Beullogeo's

Secret US Embassy Cables, Wikileaks:

Wikileaks began on Sunday November 28th publishing 251,287 leaked United States embassy cables, the largest set of confidential documents ever to be released into the public domain. The documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight into US Government foreign activities.

The cables, which date from 1966 up until the end of February this year, contain confidential communications between 274 embassies in countries throughout the world and the State Department in Washington DC. 15,652 of the cables are classified Secret.

The embassy cables will be released in stages over the next few months. The subject matter of these cables is of such importance, and the geographical spread so broad, that to do otherwise would not do this material justice.

The cables show the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in "client states"; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations; and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them.

This document release reveals the contradictions between the US’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors – and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they should ask to see what’s going on behind the scenes.

So far 278 of 251287 cables have been released.

How 250,000 US embassy cables were leaked, guardian.co.uk:

What will emerge in the days and weeks ahead is an unprecedented picture of secret diplomacy as conducted by the planet's sole superpower. There are 251,287 dispatches in all, from more than 250 US embassies and consulates. They reveal how the US deals with both its allies and its enemies – negotiating, pressuring and sometimes brusquely denigrating foreign leaders, all behind the firewalls of ciphers and secrecy classifications that diplomats assume to be secure. The leaked cables range up to the "SECRET NOFORN" level, which means they are meant never to be shown to non-US citizens.

Or for that matter to citizens.

Although their contents are often startling and troubling, the cables are unlikely to gratify conspiracy theorists. They do not contain evidence of assassination plots, CIA bribery or such criminal enterprises as the Iran-Contra scandal in the Reagan years, when anti-Nicaraguan guerrillas were covertly financed.

One reason may be that America's most sensitive "top secret" and above foreign intelligence files cannot be accessed from Siprnet, the defence department network involved.

Nothing to see here "conspiracy theorists", only "an unprecedented picture of secret diplomacy as conducted by the planet's sole superpower".

WikiLeaks: Russians smell anti-Obama conspiracy - CSMonitor.com:

In Russian political culture, the secret services, Kremlin leaders, and business oligarchs have long practiced the dark arts of kompromat, spreading misinformation to blacken opponents’ reputations and influence public moods. So they suspect that there has to be something or someone with a hidden agenda standing behind WikiLeaks.

“I have no doubt that this was a prepared operation, probably by [the] US secret services," says Alexei Mukhin, director of the independent Center for Political Information in Moscow. “I find it improbable that US authorities couldn't deal with one guy (Mr. Assange) if they really wanted to. No, this is clearly being done as an instrument of destabilization," he says.

The most popular theory is that the massive outing of classified State Department communications is designed to make Obama look weak, inept, and unable to control his own government machinery.

“This will obviously damage Obama and his policies,” says Sergei Strokan, a foreign affairs columnist with the Moscow business daily Kommersant. “Obama made a strong emphasis on international affairs, outreach to the Muslim world, and resetting relations with Russia. These leaks show that many diplomats take a privately cynical view of those goals, or are actually working at cross purposes to them. All these disclosures will be a serious blow to America's new image in the world, and will only undercut Obama.”

The guardian.co.uk article above notes that they have had the diplomatic cable data since "earlier this year". I don't have time or inclination to read all 250K cables nor more than a little of the smokescreen of spin and misdirection thrown up around them. Instead I'd like to focus on what the cables reveal about "GOI" (government of Israel), its obsession with Iran, and its relations with "USG" (United States government), especially concerning attempts to justify and precipitate a USG attack on Iran.

In the misleadingly-titled article Saudi Arabia urges US attack on Iran to stop nuclear programme, guardian.co.uk, the authors write:

No US ally is keener on military action than Israel, and officials there have repeatedly warned that time is running out.

guardian.co.uk has so far placed 16 Israel-related cables online with their own title and highlighting. They do not link the corresponding Wikileaks pages.

The misleadingly-titled article links US embassy cables: Ehud Barak sets deadline to resolve Iran nuclear ambitions (02 June 2009):

When asked if the use of force on Iran might backfire with moderate Muslims in Pakistan, thereby exacerbating the situation, Barak acknowledged Iran and Pakistan are interconnected, but disagreed with a causal chain. To the contrary, he argued that if the United States had directly confronted North Korea in recent years, others would be less inclined to pursue nuclear weapons programs. By avoiding confrontation with Iran, Barak argued, the U.S. faces a perception of weakness in the region.

