It’s Time to Think About Wikileaks

The reason I feel moved to be sat here at four o’clock in the morning writing this is because I’ve become increasingly disturbed and demoralised by the general herd-like reactions I’m witnessing in response to the circus that’s in town.


At the beginning of the month I wrote a post ‘Wikileaks? Wait a Minute! describing my misgivings and providing several links to other sources that seemed to confirm them. Since then, as I say, my feelings on the fiasco haven’t improved, and in fact have worsened and intensified as people’s reaction has become more sheep-like, more sheeple than people . It’s got to a point where I don’t even want to hear the word anymore as it’s become synonymous in my mind with lack of critical thought.

I was so relieved to find and read 12 Theses on Wikileaks by Geert Lovink and Patrice Reimans from Network Cultures, an extremely well thought out, lucid and articulate analysis and critique of the phenomenon. I thoroughly recommend it for its call to rational, lateral thinking.

Days passed and the circus remained, and I withdrew some more in reaction to the continued and louder baaing of the sheeple.

It’s not my way to be passive though  and I had to look into it more, and began my search with possible connections between George Soros who, as was pointed out in my earlier article, had funded Wikileaks through the Open Society Institute.

Soros’ name has appeared associated with the likes of CIA and Mossad, as well as other questionable global finance dealings and involvements, and it was this connection that was the jump point for my search. The following links and overviews are some of the results. During my searches I noticed another example of herd-like behaviour, the repetition of a piece from the Wayne Masden report that most quote, as I did in my earlier article,  some verbatim. This increased my questioning of the way information and possibly disinformation is passed around networks.

As with my earlier article, I’m not trying get people to think a certain thing or way. I’m just trying to get them to think. These articles provide some dots that are missing from both the mainstream and some side streams, and allow for a more comprehensive picture to emerge. The conclusions will be up to each individual.

Among other things Shadow Government: CIA, Mossad and Soros Behind Wikileaks points out is that on the Wikileaks advisory board is Ben Laurie, a one-time programmer and Internet security expert for Google, which recently signed a cooperative agreement with the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and has been charged by China with being part of a U.S. cyber-espionage campaign against China. It also contains some reasoning behind the possible Wikileaks/Assange move to Iceland within the context of Soros’ international finance dealings.

In Soros, the CIA, Mossad and the new media destabilization of Iran
Alex Jones presents a very interesting perspective with an historical description and analysis of intelligence agency destabiliation techniques leading up to the current one in which “Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media are being employed to amplify the effect of (and the impression of) internal protests.”

The November 27 article Wikileaks, A Touch of Assange and the Stench of AIPAC (AIPAC is Washington’s major pro-Israeli lobbying group) anticipates the contents of the next disclosures in the context of an Israeli government agenda

Writing for Veterans Today Gordon Duff also questions Israel’s involvement with Wikileaks Working for Israel

The San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center article WikiLeaks ‘struck a deal with Israel’ over diplomatic cables leaks provides several Middle East and European (German) news agency articles that corroborate claims of Israeli/Mossad involvement

***

I began this post describing my feelings about the herd-mentality behaviour I’m witnessing. That it has been so widespread has led to me seriously considering disconnecting from networks like Twitter.

If the Wikileaks circus is a creation of and/or being used by intelligence agencies or other spooks, as it seems to be, what does that say about the well-meaning, but misguided and inexcusably gullible cyberactivists with their combined kick back. Especially if, as Alex Jones’ describes in the above article, intelligence agency destabilisation models have developed to include the predictable reaction of  network activists, who seem too blinded with their online ‘freedom’ and sense of power to smell a rat.

For instance, the hacktivists who took down the companies that ‘attacked’ Wikileaks. Now okay, companies like MassterCard might be fair game, but what of the domino affect of the DDoS attacks on innocent, possibly Wikileaks-loving, Assange fans? Or the potential justification such actions create for the already-in-the-pipeline plans for greater governmental control of the Internet?

If it was an intelligence agency psyop*, the architects of it must be wetting themselves to see such a mass gobbling of hook, line and sinker, as people played right into their hands.
Whatever your conclusions after reviewing the material linked to above, I think we can agree, some thinking is in order.

