Selective Leaks Of The #PanamaPapers Create Huge Blackmail Potential
A real leak of data from a law firm in Panama would be very interesting. Many rich people and/or politicians hide money in shell companies that such firms in Panama provide. But the current heavily promoted "leak" of such data to several NATO supporting news organization and a US government financed "Non Government Organization" is just a lame attempt to smear some people the U.S. empire dislikes. It also creates a huge blackmail opportunity by NOT publishing certain data in return for this or that desired favor.
Already some 16 month ago Ken Silverstein reported for Vice on a big shady shell company provider, Mossak Fonseca in Panama. (Pierre Omidyar's Intercept, for which Silverstein was then working, refused to publish the piece.) Yves Smith published several big stories about the Mossak Fonseca money laundering business. Silverstein also repeated the well known fact that Rami Makhlouf, a rich cousin of the Syrian president Assad, had some money hidden in Mossak Fonseca shell companies. He explains:
To conduct business, shell companies like Drex need a registered agent, sometimes an attorney, who files the required incorporation papers and whose office usually serves as the shell's address. This process creates a layer between the shell and its owner, especially if the dummy company is filed in a secrecy haven where ownership information is guarded behind an impenetrable wall of laws and regulations. In Makhlouf's case—and, I discovered, in the case of various other crooked businessmen and international gangsters—the organization that helped incorporate his shell company and shield it from international scrutiny was a law firm called Mossack Fonseca, which had served as Drex's registered agent from July 4, 2000, to late 2011.
A year ago someone provided tons of data from Mossak Fonseca to a German newpaper, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung. The Munich daily is politically on the center right and staunchly pro NATO. It cooperates with the Guardian, the BBC, Le Monde, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and some other news organization who are all known supporters of the establishment.
The Sueddeutsche claims that the "leaked" data is about some 214,000 shell companies and 14,000 Mossak Fonseca clients. There is surely a lot of hidden dirt in there. How many U.S. Senators are involved in such companies? Which European Union politicians? What are the big Wall Street banks and hedge funds hiding in Panama? Oh, sorry. The Sueddeutsche and its partners will not answer those questions. Here is how they "analyzed" the data:
The journalists compiled lists of important politicians, international criminals, and well-known professional athletes, among others. The digital processing made it possible to then search the leak for the names on these lists. The "party donations scandal" list contained 130 names, and the UN sanctions list more than 600. In just a few minutes, the powerful search algorithm compared the lists with the 11.5 million documents.For each name found, a detailed research process was initiated that posed the following questions: what is this person’s role in the network of companies? Where does the money come from? Where is it going? Is this structure legal?
Essentially the Sueddeutsche compiled a list of known criminals and people and organizations the U.S. dislikes and cross checked them with the "leaked" database. Selected hits were then further evaluated. The outcome are stories like the annual attempt to smear the Russian president Putin, who is not even mentioned in the Mossak Fonseca data, accusations against various people of the soccer association FIFA, much disliked by the U.S., and a few mentions of other miscreants of minor relevancy.
There is no story about any U.S. person, none at all, nor about any important NATO politician. The highest political "casualty" so far is the irrelevant Prime Minister of Iceland Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson who, together with his wife, owned one of the shell companies. There is no evidence that the ownership or the money held by that company were illegal.
So where is the beef?
As former UK ambassador Craig Murray writes, the beef (if there is any at all) is in what is hidden by the organizations that manage the "leak":
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)
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) is part of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) which is financed by the U.S. government through USAID.
The "leak" is of data selected by U.S. friendly organization out of a database, likely obtained by U.S. secret services, which can be assumed to include much dirt about "western" persons and organizations.
To only publish very selected data from the "leaked" data has two purposes:
- It smears various "enemies of the empire" even if only by association like the presidents Putin and Assad.
- It lets other important people, those mentioned in the database but not yet published about, know that the U.S. or its "media partner" can, at any time, expose their dirty laundry to the public. It is thereby a perfect blackmailing instrument.
The engineered "leak" of the "Panama Papers" is a limited hangout designed to incriminate a few people and organization the U.S. dislikes. It is also a demonstration of the "torture tools" to the people who did business with Mossak Fonseca but have not (yet) been published about. They are now in the hands of those who control the database. They will have to do as demanded or else ...
Posted by b on April 4, 2016 at 4:25 UTC | Permalink
« previous page | next page »So the pedophilia blackmailing has quit working and now it's back to tax evasion again? hm.
Posted by: shadyl | Apr 5 2016 3:21 utc | 102
i heard xi jing ping's family is implicated, no surprise there.
china has always been in the cross hair.
also the *anti american* jackie chan
but nick asked, why cameron ?
is he branded a *chicom lover* now ?
Posted by: denk | Apr 5 2016 3:23 utc | 103
I bet Russian intelligence will from now on be on a hunt for "panama papers" of its own. If this is such a potent weapon, Russians would be incredibly stupid not to go after them.
Posted by: telescope | Apr 5 2016 4:32 utc | 104
@telescope
Russians will have it. One thing is certain, the German BND is full of anti-Mericans passing over information to the Ruskies.
Posted by: Nick | Apr 5 2016 4:44 utc | 105
@104 telescope
I think you've answered your own question, this is not a potent weapon. No one believe anything put out by the corporate media any longer. The Russians would just be the last one in the pool - and an egg as rotten as the rest.
@45
I finished Part 1 of UNAOIL. Lots of individual Bribees named, but Bribers ... not so much. There is a list of 'clients' - hard to tell which way that goes in reality, of course the pretense is the sterling corporations were beset upon by scheming arab/oilers - and each 'title'/'client' pair on the list is preceded by a number. Maybe the numbers refer to emails or other documents, and maybe they will be produced, but so far nothing but wide ellipses and allusions. I await parts 2 & 3, but so far this appears to be in the same vein as the Pentagon Papers.
I do imagine the ultimate source of the emails to be the NSA's BIG DATA store.
Posted by: jfl | Apr 5 2016 4:45 utc | 106
Anyone else think this story is anything but a "No Duh" revelation? And, an attempt by, as b said, a smear towards the Empire's enemies?
The story has NO legs. The Empire's surrogates will see to it.
Posted by: ben | Apr 5 2016 5:22 utc | 107
b - fine article as usual. While I don't disagree with your conclusions, I don't think the ICIJ has been given appropriate credit (or even a nod) for the good work they have done so far. I have some reservations about the authenticity of the data they have received, but their project focusing on offshore tax evasion predates the Panama Papers Leak by years. Here's a rough timeline of some significant events:
The original ICIJ almost went under due to financial difficulty in 2010. They survived largely in part from Huffington Post spinning off its own non-profit Investigative Fund team (25 staff) to ICIJ along with $2M in funding/grants, doubling ICIJ's headcount to 50. The Knight Foundation added another million grant to help them 'digitize' their ops. They're always begging for money and live by grants. It's proper to question their donors, but beggars can't be choosers. This is an investigative journalism project - I can't say I'm surprised by the list of their donors considering that, but skepticism about influence is always warranted.
The ICIJ has several investigative projects running all the time.
One project that started in 2011 was Secrecy for Sale: Inside the Global Offshore Money Maze. This was a continuation of a longer-running effort to look into offshore tax shelters and shell companies. The 'Offshore Leaks' resulted from ICIJ obtaining a hard drive with databases of offshore entities registrations in 2011. That was on the tail end of an ICIJ investigation into Australia's Firepower scam.
In 2011, Offshore Leaks data was published in it's entirety on the internet in a searchable database. Their search app seems broken today, but you can still download the entire CSV file of the data on ICIJ's site.
In 2013 and 2014, ICIJ also publish several investigative reports on two other smaller data sets it subsequently obtained - the Swiss Leaks and Lux Leaks. This was under the larger Secrecy for Sale project. The UK's Guardian was a major partner so the reports focused mostly on UK tax shelters of the rich and powerful. I can't speak to UK politics, so I have no idea whether they were selective about what/who was being reported. Nobody was crying about them ignoring the U.S. elite at the time because the Guardian readership frankly cared more about their own dirty laundry. This wasn't censored in the U.S., it just received very little attention.
The Mossack Fonseca 'Panama Papers' leak (actually, a series of 'leaks') started almost three years ago. It did not start with the ICIJ. A small portion of the data was originally sold to German authorities - details of a few hundred accounts, presumably of German nationals. Data was also reportedly sold to U.S., U.K. and Iceland. We all saw our governments publish that, right? I mean, taxpayers paid for it. Of course we saw nothing of the sort.
ICIJ became involved when investigative reporters at German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung were offered a much larger set of the Mossack Fonseca files for free by an anonymous individual. Their five investigative reporters could not have possibly analyzed the eventual 11.5 million documents. Three of the reporters were also ICIJ participants and provided the files to ICIJ for cataloging and indexing so any journalist could search them.
The new Panama Papers documents were arguably ready for journalists to research over a year ago through ICIJ. The ICIJ coordinates global efforts by OTHER journalists/media to analyze the data - it does not really write articles of this extent by itself.
So the idea of ICIJ 'selectively releasing' the data is patently wrong. The data is being selectively reported, and then only by a few major media outlets. The fact that the BBC and Guardian chose to selectively report on enemies of Team Chaos is no surprise, but this is hardly the ICIJ's fault.
Craig Murray is right to point out the glaring omissions by BBC Panorama on British tax havens and misdirection about Panama shell corporations, but I would chalk that up to spineless BBC reporting rather than Soros pulling the funding strings of his ICIJ puppet.
