By Timothy Fitzpatrick
November 14, 2020 Anno Domini

Lurking beneath the friendly, jocular face of Australian anti-Zionist Brendon O’Connell is a deeply disturbed and unhinged soul.

Is it jealousy to say so, as is often the cry of those in positions of influence in the alternative media being squeezed to account for their words? Is it the accusation of an FBI operative, Zionist deep stater? No, but that’s what he would have his groupies believe, as the narcissistic, manipulative, sociopathic, self-appointed cult leader that he seems to be.

I’ve been meaning to write this critique of O’Connell, whom I have known since the mid 2000s, for many years but have held back because I thought maybe he could get over himself long enough to get some hard-hitting truth out to the masses. After all, I argued to myself, he does have a good analytical mind at times, and he has enough charisma to effectively influence an audience.

I was wrong. It’s turned out that he has done nothing but divide and disturb the dissident movement against the New Socialist World Order for the past 16 years. Instead of offering truth with no strings attached, he has used his sometimes-good analyses simply to build an audience for the mere glorification of his own ego—and to fill his wallet (O’Connell admits in this clip, “I am just here for the money now.”). Sure, he may be an actual counter-intelligence operative/asset of some kind (as some suggest), but his personality seems to show that he is too unhinged and unstable to carry out any kind of meaningful, organized, or prolonged operation beyond self-aggrandizement. If he is an operative, his operators must have long since abandoned him as too unreliable for effective use. O’Connell is directing his own operation from the small world of his own making.

I first encountered O’Connell at Libertyform.org, which was one of the best free speech forums at the time (I can’t think of one that has rivaled it since). Although its mission was libertarian oriented, it drew a steady stable of smart and well-read conspiracists, nationalists, and traditional Christians. O’Connell was every much a pot stirrer back then as he was when he got himself indicted after the Friends of Palestine rally (2008/09) in Australia, which made him somewhat famous in the dissident movement. He was a constant pest, agitator, and divide-and-conqueror of those with whom he came in contact online and in real life. He also relentlessly stalked and doxxed people with whom he became fixated, much like he has continued to present time; for example, with researcher Joseph Davis, who was doing some great work up until O’Connell doxxed him into silence (I guess O’Connell couldn’t allow an honest researcher to upstage him. See one of Davis’ well-researched articles here.). He was the same way on the conspiracy forums. He had to be the center of attention or else he went on the attack. When Libertyforum was shuttered, O’Connell took his gong show over to other forums, like ArgueWithEveryone, where he carried out the same agitprop. As I conversed with him more and more, his wild stories of being hacked and harassed by the feds began to dominate our conversations (never did he provide any solid evidence of this, much like he fails to do today). Little did I know at the time that he was setting his hooks in to establish his cult following. It worked on me for a while, although I only supported him from a distance. Fortunately, I didn’t get too close to him, as others have and got burned for doing so.

Because he harassed and physically assaulted Stanley Keyser apparently unprovoked and with no relevance to his anti-Zionist activism, he was eventually handed a racial vilification charge by a Perth court looking to make an example of the perceived Jew hater. Although O’Connell was wrong for harassing and assaulting (slap or punch) Keyser, it certainly didn’t warrant a jail sentence, let alone three years. But you can’t publicly defy the Synagogue of Satan and get away with it. Because of this very public defiance, Brendon garnered more support and a myth grew around him as being some kind of freedom fighter. Even today, it seems that many people don’t realize how petty his “exploits” at the Friends of Palestine rally were—or his taking credit for exposing Operation Talpiot, which was first exposed by Jason Gewirtz in his 2016 book, “Israel’s Edge: The Story of IDF’s Most Elite Unit – Talpiot”. They portray him as a hero, and O’Connell himself repeatedly claims that his trial brought out “the Israeli state” against him. Naturally for O’Connell, he has used this fake heroism as a bludgeon in order to get “donations” to his various crypto- and actual currency accounts.He often brings up his alleged broken arm in jail to gain sympathy and credibility from his groupies. His broken arm could easily have been a result of O’Connell lipping someone off, which we know he is prone to doing. Prison is a dangerous place. You don’t have to be a whistleblower in order to be assaulted in there.

