Cryptome founder:"Wikileaks is a fraud"

[lupercal]

Been reading this thread since the inception but never saw fit to post up until now.

I find myself increasingly settling towards the position that Assange himself, and WikiLeaks as an organization, do not have to be active agents or even compromised in order for things to have played out like they did. Considering how fundamentally unknowable this main contention is, of Assange's true inner motivations, I find it of limited value. I honor the gut feelings of Alice and Lupercal and I value all their contributions, but I would like to address constructively why I disagree with you guys here.

You are 100% correct that the interpretation and media/gov spin on the cablegate revelations has been repeatedly and distinctively in support of existing foreign policy objectives. However, the machine that makes that possible functions on it's own. It is huge, it is over a century old, and it will digest anything -- any dissent, any legal actions, any artistic statement -- into sanitized psyops. (Observe how it treats Iran, or Chavez, or Castro.) It has never needed the complicity and cooperation of anyone to accomplish those ends. Now, I recognize that history is clear on this: the media Machine absolutely has had the complicity and cooperation of people who played the role of agent provocateur, often on a grand, decades-long scale, too!

We can't prove that about Assange, though. Yet. Honestly, it's not even a very strong case for implication, from where I'm sitting.

The history of these agents and "Assets" is also clear about something more troubling: that these people almost always have their own conflicting agendas, and an often hostile relationship with their "handlers" @ Master Control. Timothy Leary: undoubtedly a man who was involved with the CIA, but also living proof that working for the Company doesn't necessarily make you a Company Man.

I think there is a valid line to be drawn between the contents of the cables and the stories that have dominated the media discussion -- those are two very different things. This indicates the size, scope and power of the media machine we've been talking about, but it's also an indication that Assange is playing a more complex game than just, say....being in a Harley-Davidson shirt at the right place at the right time with the right lines about why the buildings collapsed. There is a great deal of genuinely damning material being released and given almost no media coverage. That might just be to muddy the waters, but it also complicates your case.

More fundamentally, though, the content of the cables that have been released have profound and undeniable real world EFFECTS. That is the most important element here, not Assange. I think this remains an amazingly huge and important ongoing story worth paying close attention to. In the context of the Grand Chessboard, I think the question of Assange's possible agent status are actually secondary to the ongoing, real world effects. Like, very secondary.

Just my $0.02 and I have no illusions about changing minds. Carry on.

Okay that deserves a point-by-point so here we go:

1. Considering how fundamentally unknowable this main contention is, of Assange's true inner motivations, I find it of limited value.

No problem there. I happen to think Assange is mainly interested in making a buck, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that, even selling his services to spooks, if he doesn't have a problem with their objectives. That would contradict his recent statements but I think those are about as sincere as Obama campaign promises, if not less. But basically I agree, the inner Assange is not the issue.

2. the interpretation and media/gov spin on the cablegate revelations has been repeatedly and distinctively in support of existing foreign policy objectives.

Yes, and I agree with the rest too, but wikileaks/Assange haven't done much that I can see to interfere with this containment-of-subversion process, which suggests to me they don't particularly care what use is made of the goods they provide, if they even do. I have my doubts about the Manning story for example but that's another conversation.

3. More fundamentally, though, the content of the cables that have been released have profound and undeniable real world EFFECTS.

Yes, I agree with that too, but that's the problem. The effects I've seen so far haven't been good news for anyone but Boeing, Raytheon, Northrup Grumman, etc. I'm guessing you have in mind Kenya and Iceland, and I'll admit that the little I've heard about those two has been promising, but I don't know enough to say with any certainty whether those regime changes have been any less beneficial to US "interests" than any other CIA intervention. Maybe they were, but based on effects I know more about, like the failure of the Copenhagen weather talks, it looks to me like wikileaks is basically a spook puppet show, whether it started out as one or not.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Well, I didn't say anything about "good" effects. The point I suspect I was trying to make is perhaps better phrased as a question: Does Julian Assange (or even the WL staff) determine these real world effects, or are they determined by an external machine that doesn't need Julian's cooperation? I really believe that what you and Alice see as bad faith on JA/WL's part is a result of the contours + construction of the electronic corporate media echo chamber.