Knowledge is power. Your ignorance is their bliss.

___________________

*Psy-Ops, (Psychological Operations) for those of you who missed that class are defined as ‘the planned use of communications to influence human attitudes and behaviour… to create in target groups behaviour, emotions, and attitudes that support the attainment of national objectives…disseminated by face-to-face communication, television, radio or loudspeaker, newspapers, books,magazines and/or posters’ (Extracted from the appendix of Psyclone)

Wikileaks? Wait a minute!

The Wikileaks document release, or ‘Cablegate’ as sensationalists have jumped to name it needs to be thought about more than it seems it is being. Already, intelligent and usually clear-thinking people are reacting with one knee-jerk reaction or another as the drama unfolds. Now I don’t claim to have any answers, and have reached no conclusions, and think that, given the nature of the issue, any conclusion would still have many  questions unanswered. I feel it’s important, however, that we don’t stop looking and asking questions.

Now it’s early days and there are still documents yet to be released, but the initial reactions, if media sources are to be believed (as I wasn’t witness to any of these alleged reactions) are realisations in ‘the Arab world’ that all are not in reality united against the imperialist U.S. and its Middle Eastern sidekick strong-arm, Israel. In fact, if we are to believe the reports, there are ‘many’ Arab leaders who are more concerned about Iran’s nuclear capabilities than U.S. hegemony in the region, or indeed Israel’s nuclear weapons, which it still hasn’t (as far as I’m aware) acknowledged possession of. But that’s another story.

I personally caught such a whiff of ‘divide and conquer’ to these alleged reactions that I felt a closer look was definitely in order. Given the pause that’s not the only whiff in the air. And I’m not the only one to smell something fishy. So far there’s not a single document that is either embarrassing or revealing about the either the U.S. or the Israeli government.Rather it seems that the cables appear to be “cherry picking” to focus on Iran and China threat:

(Collated by: WMR)

Given the track record of behind-the-scenes machinations of both the U.S. and Israel, and the hoo-haa from the U.S. administration leading up to the release of the material, one could realistically have expected a little more dirt on the two major movers (I won’t say players because it’s not a game) in the region. But no, what we have is a little more dissent sown, and possibly a little less trust amongst countries and groups who, although having had to dance that military-economic ‘musical chairs’ with each other,  up until now have had a common enemy as a fixed focus.

Firstly, I think the reaction of leaders in ‘the Arab world’ is overhyped, if not completely misrepresented. Anyone who has been involved in politics in the Middle East for a length of time will be familiar with the overt and covert manipulations of the U.S. government and it’s allies, and U.S. intelligence/secret services and their ilk. They’ll also be aware of the necessity for each party to walk a very careful line to avoid getting hammered by an ever increasing, technologically superior military force occupying the region. Given what’s gone on throughout the region over the last, say, fifty years, shenanigans too numerous to list here, I can’t imagine any ‘disclosure’ coming as a surprise to anyone in ‘the Arab world’.

Back to Wikileaks then. The Wikileaks buzzword entered most people’s minds earlier this year with the release of the helicopter gunship footage hosted on the website Collateral Murder, part of the material submitted by PFC Bradley Manning (link for those of you who may be interested in how he’s getting on these days). The footage whilst graphic and shocking (I cried to see two children  murdered by whooping, cheering U.S. gunmen) wasn’t anything new. Similar videos like the following had been online for a long time before the Collateral Murder videos.

<a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=gCmYrSgsbd4">http://youtube.com/watch?v=gCmYrSgsbd4</a>

Wikileaks was founded in 2006 by “Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.” (quote from the Wikileaks website). Two individuals involved were Julian Assange and John Young.

Wikileaks co-founder John Young outside Next HOPE hacker conference in Manhattan last weekend. (Credit: Declan McCullagh/CNET)

John Young, who runs Cryptome, a disclosure site with a fifteen year independent pedigree, resigned from the Wikileaks organisation after fellow founders started to talk about the need to raise $5 million and complained that an initial round of publicity had affected their “delicate negotiations with the Open Society Institute and other funding bodies.”(Note the OSI mention)

Young has since become one of the more prominent critics of the organisation. Young’s interview with Declan McCullough for CNET earlier in the year reveals the reasoning behind his position.

