Cryptome founder:"Wikileaks is a fraud"

[slow_dazzle]

Hello Riggies - I've been following this saga for months and I'm now convinced WL isn't what it seems to be. The child board on our forum is now seven pages long, albeit i've probably skewed the context by posting so much anti-WL material.

For me the clincher is in this article (sorry if it's been posted here already):

“Trying to Explain the World” – How the Globalist’s PR Agents Use the Wikileaks Psyops Program

Michel Chossudovsky over at Global Research has put up an interesting NPR transcript with some rather revealing statements about Wikileaks that were made by the New York Times chief Washington correspondent, David Sanger. Sanger is one of the New York Times reporters who have been reading and writing about the different state department memos “leaked” by Wikileaks. He was also involved in meetings with the Obama administration and others which selected and redacted the cables that would be published.

WL is all about transparency yet, from the outset, censorship is being applied? Doesn't anyone see the irony in Assange working with David Sanger?

The rest of the article raises serious fault lines over the view of WL as an anarchist-inspired attempt to get the truth out.

And WL digitally signed previous cable releases but they are no longer being signed. How can we be certain we are getting the correct versions?

Quite what is going on isn't entirely clear. However, I am wholly unconvinced WL is going to change anything. Why? Well, ask yourselves this question: we have read many of the cables, there is a flurry of media attention on them etc - what do we do next? Try to answer that question and, it quickly becomes apparent that the expectations raised by the cables, are not going to be matched by their impact. To be brutal about it - how do they empower the political process at grass roots level? The short answer is they don't tell us much we either knew already, or suspected might have happened. We KNOW a lot more - we still don't have ACCESS to the mechanisms that facilitate change - "they" still have a firm grip on them and there is nothing we can do to loosen their grip, salacious/embarrassing cable leaks notwithstanding. THAT is the reality of the situation.

Later folks and all the best.

[Sounder]

This psy-ops shit is so simple, just play to the targets pretenses and presto-chango, folk that are consciously anti-globalist get turned into globalist shills. Of course the potential dissonance and threat to the validity of ones personal identity will ensure that ideas like this ignored or failing that are shouted down by the righteous warriors for 'truth'.

Well its always worked before, so why not now?

[82_28]

Thanks slow_dazzle! Good to see you again! And no, I hadn't seen that link. I've largely stayed away from this wikileaks shit in interest of keeping my sanity. However, it does seem most everybody is beginning to come around to the conclusion that this shit stinks to high heaven no matter which way you slice it.

Loman's comment in that link is very good and I agree -- simply because this is what I maintained in some of the earlier wikileaks speculation around these here parts.

willyloman, on December 14, 2010 at 7:07 am said:

Michel Chussodovski just wrote a very detailed article about Assange and I think its going to force a lot of Wikileaks supporters to have to rethink their position on it. Michel runs Global Research, the Center for Globalization.. has for about, what, 10 years now? He has a great deal of credibility among dissidents and writers, so we will see, you may have a lot of company in the near future Shawn who feel exactly the same way you do.

You know, I felt exactly the way you do when I found out what Steven Jones was. I even posted an article up on this site saying that I was done with this… I quit. I didn’t want to keep writing if I could be suckered in like that…

but then after a little time, that feeling gave way to something else, and I was back writing and researching, and I am glad I went through it actually.

taught me that what I am feeling is bigger than one person.

What’s next for Assange? My guess is they will pass their laws, bringing back something like the old sedition charges that they used against the old Womblies, but they won’t ever get around to prosecuting him in the U.S. But they will round up and arrest others who try to leak real stuff, and that is the point of Wikileaks…

He will fade away like Bradley Manning, like all the fake terrorists like Umar Fizzlepants and that Wall Street guy who they claimed tried to bomb Times Square…

His group will continue to “leak” their documents which will be used over and over again to jin-up pre-texts for a war with Iran or North Korea or China or Pakistan or whatever country is next on the list.

