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)