Is the End Game of Wikileaks Internet Censorship?

smartknowledgeu's picture

F. William Engdahl’s first book, A
Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order
, discussed
the roles of Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Ball and of the USA in the 1979
overthrow of the Shah of Iran. Engdahl claims that Brzezinski and Ball used the
Islamic Balkanization model proposed by Bernard Lewis to accomplish US policy
goals in Iran. Not coincidentally, Brzezinski was a key figure in US
President Barack Obama’s 2008 election campaign and played a key role in helping
former US President Jimmy Carter get elected. In 2007, he released a book  that exposed the massive dangers of GMO
foods called, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of GMO.


One of F. William Engdahl’s latest
articles is titled “Wikileaks, a Big Dangerous US Government Con Job”. In this
article, Engdahl implies that Wikileaks is
a US government-run propaganda and disinformation operation with an end goal of restricting
freedoms on the internet. Here are some of the key excerpts from this article.


"A closer look at the details of what has
so far been carefully leaked by the most ultra-establishment of international
media such as the New York Times reveals a clear agenda. That agenda coincidentally
serves to buttress the agenda of US geopolitics around the world from Iran to
North Korea.

It is almost too perfectly scripted to be true. A discontented 22-year old US Army
soldier on duty in Baghdad, Bradley Manning, a low-grade US Army intelligence
analyst, described as a loner, a gay in the military, a disgruntled “computer
geek,” sifts through classified information at Forward Operating
Hammer. He decides to secretly download US State Department email
communications from the entire world over a period of eight months for hours a
day, onto his blank CDs while pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. In
addition to diplomatic cables, Manning is believed to have provided WikiLeaks with helicopter gun camera
video of an errant US attack in Baghdad on unarmed journalists, and with war
logs from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is almost too perfectly scripted to be true.
A discontented 22-year old US Army soldier on duty in Baghdad, Bradley Manning,
a low-grade US Army intelligence analyst, described as a loner, a gay in the
military, a disgruntled “computer geek,” sifts through classified information
at Forward Operating
Hammer. He decides to secretly download US State Department email
communications from the entire world over a period of eight months for hours a
day, onto his blank CDs while pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. In
addition to diplomatic cables, Manning is believed to have provided
WikiLeaks with helicopter gun camera
video of an errant US attack in Baghdad on unarmed journalists, and with war
logs from Iraq and Afghanistan.”


then is supposed to have tracked down a notorious former US computer hacker to
get his 250,000 pages of classified US State Department cables out in the
Internet for the whole world to see. He allegedly told the US hacker that the
documents he had contained "incredible, awful things that belonged in the
public domain and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington,
DC." The hacker turned him in to US authorities so the story goes. Manning
is now incommunicado since months in US military confinement so we cannot ask
him, conveniently. The Pentagon routinely hires the best hackers to design
their security systems.

as exclusive newspapers to decide what is to be leaked the New York Times which did such service in promoting faked propaganda
against Saddam that led to the Iraqi war, the London Guardian and Der Spiegel.
Assange claims he had no time to sift through so many pages so handed them to
the trusted editors of the establishment media for them to decide what should
be released. Very “anti-establishment” that.

The New York Times even assigned one of its
top people, David E. Sanger, to control the release of the Wikileaks material.
Sanger is no establishment outsider. He sits as a member of the elite Council on Foreign
as well as the Aspen Institute Strategy
together with the likes of Condi Rice, former Defense Secretary
William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, former State Department Deputy
Secretary and now World Bank head Robert Zoellick among
others. Indeed a strange choice of media for a person who claims to be
anti-establishment. But then Assange also says he believes the US Government
version of 9/11 and calls the Bilderberg Group a
normal meeting of people, a very establishment view.

Most important, the 250,000
cables are not "top secret" as we might have thought. Between two and
three million US Government employees are cleared to see this level of
"secret" document, [1] and some
500,000 people around the world have access to the Secret Internet Protocol
Router Network (SIPRnet) where the cables were stored. SIPRnet is not
recommended for distribution of top-secret information. Only 6% or 15,000 pages
of the documents have been classified as even secret, a level below top-secret.
Another 40% were the lowest level, "confidential", while the rest
were unclassified. In brief, it was not all that secret.

is emerging from all the sound and Wikileaks
fury in Washington is that the entire scandal is serving to advance a
long-standing Obama and Bush agenda of policing the until-now free Internet.
Already the US Government has shut the Wikileaks
server in the United States though no identifiable US law has been broken."