So when one asks "Where are all the slimeball U.S. politicians and rich tax evaders?", one needs to address that to organizations that claim to have some relation to journalism. Americans can bitch at CNN and broadcast media, or NYT/WaPo and the other big print rags. We can insinuate editorial influence or outright censorship by Soros and others, but again - this really isn't by the hand of ICIJ. They're not publishing the 11.5 million documents publicly, but there's no reason to think that THEY are withholding data from any competent journalist willing to write an article.
U.S. MSM will jump on the bandwagon after they see what is revealed by foreign journalists and what sticks in the mind of the U.S. public. That data will come out eventually when a U.S. journalist can be confident of being employed the next day for reporting details on powerful U.S. figures.
We should always remain somewhat skeptical of these anonymous leaks, but the ICIJ is unjustly taking the brunt of the criticism that should rightfully be directed at our useless, bought-and-paid-for MSM. Whatever influence the ICIJ realistically operates under, they have managed to produce damn solid work in collaboration with REAL journalists. I really want to believe there are still some of them out there.
Posted by: PavewayIV | Apr 5 2016 5:39 utc | 108
Excellent work b...
Ah Ah! it s funny to see Cameron's father and some Saudi debunked though...but yeah it won't go very far. This leak is obviously a secret service tactic to manipulate a public more and more knowledgeable about the general manipulation it is submitted to,in order to keep demonizing The enemies of the us evil empire.
It is funny to see that it is the same old family who are behind this beside the Soros.We have Carnegies Rockefellers and monsantos(kellogs).
As one of the commentator on b's article said these financial manipulations are already possible in many countries even in the united states.there is nothing great about the panama papers that really concern us.
Posted by: lebretteurfredonnant | Apr 5 2016 5:52 utc | 109
Bernie Sanders on Panama in 2011. Opposed free-trade deal bc..tax evasion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrsI0Sw2hq8&feature=youtu.be
Not to derail ... other matter overshadowed:
On the Clinton foundation by Ken Silverstein
Posted by: Noirette | Apr 5 2016 7:22 utc | 110
Posted by: Shadow Nine | Apr 4, 2016 8:43:01 AM | 34
youve misread me: i dont see wikileaks or Snowden as a Psyop....merely that now USAID is backing leaking
Posted by: brian | Apr 5 2016 7:25 utc | 111
Posted by: CE | Apr 4, 2016 5:45:41 PM | 86
corbett tars himself by calling Putin and Assad kleptocrats
Posted by: brian | Apr 5 2016 7:27 utc | 112
Posted by: PavewayIV | Apr 5, 2016 1:39:19 AM | 108
ICIJ do a hatchett job on Presidents Putin and Assad
eg https://youtu.be/F6XnH_OnpO0
whichn video begins: 'over the past 3 years syrias airforce has rained death on more than 21000 civilians'
so NO ICIJ is part of the problem..they cant be ignorant of evenys in syria: they do have basic recources
Posted by: brian | Apr 5 2016 7:34 utc | 113
This map gives the raw nos. of companies by country. By Brian Kilmartin.
Embedded in a article that purports to explain why so few US clients. According to Higgins, "if Panama had ever been an attractive destination for American offshore storage of funds, this agreement shut the door on that possibility.” By Zero Hedge but on another site.
Posted by: Noirette | Apr 5 2016 7:48 utc | 114
French radio/papers have a few interesting omissions: no mention of Cameron's little problems (although the Guardian used it as main story), no mention except once of the dozen of African politicians who have accounts through their families, not heard once the name Qatar or UAE (but see Angry Arab), Saudi king named once or twice, Moroccan king here and there but usually they point at his secretary(but no one would dare explain that the slave had to make the scheme for his beloved king in needs of a 41 meters long three masts).
And even better, when reading the articles, British islands, Luxembourg mentioned all over, but no journalists questioning that.
Posted by: Mina | Apr 5 2016 8:25 utc | 115
release time designed as smoke screen for Syrian army progresses and to quiet down protests in France?
Posted by: Mina | Apr 5 2016 8:27 utc | 116
Mossack Fonseca admits they were hacked. So I agree with these two comments above:
The 'leak' is most likely yet another an infowar operation by the CIA and NSA against BRICS! @60
Iceland got a beating also, for daring to put some bankers in jail.@30
Posted by: okie farmer | Apr 5 2016 8:41 utc | 117
The fund or company of which Ian Cameron (died 2010) was one of the many Directors, run in Panama by M-F, but involving the Bahamas and many other places as well … is called Blairmore Holdings Inc.
Wikileaks. Here a change in directorship from 2004:
The prospectus: an investment company incorporated with limited liability under the laws of the Republic of Panama on 12 April 1982
Article, general description.
Guardian - 2012
All perfectly legal I guess? Its holdings would be tax exempt in the UK .. (other articles say so.)
Posted by: Noirette | Apr 5 2016 8:46 utc | 118
brian@113 - The video is describing offshore entities effects on real people. Sure, they go over the top with the evil Syrian Air Force, but the damning part of that is that U.S. and U.K. companies operating through Mossack Fonseca created offshore entities through which they were selling the Syrian Air Force its fuel the entire time. The video was not about Syria, it was about offshore entities used to hide U.S. and U.K. activity that resulted in real victims. I'm not oblivious to the jab at Syria, but that's hardly incriminating. If there were no victims of any Syrian Air Force attacks, would illegal fuel sales through shell corporations to a country you are essentially at war with be insignificant?
And unless you have some links on the ICIJ singling out Assad and Putin somehow, I'll stand by my remarks that they had little influence on how international media actually reported the story. The ICIJ just lumped Putin and Assad in with the hundred or so other government leaders implicated so far. Are you suggesting that the ICIJ should have censored the information on Assad and Putin because western media would have singled them out? The focus you see on Putin and Assad resulted more from non-investigation-participating press selectively reporting (what they saw) as the most neocon-worthy items from media that did participate and gave more balanced coverage.
The Putin/Assad smear you see is not indicative of original articles by journalists that were part of the entire investigation. I'll stand corrected if you have examples of either ICIJ or the participating journalists singling out Putin and Assad for special treatment. In either case, they're a little more newsworthy and interesting to most people than the former President of Sudan.
Noirette@114 - Mossack Fonseca is a Panamanian firm, but has few people there and doesn't set up many Panamanian shell corporations now. Most of the Panamanian clients/corps are probably decades old. The bulk of their operations are in major cities and financial centers around the globe along with the usual suspect tax havens. Panamanian corporate laws use to be favorable to secrecy/tax evasion years ago for Americans and that's probably how MF got started. Panamanian commercial and banking laws are much stricter the last decade or two and incorporating there today has little practical value.
One of the major criticisms of the Guardian and BBC pieces were that they gave the impression of that Panama was often used for the shell corporations, ignoring the BVI as well as all the UK's curious neighbors often used like Jersey, Isle of Man and Guernsey.
All: NYT's mea culpa for why they had no story. Basically, they didn't participate in the investigation so they didn't have access to the files. They would have had to rely on other newspaper's reporting without any way of verifying. In other words, they were scooped.
Perfectly Reasonable Question: Why No Big Splash for ‘Panama Papers’?
Posted by: PavewayIV | Apr 5 2016 9:42 utc | 119
@119
'Sure, they go over the top with the evil Syrian Air Force'
the syrian airforce isnt evil at all..and why even invoke syria? tho that is where US UK etc were embarrassed by Russias successes,,,,so your dismissive 'over the top' is as bad as the ICIJ and MSM themselves
'And unless you have some links on the ICIJ singling out Assad and Putin somehow, I'll stand by my remarks that they had little influence on how international media actually reported the story'
havent u been payin attention to the news? hm? so youve been corrected
https://www.rt.com/news/338338-panama-papers-putin-outrage/
Posted by: brian | Apr 5 2016 10:35 utc | 120
@119
didnt u read the article by MOA
'To only publish very selected data from the "leaked" data has two purposes:
It smears various "enemies of the empire" even if only by association like the presidents Putin and Assad.'
Posted by: brian | Apr 5 2016 10:37 utc | 121
Panama Papers: Hybrid War takes an unexpected turn
The beneficiaries are, without doubt, US financial firms. Panama Papers are serving notice that if one wants to engage in offshoring, in order to avoid unwanted publicity or legal scrutiny, one must do so through a major US firm with close ties to the US government, rather than some NSA-hackable British, Hong-Kong, or Swiss firm. One gets the distinctive impression that the US financial sector is trying to do away with its competition so as to centralize offshoring in its hands.With the US banks suffering losses due to the gradually bursting shale oil fracking bubble, they require a new source of profits which, in a generally stagnant and even shrinking global economy means depriving competition of business. And in this case competition is mainly in the UK. It is a sign of the progressive cannibalization of the First World, initially evident through the austerity policies aimed at the southern members of the EU. But now the US has upped the stakes considerably.
J.Hawk notes the disproportionate number of British citizens and interests 'uncovered'. Looks like the criminal plutes in the US have their eyes on the City of London's business. Crunch time for the FIRE men, and so the war of all against all 'hots' up.
“Panama papers” tax evasion leak stokes political crises worldwide
While the US was the fourth-most popular country for the shell companies set up by Mossack Fonseca to operate, no high-profile individuals in the US were exposed as having had accounts. Some experts speculated that this was simply because of the fact that, with extremely limited financial regulation, particularly in some state and local jurisdictions, wealthly Americans wishing to hide their assets or launder money can easily do so at home.Shima Baradaran Baughman, a law Professor University of Utah, College of Law, told Fusion, “Americans can form shell companies right in Wyoming, Delaware or Nevada. They have no need to go to Panama to form a shell company to use for illicit activities.”