But John Young isn’t the only one to be questioning Wikileaks integrity. The Wayne Masden Report has learned from Asian intelligence sources that there is a strong belief in some Asian countries, particularly China and Thailand, that Wikileaks is linked to U.S. cyber-warfare and computer espionage operations, as well as to Mossad’s own cyber-warfare activities. They reported that, “Wikileaks is running a disinformation campaign, crying persecution by U.S. intelligence- when it is U.S. intelligence itself. Its [Wikileaks’] activities in Iceland are totally suspect.”

WMR has confirmed Young’s contention that Wikileaks is a CIA front operation. Wikileaks is intimately involved in a $20 million CIA operation that U.S.-based Chinese dissidents that hack into computers in China. Some of the Chinese hackers route special hacking program through Chinese computers that then target U.S. government and military computer systems. After this hacking is accomplished, the U.S. government announces through friendly media outlets that U.S. computers have been subjected to a Chinese cyber-attack. The “threat” increases an already-bloated cyber-defense and offense budget and plays into the fears of the American public and businesses that heavily rely on information technology. (Source:[redacted]news)

The article TRUTH serving LIES (with CIA/Mossad oversight) provides evidence of other claims of behind-the-scenes dealings with CIA, Mossad, George Soros (remember the Open Society Institute startup funding).

As an aside, the connection between the name Wikileaks and Wikipedia is quite interesting. Despite the connotations of open and interactive given by the wiki prefix, Wikileaks isn’t a wiki. By definition, a “wiki” is a user-generated database of information. The Wikileaks About page originally read: “To the user, Wikileaks will look very much like Wikipedia. Anybody can post to it, anybody can edit it. No technical knowledge is required. Leakers can post documents anonymously and untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity. Users can discuss interpretations and context and collaboratively formulate collective publications. Users can read and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material and context. The political relevance of documents and their verisimilitude will be revealed by a cast of thousands.”

This is quickly became not the case and an editorial policy introduced that accepted only documents that were “of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical interest”. Now submissions are regulated by an internal review process and some are published, while documents not fitting the editorial criteria are rejected by anonymous WikiLeaks reviewers.

The mention of anonymous reviewers reminded me of something I’d uncovered whilst researching for the piece ‘Suicide Bombers” and the Promise of Heaven?, which challenges the mainstream view of the subject of suicide attacks by putting it into an historical context and providing some important little-known and censored information. During my research I looked the subject up under various headings in Wikipedia and noticed a subtle bias to the information being put forward, a definite and persistent skewing that favoured the western party line rather than presenting impartial and balanced information, and a pattern of propagandistic manipulation in the language usage.

Having come across the described bias, I decided to investigate further and found the article Spies in Wikipedia from Wikipedia Watch, which relates to the possible use of Wikipedia by secret service agencies for ‘spin’/misinformation/propaganda purposes. The interference described includes positive propaganda for politicians, removal of entries, and other editing bias. An investigation into the identity of one administrator (Slim Virgin) showed her to be “an administrator with inhuman capacity for work. Over the past year, she edited nearly 35,000 articles (about 100 every day, without holidays and weekends). The same Slim Virgin also holds a record of continuous editorial work lasting 26 hours, with the longest break in editing not exceeding 40 minutes. These statistics from Wikipedia’s editing records suggests either a supernatural ability, or more likely that Slim Virgin is a convenient smoke screen for an entire team of specialists editing Wikipedia articles on behalf of intelligence services”.

Obviously, all is not what it seems.

Which is the point I’m trying to make with this post. It is easily possible that a disclosure group set up with money from at least one known CIA/Mossad associate could be being used to sow seeds of dissent in, at the moment, the Middle East. (Here I’ll remind you of the Mossad’s motto, which incidentally is missing from the entry in Wikipedia, ‘By way of deception, ye shall make war.’)

In the words of any professional investigative agency, Cui Bono, who benefits from the effects of these ‘disclosures’?