"The process
of policing the Web was well underway before the current leaks scandal. In 2009
Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller and Republican Olympia Snowe introduced the Cybersecurity
Act of 2009 (S.773)
. It would give the President unlimited power to
disconnect private-sector computers from the internet. The bill "would
allow the president to ’declare a cyber-security emergency’ relating to
’non-governmental’ computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the
threat." We can expect that now this controversial piece of legislation
will get top priority when a new Republican House and the Senate convene in

US Department of Homeland Security, an agency
created in the political hysteria following 9/11 2001 that has been compared to
the Gestapo, has already begun policing the Internet. They are quietly seizing
and shutting down internet websites (web domains) without due process or a
proper trial. DHS simply seizes web domains that it wants to and posts an
ominous "Department of Justice" logo on the web site. See an example
at (My note: Do click on this link. It's worth checking out.)"


On the
political front, I agree with Engdahl’s assessment of Assange’s leaked
government cables. In the cables I have seen discussed in various newspaper articles thus far, there is nothing more than the occasional embarrassing
quote, nothing top-secret, and nothing remotely damaging to any US allies
revealed in any of these supposedly top-secret government cables.

And regarding Assange’s threat of leaking thousands of confidential documents
contained in a 5 gigabyte drive regarding a big US bank believed to be Bank of
America as an “anti-establishment” act, I’m not buying it. According to a Forbes
interview, Assange stated that his leak would “give a true and representative
insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will
stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume.”
I say, so what if this big leak
Assange is in possession of pertains to Bank of America and if it reveals
documents that result in the demise of BofA? If this is how this drama plays
out, this event would ultimately be more pro-establishment and pro-elite than anti-establishment. The
demise of BofA would only mean that JP Morgan, as they have already done with
Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, would have yet another opportunity to stamp
out their competition, swoop in like vultures, and pick up BofA’s carcass for
pennies on the dollar. Or perhaps Goldman Sachs will be given this carcass to
pick clean.  Either way, if this
happens, it consolidates power for the elites at the top and could not have worked
out any better if Assange was a paid employee of Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan. Remember
that BofA bought up Merrill Lynch when Merrill Lynch failed, so an acquisition of BofA would translate
into a delayed acquisition of Merrill Lynch.


the book, “The Great Depression of the XXI Century,” Tanya Cariina Hsu wrote:


1907, J.P. Morgan, a private New York banker, published a rumor that a
competing unnamed large bank was about to fail. It was a false charge but
customers nonetheless raced to their banks to withdraw their money, in case it
was their bank. As they pulled out their funds, the banks lost their cash
deposits and were forced to call in their loans. People therefore had to pay
back their mortgages to fill the banks with income, going bankrupt in the
process. The 1907 panic resulted in a crash that prompted the creation of the
Federal Reserve, a private banking cartel with the veneer of an independent
government organization. Effectively, it was a coup by elite bankers in order
to control the industry.


signed into law in 1913, the Federal Reserve would loan and supply the nation’s
money, but with interest. The more money it was able to print, the more
"income" it generated for itself. By its very nature, the Federal
Reserve would forever keep producing debt to stay alive. It was able to print
America’s monetary supply at will, regulating its value. To control valuation,
however, inflation had to be kept in check.

Federal Reserve then doubled America’s money supply within five years, and in
1920, it called in a mass percentage of loans. Over five thousand banks
collapsed overnight. One year later, the Federal Reserve again increased the
money supply by 62 percent, but in 1929, it again called the loans back in, en
masse. This time, the crash of 1929 caused over sixteen thousand banks to fail
and an 89 percent plunge on the stock market. The private and well-protected
banks within the Federal Reserve system were able to snap up the failed banks
at pennies on the dollar."


If this
sounds familiar, it should.  This
seems to be the blueprint by today's banking elites for today’s banking industry as well. During the Bank Panic of 1907 and the Great Depression,
JP Morgan was one of the biggest beneficiaries of a panic that many
historians claimed they, along with the Federal Reserve, helped to manufacture (JP Morgan is alleged to have helped engineer both the Panic of
1907 and the Great Depression while the Federal Reserve helped engineer
the Great Depression)
. If the future scenario
regarding Wikileaks's release of incriminating big bank documents plays out anywhere close to the one I presented above, Julian Assange would, in essence, be performing a massive favor for the most favored private banks
of the Federal Reserve system. One must remember that during this manufactured global monetary crisis, not all banks are created equal and a handful of banks are hand picked for survival and prosperity at the expense of hundreds of others. Just because Wikileaks threatens to release incriminating documents on a big bank that could make it look bad, this should not be naively or blindly interpreted as an anti-establishment act.