The reason there are so few Americans mentioned so far is not that the NSA/ICIJ have penciled them out ... it's because in the USA you don't need an offshore tax haven. Well, it's not far from the truth, apparently, and it gives the NSA/ICIJ plausible deniability?
I don't believe it. The Frackers' junk is starting to crack, and the insurance industry is beginning to look insolvent, again. What we need is more funds to steal here in the USA. Come on all of you big greedy men, Uncle Sam needs your help again, got his ass in a terrible jam, back down Wall Street way again, and it's one, two, three, what are we fightin' for ... our financial asses, that's what.
The USA collapses into a comic strip.
Posted by: jfl | Apr 5 2016 11:53 utc | 123
Helpful overview, commentary podcast at Corbett report, love his 'best case scenario' (that there be a countershot leak showing the similar deeds of the western 'leaders'), 15 min well worth a listen
https://www.corbettreport.com/what-i-learned-from-the-panama-papers/
Posted by: Bluemot5 | Apr 5 2016 12:11 utc | 124
@114 Noirette
Thanks for the second link, marveling at the lack of names named when it comes to the US. I don't imagine they will be, do you? Nor do I imagine any access to the raw data being given by the gatekeepers. I think the whole thing is more sigint/financial warfare. But maybe I'm wrong.
And for the link at your other post on the Clinton shakedown machine.
@106 ... ' so far this appears to be in the same vein as the Pentagon Panama Papers.'
... only directed at Assad/Syria, Ghadaffi/Libya, some few Iranians, and various Iraqis ... so far. And at AA who runs Unaoil, but he's 'just' a corrupt middleman, the servant of corporate Big Oil and resource Big Oil, rolled between the two, betrayed by the CIA/whoever, and disowned now that the word is out.
So they are two separate disinformation ops, the one run by the financiers, and the other by the fusiliers and the fossil-fuelers?
Posted by: jfl | Apr 5 2016 12:53 utc | 125
78 hal As soon as the Washington Madam X notebook is released it will be followed by the PanamaPapers.
The last Madam who threatened to pop the lid on VIP johns, one allegedly Cheney, strangely and suddenly became so overburdened with this cruel world, that she went to her parents' house and hanged herself in their utility shed.
Posted by: fastfreddy | Apr 5 2016 12:53 utc | 126
Democracy Now! this morning played audio from Bernie Sanders, from back in 2011 when he voted against a new Panama-US trade treaty which, he said, would allow even more use of offshoring taxable US monies. Hillary voted for the trade agreement, as a good Corporatist and NeoLib ought to do.
Posted by: jawbone | Apr 5 2016 13:39 utc | 127
Going to be interesting to see how Cameron saves Britain's tax havens....
"Last September, at a law firm overlooking San Francisco Bay, Andrew Penney, a managing director at Rothschild & Co., gave a talk on how the world’s wealthy elite can avoid paying taxes.
His message was clear: You can help your clients move their fortunes to the United States, free of taxes and hidden from their governments.
Some are calling it the new Switzerland."
Posted by: dh | Apr 5 2016 13:40 utc | 128
jfl @ 94 -- Your mention of the VIOXX death-dealing scandal underlines why government should never be run "like a business." Businesses have no compunction about certain collateral damages on the way to high profits, and can write off the fines (if any occur) and any lawsuit losses. They can downsize their workforce for budget reasons, and they can move out their home nations or go out of business, selling off for profit or whatever.
Governments CAN kill some of their citizens living within their territories, but they would have trouble killing off all of them. And going "out of business" still means their are people and the land around.
The governor of Michigan using his power to declare a city, Flint, bankrupt and appointing a business oriented "master" created all sorts of problems by running the city "like a business." And not understanding WTF he was doing. So far no deaths can be attributed to the horrible results to the Flint water system of cost cutting and application of a "businesslike" approach to governing, but there is no way to know the lifetime problems imposed on the very young being exposed to so much lead in their water.
Big Business seems to get away with a few odd deaths and damage to people. It's harder to pull as a government official. Can be done of course, under the right circumstances….
Posted by: jawbone | Apr 5 2016 13:55 utc | 129
58;Re GG.He did leave the Graun right after that hard drive destruction incident.So he probably was given the boot,or a mutual parting of the ways.
There is no American,British,German or French MSM.They are all dedicated to Zion Israeli moles.
The Cruz madam story has vanished from the Israeli media.He is their boy of Trump destruction,and a fall guy for the Hell Bitch.
Posted by: dahoit | Apr 5 2016 14:26 utc | 130
dr mahathir's son also listed.
online anon letter calling for xi's ouster....
hmm
what does the fleming's law of probability says ?
ENEMY ACTION.
Posted by: denk | Apr 5 2016 15:19 utc | 131
Paveway posted, at 119, re my post about Ian Cameron: Mossack Fonseca is a Panamanian firm, but has few people there and doesn't set up many Panamanian shell corporations now. Most of the Panamanian clients/corps are probably decades old. The bulk of their operations are in major cities and financial centers around the globe ..
Roughly correct, misleading nonetheless. It is still very active though sagging badly (link - if one chooses to believe that), and of course its biz is worldwide! Duh! In any case that has nothing to do with what I posted.
If anything, if you read my post, the point was that the story about Ian Cameron - as many (most?) others on the main ‘panama papers’ site - have been revealed, known, and discussed ages ago, not news at all. The most recent ref I posted was from 2012!
https://panamapapers.icij.org/graphs/
Posted by: Noirette | Apr 5 2016 15:23 utc | 132
@108/199 paveway... thanks for your comments. i get what you are saying.. however if some unlikely sources doing some good work are going to be cherry picked by the msm to continue to do bad work - essentially pushing the same selective bs - what response other then the one b has given - would be appropriate? the ICIJ could come out and comment on the selectivity of it and how it is being applied too, but they would lose their funding i suppose.. either way they have become a tool in the hands of bigger players.. those bigger players - soros probably and his gang of freaks - are the real source of the push to regime change and a unipolar world where us financial power continues unabated... i hope it changes..
ot on geo-financial sanctions and pushing countries in a particular direction - good article here by alastair cooke "the us treasurys silver bullet falls short"
Posted by: james | Apr 5 2016 15:58 utc | 133
Man so many people love jumping to intense conclusions. A lot of you love the Putin spin. You know there is this little thing called occam's razor.
Putin is the most recognizable face in relation to anyone leaked so far, he brings clicks. Yeah, that's pretty much it, page views. Big conspiracy there.
In addition, there are Canadian and American names in there, many of them already in legal proceedings, presumably since overall controls are much stronger in north america/uk then they are in eastern europe, south america, africa or middle east.
This is just basic stuff here. Further to Putin and Assad, lots of the leaks are small potatoes ($ value wise or 'impact' to people wise). However, Putin's ppl handled close to $2 billion dollars (which seems like the largest total found period) and Assad handled killing his own ppl.
Again, not very complicated, just simple, non conspiracy, basic shit.
Have a great day!
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 5 2016 15:59 utc | 134
Noirette@132 - We crossposted. I did not see your post @118 when I submitted @119. My Panama comment was prompted by its mention in @114 after reading much on the Guardian's hack job and misdirection. I should not have implied that to your post said anything of the sort - sorry.
I agree that many of the offshore corp 'revelations' in the leak are old news, including those on Assad and Putin. I'm not seeing much investigative journalism so far, but there were supposedly 400 journalists involved in the Panama Papers project. We can only hope that other publications offer something more compelling than the Guardian/Independent/BBC fare choked out so far or second-hand sensationalistic reporting of cherry-picked details by the likes of USAToday.
Posted by: PavewayIV | Apr 5 2016 16:19 utc | 135
Funny people missing the point and obscuring the fact that the limited revelations of names and monies in the Panama Papers is the biggest part of the story.
As Craig Murray wrote, "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."
Posted by: fastfreddy | Apr 5 2016 16:28 utc | 136
To arrive to the level of detail on Azerbaijan. Russia, Ukraine, Assad, Saudis, Iceland, Argentina, and a bunch of other probably included hundreds if not thousands of hours of research.
I don't know about you, but to reach such information they had to check multiple sources, confirm with authorities, lawyers, other organizations. This takes months on months.
This is one the greatest leaks in history, regardless of international 'angles'.
I do find this site funny. I only came here cause cause of reddit and a link (now obv removed cause it was silly - to globalresearch.ca).
That site and this site are funny, ppl jumping to crazy conclusions for no real reason. Perhaps it is entertaining in its own way to create a non supported reality (not that the other one i.e. MSM, world domination/everyone is better than us and after control does a great job, but this one is just out there).
Yeah fastfreddy, but also expect that in general, controls in north america are better, regardless of global domination. They generally are, for example there is little argument that a KPMG in US is the same as the KPMG in middle east, south america or Russia. The latter being relative to a joke (KPMG is an accounting audit firm).
Further it looks like some of the 'MSM' were actually not included in the investigation period. Perhaps cause they have a habit of being too connected to people at the top?
This actually goes against the premise of 'controlled' leak and instead further agrees with a grandstanding consipiry on the US, so by avoiding the main MSM news sources, they contained their leak to limit people moving their money during the investigations.
If the above is true, that would be pretty ironic because its a good thing (for those of you who follow globalresearch, this stuff, and the other trippy sites) lol
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 5 2016 16:37 utc | 137
No Hiding Place As 50, Now 80, Countries Sign Deal To Share Your Finance Information for Tax Purposes - https://www.blevinsfranks.com/News/BlevinsFranks/BlevinsFranksNews?ArticleID=722
And...
The One Sentence Summary of the Panama Papers - http://tinyurl.com/znz65f8
The Panama Pap seems to have claimed its first scalp.
According to France 24's Breaking News headlines, Iceland's PM has resigned.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 5 2016 17:35 utc | 139
@139 That'll scare the pants off Putin and Assad. They'll have to move their billions to Nevada.
Posted by: dh | Apr 5 2016 17:59 utc | 140
james@133 - There were 400 investigative journalists working on the project. MOST of them have yet to publish anything - they're not done. Nearly every instance of cherry-picking or sensationalizing Putin/Assad non-news that I've seen traces back to the obviously biased British media reports. The ICIJ and Soros tool OCCRP did author one article specifically to implicate Putin in some kind of corrupt network, which was published by McClatchy and made its way into many U.S. outlets instead of any kind of thourough and complete investigative report.
So judging only by a rather narrow sample of the earliest German/British/U.S. reporting, one could conclude the entire Panama Papers project at the ICIJ and all 400 journalists working on it were devoted to smearing Putin and little else. I'm just saying that a different picture may emerge when the other 375 journalists start publishing THEIR investigations based on the exact, same data hosted by ICIJ.
This still doesn't eliminate the possibility that the leak was manufactured to use data from a firm that didn't have any high-profile U.S. individuals or politicians. MF is the fourth largest registered agent churning out these shells, but what does that mean in real terms. 15% of the global activity? 5%? It wouldn't be hard to imagine that MF was sacrificed BECAUSE of the data/clients it had or didn't have. On the other hand, Germany, the UK, US and Iceland supposedly paid for an earlier, much smaller set of MF data. Does that mean it was real, or were they just trying to 'pre-legitimize' it with staged purchases before a big manufactured leak?
I'm uncomfortable defending ICIJ - they're anything but squeaky-clean. The skepticism I have is mostly reserved for 1) the source, and 2) the media outlets. I just don't see the ICIJ having much part in any possible manipulation campaign this time around. They might be sympathetic to such an effort if it existed - I don't know. They're not the place I would worry about influencing if I ran an intelligence agency. Outlets are already covered by the CIA and pals, so the source seems to be the weakest link. MF lawyers don't sound too terribly upset by this. They might have been in on the scam for all we know. Hard to believe they were unaware of a series of massive data leaks spanning nearly three years. This wasn't a one-time thing. Can they really be that stupid?
Posted by: PavewayIV | Apr 5 2016 18:07 utc | 141
No Hiding Place As 50, Now 80, Countries Sign Deal...
Posted by: h | Apr 5, 2016 1:26:48 PM | 138
Colour me Highly Skeptical.
In Oz, there has been a concerted effort, going back more than 20 years, to remove the teeth of, and gut the Australian Taxation Office's ability to investigate and pursue irregularities and prosecute the perps. There is current outrage about the fact that half of Oz'z Top 200 Corporations paid no tax in 2014 and, anecdotally/ typically, when the Tax Office does ID a miscreant, they end up settling out of court for 10% of the assessed liability (and no penalties for wrong-doing). The Oz Govt, like the USG, is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the 1%.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 5 2016 18:18 utc | 142
Paveway ok no prob :) ;)
Who was the source?
All I could find:
Panama insiders have said that the source of the information was not, as Mossack is reporting, an intrusion by hackers, but an inside job. A former female employee, with access to the data, was allegedly involved in an intimate relationship with a Mossack name partner. The relationship ended badly some time ago, and the employee exacted her revenge by going public with Mossack client lists and related data.
http://rijock.blogspot.ch/2016/04/panama-leaks-data-at-mossack-fonseca.html
from this blog, worth a read: http://rijock.blogspot.ch
> "Kenneth Rijock is a banking lawyer turned-career money launderer (10 years), turned-compliance officer specialising in enhanced due diligence, and a financial crime consultant who publishes a Financial Crime Blog. The Laundry Man, his autobiography, was published in the UK on 5 July 2012." - from a Caribbean newspaper.
Posted by: Noirette | Apr 5 2016 19:01 utc | 143
@136 fastfreddy - @funnypeople is just another stupid stooge for the propaganda empire..
@140 paveway.. thanks for articulating all that. someone earlier on this thread reminded me of an overlooked coincidence - panama is basically cia run... this reminds me of the noriega saga way back when..of course noriega was a cia asset until he wasn't...
i would say the mf lawyers were in on the scam with noerettes @142 casting another light on it.. based on what data has come out to date, it casts a bad light on ICIJ either way... thanks for sharing..
Posted by: james | Apr 5 2016 19:56 utc | 144
Now they are attacking the FIFA lol.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/05/panama-papers-pull-fifa-uefa-chief-gianni-infantino-corruption-scandal
Posted by: Nick | Apr 5 2016 20:15 utc | 145
Yes, I am a stupid stooge for the propaganda empire, cause any objective reasoning that goes against assuming a conclusive NWO/Empire is stupid.
Propaganda is state driven. The life that we live is self-driven, you can use reddit for news not MSM, you can use whatever you want actually. What is stupid is cementing yourself in a single view with no alternative, which what I find some people here and globalresearch, fox news etc., ppl do.
There is no objective self-criticism to your own assertions, instead there are immediate conclusions which drive the conversation, conclusions which are based on massive conjecture and bias.
It is quite funny, because some of the ppl and articles here apply the exact same 'sheeple' attitude towards information as the view you try to oppose. There is very little objective reasoning, which would normally leave most of the assertions made here to the dark corner of illogical non-sense. This site, along with globalresearch is literally like fox news, with the same crowds of ppl who will swear by their bias.
I don't know know how anyone can disagree that this hack is awesome. I also can't see how any can disagree that on a relative scale - south america, middle east, eastern euro, asia and africa are on a whole other level when it comes to political corruption.
Yes there are powerful people behind the scenes, but I think you give them too much credit.
The whole Putinphobia is amazing, and incredibly ironic. You guys complain about it, yet what putin has done in russia is exactly what you all fear is being done in US. If anything, you should all be super anti-putin since he represents pretty much everything that you wouldn't want in the US, crony capitalism run by friends, with the population who's media is actually completely controlled by the government, and actually spewing real propaganda all the time.
Anyways, hope you all vote Bernie :)
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 5 2016 21:03 utc | 146
@FunnyPeople #145, rest assured that the regular commentators here "speculate" from a much broader information base than you have at your disposal. Given what you wrote in your last paragraph, let me advise you to take two hours to watch the Canadian public TV documentary "Rise and fall of the Russian Oligarchs" (from an era before everything was Putin's fault) to get a picture, far superior to your parroted ideas about these issues, of what was done to Russia in the years before Putin did to it what he did. Stick around and learn. ;o)
"I also can't see how any can disagree that on a relative scale - south america, middle east, eastern euro, asia and africa are on a whole other level when it comes to political corruption. "
Wow! Talk about bias. I seem to recall the president, the sec. of treasury, and chairman of the FED stand in front of the entire world and extort $700B in cash from US taxpayers. They basically said, "if you don't give us the money we'll torpedo the world's economy."
It must be nice to be, as similar to a liquor ad, "the most objective man in the world."
Posted by: Jethro | Apr 5 2016 22:14 utc | 148
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/04/corruption-as-a-propaganda-weapon/
‘Corruption’ as a Propaganda Weapon
April 4, 2016
Exclusive: Mainstream U.S. journalism and propaganda are getting hard to tell apart, as with the flurry of “corruption” stories aimed at Russia’s Putin and other demonized foreign leaders, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
Sadly, some important duties of journalism, such as applying even-handed standards on human rights abuses and financial corruption, have been so corrupted by the demands of government propaganda – and the careerism of too many writers – that I now become suspicious whenever the mainstream media trumpets some sensational story aimed at some “designated villain.”
Far too often, this sort of “journalism” is just a forerunner to the next “regime change” scheme, dirtying up or delegitimizing a foreign leader before the inevitable advent of a “color revolution” organized by “democracy-promoting” NGOs often with money from the U.S. government’s National Endowment for Democracy or some neoliberal financier like George Soros.
We are now seeing what looks like a new preparatory phase for the next round of “regime changes” with corruption allegations aimed at former Brazilian President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The new anti-Putin allegations – ballyhooed by the UK Guardian and other outlets – are particularly noteworthy because the so-called “Panama Papers” that supposedly implicate him in offshore financial dealings never mention his name.
Or as the Guardian writes:
“Though the president’s name does not appear in any of the records, the data reveals a pattern – his friends have earned millions from deals that seemingly could not have been secured without his patronage. The documents suggest Putin’s family has benefited from this money – his friends’ fortunes appear his to spend.”
Note, if you will, the lack of specificity and the reliance on speculation: “a pattern”; “seemingly”; “suggest”; “appear.” Indeed, if Putin were not already a demonized figure in the Western media, such phrasing would never pass an editor’s computer screen.
Indeed, the only point made in declarative phrasing is that “the president’s name does not appear in any of the records.”
Posted by: Gen Martin Dempsey | Apr 5 2016 22:19 utc | 149
It must be nice to be, as similar to a liquor ad, "the most objective man in the world."
Posted by: Jethro | Apr 5, 2016 6:14:52 PM | 147
Well, on a "relative scale", he's probably "the most objective man in the world."
Posted by: Gen Martin Dempsey | Apr 5 2016 22:22 utc | 150
. . relative to, say, someone like Tim Geitner or Ben Bernanke or Alan Greenspan or even Killary Klinton
Posted by: Gen Martin Dempsey | Apr 5 2016 22:24 utc | 151
@146, some of the sources/assertions made in what I call 'other' informations appears to be as equally misguided as a fox news broadcast. However, I fully agree, pre-Putin, there was a mess and during most of Putin's time, the rise of gas prices from $19 (I think around there) to $130+ kinda helped things no? Still in the overall conspiracy/NWO/government controls the message - isn't modern day Russia literally 1984? Should everyone who appeals to less government influence, increases information freedom etc, be fundamentally morally opposed to Russia's current stance on literally (not 'hypothetically' but literally) owning the media and controlling the message?
@147, I get it, you believe that the fed used up $700 billion with no oversight and possibly for 'evil' reasoning. I don't get how that is relevant to argument - do you think Eastern Europe, Africa, Middle East, South America or Asia actually have stronger controls in place to prevent fraud/collusion/political owage? It appears, based on my knowledge of, at the very least, accounting and audit controls and growing up in Russia, that they lag horribly behind.
@148 dude, consortiumnews, whatreallyhappend, globalresearch, along with dozens of other similar sites, have near zero credibility. I am not saying that MSNBC or CNN are 'much' better, they suck, I think their accuracy of information is like <60%. But these 'other' sites are even lower than fox news in logical deductive reasoning. They aim for your biases with no backup evidence.
About Putin - put-in (hehe) his face on anything brings clicks, media must get clicks for survival. It does not have to get complicated, ppl love clicking on his face and arguing about it. Also Russia has done an excellent job on troll farms (so good that I think everyone will be/should copying the model).
Journalism, in the way you want it, had been dead since blogs became popular. Information now requires strong critical thinking.
Putin's pals, including ppl who on record said I earn only 'x', end up showing with money thats 100 times 'x'. Making the connection to Putin's control is significantly easier or at the very least equal to many of the conjectures you guys make on this site lol.
Anyway, again, if you truly believe government control is bad, you must not like Saudis, Russia, Azerbaijan, the rest of the middle east, most of eastern europe, along with a nice chunk of south america and def China (I love their media blackout on these papers and "western propaganda!!"
That would only make sense given the premise. So you should all be celebrating the news and vote Bernie, cause he seems to have talked about this in 2011.
This is great for everyone, enjoy the months of awesome information, and you get conjure all kinds of juicy conspiracy theories for years to come!
Win-win!
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 5 2016 22:42 utc | 152
FunnyPeople has it all figured out.
Stop reading blogs. Start watching Fox News.
But vote for Sanders... 'cause FunnyPeople is all for the people. In his own 'funny' way (strange & twisted funny, not humorous funny).
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 5 2016 22:59 utc | 153
@FunnyPeople #151, you can expect the benefit of the doubt one time from some nice people like me here, the rest just sees a duck. What you wrote in response to my post totally contradicts what you wrote about the "crony capitalism" Putin allegedly "did" to Russia. So you are what you looked like at the surface and won't have much fun anymore here.
Lol @152, how did you get there? read, lots, be objective, reason, question your own confirmation bias. Fox news is a joke, but I guess, just like this site, it is important to jump down the rabbit hole just to check things out.
@146 I love that documentary "there have been shortage of everything for so long, the authorities told people to do it for themselves", I think I heard that in 2015 by Putin's government much has changed, I am glad non of Putin's friends own the state businesses lol
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 5 2016 23:08 utc | 155
Well, on a relative scale "Funny People" appeared quite sincere . . .
Relative to , say, someone like Mark Regev, or Ari Fleischer, or maybe John McCain
Posted by: Gen Martin Dempsey | Apr 5 2016 23:10 utc | 156
151, fool, Putin doesn't need trolls. Ever hear of The-Rest-of-the-World?
Posted by: ruralito | Apr 5 2016 23:15 utc | 157
@152, wait, you mean to say that, it cannot be fathomable that although initially Putin did a great job at removing corruption, that by 2008 it appears that the same corruption is still in place, but by a different group of people? Cause that is definitely what it appears like.
I still don't get it, is Russia not like 1984 today? Is the media not owned by government? Are Putin's closest friends not owners of major companies? Am I missing something?
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 5 2016 23:17 utc | 158
oops, looks like I responded to a clone of that Rye Catcher guy -- something I promised to never do. mea culpa.
Posted by: ruralito | Apr 5 2016 23:22 utc | 159
This is Canada, thanks to Panama, but I am certain you will see US based stuff soon. The theory that you should've seen more/this is 'selective', is an interesting one but requires evidence instead of blind faith (which you guys appear currently go by).
Evidence suggests that
a) controls in north america are generally stronger
b) politicians are less inclined to store money off shore (there are several reasons for this basis:
1) they make less money, due to less corruption that you find elsewhere,
2) stronger controls
3) you can build shell companies/take tax breaks that are pretty significant right in the US of A)
Putin is linked in major media because he brings in clicks and pageviews mean money. Putin is also linked heavily because for now, no other links have been established to this much money $2 billion potentially stolen while people in Russia are told to grow their own vegetable gardens (this is a real thing).
Is it possible that a small, shadowy group of US (sometimes sites refer to them as jewish, or neocons) bastards controls your life? Yes. It is likely? Probably not to the degree you guys assert.
Is the US free of corruption? lol obv not. On relative scale is the rest of the world better at detecting/stopping fraud, collusion? If you really think so, invest baby, invest in those safe China and Russia assets :)
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 5 2016 23:39 utc | 160
@FunnyPeople
And what would you have us do about Russia? (serious question)
Do you really think that censoring bloggers, shutting down debate, stifling opposition is the answer? With a free hand to do as they please, our glorious and pure democratic leaders will make the world right?
I'd say that you were being foolish but I sense that your funny business is intentional.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 5 2016 23:46 utc | 161
Chinese 's response:
'Powerful force is behind Panama Papers'
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/977162.shtml
Posted by: Nick | Apr 5 2016 23:50 utc | 162
@James 160 - how so? Does arriving to speculative conclusion not require significant, quality and verifiable evidence from multiple, hopefully somewhat opposing sources (not all the same sites i.e. the ones I listed under 'other')? Seems like a reasonable thing to do no? Or is this not normal?
Is there a disagreement about how today's Russia is run? Do you think that although RT and 90+% of Russian media is state owned that this isn't a problem? Cause it seems like you think that the US MSM is in control of the msg here and correct if I am wrong, but that appears to be 'bad'. So by logical comparison, you don't like Russia's or China's government actions as much as US, if not more (cause you know, laws that can throw you in jail for unreported 5,000 followers or government criticism in China).
Maybe you disagree, no strong evidence is required if you made up your mind and Russian and Chinese media is fine and free! Nazdorovia Bratan! (to health/cheers, brother).
@161 "And what would you have us do about Russia? (serious question)Do you really think that censoring bloggers, shutting down debate, stifling opposition is the answer? With a free hand to do as they please, our glorious and pure democratic leaders will make the world right?"
I am confused, did I elude to shutting down/censoring bloggers, shutting down debate, stifling opposition is an answer? I know they do that in China/Russia/Middle East/Most of Eastern Europe/Asia and Africa...that would the opposite of my thinking.
There is nothing wrong with blogging, I am simply questioning the logic of discussions. It seems weak and biased, and similar to just like opening up fox news. I think that not enough possible alternatives are discussed in this blog, such as simple/basic one looking at overall controls on fraud, looking at simple human desire to click shit that seems controversial. You guys take it to the next level.
However, for the most part these sites remain rather small, like rarely will anyone take 'globalresearch' seriously, that Ottawa university prof is something else though. Maybe next time I'm in Ottawa I'll stop by and go for coffee with that trippy dude.
I don't know what you can do for Russia, but it does seam that perpetuating what appears to be a myth around anti-putinsim in the face of him/his government representing the very thing you wish to avoid (or assert already exists in the US) is silly.
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 0:13 utc | 163
@163 - I think this is such a sad, short sighted argument. That's the argument that somehow capitalist ownership has created the best of all possible worlds, and that any other system is be definition corrupt.
I actually have no concern about who owns Russia's media, or China's for that matter. We know who does own them, and what their agenda is. In fact, I think it is likely that a "state owned media" (always meant to be a boogey man, somehow) operated by a states with popular governments is in many regards a far more democratic model than the corporate owned media that we have in the West. Most especially in the highly, highly consolidated form it has taken since the end of the Cold War.
This idea that Western media, because it is in private hands, somehow makes it "better" is completely wrongheaded, especially as in the United States at least, most of the big media companies are subsidiaries of even large corporate conglomerates. Entities whose main motivation might be selling weapons to the Pentagon, and only secondarily to provide information to the population of the home country.
My two cents.
Anyways, obv I am not the target market for this blog lol I only came cause globalresearch linked you and someone linked them on reddit which was silly (and was removed a few minutes after).
Like I said, I think this leak is great, it will provide hundreds of quality material for years to come - Iceland PM and Chile's head of Transparency International resigned due to this (ironic right!?).
Lots more coming, hopefully people in Azerbaijan, China and Russia will wake up and stand up to their government the way people in North America stand up to theirs. Perhaps leaks will come out on US issues also, but either way, this is great.
Enjoy it and enjoy the blogging, don't stop questioning stuff, especially your own biases (but please don't do it like RT - Russia Today, their tag line is 'question more' which is hilarious cause they don't question shit in Russia itself)
Thanks for the Russian doc and vote Bernie, too bad Hilary looks like a shoe-in, but damn Bernie is the man.
Have a great evening!
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 0:28 utc | 165
...since I saw this lol...
"@163 - I think this is such a sad, short sighted argument. That's the argument that somehow capitalist ownership has created the best of all possible worlds, and that any other system is be definition corrupt."
@164, I agree, corporate ownership poses significant threats to integrity of information.
But the underlying theme of this blog along others which are very similar is the idea that either corporate interests control government or government controls corporate interests or they are one and the same. This situation is clearly bad, either way, it represents systems which are not independent of each other.
It appears this is what you guys talk about, control by a small group of owners.
I cannot see how this is any different than Russia "I actually have no concern about who owns Russia's media, or China's for that matter. We know who does own them, and what their agenda is."
So then you should not have a problem with US media, cause for the most you know who owns them too, there are clear ownership structures and clearly laid out biases. i.e. CNN is democratic, FOX is conservative. Pretty clear.
That is really interesting, how you fear the US media but you don't fear Russia or China and in fact feel that their model is more democratic, in what way? lol it is still owned by the small group of people who own government.
That is so silly. Are you actually serious? You believe Chinese and Russian media is more open and 'free'? That certainly poses some deep underlying differences in our thinking.
Everything has a bias, and requires critical thinking.
On pure basis of msg delivery, the ideas that appear to be perpetuated here on 'MSM' appear to fundamentally equal the msg delivery of something like RT.
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 0:38 utc | 166
"hopefully people in Azerbaijan, China and Russia will wake up and stand up to their government the way people in North America stand up to theirs."
That is the funnies thing I have read in a real, real long time. How exactly do we "stand up to our government"?
China has a thriving labor movement, as does Russia. China has more strikes in a month than the United States has had in the last two years. Russia has about seven major political parties - the United States still struggles along with our two corporate chosen parties.
We the people of the United States have , as of the last 30 years especially, an abysmal record or demanding our rights, or demanding that national policy aligns with our wishes. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a media bubble created by those "free" corporate behemoths. Its such a myopic, US-centric imaginary view of the world (sadly, the state most Redditors are in). These are the people who can be "shocked" about what "Assad has done" and somehow forget that just 12 years ago the United States unleashed this whole mess by an invasion of Iraq which caused the death of some 1,000,000 people (according to the UK's Lancet) and had just a few years before that put up sanctions that killed an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children.
I'm really been made sick just reading this pap. Grow up. Travel to some of these countries that you see as so "unfree" and understand they do no necessarily consider making a post on Reddit the highest form of human political expression.
@167 I grew up in Russia, I've been back there and Ukraine. I'm good, those places are honestly pretty shitty in comparison.
7 parties? China's labour movements? Damn I never knew these places were so free and democratic. I haven't met anyone yet from China whose like 'damn China was the best bro'. Perhaps, I will look further into meeting this unicorn.
How do we stand up to our government? We are free to question our selves. We do so very damn loudly, and it works and we don't end up in jail. If you really believe controls are stronger outside of North America, invest away dude.
Things are pretty fucking good here bud in relative terms. Like I said, if you like and trust those markets (which I find ridicules) I hope you are invested in them, with great risk comes great reward though, so you probably will win on the stock game :)
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 0:51 utc | 168
Russia has about seven major political parties - the United States still struggles along with our two corporate chosen parties.
And don-t forget that China has only ONE political party.
So between them Russia and China have, on average, each got double the number of major political parties when compared to the "free" USA
On average, using the number of poltical parties as a metric, Russia and China are, on average, each 100% more free than The Good Ol USA
Posted by: Gen Martin Dempsey | Apr 6 2016 0:55 utc | 169
53%
United Russia - Russian conservatism, National conservatism
20%
Communist Party of the Russian Federation - Communism, Marxism–Leninism, left-wing nationalism
12%
Political party LDPRv- Russian nationalism, pan-Slavism, neo-imperialism, mixed economy
14%
A Just Russia - Social democracy, democratic socialism
Composition of Russian Duma (wiki) - thats 4 major parties. One of which has ruled in 2001. Sexy Freedom!
The Government of the People's Republic of China has ruled mainland China since 1949. The sole major political party is the Communist Party of China. Sexy freedom!
US is 46th on press freedom index (pretty shitty actually on par with Romania), Canada is 18 (we are nice, eh!), Russia is 148 out of 180 Davai davai lutshy (better than) Mehico! China is 175, nice.
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 1:17 utc | 171
i'm not so sure that too many people understand exactly what it means when a corporation like Westinghouse, which makes so much war material, owns one of the major news outlets. I really don't think that's on most American's minds.
"On pure basis of msg delivery, the ideas that appear to be perpetuated here on 'MSM' appear to fundamentally equal the msg delivery of something like RT."
That's fine if Russia Media is biased towards Russia. Its their media. But in general, it is biased towards Russia as a whole, where as the US media seems biased towards their tiny, 1% corporate ownership. And that, I think, is the difference.
But what's most important is that it exists and hasn't been subsumed into the unipolar world. I am so pleased to have RT around as a check against an increasingly narrow range of debate coming from the US media. It is biased towards Russia, but I don't see Russia as "owned by a small group of people" - that massive nation. One only has to look at the media of Latin America to see what it means when a whole continents media dances to the tune of Washington, DC. Luckily now, there are things like TeleSur (state owned I think) to provide some balance.
"lol it is still owned by the small group of people who own government."
That's really an amazingly nonsensical statement. No small group "owns the governments" of Russia and China. That's what I find so fucked up, that this is what people in the US are trained to see as the complex systems of other countries, as if they bear no relationship to how our own is set up, with all the same complications and conflicts - no, of course in Russia and China, two of the world's largest and most complex countries, US teenagers have been taught to envision these huge countries governing systems as "a small group of people".
I mean, in Russia - how much intrigue must happen in that vast country, in its huge corporations, civil service, gigantic military and powerful intelligence agencies, and its vast complicated civil society with its large labor unions, pension organizations and political parties.
Two of biggest countries in the world gets reduced to "governments owned by small groups of people". That's an amazing feat of propaganda if you really look at it. To convince people to reduce a massive country into "Putin". Which is precisely what the Western media has accomplished.
Things owned by small groups of people do have a name, they're called corporations, not governments.
Anyway, its just sad. Its a feat of propaganda as big as anything the Nazis managed, frankly. So they saw the world as "supermen" and "subhumans", so the Americans have been trained to see the world as "democracy" versus "dictators". And the result has turned out to be quite bloody, yet the myth somehow remains that those who rule the US are interested in democracy, no matter how many democratic governments they overthrow, no matter how many millions of people get butchered resisting our efforts to "bring them democracy".
haha
Funny segues from free press to free markets. What a hoot. That's what it's all about for neolibs. Freedom to exploit. Best of all worlds ... if you're one of the exceptional! Otherwise STFU!
Gotta love the approach though. Things aren't perfect here, funny admits, but but ... *Jumps up and down* *points at Russia*. Yet another neolib/neocon-drug pusher talking about his support for Sanders.
It's more 'lesser evil' shit from another know-it-all (we've seen our share of 'funny people' here, haven't we?!). No surprise that FunnyPeople never answered my question about what to do about Russia because he has no answer. All asshat, no cattle.
How about we change what we CAN by focusing on the corruption in the USA/West. The $700 billion bank bailout was just one of many examples. The actual cost of the 2008 GFC is estimated to be a year of Global GDP, IIRC. The pointless Iraq War cost us much more in blood and treasure.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 6 2016 1:27 utc | 173
Unlike the US, where your two corporate chosen parties at least interchange (this is where you go "bullshit they are all owned by the same group of 7 evil Zionist neocon, Jews" - even though they are more likely than not to be Christian/Evangelical/Catholic).
I honestly, hope that your sites, through some way, bring about actual change into anything. Although I find it unlikely given that sites like this one, along with 'truther' sites and globalresearch, zero hedge sometimes, whatrallyhappend, lots of 'collective-evolusion', 'mind-unleashed', glen beck, 'abovetopsecret', and grand master infowars - deliver something useful.
Mostly because these sites don't stand up to logical reasoning, or rigorous evidence. However, guest77, @167 - I hope through the work on this site, you manage to cause real change. Go luck boys!
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 1:27 utc | 174
"Two of biggest countries in the world gets reduced to "governments owned by small groups of people". That's an amazing feat of propaganda if you really look at it. To convince people to reduce a massive country into "Putin". Which is precisely what the Western media has accomplished."
LOL - wait isn't that EXACTLY what you reduce the US media/government to?? This is awesome thanks for confirming.
It is as terrible as the situation you believe the US is in (if you believe the ownership structure), except again, there you got no press freedom.
You like RT, well it makes sense if you also like the Russian government, they are one and the same by ownership. I don't need 'Western' influence, this is simple deductive logic/standard human behaviour.
But thanks though. I am glad we both agree that we each reduce massive complex systems in simple ownership structures yet somehow, one is not like the other :)
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 1:36 utc | 175
It's more 'lesser evil' shit from another know-it-all (we've seen our share of 'funny people' here, haven't we?!). No surprise that FunnyPeople never answered my question about what to do about Russia because he has no answer. All asshat, no cattle.
- I said perhaps stop perpetuating the funny anti-putinsm. We can offer it support by asking them to remain more open of their media, and technology innovation options. This got shut down over the last 4 years. Be happy Russians moved here, they are some smart folks. I don't know what else to do with Russia, but certain I appreciate leaks like this, hopefully many Russians will be xposed to this and ask for change.
How about we change what we CAN by focusing on the corruption in the USA/West. The $700 billion bank bailout was just one of many examples. The actual cost of the 2008 GFC is estimated to be a year of Global GDP, IIRC. The pointless Iraq War cost us much more in blood and treasure.
- Sure, but this is isn't the purpose of this original blog post and many commentators felt that the media focus on putin was propaganda, when I argue it is simply profit taking on pageviews/the largest dollar amount leaked so far.
The US has many problems, I don't think these sites benefit much due to lack of rigour in logic/evidence but perhaps if you throw enough shit on the wall as they say, something will stick.
I still wish you all well, I would hope you can continue to do this and that the US never looks like today's China or Russia in pretty much any way possible (aside from women, am-I-right!)
Lol
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 1:43 utc | 176
@45 noirette
Having read the 3 parts of the article you linked, Unaoil: THE COMPANY THAT BRIBED THE WORLD, I now understand that it is to the scandal itself and not the article that you spoke ...
I’m afraid that the Panama Papers will overshadow, and diminish the visibility, of the Unaoil matter, which is *directly* about bribery and corruption in the oil industry. To my mind, Unaoil is both politically and economically far more important.
But this Panama Papers scandal ... both are worse than scandals, betrayals? - matters ... and UNAoil both seem to be matters of a kind : after perfunctory, spun, misleading "breaking stories", they are both going to die, leaving only the residual glow of the most misleading memes in their headlines ...
The massive leak of files from Unaoil this week has already sparked investigations by the US Department of Justice, the FBI, Britain’s National Crime Agency and other authorities.
... right. There was no date, other than 2016, that I saw associated with the UNAoil matter. I had never heard of it until you pointed it out. Thanks. But although many more people are aware of the Panama Papers, I think that it, too, will fade ... after its parts 2 and 3, or whatever, are milked for memes by the mimers.
Posted by: jfl | Apr 6 2016 2:26 utc | 177
@177 I give the Panama Papers about 10 days unless they produce some really big fish.....nobody is outraged by Putin and Assad.
Posted by: dh | Apr 6 2016 2:34 utc | 178
@172 guest 'But what's most important is that it exists and hasn't been subsumed into the unipolar world.'
That's the bottom line. Speaking of other governments and other news services. I agree with you. On who runs Russia and who runs China, I don't know. A minority, a ruling class in each case I think. Certainly in China. I didn't look too hard to discover to whom you were replying, I imagine its FunnyBone, but he's achieved scroll-over status already with me. I did notice the General's reply to the same question a few clicks above yours ... averaging 7 Russian parties + 1 Chinese party and coming up with 4! That's pretty funny.
To me, the key is that any number is better than 1 whether it's 1 hegemon or 1%. The fewer they are the deafer, dumber, and blinder they get. In the world as it stands the optimal number is ~7 billion. It'd be orders of magnitude higher, but we're stuck with one deaf, dumb, and blind dominant species.
Posted by: jfl | Apr 6 2016 2:42 utc | 179
Re "Omidyar":
The eBay guy who allegedly gained Craig Newmark's trust in order to join the Craiglist board and then spy on Craiglist and use the info for eBay's benefit?
I don't recall the details and outcome of the litigation but concluded I'd be wary of what he'd publish. I don't think Glenn Greenwald can be bought, easily. So, it's interesting to see him stay with Omidyar. What does it mean? What will it mean if or when Glenn leaves?
Posted by: dumbass | Apr 6 2016 3:09 utc | 180
Putin strikes back. 'Russian President said that he has decided to declassify archival documents of the set - he will sign a decree about it today. And I signed. Here: http://kremlin.ru/' http://alexey43.livejournal.com/2068919.html
Posted by: Daisee | Apr 6 2016 3:10 utc | 181
168
*How do we stand up to our government? We are free to question our selves. We do so very damn loudly, and it works *
son,
since the days of mark twain antiwar activists have been crying themselves hoarse, how did that works out ?
*and we don't end up in jail. If you really believe controls are stronger outside of North America, invest away dude. *
wake me up the day u grow some balls like kathy[1] , try some *serious* stuff like putting a spanner into the war machine.
[1]
not holding my breath
hehehehehe
Posted by: denk | Apr 6 2016 4:41 utc | 182
Daisee@180 - This is exactly what I was hoping for. Are the Panama Papers real/complete? Who cares. If this touches off an expose free-for-all, then it was worth it for the entertainment value alone. You have to wonder what Soros was thinking taking pot shots at a former KGB lawyer. Did he expect Putin to just curl up in a fetal position under his desk quivering with fear? Vladimir is going to punch some arrogant U.S. bully in the face. That's always been a crowd-pleaser, especially in the U.S.. I can only dream of the kind of dirt the KGB has tucked away on corrupt U.S. politicians. I'm all pins-and-needles here, even if he just makes stuff up. I can picture the stammering, spittle-filled furious hand-waving denials by U.S. politicians already.
On another note, I see the Swiss bankers are not terribly impressed with the U.S. either
Banking expert on Panama Papers and the United States
"Shameless, imperialist double standards!"
Now when has anybody ever seen angry Swiss? I mean, there's no reason they shouldn't be, but I have always had this mental image of happy, smiling Swiss people. Even the lawyer they interviewed looks happy. Nice job, U.S.
Posted by: PavewayIV | Apr 6 2016 6:16 utc | 183
There are two questions that I really must ask. Since the Panama Papers contain 11.5 million documents, how have the international main stream media managed to work through them, so as to extract the essential information, in so little time? Secondly, why have the main stream media appeared to have shown no interest whatsoever in identifying who might have leaked all these documents, and for what reason(s)? Had those who leaked the documents broken any contractual or legal obligations? I raise these questions in the spirit of investigative journalism, and for no other reason. There's also a third question. Why has there been no interview with anybody from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists who received these millions of documents from an anonymous source? Where is this consortium based? How can the msm be sure that it's not a hoax? I'm as curious about this as I am about why, after only a week, none of the victims in the Brussels terror attack have been named, and there has been no news of how many other casualties there were and how they are progressing. Has anybody from the Belgium government visited them in hospital? If so, what did he or she have to say about how their families are coping? I'm afraid that, in the light of how the msm have previously reacted to the work of Wikileaks, and their track record to date on transparency, I smell a rat here. Is this a smokescreen to hide something else? Some probing questions from the disinterested are needed.
Posted by: Julius | Apr 6 2016 7:29 utc | 184
Now when has anybody ever seen angry Swiss? I mean, there's no reason they shouldn't be, but I have always had this mental image of happy, smiling Swiss people. Even the lawyer they interviewed looks happy. Nice job, U.S.
Posted by: PavewayIV | Apr 6, 2016 2:16:06 AM | 183
Spoken like a man thats never been to Switzerland.
"Happy Smiling Swiss" is not a phrase one ever hears. And for good reason, too.
Posted by: Gen Martin Dempsey | Apr 6 2016 9:35 utc | 185
Assad contracted the russians and paid through panama.job done he packed up so the contractors who lost out exposed the deeds
Posted by: Jubilee | Apr 6 2016 10:00 utc | 186
Good ol Rothschilds
The U.S. “is effectively the biggest tax haven in the world” —Andrew Penney, Rothschild & Co.
Last September, at a law firm overlooking San Francisco Bay, Andrew Penney, a managing director at Rothschild & Co., gave a talk on how the world’s wealthy elite can avoid paying taxes.
His message was clear: You can help your clients move their fortunes to the United States, free of taxes and hidden from their governments.
Some are calling it the new Switzerland.
After years of lambasting other countries for helping rich Americans hide their money offshore, the U.S. is emerging as a leading tax and secrecy haven for rich foreigners. By resisting new global disclosure standards, the U.S. is creating a hot new market, becoming the go-to place to stash foreign wealth. Everyone from London lawyers to Swiss trust companies is getting in on the act, helping the world’s rich move accounts from places like the Bahamas and the British Virgin Islands to Nevada, Wyoming, and South Dakota.
“How ironic—no, how perverse—that the USA, which has been so sanctimonious in its condemnation of Swiss banks, has become the banking secrecy jurisdiction du jour,” wrote Peter A. Cotorceanu, a lawyer at Anaford AG, a Zurich law firm, in a recent legal journal. “That ‘giant sucking sound’ you hear? It is the sound of money rushing to the USA.”
Rothschild, the centuries-old European financial institution, has opened a trust company in Reno, Nev., a few blocks from the Harrah’s and Eldorado casinos. It is now moving the fortunes of wealthy foreign clients out of offshore havens such as Bermuda, subject to the new international disclosure requirements, and into Rothschild-run trusts in Nevada, which are exempt.
-------------------
So the whole thing is beginning to look like the Rothschilds are wiping out the competition.
Is Soros a front-man for the Filthy Rich Rothschilds?
Posted by: Gen Martin Dempsey | Apr 6 2016 11:38 utc | 187
Rothschild, the centuries-old European financial institution, has opened a trust company in Reno, Nev., a few blocks from the Harrah’s and Eldorado casinos.
Since all the Casinos are nothing more than Jewish&Mafia-run Money-Laundering operations, Rothschilds setting up shop right next to these Jewish&Mafia-run Money-Laundering operations in Reno is very apt. After all it is the perfect place for them.
