What you don't know can't hurt them.
https://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/
https://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?t=30479
So, another site pushing that mix. We should start a list, see how many there are out there.Stephen Morgan wrote:..
Do you read the aangirfan site? .. anti-semitism, .. Tunisia and Libya and pretty much every other revolution and popular movement to be nothing more than CIA operations.
..
Don't worry, nobody had them confused.Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Um...[cyber-framed and deployed] Bradley Manning and a zillion memos.
not
David Manning's memo on illegal war. Get it? Decoy conduit.
Ah, barracuda works for her majesty the Queen (Gawd bless 'er). Hence his attachment to his boss's English, even to the detriment of his covert persona.AhabsOtherLeg wrote:There's absolutely nothing Larouchie about suggesting somebody is a secret British agent.
Don't we all, old bean, in one way or another. Whether we know it or nay?Stephen Morgan wrote:Ah, barracuda works for her majesty the Queen (Gawd bless 'er)AhabsOtherLeg wrote:There's absolutely nothing Larouchie about suggesting somebody is a secret British agent.
The fuck kind of English is that?Stephen Morgan wrote:Hence his attachment to his boss's English, even to the detriment of his covert persona.
Maybe in Scotland, but down here she works for us.AhabsOtherLeg wrote:Don't we all, old bean, in one way or another. Whether we know it or nay?Stephen Morgan wrote:Ah, barracuda works for her majesty the Queen (Gawd bless 'er)AhabsOtherLeg wrote:There's absolutely nothing Larouchie about suggesting somebody is a secret British agent.
'Course we do. What what.
Proper English, is that, not like what all these German royalses speaks.The fuck kind of English is that?Stephen Morgan wrote:Hence his attachment to his boss's English, even to the detriment of his covert persona.
That's a very controversial position to take, Stephen, which isn't like you at all.Stephen Morgan wrote:Maybe in Scotland, but down here she works for us.AhabsOtherLeg wrote:Don't we all, old bean, in one way or another. Whether we know it or nay?Stephen Morgan wrote:Ah, barracuda works for her majesty the Queen (Gawd bless 'er)AhabsOtherLeg wrote:There's absolutely nothing Larouchie about suggesting somebody is a secret British agent.
'Course we do. What what.
You were right, sorry. That was perfectly good English. Both bosses' and boss's are acceptable. My mistake.Stephen Morgan wrote: Proper English, is that, not like what all these German royalses speaks.
John Young
@Cryptomeorg John Young
@jamesrbuk Could you provide G file size, names and SHA1 for comparison with the z.gpg file on Cryptome: cryptome[at]earthlink.net.Thx much.
Plutonia wrote:..He must know the infosec problem with that?
8Bit, they were the original conspiracy theorists and they populate the milieu still, covert or otherwise. Check out back issues of their Freedom Magazine.8bitagent wrote:The only Co$ person Ive ever met was at an anti war/911 truth rally in San Francisco. He seemed to be passionate about and know every detail of deep state shenanigans and history...yet was adament Co$ was against the powers that be/bad things on the planet. Seemed like a kind of hippyish bohemian guy, so it was a bit odd
UH, YEAH. YUP. YES.wintler2 wrote:JY is "cofounder" of Wikileaks in the same way I am cofounder of Microsoft, ergo this threads title is a lie, one of those lies that CIA etc have been pushing for years, can we not repeat it here for them, thanks.
Your two cents is priceless! Oh, and: Bump, nudge, etc.Wombaticus Rex wrote: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.