Admittedly, like millions of others, I was fooled by Wikileaks's intent in the beginning. But the more and more I research them, the more it seems as though Wikileaks is cooperating with governments and banks rather than serving as their adversary or as their watchdog to increase transparency. Now, if Mr.
Assange releases cables that expose detailed correspondences between the US
Federal Reserve and JP Morgan regarding silver price suppression schemes or how
Goldman Sachs deliberately releases misinformation about gold prices, or if he
releases diplomatic cables exposing secrets between the US and Israel that have
been concealed from the public, I might start once again believing that the goal of Wikileaks is to provide greater transparency
about government and banker actions. One thing I have learned over the years about the shadowy world of banking and politics is that if something appears to be a great coincidence, it usually is not, and that things rarely are what they seem to be on the surface.



About the author: SmartKnowledgeU is a fiercely independent investment research & consulting firm dedicated to helping Main Street avoid the fraud of Wall Street.






Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
OldSouth's picture

Really?  I mean...really. In trying to follow this article I outlined its points below. Then I added the "average Joe" questions to those points.  This article is a joke, right?

1. Before he was elected, Obama hired Brzezinski to apply the "Islamic Balkanization model" to take over the Internet at some time in the future.
    a. Damn, Obama is magic and knows the future?
    b. Obama has always been a NWO puppet? Just one more cog, move along now.
    c. Brzezinski is also a NWO cog?

2. Wikileaks is a US government run and fully funded propaganda operation.
    a. Assange and gang have been "day one" resourced by the US government under a black budget?
    b. All WikiLeaks staff are US operatives?
    c. The US government used a discontentented 22 year old soldier as a Top Secret operative?

3. Manning downloads a lot of stuff off SIPRNet with the DoD's blessing (remember, Manning's actually an operative).

4. Manning contacts a notorious former US hacker. (Name and address provided by his handler?)

5. The Hacker "turned him in" to US authorities.
    a. Wink wink, nudge nudge?

6. Manning is locked away without a key.
    a. Otherwise his super-genius black arts capabilities would eventually become apparent?
    b. He's working with Bond on another caper?

7. The US government has the best hackers.
    a. Sure, everyone knows government workers are the best.

8. Assange is a former and current US government hacker. We know this because Assange hands US government documents to the MSM because he doesn't have time to sift through them all.
    a. Well, then why use Manning?  Assange was already black-ops super-hacker and in the government run WikiLeaks. Couldn't he have "hacked" the SIPRNet and provided a far scarier persona for shutting down the Internet than does pouty-boy Manning passing documents to a well known leaked docs collection website?

9. The US Times is part of the establishment.
    a. Well, as my kids used to say "no duh".

10 Assange is not a conspiracy theorist nor does he believe Bilderberg a threat.
    a.  Wouldn't it make more sense if he were and did?  This doesn't fit a government generated Internet terrorist script.

11. Manning's SIPRNet data doesn't include "Top Secret" so none of it is important because "secret is not all that secret".
    a. Say this again the day after stepping out a DoD facility holding unauthorized Secret information.    
    b. Perhaps the author should spend a few minutes a day reading news sources in Europe and Asia.

12. WikiLeaks US server was shut down by the US government.
    a. To throw us off their "black ops" scent?
    a. Why would the government shut down their own black ops unit in only one location, thus ensuring worldwide mockery?

13. Massive Web policing powers were already in place or being put into place before the WikiLeaks scandal.
    a. So what does the government gain with the supposed ongoing WikiLeaks charade?

14. The WikiLeaks scandal bolsters US government attempts to censor and control the Internet even though DHS is already shutting down domains without due process.
    a. They never thought that ensuring the populace knows the underhanded dealings of their government might have the opposite affect?

15. None of the leaked cables have been embarrassing to the US government.
    a. What cave are you living in?

16. Assange's BOA threat is a means to consolidate BOA into JP Morgain and/or Gollum Sachs.
    a. The US government has planned to consolidate the banks since WikiLeaks inception?
    b. The US government is nothing more than a pawn of the banks? (Okay, this one sounds reasonable.)

