Panama Papers

[Harvey]

As a case in point, Trumps overtures to the terminally cynical were almost enough right here. Despite everything else he'd already said.

[MacCruiskeen]

I am waiting for big American names to emerge

I wish you a very long life.

[Luther Blissett]

Something like 7% of Iceland's total population just protested to oust Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson. I'd be happy with just a fraction of that domestically to defenestrate Kappa Beta Phi oligarchs.

[JackRiddler]

It's certainly striking that the most prominent (and, so far, only) actual casualty of this massively-publicised leak is not called, say, Blair, Bush, Clinton, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Kissinger, Branson, Zuckerberg, Gates, Trump, or even J. K. Rowling, but [cue drum roll]... Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson.

Like the installation of Obama, this may turn out to be another act of system-legitimizing brilliance. Correct me if I'm wrong (and post the Big Names* here as they "emerge").

*"Big Names" may of course include CEOs, bank managers, corporate bigshots, etc, who are unfamous in the sense that they are not necessarily household names or celebrities. I am just curious to see if anyone other than the Prime Minister of the world's tiniest country will actually suffer by this.

I am waiting for big American names to emerge

Yes it is striking, but they are certainly in there - many by name (such as Cameron's father) and no doubt all of them by association (using the same method by which they implicate Putin personally). This is the psyop - or in my metaphor, the false flag planted on the iceberg to misdirect attention from its bulk.

There is no way a lot of this stuff is not going to come out, and much of it sooner rather than later - 400 reporters have access, they are not all "Skull and Bones," and of course they are in competition.

They have released aggregated data along these lines:



None of those names named, and it will get obvious if none are named soon.

There is also the matter of the leaker still being out there and, according to the story, completely unknown to the consortium. If (s)he's a pirate/hacker rather than an insider with a specific interest, then (s)he can still put it all out searcheable after a few weeks. (That would really confirm whether or not the leaker is a relatively honest actor.)

In fact, the weakness of the psyop (the spin) so far (including the concession that Putin's name does not even appear, but Poroshenko's does) indicates that the journos are aware of how much they're hiding and know what bullshit they're fronting for a start. No doubt S.Z. gets dibs initially and national papers on their own national shit. But then they'll start competing with each other, very likely.

[Luther Blissett]

Of course American Dream posted an essay mentioning Mossack Fonseca back in 2008.

Israel and The Ongoing Holocaust in Congo (part 1)

In 2003, the U.N. Panel of Experts on war in Congo revealed that Emaxon Finance International is controlled by Israeli diamond traders Chaim Leibovitz and Dan Gertler.[43] Emaxon lists as its address an office in Montreal, Canada, but Emaxon’s majority shareholder is listed as FTS Worldwide, a nebulous global corporation whose business address is that of a firm of lawyers, Mossack Fonseca & Company, in Panama City. FTS Worldwide is registered with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission to lawyer Andre Zolty of Geneva Switzerland. A copy of the MIBA—Emaxon contract was signed on 13 April 2003 by Israeli-Americans Yaakov Neeman and Chaim Leibovitz. [44]

This thread is very good by the way.

[Sounder]

On the issue of lack of coverage in the US press; if this were a gov. or CIA op wouldn't the papers have more ready made copy for the story?

Whereas if this came from a private leaker, the papers might need to get some direction before committing to any story.

[JackRiddler]

I'm also liking that it's McClatchy as the American partner. Or has this outfit changed since back when it was the only one telling some truths about the U.S. aggressive war in Iraq?

With 400 involved it's implausible to think that none of them is searching, e.g., all the names associated with the presidential candidates. And they've said HSBC, UBS and Societe are all in there.

[MacCruiskeen]

There is no way a lot of this stuff is not going to come out, and much of it sooner rather than later - 400 reporters have access,

Jack, you are talking about the same Fourth Estate that so fearlessly investigated 9/11. Or rather, you are talking about a Fourth Estate that is even more cowed and much more depleted in numbers than it was back then in the olden days, when people still bought newspapers that still (very occasionally) employed the in all senses odd investigative journalist worthy of the name.

