Highly trained covert operative. Lulling, lulling you I say, into a false sense of security.

In case you missed it, over the past few weeks Wikileaks founder and public head Julian Assange has been charged with multiple rape, and then had the rape charges dropped and replaced with “molestation”, which in Sweden translates as “being a bit of a bother”.

One of the weird parts of the case is that Assange claimed that he had been warned by Australian Intelligence agents to expect “dirty tricks” being used against him in the near future. When the trumped-up rape charge surfaced Assange believed that this was what he had been warned about and announced that he thought he was being targeted by someone.

Naturally, this lead to a lot of people going completely off the edge. On the one hand you had people claiming that it was definitely the CIA/the masons/the Bilderberger Group/(any one of the dozens of large companies that Wikileaks has pissed off).

And on the other hand you had people like Reason Magazine’s bloggers claiming that the whole thing was a crazy conspiracy theory and that there was no chance Assange was being set up, particularly not by the CIA.

Well, I can think of 5 reasons to disagree.

See the truck symbolises US intelligence and the letters symbolise words that are used to convey ideas to the reader.

This is not because I think Assange was set up. In fact I think this is merely a case of a frustrated activist trying to get some easy press. But the idea that this couldn’t be the work of the CIA, or another intelligence group, is pretty damn silly.

Firstly, because Wikileaks has already exposed one plan that US military intelligence had to destroy them.

And secondly because, if you look at history, the CIA has already admitted to doing things that are much worse, and sometimes down right weird.

Personally I think Democracy works much better as a threat than as a set of ideals to aspire to.

Number 1: It’s Democracy If We Say It Is

Despite its claims to be “defenders of Democracy” the CIA has, on several occassions, done the exact opposite.

Envision the following scenario:
I. A country gets an independent, Democratic government.
II. The United States asks that government to do something for them (usually opening the country to foreign investment or something like that)
III. The country refuses (the reasons range from anti-American paranoia to genuine understanding of how badly they could get fucked)
IV. America declares that the country is either Communist, or about to become Communist.
V. The CIA organises a coup that destroys the democratic government and replaces it with a brutal dictatorship/Junta that oppresses the people and does whatever the CIA tells them to do.

Sound implausible? I hope not because here is the short list of the countries where the CIA has destroyed Democracy, and set up a dictorship (or something like it):




The Congo

and Brazil

Friends, that’s the fucking short list. It doesn’t even include those countries like Honduras, Colombia and Venezuela where the CIA has trained local death squads in…well… death.

Also: torture.

So the idea that the CIA wouldn’t stoop to smearing a perceived “enemy” is totally absurd. They have destroyed entire governments that they decided they didn’t like.

Ah, Ronald Reagan. Third worst US President after Warren G. Harding and George W. Bush.

Number 2: The Enemy Of My Enemy is On Crack and Waving a Gun Around

So, after the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and put the Shah in place as a dictator most Iranians didn’t like America. After the Shah was overthrown by Muslim fundamentalists the feeling became became mutual.

So then why, during the 80s, did the US start selling weapons to Iran?

Why, that’s simple: the CIA didn’t want to have to move all that cocaine.


Stick with me folks, this crap gets complicated. Basically the missiles and other weapons were sold to Iran for two reasons. Firstly, to encourage Iran to try and rescue American hostages¬† who were being held by Hezbollah. Secondly, the money made from the arms sales was then funnelled to the Contras, which is an umbrella term for a number of Nicaraguan “resistance” organisations including those that used openly terrorist tactics while trying to overthrow the government of Nicaragua.

But when that plan failed the CIA hit on an even better idea: assist the contras in cocaine trafficking. This would solve the money problem without the need to sell weapons to Iran.

Now sure, this sounds bad. But it gets much worse when you ask: exactly where were they shipping all that cocaine to?

Think about it…

And then let me spell it out for you: AMERICA!

The CIA knowingly helped terrorist groups smuggle cocaine into their own country!

In other words when African Americans say that “the government brought crack into the ghetto to keep poor people down” they are actually only half wrong.

So the idea that the CIA gives any kind of shit about the consequences of their actions on innocent people is just silly.

(Concluded on Page 2)

Related Posts: