George Webb. Ex Dutch Intelligence and World Hero

[nbohr1more]

Rather than pollute status updates, I thought I would post here.

 

George Webb was purported to be a "citizen journalist" but at the end of his video series

he has revealed that he was a former employee for McAfee (anti-virus company) and ed-Dutch Intelligence.

 

After the disappearance of Eric Braverman (DNC CEO) and knowing that Eric was named as a leaker in Wikileaks,

he knew that Andrew McCabe (head of the FBI) would be targeting Eric if he hadn't already done so and that

George himself was under the same threat because he "knew too much".

 

George began his series as more of a free-form ramble about the possible whereabouts of Eric

that somehow became more cogent and coherent and laden with all sorts of facts about the Clinton Foundation, DNC, American Bridge, and all of their off-book revenue streams (rat lines).

 

Lo and behold, at the end of his series he reveals that French Intelligence, Israeli Intelligence, Dutch Intelligence, Serbian Intelligence, and (yes) Russian Intelligence have all been supplying assistance with this quest for info.

 

At then end, he was even getting assistance from a source in Congress.

 

The end result?

 

He has identified a 16yr saga of information control that was established via Hillary Clinton and the Pakastani ISI Intelligence.

She has either enticed or forced a large number of legislators to use Blackberry's and Laptops under the control of the Awan Brothers who are apparently Anthony Weiner's IT staff and these devices have been harvesting data on the House and Senate

members to either stay ahead of possible investigations or provide blackmail fodder. The Awan Brothers have fled to Pakastan and the majority of the devices are now in the hands of law enforcement. Once the encryption on these devices is cracked, the whole system comes down. George even names the encryption type used and wryly winks about how it's much easier to crack these days...

 

 

He also identified Alpha Jollah, as the assassin of Seth Rich's ( DNC Data Director who worked for Bernie Sanders). And provided the link between Alpha Jollah, passport grants from Emirate art schools, and the Awan stolen car rings.

 

All along the series, he was under indirect threat from Andrew McCabe but now John Podesta has personally threatened him and his children. As a counter measure, he as threatened that Podesta's art collection if anything happens to himself or his family.

 

Will he get killed and then all his online media be scrubbed from existence?

 

Debbie Wasserman-Shultz seems to be in hot water for working with the Awans now and is trying to

coerce law enforcement to return the seized Laptops and Blackberries...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9wwKZYIxco

[Sotha]

My main question would be: why are people so fascinated by conspiracy theories? I've noticed that Americans seem to love them in particular. What is the main appeal? Is it just entertainment: urban legends and fascinating stories?

 

Or are they something to genuinely to believe: something that affects your every day life and your daily actions?

 

In the reality, there is room for an endless amount of speculation and conspiracy theories. They are mostly equally valid and the evaluation of their thruth-value is equally difficult. Why spend time on them?

 

Sure, if journalists and investigators of crime start dropping like flies, it is good indication there is something terribly wrong in the society and even more journalists and investigators need to get to work. But that is real reporter work and real investigation, not just conspiracy theories.

[Outlooker]

Sure, if journalists and investigators of crime start dropping like flies,...

 

I am not pro or against "conspiracy theories" as such, but

 

1) there exist proven conspiracies

2) there are extremely suspicious events (see below)

3) the phrase "conspiracy theory" is pretty much a tool to ridicule inquisitive thinking and action

 

For example, consider the Belgian Marc Dutroux case:

Shot summary:

Dutroux supplied Belgian upper class members with children to have sex with and kill.

A series of improbable events leads to the whole affair becoming public.

The whole thing takes off really from here - basically, 27 witnesses in the affair are killed directly, have accidents, or "just die" in a short time.

Outrageous stuff happens - the 1st prosecuting attorney to deal with the case is found hanged;

in a police station a gunman enters at night, shoots the cop who is on duty, and removes evidence from the evidence storage room.

27 witnesses to the case dying in short order is very well beyond "conspiracy theory".

 

If you want more info about that, here are some good links:

http://www.whale.to/c/murders_re_marc_dutroux.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Dutroux

 

This is a "conspiracy fact", as factual as it can get.

If I google it today sources seem to have removed from google, especially about the 27 dead witnesses.

While you may not have noticed this affair, the Belgian people sure have - millions of Belgian citizens protested what happened -

not so much the child sex slaves or killing, but how "invisible forces" achieved to sweep it under the carpet.

 

 

Governments and other powerful organisations have all the resources, tools, science - means and methods of getting rid of people,

and they have developed that black art at least for centuries.

Generally speaking, with the advance of technology, a person can not even any longer detect if he his decisively attacked -

a bullet, explosion or knife or obvious poison speak clearly - but how can one know if one's cancer, heart attack, stroke etc.

has natural causes - or is the result of stealthy, deliberate action?

 

In East Germany, the intelligence agency "Stasi", while not being as sophisticated as agencies of more advanced states, practiced

"Zersetzung", basically clandestine psychological sabotage to render people dysfunctional or push them into commiting suicide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zersetzung

That info about those state programs is even available is only due to the fact that in the reunification of Germany in the early

1990s was a lot of chaos, and a few documents about intelligence agencies' activities slipped through concealing or destruction

efforts.

 

Another undeniable fact that slipped through censorship:

The CIA poison gun, aka "heart attack gun", which fires a silent and unnoticeable tiny poison dart that will dissolve in the victim

and release a toxin that is undetectable and makes the assassination appear as natural death.

This verified piece of tech is almost half a century old - imagine what they have now available as tools and techniques for the

"dark arts".

http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-targeted-assassinations-by-induced-heart-attack-and-cancer/5326382

http://www.military.com/video/guns/pistols/cias-secret-heart-attack-gun/2555371072001

 

 

 

Also, more generally, trying to ridicule ideas as "conspiracy theory" is laughable from the beginning:

The definition of a conspiracy is that multiple people conspire to plan or execute criminal acts.

It is already a full-grown, legal conspiracy if three kids plan to collectively steal cookies from their parents'

cookie jar.

Now imagine what is happening in the whole society, companies' board rooms, etc. - real conspiracies are legion,

almost all of them actually go undetected.

[Sotha]

Yeah yeah, sure, there is real life James Bond stuff going on of course. Like the Litvinenko case. It sends a clear message too, because you can't just buy polonium from the general store.

 

True true, it is horrible stuff. But there are also conspiracy theories which are just junk. And you can really easily provoke consipracy theories from facts just by leaving out other facts.

 

An example:

Fact1: "Almost all Titanic casualties died because of heart attack!"

*Wild theories go on why the true cause of their deaths were concealed by a ship sinking cover-up. Perhaps a new combat gas was tested on the ship or whatever.*

Fact2: "When you fall into icy water you die because of heart attack that was cause by hypothermia which was caused by cold sea water in which you ended up because the ship sunk."

 

Because people love conspiracy theories, there are plenty on offer. And when there is lot of junk to speculate about, facts get muddled and the work of the real investigators probably gets more difficult and the actual real conspiracies remain a mystery. I guess real conspirators benefit thd most from public conspiracy theories.

 

And perhaps conspiracies are so interesting stories because they are a mystery, which always fascinate people.

 

And in the end, the likelihood of a junk conspiracy theory is always higher than a real conspiracy.

[Anderson]

Making uncomfortable people disappear is as old as the state is. The first secret agent network is at least 300 years old with Cardinal Richelieu presumably being the most recent example. In the form we know it today.

I'm not sure that Google hides search data. It's all algorithms there. What are the odds someone's going to pay Google to change algorithms in a case like this, where all interested parties (prosecutor, state authorities) probably have better sources ? Google gives the most relevant results based on your location. Maybe try typing it in www.google.nl ? Also specifically for the Dutroux case - it's old. Google appeared in 2005. I see no conspiracy here.
​It's good if there's a group of public people that will speak out against a certain case hidden from the public or one with a hidden agenda. Like politicians and journalists. Our country has conspiracies every day, drawn by narrow journalist, blogger circles of posh snobby people doing political intrigue and flirting with politicians? Conspiracy? Maybe. But it's more of bad taste and overall indicator of a degradation of the people who are supposed to be the elite. It's more of an intrigue where some choose to get involved in for profit. But their minds are most of the time sufficiently closed to do stupid things anyway. They don't deserve to be called conspirators.

 

The point is that in a democracy you can still get to the bottom of at least a half of these stories. Same as how Berlusconi in Italy had a sentence anyway. People who disappear every year in Chechenia will never be found and nobdy will ever care. The Caucasus network is a good source for comparisson of how lucky we all are: http://www.eng.kavkaz-uzel.eu/

Infinite source of European Court sentences if everything is done by the book against Russia here.

Politics is a dirty business and only people with a certain type of thinking usually get into it. And not necesasrily the best ones.

The reason I mention Chechens is because their money helped separatists in Ukraine and their money is heavily involved against another Mafioso who is hostile with the Russian mafia - Vladimir Plahotniuc. Basically he dumped them and stole 20 million dollars from Russian banks and covered all tracks to offshore them through Moldova. The point is that Chechenia is probably a worse example of running a republic than Saudi Arabia or Iran taken together. They are bad news for everyone.

 

Edited June 2, 2017 by Anderson

[Anderson]

It is really not appropriate to label every more exotic theory as conpirology of course, unless it's nonsense.

Be worried about conspiracies that make your local prime minister/president/chancellor have extended powers and turn to the dark side as the next emperor or Darth Vader:

[Outlooker]

Yeah yeah, sure, there is real life James Bond stuff going on of course. Like the Litvinenko case. It sends a clear message too, because you can't just buy polonium from the general store.

True true, it is horrible stuff. But there are also conspiracy theories which are just junk.

Notice that there is a media strategy called something like "information poisoning" - when an information got out in the public, and cannot be directly censored anymore, that information can be "poisoned", that is, have lose its

credibility, by putting out lots of similar, almost identical, minimally modified other info like the original one out, but added with lots of huge nonsense.

 

Example:

Some guy has made real photographs of a secret, ultramodern aircraft the public is not allowed to know about, maybe because it is nuclear powered and dangerous for the environment or something like that.

The photo is out, the damage is done.

But now the agencies "poison" that correct information by putting out through many channels nonsense info - like dozens of versions of the original photography that is doctored, like showing an angel, or

UFO/Alien stuff etc. - suddenly the public sees dozens of versions with clearly faked, nonsensical elements - and loses the ability to know what is true or false, and begins to generally consider "everything of that sort" to

be fakes.

 

This technique is not restricted to photography, of course, but practically every kind of information, which the public shall not believe in or at least have serious doubts about its correctness.

 

You have public evidence leaked out that a top politician had pedophile sex and killing some kids? If it is in "national interest" to keep the politician, the whole affair can be neutralized by putting out

lots of modified obvious fake stories containing the original evidence and information, for example, "leaking" info that the politician is one of a secret organization of satanical lizard people aliens (along with blurred

photos), or other subtle or outrageous falsified information.

Suddenly, all of the affair becomes unbelievable to the public, and it even looks like a deliberate attack on the politician, who suddenly feels more like a victim than an offender.

[rich_is_bored]

People take interest in conspiracies because what passes for journalism now days is less credible. All the media has to offer are sensationalized stories sourced from anonymous persons under headlines posed as questions. The media has no problem parading around conspiracies of their own. Trump's alleged collusion with Russia? They've been rambling on about this for ages and we're no closer to knowing what the two conspired to do. For all we know it could be a surprise birthday party, nothing at all, or he's given them the nuclear codes.

 

Meanwhile you've got conspiracies that site names, documents, and other tangibles and it's dismissed outright because it came from the internet. But when federal prosecutors start washing up on the beach with head trauma and people start scrubbing their account history well fuck if that doesn't sound suspect. At this point it's really a matter of how many coincidences are you willing to turn a blind eye to. It has to be at the very least plausible. This isn't flat earth lizard people type shit.

 

Mind you, the internet discovered the identity of a masked man in a crowd of masked men who assaulted an innocent man with a bike lock. The internet worked out the location of a lone web cam pointed upwards at a flag pole with nothing more to go on than contrails and air traffic data. Blow it off if it suits you. Even I am not completely engrossed in it. But if the dominoes start falling and people start going to jail I'm going to be stoked because it means some corrupt mother fuckers are getting what they deserve.

[Outlooker]

Because people love conspiracy theories, (...), which always fascinate people.

Yes. But why might this be?

I think we have good evolutionary reasons to have developed a sense that other people try to "get us", are even trying to kill us.

Were you ever walking through woods alone and in the dark?

You very probably felt a bit insecure, fearful even - every little noise you thought could be a human or animal on the prey trying to kill you,

every grey shape you saw grew into a monster or attacking human or prey animal in your fantasy.

Why?

Because, evolutionary, erring "one times too often" has higher survival value than "erring one time too few" - in which case one would be dead.

 

It's better to have an over-cautious nervous system which sees threats where there are none, than to miss one single serious threat.

 

Now compare this instinct with the usual desire of most people to try to see conspiracies everywhere - I see a pattern:

Because humans compete socially, one could even say there is an outright social war for status, resources and mates,

there are usually other people plotting and trying to attack, or at least exploit or trick, us - in other words, us being an intelligent species, other people are really

"out to get us" - if "only" to make us buy things, vote for them etc.

Therefore, people who always scan their social environment for conspiracies are at an evolutionary advantage, and seeing one possible conspiracy too many is

clearly better, too, than seeing one actual conspiracy too few.

[Anderson]

 

Mind you, the internet discovered the identity of a masked man in a crowd of masked men who assaulted an innocent man with a bike lock. The internet worked out the location of a lone web cam pointed upwards at a flag pole with nothing more to go on than contrails and air traffic data. Blow it off if it suits you. Even I am not completely engrossed in it. But if the dominoes start falling and people start going to jail I'm going to be stoked because it means some corrupt mother fuckers are getting what they deserve.

 

What if it's Gulen against Ataturk? Depends if the state is a democracy or not. Only there condemning the corrupt dude will have sense, logic and will look like justice and not revanchism.

[Anderson]

Yes. But why might this be?

I think we have good evolutionary reasons to have developed a sense that other people try to "get us", are even trying to kill us.

Were you ever walking through woods alone and in the dark?

You very probably felt a bit insecure, fearful even - every little noise you thought could be a human or animal on the prey trying to kill you,

every grey shape you saw grew into a monster or attacking human or prey animal in your fantasy.

Why?

Because, evolutionary, erring "one times too often" has higher survival value than "erring one time too few" - in which case one would be dead.

 

It's better to have an over-cautious nervous system which sees threats where there are none, than to miss one single serious threat.

 

Now compare this instinct with the usual desire of most people to try to see conspiracies everywhere - I see a pattern:

Because humans compete socially, one could even say there is an outright social war for status, resources and mates,

there are usually other people plotting and trying to attack, or at least exploit or trick, us - in other words, us being an intelligent species, other people are really

"out to get us" - if "only" to make us buy things, vote for them etc.

Therefore, people who always scan their social environment for conspiracies are at an evolutionary advantage, and seeing one possible conspiracy too many is

clearly better, too, than seeing one actual conspiracy too few.

 

It's also a recipe for schizophrenia to develop traits of having the impression that you're superior to your peers. Waste of time and sanity if you're not a person that has power or have some influence or direct tangetion. Unless you're going to vote or something.

[Springheel]

He also identified Alpha Jollah, as the assassin of Seth Rich's ( DNC Data Director who worked for Bernie Sanders).

 

 

What evidence is there that he was assassinated?

 

but now John Podesta has personally threatened him and his children.

 

 

Presumably this is on record somewhere?

 

 

My main question would be: why are people so fascinated by conspiracy theories? I've noticed that Americans seem to love them in particular. What is the main appeal? Is it just entertainment: urban legends and fascinating stories?

 

Human beings are pattern-seeking creatures, and we're very good at finding patterns even if none exist. If you throw a series of random data at people, they will start to detect patterns in it--it's what causes people to hear voices while listening to static (EVP). It's the reason why abstract prophecies like those of Nostradamus stick around while clear and specific ones are forgotten. It's the reason why people so often get confused by the difference between correlation and causation. Studies have shown that the more intelligent someone is, the more easily they can draw out patterns from random noise, and then intelligently defend those patterns.

 

The internet provides people with far more data than we've ever had access to before...it is the data equivalent of random noise. It's no surprise that there are intelligent people creating patterns from that noise and then defending them with sophisticated post hoc rationalizations. Combine this with a general distrust of authority (which is more prevalent in the US than many other countries), and the thrill most people get when they believe they know something important that other people don't....it's not hard to see why they're popular. Add into the mix that occasionally conspiracy theories end up being true, and they can be very difficult beliefs to shake.

[demagogue]

Yes there are cognitive biases that make it almost irresistible to fit events into a single narrative & attribute it to a small set of agents.

 

I think it's easy to demonstrate shady stuff happens all the time.

It's just the vast bulk of it are vanilla scandals, corruption, or run-of-the-mill SpecOps, stuff that invariably gets reported sooner or later.

 

The only thing that secrecy-to-the-point-of-unreportability really adds that's different than vanilla shady is just making it logistically less likely because there's an inverse relationship between the scale of criminal behavior and strategic foresight & ability to really keep things that hidden, and there's some math equation in probability theory that explains how every new "hidden" link to an event is increasingly less likely to be an authentic connection. And even when it does happen, it's almost never the obvious stuff you'd expect but some connection you would have never imagined unless someone involved told you the full story themselves.

[Anderson]

On the distrust for authorities in the US concerning that frontier in the mind we're supposed to find and break:

[V-Man339]

I'll just say this.

After seeing shit like acoustic kitty I end up not discounting any given plan that may or may not have worked out, even if I don't believe it, regardless of how stupid it sounds in concept.

 

After seeing shit like the South Korean Illuminati being outed I end up not discounting any given potential reality no matter how large or small in scale it may be.