WL is a noisy, powerful signal that forces reactions: those reactions have been very instructive. I don't think the lesson is about JA/WL, but about the echo chamber itself.

[seemslikeadream]

Sanitary pad company: Wiki 'leaks,' but you won't

[Plutonia]

You've all been waiting for it, I know:

Rap News 6: Cablegate: the truth is out there



As an aside, worthwhile interview with the Juice Media folks here - copypasta is a bit about JA's participation in the production of #5 Wikileaks and the War on Journalism. Noticeably absent are comments about his wanton sexuality, narcissistic dictatorialism or his unfettered arrogance. (Google search: arrogance julian assange = "About 980,000 results.")

...

MR: I love the Wikileaks endorsement of Rap News. Did Assange reach out to you after seeing your work? How did you get him in the flesh for your recent video?

Giordano: Julian really loved the first Rap News episode we did on Wikileaks, Wikileaks v. The Pentagon, in which Hugo impersonated Assange as a quirky, matrix-like trickster.

Subsequently, ahead of Wikileaks’ latest historic disclosure of 400,000 documents relating to the Iraq war, Julian made contact with us and invited us to take a sneak peak at some of the Iraq War Logs in view of informing the content of a new episode.

Of course, we jumped at the opportunity and were aboard planes within a fortnight. We arrived in London only two weeks prior to the scheduled launch of the Iraq War Logs, on October 23, which meant that we faced the absurd and terrific challenge of writing, recording and filming an entire episode in under 4 days—a stunt we pulled thanks to the invaluable help of two awesome Wikileaks crew-members, and thanks to our friend and supporter back in Melbourne, Asher—aka Mama Wolf.

As for the cameo, we asked Julian straight up, thinking that his appearance might be a historic and comedic event—not just for Wikileaks and Rap News, but for that demographic of the internet community which has been so avidly following what’s going on with Wikileaks. Despite a couple of initial raised eyebrows, Julian was totally up for it. We didn’t pull any punches on the gags, either. Thankfully the man has a great sense of humor...

Link to lyrics

[vanlose kid]

thanks P!


*

[Plutonia]

thank P!

No probs. Enjoy!



PS: Wikileaks forum: http://www.wikileaksforum.net/

[Plutonia]

Carrying on with the theme of "people who've actually met JA and what they say"

How I met Julian Assange and secured the American embassy cables
Philip Dorling
December 11, 2010

GETTING to WikiLeaks's secret headquarters took quite some time and was not without complications.

This year a careful reading of statements by the WikiLeaks co-founder, Julian Assange, led me to conclude his small organisation had landed what could be the biggest leak of classified information - a vast trove of US documents that, among other things, would provide deep insight into the realities of Australia's relationship with our most important ally, the US.
Advertisement: Story continues below

As a journalist I thought this was a story worth going for. Curiously few, if any others, thought likewise. Consistent with the old journalistic maxim that ''Noah is a better story than flood control'', most media interest was focused on Assange himself, admittedly an elusive and intensely interesting figure, rather than what he might be about to release through the WikiLeaks website.

Six months of emails, clandestine meetings and confidential exchanges followed before arrangements for a visit to Britain were locked in.

WikiLeaks takes security very seriously, and it is right to do so. After all, it's not paranoia when the vast intelligence and security apparatus of the US is arrayed against you. Consequently I flew out from Australia last month without a specific destination, only an instruction on arrival at Heathrow Airport to go to a certain railway station, taking precautions to see whether I was followed.

There, using a public telephone, I phoned a number that had been provided earlier through a secure channel. A voice on the other end gave a single-word reply to my call - the name of a railway station outside London.

I bought a ticket and some hours later arrived on a windswept, rain-splattered railway platform in rural England.

Only a couple of other passengers got off and the platform was quickly deserted. I wondered what the next step would be.

But after a moment a figure emerged from the early evening shadows, with cap pulled down over his head and coat collar turned up, perhaps to make identification difficult but more likely to protect against the bitter wind and sleet.

There was a quick greeting, then a long drive through the countryside to WikiLeaks's temporary headquarters, made available by a benefactor.

I was greeted by the man himself: modest, unassuming, in T-shirt, tracksuit pants and socks with holes in them.