Another guardian.co.uk article, Israel primed to attack a nuclear Iran, links more cables which actually indicate GOI priming USG to attack Iran. These cables include US embassy cables: Israel sees Iran's uranium enrichment as 'point of no return' (17 March 2005) which refers to an "Israeli Preference for USG and UNSC Involvement" and US embassy cables: Mossad says US and Israel agree on Iran (17 March 2005):

Acknowledging that there are at times differences in analysis of the facts, [Mossad Chief Meir] Dagan stressed that it is similarities rather than differences that are at the heart of the GOI-U.S. intelligence relationship, particularly on Iran.

US embassy cables: US pressed to maintain Israel's 'qualitative military edge' (30 July 2009) provides an example of less direct pressure whereby USG helps ensure GOI's political-military supremacy in the region:

A/S [US assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs Andrew] Shapiro stressed the importance of the U.S-Israeli political-military relationship, noting the significance of visiting Israel on his first overseas trip in his capacity as Assistant Secretary for the Political-Military Affairs Bureau.

GOI officials reiterated the importance of maintaining Israel's Qualitative Military Edge (QME).

[MFA's (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) Deputy Director General for Strategic Affairs Alon] Bar argued that a perceived closure in the capability gap between Israel and Arab states, coupled with a nuclear-armed Iran, could compel moderate Arab states to reassess the notion that Israel was a fixture in the region.

In contrast, Saudi efforts to influence USG contrast are direct. US embassy cables: Saudi king urges US strike on Iran (20 April 2008):

The King, Foreign Minister, Prince Muqrin, and Prince Nayif all agreed that the Kingdom needs to cooperate with the US on resisting and rolling back Iranian influence and subversion in Iraq. The King was particularly adamant on this point, and it was echoed by the senior princes as well. Al-Jubeir recalled the King's frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program. "He told you to cut off the head of the snake," he recalled to the Charge', adding that working with the US to roll back Iranian influence in Iraq is a strategic priority for the King and his government.

GOI has responded to the leaked cables by spinning it as a good thing.

Israel greets WikiLeaks cables as vindication of its Iran policy, CSMonitor.com:

"I don't see any damage. Quite the opposite,'' said Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, in an interview with Israel Radio. "Maybe there's an indirect benefit that the truth is coming out, that the entire Middle East, including Arab states, are very fearful from the Iranian nuclear threat, and are calling on the West to be much more aggressive toward Iran.''

The revelation of regional support for Israel's hard-line approach to Iran was seen as such a boon that Sever Plocker, a columnist for the daily Yediot Ahronot newspaper, quipped, "If the WikiLeaks site did not exist, Israel would have to invent it.''

"The massive leak of American diplomatic telegrams indicates a single picture, sharp and clear," he added. "The entire world, not just Israel, is panicked over the Iranian nuclear program.''

Actually the sharp, clear picture is that GOI is more panicked than anyone else over Iran, and that they desperately want "the entire world", but especially USG, to serve Israeli interests under the misguided belief that we are serving our own.

Part of GOI's "Qualitative Military Edge" includes nuclear weapons. Part of what could be called GOI's "Qualitative Political Edge" is that these weapons are rarely mentioned or questioned, though when they are the picture comes through sharp and clear:

In 2003, Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at Israel’s Hebrew University, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence.[19] Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's "The Gun and the Olive Branch" (2003) as saying "I consider it all hopeless at this point. ... We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under." He quoted General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."

UPDATE, 1 Dec 2010: Wikileaks has dubbed this Cablegate. At the moment the Wikileak web server hosting the cables (cablegate.wikileaks.org AKA ec2-184-72-37-90.us-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com) is offline.

The recent turmoil in Iran and our regime's reaction to it are of interest even to those of us who aren't much concerned which hostile alien runs a country full of hostile aliens on the other side of the planet.

For example, contrast the media's intense interest in iran with it's interest in the ongoing violence right next door. The Los Angeles Times has written about Mexico's Drug War, as have others. From their own occasional reports the situation is so out of control they can hardly ignore it. "Mexico Under Siege - The drug war at our doorstep", "It's a war. - Mexican President Felipe Calderon", writes the LAT. Yet despite the occasional splash of recognition nothing much else happens.

When will the regime show some sustained concern, and when will someone in the media ask Obama "what took you so long" to address the war next door, across a border you don't want to defend?

The answer is never. Or at least not until the regime is toppled.