17. Assange may also be a paid employee of selected big banks.
    a. Dang, this guy must be rolling in dough. He's got a government check and a bank bonus each year!

18. Big banks have screwed over Americans before, and they'll do it again.
    a. Well, yes.  Do they really need a WikiLeaks site to do this?

19. Julian Assange is helping the banks and the Fed consolidate more power and money for the most favored banks-- therefore BofA is not one of these banks.
    a. Dang.  Now I'm feeling sorry for BoA.

20. The goal of WikiLeaks is to provide greater transparency about government and banker actions.
    a. It seems this is exactly what they are doing.

Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

Throwing out a guess here, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was just a tit-for-tat response to certain people getting embarrassed at the G20.  Don't want to play the game, bitches?  Here's a taste of what can happen. 

shargash's picture

Engdahl is a sad case. He used to have good insight into the world. I don't know if it is senility or what, but in recent years he's completely lost it.

AchtungAffen's picture

Being independent t'seems right now like living in denial. Global Warming should be a plot by the elites to tax you to death. Nevermind that the US, the elites powerhouse, has been so much opposed to anything global warming. It seems like the only thing the US supports about global warming is the financial part, not that much the science itself or its counsequences. But yeah, elite plot at its best.

And Wikileaks too. Those cables are barely secret and embarass nobody. You can count those PP spaniards have absolutely no shame, so the revelation of its compliance with US foreign policy at the cost of breaking their own laws really will not embarass them an inch. Same as those corporate officers who lobbied with the US against several governments for their own interest (from drug companies to Monsanto), they are absolutely shameless too. Not much to see here too.

But I'm independent, my thinking is critical. Thus, everything is some sort of elite plot. Because when enough contradictory information is out there, it's the independent way to deny it all. And because everything is simpler this way, I create myself certain independent reductionisms, like "communism", "socialism", "elites", "government takeover", "gun control", "statism", "keynesianism"; and I classify all my denials in such categories.

Reality is not that complex, that's what most people think. I'm independent. Everything is false by default, really simple thing I guess. Hold on, I need some more independent input from Alex Jones. Bbl.

Common_Cents22's picture

Cash is a big target for control.


Just saw an interview on CNBS about some guy saying half the worlds cash is used by TERRORISTS and drug dealers.   What a great catalyst to go to a cashless society and have a global currency.  This is what he was advocating.  When in fact, a cashless society will just transfer that much more power to those who can pull the digital strings.  This stuff is coming true slow but sure right in front of our eyes, like boiling a frog slowly.

Seer's picture

How's that old Jerry Rafferty song go? Criminals to the left of me, Criminals to the right, here I am...

By "criminal" I mean those with an obvious intent to deceive/mislead/scam.

Harbourcity's picture

Anyone see NIA's "unintended consequences"?

I am going to tell you the future right now...

There are people out there that see the attention Julian is getting with Wikileaks and they want some of it.

Copycats will soon appear and one of those copycats will get something really big and they will release it in a clumsy manner and it will cause chaos.

Unintended consequences.... no matter how good you plan... shit happens.

downrodeo's picture

monkey see, monkey leak...

that is a very interesting though, something to keep in mind


colddirt's picture

I thought this was one of those "Rahm" moments................It's also a good time for Mr. Holder to crack down on those trouble makers we've got around the country stirring up shit. It feels like what William Shirer discribed so well. We are well on our way. Great article though!

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Wouldn't surprise me.

D-Falt's picture

Wiki-leaks is a very convenient problem.  A problem only GOVERNMENT!!!!! can solve.  It will result in lots and lots of GOVERNMENT!!!!! Bend over, Generika!

ThisIsBob's picture

This is a government op? 

Somehow I find it perversly encouraging that there is anybody in government smart enough to pull it off.

Bloodstool's picture

My thoughts exactly, Bob.  The government consists of bureaucrats - petty intrigues, focus on domain expansion and the ongoing fight to stay relevant.  The politicians who pop in and out of the halls of government, with their changes of agenda, have a much smaller impact on things than we like to think they do.  

Seer's picture

Yeah, that's exactly what the high-priced psyops folks would want you to believe as well.

Sure, this hand-waving plays well to the anti-govt crowd, and yes there are plenty of examples of why one would tend to believe this, but a broad brush doesn't mean that it applies to all.

I bet that several military opponents defeated by US ops wouldn't have the same impression.  NOTE: the military IS part of the govt.

Again, in case you missed my earlier posting, the Manhattan Project wasn't exactly a failure: talk about hidden in plain sight!  There are plenty more, though none of such magnitude and involving such a huge and diverse set of people.

Anti-govt people (not saying that I'm a fan, but I'm not rabid to the point of discounting facts) fail to realize that the govt is made up of people, both competent and incompetent.   When I was undergoing military training (USMC) I thought things were pretty silly, but later realized how successful their programs were: I find this hard to admit to, especially seeing as I detest militarism.  Bureaucrats exist in ALL large organizations (and pretty much all small ones as well, though such activities are likely off-set by another hat [dawned by the same person]).

Smokey1's picture

What a crock of shit. Gobble it up, dupes.


Or I can always roam the sacred halls here at ZH too!


Like you I watch very little TeeVee anymore, just became very disenchanted W/all the blatent consumerism and propaganda. So i'm always looking for a good book to read. Not that a book wont expose you to the same bullshit, but it doesn't seem to come in avalanche form like it does on the TeeVee.

Julia's picture

My statement regarding this entire thread:

Follow the money....
From this ridiculous net neutrality that serves all broadband providers and telecoms with the ability to charge more, limit more, and who were all consulted before put forth to the FCC to whatever happens to BofA. We'll know soon enough.

By the way, the writer is in error in saying Merrill went down. BAC paid way too much for them, $28 a share as I recall. The threat by Hank was that they would not survive Monday and that Thain had to do the deal with Lewis.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Follow the money....

I prefer to follow Julia. Yowza!!!! (:>)

Goldilocks's picture

Oh my, what a relevant comment! </extreme sarcasm off>

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

An inside joke since I personally know Julia.

I seem to have picked up a stalker. Care to add to the conversation or are you here simply to dismiss me? And yes, how long someone has been on ZH and how much they comment is relevant, particularly when they never comment. What brings someone out of their hole is always important when you consider this place is infested with operatives, trolls and disinformation disseminators.

The reason ZH gives everyone the ability to look at this information, including all past comments by a person, is to be able to judge the validity and consistency of the poster. Everyone has a history and they are anon in name only.

Goldilocks's picture

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize this (zero hedge) was your own personal space. Stalker ehh? A Typical Cognitive Dissonance comment. Your right, I don't need to dismiss you ... you doin' a fine job (it’s just too much is all).

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

And still you add nothing to the conversation. Go back to your porridge Goldilocks.

Goldilocks's picture

Opps, sorry I didn't realize 'grl' was trolling above & it was the male chauvinistic remark that threw me (& big ego – but that’s OK). Sorry about that Cog-Dis. I'm off to make some porridge.

KickIce's picture

I think there is some serious shit about to happen and our bankers / government is going to be hard at work over the Holidays (Thus the reason for the extra POMOs (hoping people will let down their guard).  Obviously, they are thinking of new and more sinister ways of removing us from our savings and PMs.

And back to topic, yes, this is nothing but an attempt to manufacture a new crisis.  New internet controls will be put in place as it is vital for national security.

Mad Mad Woman's picture

Thank you smartknowledgeu. Excellent post. There are lots of excellent comments as well.

The time is near for the citizens to rise up and fight for our future & our rights as a people and a nation. It's time to get the criminal element out of the way.

MountainHawk's picture

Huffington Post completely ignores the somewhat plausible points you bring up here..

ThisIsBob's picture

I have found Ms. Huffington's rag to be about as fair and balanced as Mr. Murdoch's.



@CD Do you have any recommended reading on the subject of psychology? You seem pretty well versed.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I started ass backwards. Some time ago I began a process of self discovery and I was amazed at the level of self deception I was capable of. And then even more amazed to find there were many levels of my self deception. This lead me to begin thinking philosophically about the why, the real reason behind my own self deception. This inevitably lead me to look at others, since I was most certainly not unique, which is the study of psychology.

I suspect you probably will find this hard to believe but I don't have any books to recommend. The reason is simple. You are a clean white canvas at this moment other than what you believe you know about the subject. As soon as you pick up one or two books, you will be bombarded with that author's point of view which will be well presented and logically organized. This will lead you to "believe" certain things. If you go further, you will again be presented with a differing point of view. And so on.