Assange doesn't stand on ceremony and is always focused on the task. We got straight down to business - the imminent release, in conjunction with some of the world's leading newspapers, of a torrent of highly sensitive US diplomatic secrets.

The setting was utterly incongruous. The home was a marvellous example of Georgian elegance, a relic of the pre-industrial age carefully preserved but demonstrating the challenges of maintaining buildings that are close to 300 years old.

On the walls of the drawing room, in effect WikiLeaks operations room, paintings of long-dead defenders of the empire, most in the scarlet uniforms, looked down on a tangle of laptops, printers, wires and power cables and other equipment.

It is said the security-conscious Assange changes mobile phones as often as most people change shirts. This is an understatement. Tables were covered with mobile phones and SIM cards were strewn around like confetti. Resting in one corner was Assange's backpack, carrying all his worldly goods.

In the morning the countryside reverberated to the sounds of gunfire as the English upper class indulged its passion for bird shooting. Occasionally low-flying air force jets would rattle the windows, prompting jokes about a possible air strike.

For a tiny organisation under immense pressure the atmosphere in temporary WikiLeaks HQ was remarkably calm and relaxed. On the eve of its biggest documents release, the main work area was often silent apart from the sound of typing as documents were formatted and last-minute communications made with the newspapers partnered in the release.

Although WikiLeaks has a big pool of volunteers, the inner core is a small, highly committed group, all working on the basis of only expenses being reimbursed, with remarkably diverse skills ranging from computer programming and language translation to journalism and media liaison.

It is a truly multinational enterprise, with accents from around the globe heard across the breakfast table. Not that everyone appears at breakfast. WikiLeaks runs on a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week basis so a good proportion of the key personnel are essentially nocturnal.

As for Assange, he is an impressive figure. Highly intelligent, articulate and deeply committed to his cause. And he certainly isn't in it for the money. For someone under immense pressure he was remarkably calm, focused and measured.

Contrary to reports that he is an eccentric egomaniac, he gave every appearance of being good-tempered and humoured, ready to discuss issues and carefully consider advice.

He is certainly a strategic thinker with a fair amount of political and media nous that has turned his organisation into a global phenomenon.

Having entered into talks on the basis of confidentiality, I will not repeat his observations but I found him a highly engaging, thoughtful conversationalist.

He pays close attention to political developments in Australia and has a keen sense of the importance of encouraging more openness.

A frequent theme is the need to cut through the hypocrisy and cant that fills so much of political discourse by enabling citizens to see and hear directly what their leaders think and say in private.

Assange has well and truly kicked the hornets' nest. He is now in an English prison awaiting extradition proceedings that could mean he will be taken to Sweden to be questioned about sexual misconduct allegations, but which could also open the door for him to be sent to face the wrath of the US government.

It is reported that he is in good spirits and as a highly self-contained person he probably has the inner resources to cope with his difficult circumstances.

Whatever the outcome of these proceedings, one thing was clear. He has given much thought to how WikiLeaks might defend itself from sustained attacks and how it might function without him. The frenzy about WikiLeaks is likely to continue. There will be twists and turns but it looks like WikiLeaks is here to stay and governments will have to get used to that.

Philip Dorling is a Canberra writer and Fairfax contributor.

[lupercal]

Wikileaks Rest in Peace
29 December 2010

The original Wikileaks initiative is dead, replaced by a bloated apparatus promising 260,000 cables at slower than a snail's pace. At the rate of 20 cables a day it will take 13,000 days to finish -- some 35 years.

The original merits of Wikileaks have been lost in its transformation into a publicity and fund-raising vehicle for Julian Assange as indicated in the redesign website which billboards him.

Its once invaluable, steady stream of documents, packaged in its own, no-frills format, is now a tiny dribble of documents apparently regulated by a compact with a few main stream media which amplify the material well beyond its significance. Days go by when nothing new is offered except outpouring of manufactured news about Assange and a slew of trivial news and bombastic commentaries for and against the initiative.

Will Wikileaks once again deliver its original promise or stay imprisoned in bombshells so beloved by the main stream media?

What happened to the back-log of submissions to Wikileaks? Thousands a week coming in, Assange claimed, for which he said there is no staff to process. What staff is needed to process a 3-20 cables a day?

