced. Ed.]
Assange meets Wilén on Monday 16 August. They go home to her flat outside Stockholm and have sex.
But it’s not until Thursday 19 August 2010 that Ardin finds out about this. Wilén rings her as she can’t reach Assange. Assange has at this point had the keys to Ardin’s flat eight days and been living there seven. But now suddenly Ardin thinks Assange should leave, which he does the following morning.
That same morning, Ardin begins “talking about it” with her friends – how Assange purportedly “raped” Wilén, even though Wilén herself has never made such a claim.
Wilén is worried she might have contracted HIV and asks Ardin what she should do. Ardin tells her the police can help. Perhaps they can force Assange to test himself. This is strange and simultaneously illustrative of the entire story.
For if they’d succeeded in getting Assange to take an HIV test and if he were in fact HIV-positive, they’d still have to determine if Wilén was HIV-positive. The obvious thing here would have been for Ardin to explain to Wilén where and how she should go to test herself without taking the detour to get a test result first from Assange. And Ardin was well aware there were several places in Stockholm where one can get such a test at a moment’s notice.
[Note: It’s not certain such a test would have been successful. Ed.]
Ardin said in her telephone interrogation 21 August that she suspected Assange of ripping a condom, yet in her contact with Wilén and the attempt to get Assange to take an HIV test, she expresses no concerns for her own situation.
So Ardin takes Wilén to the police. To a station which just happens to employ one of Ardin’s close friends who just happens to take care of the case herself. And they decide Assange shall be under suspicion of rape and sexual molestation.
Ardin begins cleaning her web presence, now that she knows Assange had another lover. She also asks the Swedish Pirate Party to remove her name from the 17 August press release where she’s listed as WikiLeaks press secretary. And on 21 August she closes down her blogs.
Ardin says in her telephone interrogation that she thought that Assange, after having sex with her for a while, withdrew from her and ripped the condom, only to continue the sex through to ejaculation. She’s asked by the police if she still has the condom at home. She says she’s not sure and will check. She gets back to them and tells them she found the condom and later gives the condom to the police. It is indeed ripped.
But considerable time has passed and Ardin may have had a lot of cleaning to do after the crayfish party. Yet somehow the condom isn’t found and disposed of.
Most importantly, the state criminal forensic lab investigates the condom and agrees the condom could have been ripped by other than mechanical means, but they also find something else rather startling: a total lack of genomic DNA. Not only is there no sign of DNA from Assange or any man, there’s no sign of Ardin either – and that’s scientifically impossible.
Claes Borgström becomes plaintiff counsel for both Ardin and Wilén. He’s a former ombudsman for equality and notorious for his rabid feminism which on occasion has been taken to extremes which even shock other radical feminists. He tried to stop Swedish participation in the World Cup 2006 on the grounds that prostitution is legal in Germany – but interestingly never made a murmur about other major sport events such as Olympic games held in countries with dictatorships.
By another coincidence, Borgström has a lady working in his office at this time who helps run an underground railroad for women who want to kidnap their children and escape Swedish justice which may have ruled in favour of shared custody or custody outright to the father.
But now Ardin’s let Borgström go. She complained of him devoting too much time (and debiting the state too much for this time) for his orchestrated “show trial” against Assange, but it could also be that he no longer belongs to the same clique of feminists as Ardin, and it could also be because of Borgström’s complicity in the Thomas Quick scandal where a drugged-out mental patient was convicted of eight murders with no evidence whatsoever, a complicity that’s led to Borgström being called “the worst lawyer in the country’s history”.
The Prosecutor Merry-Go-Round
Sundevall has run into Eva Finné on several occasions and followed her work and has only the highest regard for her, a regard that grows over time.
There are prosecutors, lawyers, and magistrates who are very trustworthy. But they are by no means in the majority. They’re individuals with a strong sense of integrity and a passion for the rule of law, individuals who stand up for their ideals and for rule of law regardless of what happens to be “politically correct” for the moment and regardless of the pressure put on them.
One of these individuals is chief prosecutor Eva Finné. I have seen and heard her in different cases through the years and my trust in her only grows stronger. She’s widely respected, to the extent that one lawyer quipped:
“You don’t want her against you. That’s one sharp motherfucker.”
Thus Eva Finné is usually assigned complicated sensitive investigations that other prosecutors can’t handle. And that’s exactly what happened in the Assange case. And that resulted in Eva Finné rescinding the arrest warrant against Assange and declaring in writing:
“I’m not of the opinion that there’s any reason to suspect he committed rape.”
A few days later she came out with a new statement where she also dismissed the allegations of sexual molestation. She clarified:
“The contents of the interrogation do not support a suspicion a crime has been committed.”
There was one allegation remaining: that of ordinary molestation, a misdemeanour punishable on the same level as speeding in traffic.
Too Many Coincidences
But then Claes Borgström appeals Finné’s dismissal of the case and the appeal lands on the desk of Marianne Ny. And Ny reopens both cases.