My point is that you will be reading other points of view when in fact what you wish to arrive at is your point of view. This can't be discovered in a book. It can only be discovered during your own personal search for truth. There is no book for that.

If you pick up each book with the understanding that it only contains small portions of a much larger understanding you won't become locked into a belief. Belief's are what control us......contrary to the "belief" that it's the other way around. Once you are locked into a belief, it controls you.

Dan Duncan's picture

"Some time ago I began a process of self discovery"...

This must have occurred before you found Oprah.

Seriously, CD, that's a funny post.  Telling others about your belief about...beliefs. 

One can only imagine the confusion of the recipient as he's told not to look for answers from another person's he reads your writings.


Max Hunter's picture

You are right CD for not recommending books.. Information from another person's view can be poison.. The only form of truth we have is observation..

the grateful unemployed's picture

I think it was McLuhan whose publisher told him, when he wrote his first book, that any new book is only supposed to have 5% original material, and McLuhans had a lot more.Any book must fit into the system of what a book is, how a book can express ideas, in order for readers to accept the book (not necessarily the ideas) did you read so and sos' book, yes I love it. Think Cramers coffee table book, (Seinfeld)

All of our political religious social and philosophical institutions are formed by the media which disseminates the message, "The Medium is the Massage." Print runs parallel to the concept of a "Public", which is a group of individuals processing information and forming fixed points of view, which separate into general categories, those for or against the President. With the loss of media power that went with print (technology is a seamless web, which creates integral awareness) the system of beliefs, which are fixed positions held by individuals, became obsolete. Now we have something called a Mass Audience. (Theres probably a better term, but MM died a few years ago) I would say beliefs have diminishing control over our lives. We are faced with our own humanity, which is the common thing that links us all. The role of the politician, or CEO, or Pontiff, is to speak to his, or her audience. (the difference between Bush and Obama, Bush was poorly articulated, Obama at least presents a visible and recognizable persona, both men have nearly identical policies, a set of fixed positions or beliefs which defines their job, just as a mechanic doesn't treat a sick car engine with pills)

Why they junked you I don't know, misunderstanding i guess

bergsten's picture

In answer to the article title's question, I dunno, but there's something awfully suspicious about the allegedly "seized" link.  It's located on CaroNet in Charlotte, NC. (which still "works") is on Softlayer in Dallas, TX.

Is the USG so stupid that they'd seize ONE domain name, but not synonyms?  And they'd put their dopey-looking "one pager" on a private hosting service?

I think there's some BS going on here.

the grateful unemployed's picture

what's interesting so far is that the only pol to lose their job, and their whole political career is Hillary Clinton, and if you think Obama is crying big tears over that forget it. She probably would have run against him in 2012. Now not so much as a word out of him, her boss, about her decision to "retire" from politics. I just wish Obama had been half that vindictive toward George Bush.

alibi's picture

i've always found it funny that in any NatGeo/HistoryCh/DiscCh narrative discussion about 911 it was always scientists, architects, engineers against the best the govt could offer: the senior editor of Popular Mechanics magazine. Really?


ps; what's with this captcha bullshit?

Jeffrey Lebowski's picture

is this a scam/scheme to control the content of the web?

absofuckinglutely it is.... dont be so naive.....Govts job is for you to think theyre stupid and incompetent, if you beleive that, then youre the typical sucker...and suckers are EASY to predict, control and manipulate

the grateful unemployed's picture

Obama is just another President. There is no foreign policy debate, and the American people are media consumers. It matters little if Wikileaks is or isn't a legitimate government operation to take over the internet. The corporate interests, through the FCC will do what they have always done, carve up the public domain for private corporations.  As long as freedom of commerce (newest faux amendment to the Constitution, and already the first amendment in the 51st state, China) is respected above all other freedoms, there will be intercourse (both pornographic and economic) on the net. But take note, these things have a way of changing the old rules, quite beyond what even the puppet masters can envision. 

Putting US hegemony on these issues is preferable, to placing Communism Socialism and minor kleptocracies on a level playing field with US markets. This was failure which took place about 1980 when the global economy was given its head. Never should have happened.. Since then we keep looking forward, and Obama is the latest low level bureaucrat to go slouching toward Washington, in contravention of the inner desires of the American empire to asset its superiority.