OpenLeaks is said to be preparing release of the backlog, but it too is moving very slowly, its opening first scheduled in December 2010, now April 2011. Perhaps it too is short of staff and financial resources but it has not publicly stated that.

Assange and Domscheit-Berg are working on books, Assange to raise funds for his legal defense, that of Domscheit-Berg not openly disclosed.

Whether any of the proceeds from the books will reach the authors or their debtors is questionable. It common for authorities to deny profits from allegedly illegal activites as in the financial destruction of ex-CIA Phillip Agee and Frank Snepp and ex-MI6 Richard Tomlinson, among others.

Books are fund-raisers and require sophisticated publicity campaigns, disclosure of intent, deals described, amounts to be paid, the usual teasers about the contents. Neither of the two books promise to release submitted materials, only to describe the operation of Wikileaks, insiders accounts, what else. These are customarily works of fiction, aided by ghostwriters, editors, publicists, book designers, galley proofreaders, copies to reviewers, speaking engagements, book tours, dinner parties. Salted with dramatic examples of what will be "revealed for the first time."

What will be surprising will be revelations about the 1 million files Assange claimed to have in December 2006, what has not been published, what was sold on the black market, who the secret big funders are behind the public little ones, where the money has really gone beyond the Wau Holland partial account. Indeed.

The race is on between Julian and Daniel as to who will hit the hustings first with yet another bombshell of publicity. Nothing new should be expected in this formulaic exploitation of evanescent celebrity. The spring season of book publishing is April.

Meanwhile the original purpose of Wikileaks is dead in the water. Thousands of mirror carcasses floating on the Internet sea, none offering new material except the wee drops of cables which at the current rate will require the passive sites to last redundantly decades when they could be offering material Wikileaks does not.

Except a series of bombshell releases can be expected as the book selling and fund-raising accelerates.

Don't expert ordinary submissions to compete with this all too predictable corporate-style juggernaut.

Wikileaks was once an alternative to conventional sources of information, no longer. Read its media page for how to qualify for business-as-usual participation.

There will be those who continue to milk the promise of Wikileaks, arguing vehemently for its protection and continuation, but not acknowledging in its current configuration sheltered by main stream partners it is not a threat or threatened -- standard bloviation of the media to magnify its importance. The shift of focus to Bradley Manning and Adrian Lamo indicates the Assange threat angle is withering and needs to be goosed with journalistic and lawyerly flim-flam so common to awaken readers and juries dozing with disinterest.

(snip)

http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-rip.htm
...............................

This is apparently by John Young, whose early dealings with wikileaks began this thread, which explains what to me appears to be unfounded optimism. Cryptome may be real, but wikileaks is without question a spook-run puppet show. But let the debate continue or at least commence.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Cryptome may be real, but wikileaks is without question a spook-run puppet show.

I got a question - prove iT(Or more accurately - can you prove it?).

[justdrew]

Cryptome may be real, but wikileaks is without question a spook-run puppet show.

John Young who can't be bother to sign his own name to the piece.

and it is equally fair to say, that in my estimation John Young acts exactly like a retired spook who's been on the CIA secret payroll his whole life.

It would serve John Young right if Assange just uploaded a tarball of the whole cablegate leak to cryptome

[slimmouse]

A very timely reminder, for me at least, of how the entire wiki phantoms saga is very much a psyop which we are all falling for within the greater context. Often when reading 'the news' or listening to debates between friends or whatever I regularly consider that the contemplations discussed are framed within fake boundaries - nice to get that occasional kick up the ass reminder not to fall for it too deeply myself.............

There is no such thing as a massive intelligence leak. There have been no paradigm-cracking triumphs of liberty that have compromised international political and military figures or organizations. For those outside the loop, it certainly looks like there have been. But it ain’t real. No-one is exposing the diktats of the Control System. On the contrary, figures like Michael Moore, Bianca Jagger, Ken Loach, Jemima Khan and even the venerable John Pilger, despite their good intent, succeed only in amplifying an elaborate Psyop and helping to assemble a false, albeit very neat, polarity on a very old chessboard.