O’Connell soon switched his operation from the forums onto videos and became extremely dramatic in the time leading up to his trial and eventual incarceration. He was belligerent with authorities while recording them on camera and seemed to accuse all people of all things. He seemed to backstab even those who supported him throughout his self-inflicted ordeal. He stated provocative things in his videos, like when he called for rounding up Jews into camps in Australia (I have a recording of this video). What kind of an imbecile says something like that, even if one really thinks it? He used his trial to advance his anti-Zionist, pro-Palestine cause, even shouting to the court after his sentencing something to the effect that his imprisonment would be a cakewalk compared to what Gazans go through.

Gaza brings me to my next point. O’Connell has a strange habit of taking down his own videos, be it on Youtubeor Bitchute. Sometimes he claims they are censored; other times it seems he self-censors. At first, it used to confuse me why he did this, but I began to believe that he did this to keep people from seeing patterns in his behaviour and rhetoric and, therefore, learning what kind of man O’Connell really is. At least once he deleted his entire channel, preceded by a video where he repeatedly insulted his audience and said he was finished trying to wake everyone up. Well, I happened to snag a few of those self-censored videos over time, and in one of them, he reads from his own trial transcript where he tells the court that he is a “multiculturalist” (evidently to show that he isn’t racially prejudiced against Jews). His opposition to the Synagogue of Satan seems to be directed at their “racism” and little else. These are all signs that O’Connell, a self-admitted “Jungian” is actually a bit of Leftist, possibly a Marxist. He stated in a 2018 video with all seriousness, “I love the U.N. I think it’s a great idea.” He has also professed support of communism on at least one occasion (in one of his deleted videos, he advised his followers to stop focusing on cultural Marxism and instead focus on his monopolized narrative of Operation Talpiot. Here is one video he forgot to take down where he says he doesn’t want to hear people complaining about Leftists, commies, and culture war. He says we should only focus on “the bankers”). Ultimately, all that he seems to be is an anti-racist egoist (his ego is so big, he once claimed that the NSA named malware after him). This is further corroborated by his fixation with the “white nationalist” movement, who seem to be at the receiving end of his vitriol at least once in every Youtube video he publishes. Nationalist researcher Brandon Martinez did a good podcast a while back calling O’Connell an honorary Muslim. This might not be far from the truth. I remember in one video O’Connell talking about “My Lebs”, referring to an apparent gang of Lebanese inmates whom O’Connell befriended while incarcerated.  Of course, it doesn’t help Brendon’s credibility when he flees to Iran and bunks with a homosexual (in typical O’Connell fashion, when things didn’t work out in Iran, for whatever reason, O’Connell turned on Iran, like he does with people. O’Connell was pro-Iranian, as per the Duginist script, but then turned on them, likely out of self interest, not in the interest of truth).

Former O’Connell associate and apparent controlled opposition operative Adam Green seems to use similar pro-Palestine, anti-Zionism rhetoric, possibly as part of the KGB’s Operation SIG (see my dossier on Green here). Incidentally, O’Connell and Adam Green parted ways not long after a meltdown Brendon had during a “Talpiot Talk” live stream. Although O’Connell went on to accurately predict Adam “Flakey” Green’s rise in the dissident movement, it seems he turned on Green due to his own ego being threatened and not because he was genuinely suspicious of Green’s motives. O’Connell’s behaviour with Green and the Talpiot Talk crew, once again, shows that his motives are not sincere but are self-serving.

Brendon O’Connell is a dangerous character not because of the information he provides, which can be found from various other sources (half the time O’Connell is promoting controlled opposition operatives like Steve Pieczienik and Steve Bannon), but because he betrays everyone who crosses his path. He should be avoided for this reason and because he seems to only cause infighting and suspicion in the dissident movement. He’s essentially an energy vampire, siphoning off otherwise useful dissident energy and wasting it away for his own self-aggrandizement. O’Connell seems to expect to be rewarded with a living because he slapped a Jew instead of pulling up his britches and getting himself a real job. His constant sob stories promoted in his videos as he moves from location to location is just another hallmark of a disturbed, sociopathic personality, whose worst enemy is not the Jews or the big banks but himself. He remains today alienated from everyone, even those who would help and support him, due to his self-destruction.

Jewish Telegraphic Agency
January 4, 1962 Anno Domini

Gradual democratization of the Soviet Union and the abolition of wars by 1987 is predicted by Israel Premier David Ben-Gurion in a statement published in the current issue of Look magazine which carries a number of interviews on the world outlook 25 years from now. Mr. Ben-Gurion’s statement reads:

“The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: The Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligentsia in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and the rising political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy.

“Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, ail other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars.

“In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah. Higher education will be the right of every person in the world. A pill to prevent pregnancy will slow down the explosive natural increase in China and India, And by 1987, the average life-span of man will reach 100 years.”

By Andrew Michta
Wall Street Journal
Sept. 14, 2020 Anno Domini

One ploy for countries competing with other great powers is to peel away the allies of your adversary and convert them to your interests. In 1972, Richard Nixon took a trip to Beijing, one of the most daring and effective gambits in the history of U.S. foreign policy. At the time Beijing was a re- gional player and a nuclear power, but nowhere near a peer competitor to the U.S. or the Soviet Union. Nixon turned China into a lever of American influence.

We are about to find out how well Beijing can play the strategic game. On Monday the European Union and China are scheduled to hold a virtual summit—originally planned as a meeting in Leipzig, Germany—aimed at hammering out the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment. This pact would lay out parameters of trade, address questions of Chinese subsidies and protection of European intellectual property rights, and, if German Chancellor Angela Merkel gets her way, define China’s role in fighting climate change.

So far during negotiations, Beijing has resisted meeting the E.U. halfway, especially on subsidies. But there are indications that the Chinese may be- come more accommodating. The summit comes only weeks before the U.S. presidential election, and the meeting will be Xi Jinping’s best opportunity to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe on trade. For Europe’s business community, access to the Asian market is seen as essential to the EU’s economic recovery. Having the treaty with Beijing would—at least in theory—help protect European intellectual property and keep vulnerable European firms from being bought outright by the Chinese.

Europe has been central to Beijing’s global strategy for years. Some 75 per cent of European imports come by sea, with access through the North Atlantic being crucial, and China has aggressively pursued acquisitions of stakes in major European ports. Most important, through its Belt and Road Initiative and its investments, China has aimed at establishing an alternative supply chain over land across Europe and Asia.

Beijing’s endgame is what I call the “global inversion” of established trade flows, which currently favor maritime routes, a setup that relies on U.S. naval power as enforcement. If China can develop a cross-Eurasian supply chain and protect it, it won’t need to match America in the maritime domain. That would be a fundamental shift in global trade and power distribution. China can do this because so far Washington—which now sees China as both an economic and military challenge of the first order—has not been able to convince the Europeans to see Beijing as anything more dangerous than an economic problem set. European leaders are increasingly concerned about Chinese bullying, but they don’t want to be pulled into an alliance with the U.S. against Beijing.

If these conditions hold and China can drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe, normal trans-Atlantic relations will be a thing of the past. Such a change would transform Europe from the trans-Atlantic gateway to Eurasia into the tail-end of a Chinese-controlled Eurasian supply chain, allowing Beijing eventually to dominate Europe and bid for global hegemony.

China’s Europe strategy has a military component. The People’s Liberation Army Navy has been actively pursuing access to ports in Europe, especially in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. It has conducted joint drills with the Russian Navy and the EU, starting in 2018 when it completed its first naval exercise with the EU Naval Force in the Gulf of Aden.

China has stakes in port facilities in the Mediterranean, including Greece, Spain, Egypt, Italy and Morocco, while the Chinese navy operates a support base in Djibouti, positioning itself to project power deeper into Africa. China’s navy has also entered the Baltic and is investing in capabilities in the Arctic, with a tender for a 33,000-ton nuclear- powered icebreaker and plans to operate four nuclear-powered aircraft carriers by 2035.

China sees Europe as a region whose wealth and technology can be exploited for advantage over the U.S. Europe is an attractive target: The Continent is desperate for market access and cash as the economy tries to recover from a pandemic. With Russia as a threat to Central and Eastern European countries on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s flank, Beijing also has an opportunity to exploit fissures within Europe. The rise of anti-Americanism in some countries will make it difficult to achieve a consensus on threats, while the alignment between Beijing and Moscow may deepen cleavages in Europe when it comes to relations with the U.S.

The frayed state of U.S.-European relations, especially the increasingly contentious relations between Washington and Berlin, offers Mr. Xi an opportunity to “play Nixon” in his own way. Washington needs to pay attention to the EU-China summit this week—and its aftermath.

Mr. Michta is dean of the College of International and Security Studies at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.