YHC-FTSE's picture

At the risk of surreal irony, this article has the flavour of blaming the rape victim, rather than the serial rapist. 


The US government, and others around the world have tried to restrict, censor, and basically fucking abrogate the freedom of the internet since its inception. The archives of the EFF are full of incidences of laws hitting the statutes in the interests of "Protecting the public". Blaming Wikileaks for yet another attempt by the government to restrict internet freedom is like blaming Jody Foster for wearing a short skirt and being a tease.


Critical thinking is fine - I like the way most people think on this thread, but slipping into paranoia is not so great. As the only large organization for whistleblowers, Wikileaks has my full support. Everything else is in the weird and wonderful world of conjecture, and the proof of the pudding will be in the digestion of their publications.


Edit: Actually, it would be nice to see rival publishers to Wikileaks. If only the editors and producers of the news services these days had the balls of men in years past, we wouldn't have to rely so much on Wikileaks.

Hubbs's picture

How are sales of Short Wave radios these days, in case internet gets censored? Although problem remains that you have to get license to broadcast, and technology exists for signal source detection.


Tyler, have you some contingency short wave/ham frequencies set up?

Coldfire's picture

You've got to wonder why Assange is still drawing breath.

grl's picture

A second thought: I am glad for this post because it shows how ridiculously over the edge this whole NWO, 911truth, psyops, Soros, illuminati, etc etc conspiracy has gone. You guys just look like fools. sorry, but unlike your conspiracies, that is the truth!

macfly's picture

You obviously are stuck in your own belief too, and in your two posts here have shown an arrogance of righteousness that borders on absurdity. 

The truth is something only arrived at after deep investigation, so in the interest of debate I invite you to deeply investigate these two websites, and then lets talk.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture


grl has been on ZH for 18 weeks yet has only posted twice in the past 24 hours. Understand who and what you're dealing with here.

grl's picture

If I understand what your comment means Cognitive Dissonance...then I'm some sort of govt troll; well, it gave me what will surely be the best laugh of my day anyway. Wow, to get flagged and somewhat attacked for simply asking you CTs to admit that your theories are beliefs, not facts, is very telling. Can't argue with religion - should've known better. (and just for the record, I have been following ZH for about a year now, forgot that I signed up to post and found the email confirmation recently when cleaning out my email in box. Had a little time on my hands today to engage in a discussion but in the end, it was a total waste of time. I'll save my ZH reading for the thoughtful, intelligent pieces and leave you CTs alone.)

macfly's picture

Hey, don't feel bad, this is the first time I've posted in ages too, I usually just read the headlines and main stories, but there are a lot of eyes on the internet, and not all of them good. 

Personally I do not believe that there was a government involvement in 9/11, but on the weight of the evidence I have taken the time to study, I am now fairly convinced that the three building in NYC came down because of explosives, not planes.

However the way that the debate has been overshadowed by opinion and belief, as you stated initially, interested me enough to post for the first time in ages. The very word 'truther' rings like something Orwell would have invented to discredit those seeking the truth, while to me to be a truther essential to champion and ensure our freedom and our country.

So who brought them down? That can only be speculation, but if you will allow me to speculate, I suspect that those who profit the most had the greatest motive. Could the government profit from it? I don't think so, but certainly there were some within the government who could, and they might include those behind the Federal Reserve as well. Maybe start by looking at the record number of options placed on the airlines right before the event, follow the money.


As an aside it is certainly interesting to read here that it is a Rockerfeller who wants to limit freedom on the internet, just what I'd expect from the family that is the biggest US shareholder of the Fed.

Seer's picture

"Personally I do not believe that there was a government involvement in 9/11, but on the weight of the evidence I have taken the time to study, I am now fairly convinced that the three building in NYC came down because of explosives, not planes."

Good on you for taking the time to do your own research.  If only more people would do so...  But, by default, there's a bit of a contradiction in your paragraph.  One cannot have on one hand the govt NOT being involved in 9/11, and on the other hand have it adamantly deny that explosives were used.  Just noting...  Oh, and the govt WAS involved on 9/11, just check out the military exercises that were occurring: the govt was totally tangled up in everything that occurred on 9/11; I suppose, however, what you meant to say was that the US govt wasn't aware of and involved in the planning of the events that we refer to as 9/11 (that it stated that it couldn't have conceived of airplanes being used to hit buildings has been proven to be pure bunk []).