What is in question here, is not the A-to-Z content and veracity of Wikileaks’ data, but rather the unprecedented exposure it has been receiving and the media’s curious contextualization of it. Indeed, it is the sheer volume of column inches that have been lavished on Wikileaks that really gives the game away. At any point, the routine military-industrial habits of pulling the plug, gagging the media and sequestering information as a military asset (that was ostensibly in the public interest), could’ve been executed. They weren’t. There has been an intelligence community stand-down of 911 proportions.

Actual esoteric intelligence leaks are erased faster than an uncooperative African dictator. Troublesome people, data and entire personal histories are routinely cleansed from the face of the earth every single day. Shadow ‘Cleaners’ do this 24/7 across the global theatre, quite unfettered by international laws and unaccommodating human rights conventions. Nothing survives for long outside the tightly controlled enclaves of Control System media portals without precise examination and authorization. Even those credible and substantive topics that bounce around the underground forums are quickly massaged into blurred disinformation. The distinction between what is real and unreal becomes increasingly imcomprehensible. No-one quite knows what’s going on or what to believe. This is the sting. Whatever gets out, is let out. Whatever grabs the headlines, is pre-planned to grab the headlines. This doesn’t mean that Assange and co are on the payroll. Far from it. It just means that the apparently positive influence of their information releases is far more diluted and complex than first appears......Understand that this is a game played on the surface layer only. For players who operate only on this level, it is good old ‘us vs them’ again. This is the foundational con on which all Control System power is based. It shrewdly leverages the human compulsion to have an identifiable enemy into which we can channel our inner fear and hostility. They set up the good guys and the bad guys, black and white, good and evil, but of course they control both of them (whether the opposed participants know it or not). The first step in overturning this simulation is to become conscious of the simulation itself. Get used to perceiving mediaplex hype as exoteric pawn shuffling; irrelevant and deceitful, regardless of data veracity. Otherwise, when the system turns the ‘two minutes of hate’ against itself, when sufficient spleen has been vented, when the human batteries are empty, the game-rules gearshift to the next level but the song remains the same.


more at link to post dated 24th december ;

http://thecleaver.blogspot.com/

[Joe Hillshoist]

Er this isn't an "intelligence leak" cept that the cables could be used as "intelligence" so in the vaguest sense it is. The intel community didn't leak this stuff tho, these were not secure documents.

Actual esoteric intelligence leaks are erased faster than an uncooperative African dictator. Troublesome people, data and entire personal histories are routinely cleansed from the face of the earth every single day.

So how fast - faster than Robert Mugabe or Ghadaffi were erased?

Thats true, but not necessarily in the way the author means it. No one has that much control, but they'd sure love you and I to think they do.

(OK I have a report, as yet unconfirmed, of an entire village in the Philippines disappearing. IE Being murdered cos they were objecting to a Chinese mining project in the area.

As of yet I can't find anything online cept a ref to a Chinese village disappearing after a UFO sighting. HMWs eat your heart out. That (if it happened) is what it means by disappearing off the face of the Earth (the Philippines village not the Chinese one).

What is in question here, is not the A-to-Z content and veracity of Wikileaks’ data, but rather the unprecedented exposure it has been receiving and the media’s curious contextualization of it. Indeed, it is the sheer volume of column inches that have been lavished on Wikileaks that really gives the game away.

This is confirmation bias.

Of course the media has to make masses of noise about wikileaks, after all wikileaks has shown the media up consistently for years. Its not just wikileaks or its media savvy public face that generates this noise tho. Its the way "new media" changes the "game rules" that old media used to play by. There is a similar thing happening whenever facebook photos or some idiots twitter feed generate massive coverage for no real good reason.

However I would suggest that one of the reasons wikileaks is in the media is that Collateral Murder, the Afghan War Diary and the Cables are by any definition - news.

This is what the media is sposed to be covering. The media's response - Sound and Fury and not many signals - is far more deserving of some hard scrutiny than wikileaks is actually, but we have all said that before and no ones listening.

This doesn’t mean that Assange and co are on the payroll. Far from it. It just means that the apparently positive influence of their information releases is far more diluted and complex than first appears.....

In other news the sky looks blue and humans die if they don't shit or breathe.

[slimmouse]

In other news the sky looks blue and humans die if they don't shit or breathe.

