However, indications that this is all about the working of a whistleblower, probably within the Democratic Party, and not an army of Russian hackers, seems more convincing:

I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they’re certainly not Russians, he’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; they are two different things. If what the CIA says is true, and their statements refer to people they know is related to the Russian state, they would arrest someone if he was inside the United States … (who) has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers or extraditing Hackers. They just do not have any knowledge.

(CIA Concludes Russia Interfered to Help Trump Win Election, the Guardian, 12/10/16)

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]his insistence on involving the Russians was at first useful to divert attention from the incriminating contents of John Podesta’s and DNC’s mails, but now we see it mutate into something far more dangerous, with monolithic support from mass media, as every time their masters smell blood, the New York Times and the Washington Post soon dedicate front pages to it and the world’s corporate media simply goes along. But where is this going?

As Craig Murray points out, when the media speak of ‘credible’ sources, and all this Russian charade is based on this supposedly blind trust in American officials, what it is saying is that they are establishment sources,for whom presenting solid evidence has been always optional. We say “supposedly blind trust” because many of these media misinformers do not believe for a second what they are reporting, but they do it nonetheless. It’s not so much a question of “trusting” the government, as a matter of protecting and advancing their careers while marching in lockstep with the rest of the conformist pack.

In a statement to the Daily Mail, Murray, a former United Kingdom ambassador to Uzbekistan, said he was the one to receive the documents from a Democratic Party employee in Washington, after the boycott suffered by Bernie Sanders in the primaries, which ended in the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and caused the condemnation by many operatives and sympathizers of the Democratic Party.

This kind of renewal of the 50’s McCarthyism was carried out on several fronts, one of vital importance being referred to the alarm regarding the proliferation of ‘false news’. The Washington Post published an article on November 24, citing the findings of an organization called Propornot, an anonymous group that drew up a list of 200 media devoted to ‘Russian propaganda’ and ‘false news’.

Propornot’s analysis against these media was made using a methodology that would embarrass even the laziest of school boys, since no real association was necessary with the Russian State: they simply incorporated the vast majority of alternative journalism blogs that had something critical to say about US foreign policy, which generated the univocal rejection of both mainstream and independent journalism and a later clarifying —but woefully inadequate—note by the WP.

When the media that ‘set the agenda’, such as the Washington Post, The New York Times or CNN, publish an article, the world’s media follows obediently. What we observe, in short, in all these cases, is a transmission of information based on a questionable concept of authority, not facts.

Let us remember Iraq. At the inaugural rally of President George W. Bush’s (January 30, 2001) the issue of removing Saddam Hussein was put at the top of the list, as recalled by former US Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill:

It was about finding a way to do it. The president said, ‘Go find me a way to do this.’

That’s where the CIA comes in. The American anthropologist David Price has studied the agency for two decades and agrees with former agent Philip Agee that the CIA is, “the secret police of American capitalism.” In addition, he believes that Trump is embracing political allies that would point to a strengthening of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to the detriment of the CIA.

An interesting month awaits us.