by Scott Creighton
UPDATE Oct. 13, 2013 :
McKinsey & Co, Inc.: The Globalist Management Consulting Firm Behind the Malala For-Profit Charter School Psyop
UPDATE: Unconfirmed report from a reader that American Everyman is being blocked in Pakistan. My page views statistics seems to support that claim.
Is this the story of a young girl who’s dream was nearly stamped out or is the a case of a misogynist father so hell bent on pushing his own personal crusade for a larger market share of the privatized education system in Pakistan that he would recklessly put his wife and children in the Taliban’s cross-hairs? Perhaps the CFR Mockingbird “journalist’ can shed some light on the subject.
Meet Adam Ellick, the Council on Foreign Relations member and apparent CIA Mockingbird stationed at the New York Times. He’s the guy who helped create the Malala Psyop in the first place, the plan to bring for-profit school systems to all of Pakistan. Here he is posing with Malala and her father in 2009.
Before we get into Adam’s interesting revelations about the Malala psyop and the obvious influence of her school owner father on all of this, let’s first take a moment to delve into Adam’s background.
Adam the Mockingbird
He studied journalism and “Emerging Transnational Issues” at Ithaca College and he belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations as well as the Overseas Press Club which is run by people from CNN, Conde Nast, Newsweek, Forbes, Reuters, etc.
This Fulbright Scholar from Indonesia prides himself on a few of his “accomplishments” laid out on his Facebook page which include things like “covered the Asian Tsunami, investigated Hugo Chavez’s land wars, exposed Karachi’s bondage and fetish underworld, reported on Russia’s anti-American youth movements, documented the Taliban’s crackdown on female education in Swat, and covered the Arab Spring in Egypt and Bahrain.”
Adam went to Russia in 2004 in a joint program to teach American “journalism” to Russian students. It’s well established that the CIA uses the cover of journalism to infiltrate various targeted nations.
“In summer 2004, I worked as a Visiting Professor at the Russian American Journalism Institute, a study abroad program jointly administered by New York University, Ithaca College and Rostov State University in Rostov, Russia.” Adam
All of this is circumstantial of course, but one last bit of Adam Ellick trivia sheds a bit of ironic light on the subject…
“I collect quotations, globes, and foreign propaganda posters.” Adam
Yeah, I bet you do.
Daddy’s Little Girl
As I have stated before, one of the key elements of this Malala psyop is the Gordon Brown global campaign for charter, for-profit school systems. There’s billions of dollars to be made in this arena, money just sitting there on the table for the taking. The UN mandate is called Education First. It’s a global “public/private partnership” scheme (privatization) involving a “not-for-profit” institution (Global Business Coalition for Education) set up by Accenture, Hess, Chevron, Pearson International and others. Gordon Brown goes so far as to claim this is “Malala’s next fight” in a Daily Beast article dated Oct. 14th
I think it’s safe to say that several agendas are being supported with this single attack on a single little girl, but in my mind I have to wonder just how much of this was her fight to begin with and how much of it was that of her father?
Adam inadvertently reveals quite a bit about this dilemma in one of his recent articles on the subject of the documentary he made on Malala back in 2009.
Now remember, in 2009, this little girl was just one of many who had a blog about what was happening in her country. But it’s hard to say if the blog was even hers since it was posted under a different name and the only real evidence of it resides at the globalist BBC blog page.
But somehow little 11 year old Malala was catapulted to international attention by a documentary film, made by our CFR (CIA?) reporter Adam Ellick.
Why her? Why then?
According to Adam, he started filming little Malala the day before her school was to be shut down by the Taliban after meeting with the father and Malala 10 days prior to the shut down. What a coincidence. Seems like they had everything in place.
But even more telling is this:
“The Malala I know transformed with age from an obedient, rather shy 11-year-old into a publicly fearless teenager consumed with taking her activism to new heights. Her father’s personal crusade to restore female education seemed contagious. He is a poet, a school owner and an unflinching educational activist.” Adam Ellick
Was the “obedient” child simply being used as part of the school OWNER’s “personal crusade” to bring more for-profit schools to Pakistan and increase his market share?
Does this guy, Ziauddin Yousafzai, actually wish to better the lives of women young and old in Pakistan like the official story claims, or is there something else behind all of this? Adam inadvertently answers that question for us…
“Her father was a bit traditional, and as a result, I was unable to interact with her mother. I used to chide Ziauddin about these restrictions, especially in front of Malala. Her father would laugh dismissively and joke that Malala should not be listening. Malala beamed as I pressed her father to treat his wife as an equal.’ Adam Ellick
Now let me see if I understand this: the school OWNER’s business is about to be shut down and out of the blue his “obedient” daughter takes up his “personal crusade” to bring more for-profit schools to Pakistan (and thus increase his wealth) yet the guy won’t let the Times “reporter” even speak with his wife because he is so “traditional” (read as misogynist) and her place is to be seen and not heard. Is that basically the story here?
Now if I were a conspiracy kind of guy I might start thinking that this “driven” misogynist might just view women, “his” women, as his personal property to do with as he sees fit. And to that end, he might just not give a crap about the potential harm that might come to Malala.
“My anxiety rose with each of his answers. Militants controlled the checkpoints. They murdered anyone who dissented, often leaving beheaded corpses on the main square. Swat was too dangerous for a documentary…
… For the first time in my career, I was in the awkward position of trying to convince a source, Ziauddin, that the story was not worth the risk. But Ziauddin fairly argued that he was already a public activist in Swat, prominent in the local press, and that if the Taliban wanted to kill him or his family, they would do so anyway. He said he was willing to die for the cause.” Adam Ellick
Notice what this reporter is actually saying: that the father understood he and his daughter and his wife and his two sons could be in harm’s way by the making of this documentary, but HE was willing to die for his effort to bring more school business into the area… and apparently HE was willing to let his family die as well.
What kind of father is that?
I have thought about this question since the first time I read that there were reportedly death threats issued by the Taliban toward Malala and her family. What kind of father allows his daughter to become the target of such malevolence and anger in a region where “terrorist” bombings occur nearly everyday? Wouldn’t most fathers tend to try to reduce risks taken by their family members especially if those risks involved the ENTIRE family?
Why would he be so prone to accept that risk for himself and more importantly for his family?
Does that say anything about how he views his family? Does that say anything about what he knew about who was actually behind the bombings? Maybe he was willing to take those risks because there were no real threats. Maybe he was willing to take that risk because he understood he wouldn’t actually be targeted. Maybe he was willing to take that risk because he sees his family as his possession and he is so terrified of losing his wealth that he would rather put his entire family on the line rather than start over.
It’s hard to say.
That makes me think about this photo of Malala and her father meeting with Richard Holbrooke in 2010. Many suggest that Malala herself was there to meet and come up with a plan to help the Americans out. Adam says she was there to plead with Holbrooke to help oust the Taliban from the district so her school could reopen.
I have a different theory. It wasn’t Malala meeting with Holbrooke, but her dedicated businessman father. The photo was a press op to be later used when Malala became the face of the for-profit global school system which was undoubtedly already in the works.
Understand this: while Adam drools over the father’s bravery when it comes to his “cause’, the reality is, his “cause” is his business… it’s making money in his for-profit school system.
That’s not nobility. That’s not heroic.
Adam is certainly with the CFR and it looks like he’s working as a CIA Mockingbird as well.
Yet, it’s Adam’s inadvertent glimpses into the dynamic role the father plays in all of this that may yet prove to be the most telling evidence to date as to the true nature of the staged Malala Psyop.