Posted by: Gen Martin Dempsey | Apr 6 2016 11:45 utc | 188
@180 dumbass
I haven't followed Greenwald or anyone else at Omidyar.net - the intercept - since they announced they were tracking their readers. I think Omidyar made Greenwald a financial deal he couldn't refuse, and he couldn't.
Posted by: jfl | Apr 6 2016 11:56 utc | 189
@Brian 111,
My bad. You can just skip past the meat of my post @34 and not bother visiting the link I provided @124 in the open thread. Cheers!
@MoA,
The below verbage is how right-wing Libertarians in Diaspora* are spinning this:
-------------------------------BEGIN SNIP-----------------------------------------------------
“The Panama papers” are in the headlines of government sponsored media everywhere. What ludicrous statist propaganda! From the same psy-ops psychopaths that try to sell you mass murder as “democracy building,” we now get ramped-up international extortion enforcement by governments framed as anti-terrorism!
Here’s what is really happening: Greedy governments try to plunder their citizenry as best they can. Instead of “robbery,” they sugar-coat their expropriation by calling it “taxation.” Some heroic people have found ways to resist government extortion. One way, available in some smaller, less authoritarian countries, is financial freedom and privacy services. Financial freedom services include:
1.) storing wealth in banks that guarantee privacy, so greedy governments can’t steal your savings
2.) creating corporations with anonymous shareholders
3.) creating anonymous trusts
Some of the bigger, more wasteful welfare-warfare States have gotten together to try to destroy the international financial freedom services market. Attempts to disrupt Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are well-known. Fewer are aware of the FATF, the cartel of States trying to squelch financial freedom. Contrary to recent propaganda such as the video, which claims that this is a brand new anti-terrorism effort, the Financial Action Task Force has been undermining financial freedom since 1989. It is responsible for all but killing financial freedom in Switzerland and several islands in the Caribbean. Fortunately, where there is market demand there is a way - the Baltic States took up some slack, as did some entities in Asia and the Pacific.
For libertarians, the FATF cartel’s mission to enhance the tax plunder “efficiency” of bloated welfare States is criminal. We support the financial freedom havens, SAs (anonymous corporations), bearer stocks and bonds, anonymous crypto currency, and anything else that reduces the plunder-power of States.
The stupid propaganda video tries to blame financial freedom for rape, pedophilia, terrorism, corrupt rulers, and lack of health services in Africa! Not unlike the FBI blaming all these things on Apple for not hacking its own iPhone. And equally viciously false. Are there people who really believe this garbage? Unfortunately, yes. They’re called statists."
-----------------------------------END SNIP--------------------------------------
Posted by: Shadow Nine | Apr 6 2016 12:05 utc | 190
The Guardian has found some American perps. They include...
"A prisoner serving 13 years after being involved in a Ponzi scheme, a Florida billionaire found guilty of copying sculptures and a British national who lived the high life in Monte Carlo."
No politicians yet. Maybe RT can do better....
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/05/panama-papers-leak-americans-exposed-tax-havens
Posted by: dh | Apr 6 2016 13:33 utc | 191
Excellent common sense article. I am linking to this page from FlybyNews.com under Critical News and Events.
Posted by: Jonathan Mark | Apr 6 2016 13:52 utc | 192
There is some degree of push-back wrt criticism of the Panama Papers. But these critics ignore a couple of key points.
1) This is huge!! Questions of sourcing and control of the data is nitpicking.
The difference in treatment between the Unaoil scandal and Panama Papers is striking. Unaoil was virtually ignored by Western Press but Panama Papers is reported everywhere.This leads to questions of agenda's.
2) The first stories were just attention-getters.
Reporters have had over a year to work the data. If they led with the most attention-getting story (Putin and Iceland's PM) then we are not likely to see any story about a prominent businessman/oligarch or political leader in the West.Many prominent names that have been release are people who will not suffer any consequences: like Gulf Arabs and Cameron's deceased father.
This leads to questions of data-scrubbing or selective disclosure.
3) Context
> Western governments and Corporate media control information flow as never before. Those who 'push-back' on critics conveniently forget this. Examples: MH-17, War on Whistle-blowers, etc.> The NWO agenda has sparked Cold War II. An enormous amount of resources has already been spent in this 'war' (e.g. propping up Ukraine, proxy war in Syria).
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 6 2016 13:57 utc | 193
Hey Shadow Nine - might you share a link to your 'snippet'?
Looks like FP clocked out. He probably ended up working a bit of overtime, for free, I'm sure, for the cause and all.
Even more interesting than the FIFA is the evidence given on an Abu Dhabi guy named al-Qubaysi yesterday in a TV program (Cash Investigation) on French TV, which is part of the team who has worked on the leak for the last 9 months. (available in replay)
The guy spirited some 100 millions from the AD fund, placed them at Edmond de Rotschild, a Swiss bank with hospitable offices/postbox in Luxembourg. The guy is one of the people who fund the Real Madrid.
Money laundering is the way European and probably World football is financed. Nothing new here but nice evidence.
Posted by: Mina | Apr 6 2016 14:22 utc | 195
I get it. This leak/hack wasn’t done by an Edward Snowden type. This was done by a CIA type.
And not the KGB, then running the country CIA type, cause those are ok under the cognitive dissonance.
No, this was done by some Jew CIA type (the worst kind, especially if they worked for Mossad prior and are hardcore Zionists, the worst of the worst!).
So the world elite got tired of getting tax scammed (except their own scamming which is ok) and hacked this 4th largest firm (not the top 3 cause they use those, but this one didn’t play the Jew-CIA mafia-lizard game).
They shared this ‘leak’ with a small organization, one which preferred not to work with key MSM media types like NYT and a few others. This has no explanation, or possibly because the elite own those media outlets and so they did not need money ‘wasted’ on ‘useless’ investigations when was all clear.
Now, the little agency shared information with BBC (for some reason unknown, maybe they stepped out of line), some German news, those Jew loving Germans! And a few others.
Also fuck that Ukrainian Porky, he didn't play the rules and took too long to join the evil J-EU system, so he is under the bus too, and Iceland, those fuckers hit the banks. And London property owners, fuck em. Also FIFA, we don't watch that bullshit, football is played with a pigskin bullet looking thing that is held in your hand not kicked! And South America, those slow-to-capitalism moving bastard, fuck em also. Pretty much fuck everyone but the Jews and the US elite. Especially Azerbaijan, whose actually been way to friendly to the US and not Russia, what kind of soviet bs is that, those hoes ain't loyal! fuck em also.
The selected details clearly were meant be to state sponsored propaganda, but not the Russia or China type state sponsored propaganda; those are ok, because they have 7 political parties (or 4 or actually really one for 14 years but who is counting, right!) and one, respectively.
Plus China has lots of labour movements so they are ok also. They run good, open countries; they don’t align themselves to the uni-polar version of the elite-Jew-crocodile-CIA-Monster.
I get it. Now we may want to qualify here that when we say ‘state sponsored’ in the context of the US we mean ‘corporate sponsored’ and since corporations own the state this is why the distinction is unnecessary. We are all owned by corporations, where in China or Russia, the people are free since they are not owned by anyone but their open governments.
It is ok to bring complex corporate ownership of the US state down to a small group of ‘most-likely’ Jew owners, but don’t you dare say that about complex China or Russia, that is not possible.
Now there is an over-arching reason for this, the world elite want to implement a global tax system and build a special tracking system to know to the penny how much each person has in their bank accounts.
Once this is accomplished people will have nowhere to hide, so they will have to go to open countries like China and Russia to store their cash. However, unbeknownst to them, the world elite actually already own Russia and China and have simply setup a façade. Once all the cash flows into Russia and China, they steal that shit and blame it on ‘communism’.
This actually a conspiracy inside a conspiracy, everyone actually is owned and the world elite just play a game with you peons.
Good thing we figured this one out just in time!
Clay Davis says - shieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 14:26 utc | 196
That is why I used simple sentences outside of the 'f-em' rant :)
Go KGB/China, down with the corporate controlled USA! Down with capitalism and socialism, up with libertarianism, privacy, and guns.
Screw the elite who control the world, but not other complex countries!
Love you guys. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: FunnyPeople | Apr 6 2016 16:03 utc | 198
MosFon claims to be victim of external hack
The company has accused media organisations reporting the leak of having "unauthorised access to proprietary documents and information taken from our company" and of presenting this information out of context.In a letter to the Guardian newspaper on Sunday, the company's head of public relations threatened possible legal action over the use of "unlawfully obtained" information.
Will the threat of legal action shut down further release of Panama Papers info?
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 6 2016 16:06 utc | 199
176
*I still wish you all well, I would hope you can continue to do this and that the US never looks like today's China or Russia in pretty much any way possible (aside from women, am-I-right!) *
300 yrs after its birth, the unitedsnake is still stuck at the stage when china was under the mongols rule.
http://tinyurl.com/lq3szac
at this speed of *evolution*, when do u propose to reach the current civilisation of china./russia ?
hehehehhe
Posted by: denk | Apr 6 2016 16:29 utc | 200
The comments to this entry are closed.
Panama papers eviscerates the fraud of austerity forced on Western people's.
And on the blackmail front, I'm sure media heads and others working higher up in the media, are in the Panama papers themselves, so blackmail can go both ways. They can cancel each other out.
Posted by: tom | Apr 5 2016 2:35 utc | 101