Apropos: Where's John Pilger?

they are not all "Skull and Bones"

Of course they aren't, and of course they don't have to be. They just have to survive and operate within the imposed parameters and filter their best investigative efforts through them thar filters.

Scandals of leaks

The authors point to biases that are based on only reporting scandals which benefit a section of power, while ignoring scandals that hurt the powerless. The biggest example of this was how the US media greatly covered the Watergate Scandal but ignored the COINTELPRO exposures. While the Watergate break-in was a political threat to powerful people (Democrats), COINTELPRO harmed average citizens and went as far as political assassination. Other examples include coverage of the Iran-Contra Scandal by only focusing on people in power such as Oliver North but omitting coverage of the civilians killed in Nicaragua as the result of aid to the contras.

In a 2010 interview, Chomsky compared media coverage of the Afghan War Diaries released by Wikileaks and lack of media coverage to a study of severe health problems in Fallujah.[11] While there was ample coverage of Wikileaks there was no American coverage of the Fallujah study,[12] in which the health situation in Fallujah was described by the British media as "worse than Hiroshima".[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagand ... s_of_leaks

and of course they are in competition

With whom? It's more than their bleeding job's worth.

Maybe the Prime Ministers of Lithuania and Liechtenstein are shaking in their boot(ee)s as we speak, but I doubt it'll go any further than that, if even that far.

(There are few things I would rather be totally wrong about, btw. We shall see.)

[JackRiddler]

I think the dynamics are different here than with 9/11, certainly, or any other story that has a clear national center. This one does not. And things have changed since 9/11 - not the perception of what comprises "terrorism," but the perception that the entire political economy of the world in every country is corrupt and plutocratic to the core has come to prevail as a majority, near-consensus opinion. A journo in one country can make bones with a scoop on dealings in another. (There's no way there won't be an attempt to link to the U.S. election, for example.) We'll know when I'm wrong, but for me the transparency of "Putin" psyop indicates a distractionary overture to some meat. It's like they start the show by going to church first.

[seemslikeadream]

it is so refreshing to be wished a long life here .....

thanks Mac

[MacCruiskeen]

Craig Murray, yesterday:

Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak
3 Apr, 2016 in Uncategorized by craig

Whoever leaked the Mossack Fonseca papers appears motivated by a genuine desire to expose the system that enables the ultra wealthy to hide their massive stashes, often corruptly obtained and all involved in tax avoidance. These Panamanian lawyers hide the wealth of a significant proportion of the 1%, and the massive leak of their documents ought to be a wonderful thing.

Unfortunately the leaker has made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media to publicise the results. In consequence the first major story, published today by the Guardian, is all about Vladimir Putin and a cellist on the fiddle. As it happens I believe the story and have no doubt Putin is bent.

But why focus on Russia? Russian wealth is only a tiny minority of the money hidden away with the aid of Mossack Fonseca. In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the selective reporting is going to stink.

The Suddeutsche Zeitung, which received the leak, gives a detailed explanation of the methodology the corporate media used to search the files. The main search they have done is for names associated with breaking UN sanctions regimes. The Guardian reports this too and helpfully lists those countries as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Russia and Syria. The filtering of this Mossack Fonseca information by the corporate media follows a direct western governmental agenda. There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca by massive western corporations or western billionaires – the main customers. And the Guardian is quick to reassure that “much of the leaked material will remain private.”

What do you expect? The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists”, which is funded and organised entirely by the USA’s Center for Public Integrity. Their funders include

Ford Foundation
Carnegie Endowment
Rockefeller Family Fund
W K Kellogg Foundation
Open Society Foundation (Soros)

among many others. Do not expect a genuine expose of western capitalism. The dirty secrets of western corporations will remain unpublished.

Expect hits at Russia, Iran and Syria and some tiny “balancing” western country like Iceland. A superannuated UK peer or two will be sacrificed – someone already with dementia.