Is there anyone who believes this merry-go-round is pure coincidence? Anyone who doesn’t see there are things happening behind the scenes? Anyone who believes it’s pure coincidence that Assange was not interrogated on any number of occasions as he waited patiently in Sweden for the opportunity to clear his name? Anyone who believes that Marianne Ny can behave as she has without the backing of her superiors? Anyone who believes the prosecution authority does not fall under the department of justice in a case with major international repercussions such as this?
Nothing to Do
Let’s compare the Assange case with another one that also landed on the desk of Marianne Ny. The cases are of course not completely identical. But they do exhibit a remarkable similarity. The big difference is that in this other case, a woman was infected with HIV, whereas in the Assange case, no one at all was infected with anything.
So a woman’s had a relationship with a man. She’s previously tested for HIV, in September 2007 and May 2009, but results in both cases were negative.
She has a relationship with the man from May until September 2009. She claims she’s not been with another man during this time. The man doesn’t like using condoms, so they don’t use them. But in September 2009 she takes another HIV test, and this time the results are positive, so she files a police complaint against the man for aggravated assault.
She further claims that she can provide evidence for her relationship with the man because at the time she was living at a halfway house with CCTV, and the man had to provide identification to visit her, and his ID card was photocopied each time. She can also provide transcripts of online forum chats which demonstrate their relationship, and early in the investigation she identifies the man by name, country of birth, civil registration number, and residential address.
And there’s a witness who is prepared to testify how the man, who was scheduled to be tested for HIV, switched identities with the witness so the witness could take the test to yield a negative result.
The accused is today believed to be outside Sweden.
The case was dismissed by the police station in Södertörn (outside Stockholm) and an appeal was made to the office of Marianne Ny. But on 1 February 2011, her office announced that they found no reason to question the decision of the police in Södertörn to close the case. So no EAW, no Red Notice, nothing further is done. The case is closed, period, the appeal is denied.
And the decision is signed by Marianne Ny.
Radical Feminists Hijacked the Case
Various groups of extreme feminists – who evidently think they should determine how sexual relationships and sex itself should work – jumped on the Assange case. And with their narrow-mindedness, where war crimes and freedom of speech are trivial in comparison to whether sex has been carried out in a way they approve of – they took over the media, and quickly metamorphosed Assange from celebrated hero to common rapist.
Good for Good Friends of the US
Not many of the extreme feminists have a warm place in their hearts for the US, much less the CIA. On the contrary: most are likely aligned on the political left.
And yet they played right into the hands of the Good Friends of the US. Suddenly those Good Friends had something they could work with. A way to sabotage Assange’s plans to set up headquarters in Sweden.
We may learn with time exactly what happened behind the scenes but for today we can only make educated guesses.
The case has likely been discussed at high levels in the Swedish judiciary where people feel a fealty to the state. The prosecutor-general and the department of justice would be involved. Of course not formally! Not through any formal meeting! And absolutely not where someone would take the minutes of the meeting! They don’t work like that with issues that are extremely sensitive.
What they do instead is arrange to have lunch together. And they discuss the case informally over lunch. Perhaps in the Rosenbad cafeteria.
Sometimes a meet at a coffeehouse will be sufficient. And the way they’d express themselves – right out of the Claes Borgström playbook:
“Of course it’d be disastrous if… Be aware that they’re following the case closely… But you know how to handle situations like this, don’t you?”
The Transatlantic Connection
Time for a well-targeted rhetorical question by Sundevall.
Is there anyone who doesn’t understand there have been informal communications between people from the US embassy and carefully selected Swedes about a case with such staggering international political ramifications?
WikiLeaks recently released documents which show that Carl Bildt was squealing to his US friends about secret Swedish government deliberations. The US knew what was happening before the Swedish political parties – much less the Swedish people – knew about it. And let’s not forget that we live in a country where the CIA was permitted to abduct Swedish citizens at a Swedish airport with the cooperation of Swedish intel operatives and fly them away to torture dungeons in Egypt. Drug them out, dress them in diapers, blindfold them and handcuff them – next stop: Mubarak.
3 Hans Crescent
Today Assange is in the embassy of Ecuador in London. He’s suspected of sex crimes in Sweden. The US and the CIA couldn’t ask for better. Neither could the “Good Friends of the US”. If he’s rendered to the US, they’d have major problems both domestically and internationally if he was convicted and sentenced.
But Julian Assange remains at the embassy only as long as Marianne Ny and her puppet masters wish it so. If the prosecutor and the police did what they usually do in such circumstances – go to London and question him on the spot or interrogate him via video link – then this case would have been finished long ago.
Assange has continually and repeatedly maintained he’d like to be questioned. And the result would be: “no crime committed”. But the Swedish government doesn’t want such an outcome.
Sweden’s own puppet masters don’t want such an outcome either.
The Lab Results
These are the lab results presented to Chief Inspector Mats Gehlin on Monday 25 October 2010. At this point, only one interrogation remained (that of Marie Thorn).
Gehlin had submitted two condoms to the state crime lab SKL (Statens kriminaltekniska laboratorium, http://skl.polisen.se) on 25 August, exactly two months earlier, which was quite the feat, as one came from Sofia Wilén – even though Chief Inspector Eva Finné, who was in charge of both Sofia Wilén and Anna Ardin’s cases at the time, had demonstratively closed the more serious part relating to Wilén, stating that ‘no crime had been committed’; and she expressly ordered Gehlin to keep his ‘hands off’. Nonetheless, Gehlin submitted Wilén’s condom under Ardin’s case number.