I Take it you didnt like the message Joe ?
At least youre aware of the term confirmation bias.
how about the term hypocrisy ? Or maybe the vast majority of your response isnt in fact confirmation bias ?

On edit. Sorry to appear so obtuse. After all, who isnt blinded by confirmation bias ? Not me, for sure

But I think the overall point that Kramer is making here is that all of this stuff takes humanity away from where it truly should be heading, and amongst other things our intentionally contrived distraction by such theatre by the usual suspects, from our true relationships with far more important relationships, goals and values.

Perhaps thats my own fault for not posting the entire piece.

Joe, you aint cranky with me cos youre getting thumped in the ashes, is ya ? . C'mon man.......were long overdue over here !

[Joe Hillshoist]

In other news the sky looks blue and humans die if they don't shit or breathe.

I Take it you didnt like the message Joe ?
At least youre aware of the term confirmation bias.
how about the term hypocrisy ? Or maybe the vast majority of your response isnt in fact confirmation bias ?

On edit. Sorry to appear so obtuse. After all, who isnt blinded by confirmation bias ? Not me, for sure

But I think the overall point that Kramer is making here is that all of this stuff takes humanity away from where it truly should be heading, and amongst other things our intentionally contrived distraction by such theatre by the usual suspects, from our true relationships with far more important relationships, goals and values.

Perhaps thats my own fault for not posting the entire piece.

I didn't the tone - lecturing to me about something I've known for years like I'm an ignorant schoolkid.

The whole bloody article is confirmation bias 99% of everyone including me writes about wikileaks is confirmation bias FFS.

OK where should humanity be heading and how does what wikileaks does take us away from that?


Yeah I did check the article out and read all of it, and I do like the second half of it. But you can't seperate us and the mediasphere and say its not human or natural, or the mediasphere from those indigenous people the article refers to.

I have spoken to indigenous people from 4 continents at length about all this stuff (and more) and read the opinions a massive variety of indidgenous people from all 6 continents. Their message is to engage with the world and connect with it. The mediasphere does this too, tho a side effect of it is to disconnect people from the world.

But only if they think the mediasphere is the whole world. Not an aspect of it, powerful, but small really on the scale of it.

It does have great power to connect people tho. And through that ideas.

This doesn’t mean that Assange and co are on the payroll. Far from it. It just means that the apparently positive influence of their information releases is far more diluted and complex than first appears......Understand that this is a game played on the surface layer only. For players who operate only on this level, it is good old ‘us vs them’ again. This is the foundational con on which all Control System power is based. It shrewdly leverages the human compulsion to have an identifiable enemy into which we can channel our inner fear and hostility.

Thats true obviously, and really I'd expect anyone who comes to this website to have come to that conclusion years ago, tho whether they still hold that opinion or not is another question. What you are talking abpout is in the way events are interpreted. Its not always in the events themselves and assuming it is as foolish as assuming "they" are benign.

They set up the good guys and the bad guys, black and white, good and evil, but of course they control both of them (whether the opposed participants know it or not).

And this a bullshit attempt at mind control. "They" are attempting to control everything all the time, but what makes you think "they" or anyone else are actually capable of that.

Just to repeat, cos its an important question: (isn't it?)

OK where should humanity be heading and how does what wikileaks does take us away from that?

Joe, you aint cranky with me cos youre getting thumped in the ashes, is ya ? . C'mon man.......were long overdue over here !

Far from it. I was hoping someone would start on about the ashes, but I was expecting Morgs to. Especially these days, I mean its the only way South Africa can play an ashes test...

Today Usman Khawaja makes his debut (I'm watching it now.) He is a Pakistani born Australian Muslim (with a pilots licence ) and he's batting at no 3 for Ponting.

This is great I reckon. The first Muslim to play for Australia.

People who get hung up on things like religion and nationalism are having palpitations right now. He looks like a gun too. (As in "Gun Sportsman" its a term that means really bloody good.) I'd much rather talk about the ashes than wikileaks... well maybe to a right now.

Joking about South Africa btw, the Poms have played brilliantly and deserve all the praise they get. And yeah you are long overdue, don't get your hopes up that this is a long term thing tho.

[Joe Hillshoist]

OK that post above ... technically I have corresponded with or spoken to "indigenous" people from 4 continents. (That was for c2w.)