 

Conspiracy theories don't tend to stay secret in long, but that's only because people tend to actually pick up on them when they're obvious; when there's money to be made or power to be acquired, people tend to be able to follow trails.

[nbohr1more]

George Webb predicts that the NGA satellites are being linked to NSA collections so that

the Governments have the ability to instantly drone-strike anything captured as an NSA alert.

 

Eg. Someone mentions Andrew McCabe's relationship to McAuliffe before it breaks

as a news story, then (after an automated alert) an analyst reads the mention and gets

a satellite picture of the location where this person spoke\texted\etc about the topic

so they can readily evaluate how easily the person can be taken out.

 

 

Molly from NASA found out that the Pakistani government was going to implement this setup so she was planning on

protesting or whistle-blowing her bosses at NASA.

 

She was killed the same night as Seth Rich and the press barely mentioned her death when normally anything related

to NASA gets wide coverage. (Guy with a pinup-model shirt who works at NASA, etc.)

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/molly-k-macauley-researcher-on-economics-and-space-science-dies-at-59/2016/07/20/b3d309c4-4dd9-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html

[Bikerdude]

Fuckers.

[Anderson]

Ok so George Webb is allied with whom exactly? The GOP and a supporter of Trump if I understand correctly against Clinton?

[nbohr1more]

Bernie Sanders supporter. Wants to know what happened to Eric Braverman.

[Springheel]

She was killed the same night as Seth Rich

According to whom?

 

"Molly K. Macauley, a vice president for research at Resources for the Future, a Washington-based think tank that studies environmental and economic policy, died July 8 in Baltimore"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/molly-k-macauley-researcher-on-economics-and-space-science-dies-at-59/2016/07/20/b3d309c4-4dd9-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html?utm_term=.4e1da3530cde

 

"On Sunday, July 10, 2016, Rich was shot about a block from his apartment in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich

 

[nbohr1more]

According to whom?

 

"Molly K. Macauley, a vice president for research at Resources for the Future, a Washington-based think tank that studies environmental and economic policy, died July 8 in Baltimore"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/molly-k-macauley-researcher-on-economics-and-space-science-dies-at-59/2016/07/20/b3d309c4-4dd9-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html?utm_term=.4e1da3530cde

 

"On Sunday, July 10, 2016, Rich was shot about a block from his apartment in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich

 

 

From the point of view of Intelligence, where news cycles affect public awareness, these two events were simultaneous.

I stand corrected for the incorrect specifics though.

[stumpy]

don't need a phone book to track someone, just need to access tracking chip in phone. or depending on your country, tracking chip hidden in body of person, placed there at birth, or vaccinated for holiday or other reason.

[Springheel]

The only evidence the video presents for the claim that "Molly from NASA found out that the Pakistani government was going to implement this setup so she was planning on protesting or whistle-blowing her bosses at NASA." is his quote "I'm just doing time correlation", (using incorrect dates, as it turns out) and "I see reporters do things that are not normal".

 

Is there any other evidence to support this rather specific claim?

 

He himself seems to admit he doesn't have any, ending with the summary: "It sure is funny, in terms of correlation."

[rich_is_bored]

Webb is probably full of shit. I say probably because I can't be bothered to watch all 200+ of his videos to see if there's anything credible there or not.

 

I don't understand how he has the time and ammo to crap out a dozen videos a day but he's too busy investigating corruption to spell it out for us plebs. I hope his videos are monetized. At least then someone is benefiting from his efforts.

Edited June 10, 2017 by rich_is_bored

[nbohr1more]

George Webb partially vindicated:

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/07/26/worker-fla-congresswoman-fired-accused-bank-fraud/512040001/

 

The Imram Awan attempts to flee the US with large amounts of cash and wires a substantial sum to his Pakistani bank account.

 

His equipment has been found and is being forensically analyzed by the FBI.

 

The chips are moving.

 

Interestingly, Hillary's lawyer Chris Gowen is defending Mr Awan.

 

I guess rather than disavow and let the prosecutions take place, the DNC is gonna try to dig-in and call this a witch hunt (Islamaphobia, etc).

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/imran-awan-hires-high-power-dc-attorney-closely-linked-clinton-crime-family/

 

Also, the DC District Attorney is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's brother Steve Wasserman:

 

https://twitter.com/GeorgWebb/status/890439783914319872

 

Assistant United State Attorney Michael Marando reviewed the criminal complaint:

 

https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/dcd/188191/1-1.html

 

He's married to "JoAnna Wasserman":

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/fashion/weddings/26WassermanMarando.html

 

no relation as I can tell but it doesn't look good...