The lab results, available two months later, seemed to have perplexed the good inspector. He’d not asked the lab to check for DNA, only to see if they could determine how the condoms had been torn. But they did a DNA test anyway, and came up with some rather shattering results, results the Swedish media have done their best to hide from the citizenry ever since.
The condom submitted by Anna Ardin showed no traces whatsoever of chromosomal (genomic) DNA – meaning the condom cannot have been used for sex.
Client ID: AB/7525-10/G001
SKL number: 201001231101
Handling of materials: returned separately
Methods used: B-SF02*, B-M55*, B-SF03*, B-M56*, B-M71*, B-M72*
|Condom||Part of condom
Client ID: Condom
SKL number: 201001231102
Handling of materials: returned separately
Methods used: B-SF02*, B-M55*, B-SF03*, B-M56*, B-M71*, B-M72*
The objective is to investigate in which way condom AB/7525-10/G001 and the part of condom ‘Condom’ have been damaged.
Investigation of damages is not part of the accreditation of the laboratory according to ISO/IEC 17025. The results of the DNA tests are returned separately.
Investigation and Conclusions
|Investigation of damages||Condom AB/7525-10/G001 was thoroughly damaged in the front. The edges of the damage were studied under microscope. No traces were found that could have been caused by tools. On the other hand, small scratches were found in the area close to the damaged area, perpendicular to the length of the damage.Test damage was achieved on the back part of the condom with a knife and with scissors and by ripping off the back part. The surface of the damaged area was similar to that of the torn part, whilst the surfaces damaged by the tools showed a number of small scratches. The appearance of the front torn part of the condom is seen in picture 1.ConclusionThe results indicate that the damage in the front part of condom AB/7525-10/G001 has been achieved by tearing the condom (Grade +2).|
|Condom||Part of condom|
|Investigation of damages||The condom part ‘Condom’ was the front part of a condom, see picture 2. The ripped edge was studied under microscope. No traces that could have been made by tools were seen at the edges. Small scratches were observed in some areas near the ripped edge and perpendicular to the ripped edge. The appearance of the ripped edge was reminiscent of the ripped edge of condoms that were ripped in the laboratory.ConclusionThe results indicate that the ripped edge of the condom part ‘Condom’ have been achieved by tearing the condom (Grade +2).|
|Investigation of damages||First forensic scientist Lennart Jonasson (chief inspector) forensic scientist Bengt Forsby|
SKL grade assessments on a scale from -4 to +4. The assessment given to the results for the two condoms submitted by Mats Gehlin is therefore the third highest. Following are the top assessments available from SKL.
|Grade +4||The results indicate with certainty that…
The possibility of achieving these results if another hypothesis is true is assessed to be nonexistent.
|Grade +3||The results indicate strongly that…
The possibility of achieving these results if another hypothesis is true is assessed to be very small.
|Grade +2||The results indicate that…
The possibility of achieving these results if another hypothesis is true is assessed to be small.
|Grade +1||The results to some extent indicate that…
The results lend somewhat more support for the proposed hypothesis than for other hypotheses.
|Grade 0||The results are indecisive
The results do not lend more support for the proposed hypothesis than for other hypotheses.
Three Days Later
A perplexed Mats Gehlin contacted the crime lab three days later on Thursday 28 October 2010. Gehlin’s report was added to the case file at 15:24 that afternoon.
Conversation with SKL
I spoke with forensic scientist Anders Nilsson at SKL to get a clarification about the results of the DNA tests.
In an earlier memo, I’ve written that the condom used by Anna Ardin didn’t have DNA. This is not true according to Anders Nilsson. He said he saw something but couldn’t make out what it was. They’ve decided to test the condom with a more sophisticated method. This method will take approximately two weeks. I didn’t speak with Anders Nilsson last time.
Anders Nilsson explains that it’s not the amount of DNA that’s decisive in their ability to detect DNA. There can be many reasons they can’t detect better.
– Something disturbs the analysis. Such as dirt.
– Too small quantities of DNA.
– People emit different quantities of DNA.
– The object has been altered after use by being washed, wiped off.
These were some examples of what can influence the analysis of DNA but there are further factors as well.
Five Days Earlier
Mats Gehlin filed a separate report five days before the lab results were returned. He’d evidently been in contact with the lab at that time. His filing is stamped 15:08 20 October 2010.
A conversation with SKL yielded the following.
The condom from the residence of complainant 2 [Ardin] had no traces of DNA.
Vaginal swabs from complainant 1 [Wilén] had DNA from complainant 1 [Wilén] and a man.
The bit of condom found in the residence of complainant 1 [Wilén] had DNA from complainant 1 [Wilén] and the same man found on the vaginal swabs.
Complainant 1 [Wilén] did not notice that a condom broke as it was dark in the room, and when the suspect put on the condom, she heard a noise as if he were pulling on a balloon. The bit of condom was found under the bed, under the part of the bed where the suspect was lying when he put on the condom.