They will probably have to shut down sites that mirrored Wikileaks or downloaded his poison pill file, whether or not they actually did that or not.

and in the end, even “progressive” writers will agree that its better if we create a licensing program for internet websites… after all, we don’t let people just drive down the road willy-nilly, now do we?

That’s my guess anyway. Who knows.

Of course, everybody is "guessing", but I couldn't agree more with what I just bolded right there. It's just a matter of just how serious a critical mass take this phantasm of terrorism. It's like a kid at 16 saving up for the down payment on his first car. Wikileaks is the down payment, soon we're going to get a look at that car.

I also liked Loman's assertion that this is meant for those of us who don't recognize the "boundaries" the Washington and whatnot insiders do. It isn't a liberal/democrat/conservative/republican/teaparty issue. This is just straight up business using FUD. It has been obvious ever since this whole dog and pony show began.

I think the cood said something about how he thought many of us aren't reading the cables or something. No, I haven't read a one. Besides the joke rickroll. But the cables do not interest me any more than reading the cellphone texting history of someone I think is uninteresting. There is no point to the cables. They are and were always destined to make zero impact on "policy". Why? Because there is a "policy" in the first place. Fuck "policy". They are asserting "policy" which is always with a view to psychological manipulation to always get what they want by making their wants and needs appear to be our own. At long last someone is standing up to this malfeasance! Spare me. This shit is murder and crime of the highest sort and now it is being technologized at the simultaneous underbelly and greatest asset to open-source strength, liberty and common respect.

The entire Internet was designed to do what it does, whether that be cupcake and cat blogs or a decentralized wikileaks in and of itself and defying all definition. For instance, the people that I met up with in the early years of peace marching all agreed that the turnout was amazing. We did it all on our own worldwide. We had such high hopes for the internet at that point. Now the Internet is being slowly but surely corralled into tweets, tumblrs, flickrs, feeds. It seems free, but it is the exact opposite. We're being, the information stream rather is being, flooded with worthless bilge, that everybody knew anyways, nobody is going to read and only gives pretext to proclamations that "something now must be done!" So once the flood is over, everything will collect into little pools before it all evaporates. And by "evaporate", I do not the think the Internet is going away, but the open nature of it shall forever be illegal. Terrorism's big biz, just too bad 99.9% of humanity ain't terrorists until the paychecks start coming in.

[82_28]

And BTW, it's not that I am averse to reading the cables on my own. It's just I've A: Been busy looking at the whole thing in a kinda macro propaganda way and B: Looking for a job and such.

[lupercal]

UK court frees WikiLeaks Julian Assange on bail

http://twitter.com/Reuters/statuses/14702207505014784

[MacCruiskeen]

He was a fucking hero in Iceland at that time.

I knew that. But he wasn't a fucking hero at the US Embassy at that time or any other, was he? Or at least so we're told.

The US embassy could not have failed to know who he was,

Precisely what I said to justdrew, who had been suggesting the contrary: that practically anyone -- including a Fucking Icelandic Hero with one of the world's most recognisable faces -- could just stroll into a US Embassy function unquestioned, unhindered and unidentified.

nor how inadvisable it would be to for them to appear to be blocking him from attending an event.

You may well be right about that. But it is also not the only possible explanation for his presence there.

But let's presume he was precisely what the US State Department had already said he was: a dangerous international "criminal" (sic) and a threat to US interests. So, for all they knew, that heroic, wily, rakish, secrecy-destroying Pimpernel was casing the joint, no? Perhaps he was actually wired for sound? Carrying a secret microphone? Perhaps his own invention? After all, he's an evil genius, right? If not a Superman, then at least a veritable Lex Luthor.

Or did he in fact undergo a full body-search before entering? The plain fact is: We don't know.

And this in an island nation of 300,000 people, so imagine the embassy. In fact, you don't have to:


Not exactly That Thing they're building in Bagdad, or even That New Thing in Berlin.

http://iceland.usembassy.gov/about_the_embassy.html

Oh, mea culpa. In my naivety I had imagined it must closely resemble Fort Knox.

In fact no. Most public buildings in Reykjavik look like primary schools or health centres or supermarkets. It doesn't necessarily mean they're unguarded, especially when they function as the US Embassy.

Note the steel fence on the staircase, the CCTV cameras, and the concrete protection-barriers against car-bombs, etc. (The elves have brightened those barriers up by planting flowers.)

[nathan28]

And why would he be attending a US Embassy function, where dozens of other guests might see him, and even have his name on the official guest list as the companion of a publically invited official (or MP, anyway)?

What I find utterly amazing is that he was accompanying an MP FROM THE ANARCHIST LEFT WHO WAS ALSO ON THE GUEST LIST. Does anyone not get that? Someone who wears a black flag lapel pin was invited. Does that make her a globalist stooge who can't possibly be a sincere anarchist? Did they expect her to bring Barry Goldwater IV as her date? I imagine the State Dep't was relieved that a guy with a fondness for $400 sunglasses showed up and not someone with facial tattoos.

Considering that the State Dep't's job is in part to be on speaking terms with one's opponents, at least on paper, none of this is really cause for questioning. OTOH.

Here's a question, though. If Assange and Wikileaks ARE part of such a sophisticated and elaborate psyop, something that would require the utmost secrecy and perception management at every stage of the operation, why would these clues exist at all, in our heavily manipulated media?

There are some news stories where I believe it's obvious to most people that the actual story has been hidden and obscured. See, e.g., that the contrail/rocket exhaust stories in CA and Norway, where the news outlets actually refused to so much as call up an air traffic controller to ask what flights it might have been.

Additionally, in cases like that, doubt, not certainty, is operative. I tend to think that the CA trail was a contrail, and I'm even willing to speculate that it was an exercise in confusionism considering that the US gov'ts docs indicated testing that week and considering some of the rumors re: chinese testing.

On this, though, I can only imagine a few reasons for certainty that this is a hoax. Because that has been the argument we have received from the outset: it is a hoax, a psyop, a fraud, part of a much greater, more evil plan. In the face of doubts--and there are plenty of reasons to have doubts--certainty has been posited.

Here's a few questions I have:

--Why is WikiLeaks relying on the NYTimes & Friends to censor docs? why not, e.g., resort to academics or retired journalists? why not any non-western major outlets?
--Why has WikiLeaks not released docs that have leaked into other presses, e.g., al-Ahkbar?
--Why has Assange become the face of this operation?
--What is WikiLeaks's intent? E.g., do they see this as a push to become a sort of wikipedia of leaked docs? A sort of news outlet auxilliary or supplementary publication, i.e., a kind of authority? etc.


To be clear, I do not consider the following valid questions, and they do not all the entire thing into doubt:

--Why did Assange "travel freely"? and the related Why hasn't he been assassinated/extraordinary rendititioned? Why isn't he facing charges?
--Why is Assange 'only' being held in solitary?
--Why aren't there any 9/11/01 related docs?
--Why do the cables portray Iran negatively?
--Why does Israel receive such soft treatment?
--Why are the documents still up and online?

More later, maybe.

[LolaB]

http://www.spiegel.de just reported Julian Assange is free on bail.

[justdrew]

the point of allowing some mainstream media initial access and selection (it's the media's predictable choice to go to the government too) is to dirty up as many as possible. Already it's being said by the rabid ones, "how can we prosecute him if not the NYT?" The whole thing will eventually be released, these are still early days, now thanks to this clever strategy, the MSM is "complicit" - a fact that I'm sure the WL folks hope will serve as some protection. They're willing to take risks but are not foolish.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

.
John Pilger was just talking to the press on the court steps. Bail is set at £200,000, with, I think, the condition that Assange wears a GPS ankle tag. Pilger said: "He has made some very serious enemies, for all the right reasons."

What I find utterly amazing is that he was accompanying an MP FROM THE ANARCHIST LEFT WHO WAS ALSO ON THE GUEST LIST. Does anyone not get that? Someone who wears a black flag lapel pin was invited. Does that make her a globalist stooge who can't possibly be a sincere anarchist? Did they expect her to bring Barry Goldwater IV as her date? I imagine the State Dep't was relieved that a guy with a fondness for $400 sunglasses showed up and not someone with facial tattoos.

Very good point. Funny too. Maybe they did want her to bring a guy with facial tattoos, though, to give them something to gossip about. I doubt there's a lot of excitement and diversion at the US embassy in Reykjavík.

[MacCruiskeen]

MPs, even from the anarchist left, even in Iceland, and however rakish their facial tattoos, are not internationally renowned-or-notorious for their fiendish ability to access US state secrets and publish them worldwide.

[justdrew]

MPs, even from the anarchist left, even in Iceland, and however rakish their facial tattoos, are not internationally renowned-or-notorious for their fiendish ability to hack and publish secret US documents worldwide.

Assange is not alleged to have hacked any government computers. The MSM has a long history of publishing secret US documents.

[MacCruiskeen]

I wrote, on edit (our posts crossed): "to access US state secrets and publish them worldwide."

The MSM has a long history of publishing secret US documents.

Such as those leaked to them by Ellsberg nearly 40 years ago, you mean? Or do you mean the tiny fragment of the quarter-million secret communications allegedly leaked to them by Wikileaks? Well, however long (and proud) that MSM history of brave investigative journalism actually is, I wouldn't doubt that even the Daily Mail poses a greater threat to state secrets than any Icelandic anarchist-left MP, with or without a facially-tattooed companion. Which was in fact, and just for the record, the point at issue.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

MPs, even from the anarchist left, even in Iceland, and however rakish their facial tattoos, are not internationally renowned-or-notorious for their fiendish ability to access US state secrets and publish them worldwide.

Neither was Assange, at the time, so far as I know. I think he'd only published the Guantanamo Bay SOP manual back then - though that would've normally been enough to get him barred, if not hunted, I would've thought.

Up until the <FACESAVING EDIT> Iraq diaries/Afghan logs/Collateral Murder video he was mostly just known for the Kenya and Iceland stuff, and not seen as a big anti-American terrorist like he is now.

[barracuda]

Or maybe this cock-and-bull story was rapidly hatched to neutralize any possible witness recollection that Assange was in fact seen with US intelligence officials.

What cock-and-bull story? That the actions of WikiLeaks against Kaupthings Bank lead to serious social change in Iceland? Do you consider that mere cock-and-bull, or merely inconsequential because it doesn't fit your narrative?

What we know so far is absolute proof of only one thing: the possibility exists that Wikileaks and Assange are part of a COINTELPRO psyop.

We could say exactly the same thing about you, or anyone else on this board. You've admitted attending an embassy function. How do we know who was there, or what was spoken about? Now go prove a negative.
(Disclaimer - This statement is for rhetorical purposes only)

To be brutal about it - how do they empower the political process at grass roots level?

Ha. You want somebody to hold your hand through the process of social change? You now have proof that the Secretary of State is gathering biometeric data on members of the United Nations including the Secretary-General. And et cetera, and et cetera. Go do something about it. They did in Kenya. They did in Iceland. They might in Lebanon. Don't be such a weakling, blaming your own inaction on lack of the guidance from authority.

However, it does seem most everybody is beginning to come around to the conclusion that this shit stinks to high heaven no matter which way you slice it.

That statement is nothing more than a lie.
(Disclaimer - This statement is NOT for rhetorical puroposes.)

I knew that.

But you decided not to mention it in order to make your point? Thanks for adding to the discussion.

By the way, Vaughn Smith has now offered surety towards Assange's bail. More COINTELPRO, I guess.