Violent immigrant aliens, economic crisis, and an outbreak of disease all cause the regime to leap to the defense of the aliens. Meanwhile they officially recognize native Whites as their most feared enemy, even acknowledging that we're displeased by and reacting to their own behavior. What's lacking is a broader recognition of the strength and nature of this assault on Whites.

Much of the attention the media has directed toward iran has the curious effect of revealing their double standards on political rights and censorship. In iran we're told the "cracking down" on people trying to express themselves is a hallmark of totalitarianism and thuggery. Meanwhile at home in the West the same media plays an instrumental role in demonizing "racism" and "hate".

Attempted Iran media clampdown meets Internet age contains a typical example of the media's attitude toward iran:

CNN turned in part to the social-networking sites, broadcasting images posted on Facebook and Twitter, and explaining on-air that it was using "creativity" to cover a big event under government restrictions.

"We cannot verify readily some of this material that we're going to show you," correspondent David Mattingly warned viewers. Much of the material on Twitter is posted anonymously.

CNN spokeswoman Bridget Leininger said that adding context and explaining issues was necessary when reporting with such online sources. "We are committed to making the most information available in a tough news environment, while being totally transparent with the audience," she said.

Yes indeed they are committed to using "creativity" to get the word out about the events in an alien country. At home however they demonstrate a decided lack of interest in the squashing of White political free expression. The case of Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle for instance. The Mail's Race-hate Britons return to UK for sentencing is fairly typical of the sparse, unsympathetic coverage:

Two Britons who fled to the United States after they were accused of waging a campaign of hate against Jews and other minority groups appeared in front of a British court today after they were returned to the UK.

Simon Sheppard, 52, and Stephen Whittle, 42, were convicted of a number of race-hate crimes at Leeds Crown Court following two lengthy trials, the last of which finished in January.

The investigation into the men began when a complaint about a leaflet called 'Tales of the Holohoax' was reported to the police in 2004 after it was pushed through the door of a Synagogue in Blackpool.

Here we see evidence, and only after the outcome of the case has been locked down tight, of the single standard behind what only seems to be a double standard. They sing the praises of free expression so that someone, anyone, replaces Mr. Wipe Israel Off the Map, while mostly burying their own disgust with the free expression of Sheppard and Whittle. Whether with iran or the persecution of our own free speaking heretics, the regime is concerned primarily about what's best for jews. It's a rhetorical question, but Whose Country Is This Anyway?

Here's another example of the government and its media being on the same page:

In what appeared to be a coordinated exchange, President Obama called on the Huffington Post's Nico Pitney near the start of his press conference and requested a question directly about Iran.

“Nico, I know you and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming out of Iran,” Obama said, addressing Pitney. “I know there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?”

Pitney, as if ignoring what Obama had just said, said: “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.”

He then noted that the site had solicited questions from people in the country “who were still courageous enough to be communicating online.”

Iranian aliens are able to ask questions of the US president. Iranian aliens are "courageous" to communicate online.

Reporters typically don’t coordinate their questions for the president before press conferences, so it seemed odd that Obama might have an idea what the question would be. Also, it was a departure from White House protocol by calling on The Huffington Post second, in between the AP and Reuters.

The media, the government, and jewish activists (specifically the SPLC) have most assuredly coordinated their own anti-White activities here at home.

Bonnie Erbe, a media heavyweight who just happens to be jewish, responded to an attack in which a single non-jew was killed by calling for the government to Round Up Hate-Promoters Now, Before Any More Holocaust Museum Attacks:

If yesterday's Holocaust Museum slaying of security guard and national hero Stephen Tyrone Johns is not a clarion call for banning hate speech, I don't know what is. Playwright Janet Langhart Cohen appeared on CNN yesterday right after the shooting, as she wrote a play that was supposed to have been debuted at the Holocaust Museum last night. Her play is about Emmett Till, whose lynching helped launch the Civil Rights Movement, and Ann Frank, whose diary told the story of Holocaust victims in hiding in the Netherlands during World War II.

She said something must be done about ridding the Internet and the public dialogue of hate speech. I agree.

The regime wants the internet open to iranian aliens (at least for now), and closed to "hate speakers". In fact silencing "hate" isn't enough. They want to "Round Up Hate-Promoters Now". Erbe's hysterical attitude reveals her own hate. The dishonest and hypocritical language of "hate" provides a politically correct way for jews to openly do themselves, from positions of power, what they constantly accuse powerless "haters" of wanting to do to them. They project their own thoughts onto others and then cry "hate!" It's disgusting as well as hateful.