The corporate media – the Guardian and BBC in the UK – have exclusive access to the database which you and I cannot see. They are protecting themselves from even seeing western corporations’ sensitive information by only looking at those documents which are brought up by specific searches such as UN sanctions busters. Never forget the Guardian smashed its copies of the Snowden files on the instruction of MI6.

What if they did Mossack Fonseca database searches on the owners of all the corporate media and their companies, and all the editors and senior corporate media journalists? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on all the most senior people at the BBC? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every donor to the Center for Public Integrity and their companies?

What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every listed company in the western stock exchanges, and on every western millionaire they could trace?

That would be much more interesting. I know Russia and China are corrupt, you don’t have to tell me that. What if you look at things that we might, here in the west, be able to rise up and do something about?

And what if you corporate lapdogs let the people see the actual data?

UPDATE

Hundreds of thousands of people have read this post in the 11 hours since it was published – despite it being overnight here in the UK. There are 235,918 “impressions” on twitter (as twitter calls them) and over 3,700 people have “shared” so far on Facebook, bringing scores of new readers each.

I would remind you that this blog is produced free for the public good and you are welcome to republish or re-use this article or any other material freely anywhere without requesting further permission.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... nama-leak/

Emphases added.

[seemslikeadream]

it's been posted twice here already ...but needed to be mentioned again...for emphases and maybe another poster who hadn't read it yet

[MacCruiskeen]

Ah. Well.

Do I repeat myself? Very well, then, I repeat myself.

Or rather I repeat Mr. Murray. And it's well worth a repeated repeat, not least for his reminder that this leak is brought to us (so far, very selectively) by "the grandly but laughably named 'International Consortium of Investigative Journalists' ”

"Consortium", forsooth!

(Had any of you ever even heard of this outfit before? I hadn't. They appear to be a remarkably shy & retiring bunch of investigative journalists, especially considering there's such strength in numbers and all that.)

And the Guardian is quick to reassure that “much of the leaked material will remain private.”

Well, they would, wouldn't they?

[MacCruiskeen]

From the comments under an article at the indispensable Off-Guardian:

Jen

April 5, 2016

I said this over at the Kremlin Stooge comment forums, so I think it worth repeating here:

It would seem that whoever hacked and leaked the email information from Mossack Fonseca’s database must have been a pretty sophisticated hacker – because I imagine that Mossack Fonseca’s client database must have strong or complicated Chinese walls to stop most hackers from trying to see who’s there – and that person must be a government-paid hacker, perhaps a freelancer on contract to a security agency (as Ed Snowden was once upon a time: not a hacker but someone employed on contract). That might explain why as yet no US, EU, IMF or World Bank officials appear in the leaks: the hacker’s employer has told him or her to leave off those people while it busies itself preparing to contact governments that the hacker has dirt on politicians and civil servants in the US, EU etc and can threaten to give such information to ICIJ reporters if the politicians and public service people do not do as required by the hacker or his/her employers. Who is willing to guess that the hacker is working for an intelligence or surveillance agency?

I got this reply from Fern (and I hope she does not mind me repeating it here):

I suspect you are right, Jen. If the supplier of this data was a private individual, perhaps an employee or former employee of MF’s, they must be extraordinarily naive to hand such material over to corporate media rather than Wikileaks. If you were going to take risks, perhaps great risks, to get hold of this material, wouldn’t you do some pretty thorough research on who, exactly, the intended recipients were and what they were likely to do with it? No, data stolen to order fits the bill more closely.

Liked by 3 people

OffG Editor
April 5, 2016

Absolutely. The same seems possible in re. the recent spate of pedophile shaming done in the British media. Those implicated were mostly dead or relatively unimportant, but it might have been a timely warning to others in the Establishment of what might happen should they fail to toe the line.

[seemslikeadream]

That might explain why as yet no US, EU, IMF or World Bank officials appear in the leaks