This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
WikiLeaks, WikiDrama and WikiGossip
What should we make of the Wikileaks story?
Obviously, the
Swedish "sex crime" charges are ridiculous, as are the death threats
against Wikileaks founds Julian Assange. See this, this and this.
Some
leading first amendment advocates support Wikileaks as a vital
resource. For example, John Perry Barlow - founder of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (a great organization with a long and proven track
record in fighting censorship) says:
The first serious infowar is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. You are the troops.
Likewise, the ACLU has been fighting for Wikileaks for years.
And Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky think Wikileaks is the real deal.
However, many savvy observers argue that that Wikileaks is not what it seems.
For
example, former U.S. National Security Adviser under President Carter
(and top foreign policy advisor) Zbigniew Brzezinski doesn’t think all
the leaked information coming out of Wikileaks is a result of Army PFC
Bradley Manning, and suspects a foreign intelligence service may be
providing the more embarrassing leaks for their own political reasons.
As Brzezinski told PBS:
The real issue is, who is feeding Wikipedia
on this issue — Wiki — Wiki — WikiLeaks on this issue? They’re getting
a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of
it seems surprisingly pointed.***
For example, there
are references to a report by our officials that some Chinese leaders
favor a reunified Korea under South Korea.
This is clearly designed
to embarrass the Chinese and our relationship with them. The very
pointed references to Arab leaders could have as their objective
undermining their political credibility at home, because this kind of
public identification of their hostility towards Iran could actually
play against them at home…
***
It’s, rather, a question of whether
WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to
either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to
undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed.
And
I wonder whether, in fact, there aren’t some operations
internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to
WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to
embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with
particular governments.
For example, leaving aside the personal
gossip about Sarkozy or Berlusconi or Putin, the business about the
Turks is clearly calculated in terms of its potential impact on
disrupting the American-Turkish relationship.
***
Seeding — seeding it is very easy.
I
have no doubt that WikiLeaks is getting a lot of the stuff from sort
of relatively unimportant sources, like the one that perhaps is
identified on the air. But it may be getting stuff at the same time
from interested intelligence parties who want to manipulate the process and achieve certain very specific objectives.
Other smart people point out that - while there is pointed information challenging the actions of other countries
- the information coming from Wikileaks about the U.S. is more of the
nature of gossip, and doesn't actually challenge U.S. foreign or
domestic policy is a direct manner. For example, the information
disclosed to date doesn't challenge the narrative of the "War on Terror"
itself, the government's handling of the economic crisis, or any other
central American policy.
So whether Wikileaks is a first
amendment champion or an intelligence service psychological operation
aiming to persuade and embarrass, so far it has mainly been a bunch of
gossip in terms of leaks about America.
If you don't believe me,
read some of the actual cables which have been released. While there
have been some stunners about foreign countries, the ones regarding U.S.
actions have been nothing but idle chatter about well-known people or
events, providing interesting but wholly irrelevant details about what
people were wearing or who they slept with. No breakthrough
revelations which actually challenge core U.S. policy.
(Many people are saying that the disclosure that the U.S. has spied on
the United Nations shows the value of Wikileaks. But it has been known
for years that the U.S. spies on the U.N. See this, this and this.)
As the very mainstream, Murdoch-owned Herald Sun notes:
We're told the leaks are "explosive" and "sensational", revealing America's "dark face".
Rubbish.
In fact, the WikiLeaks dump of more than 250,000 classified cables
from US diplomats reveals little more than gossip on the embassy
circuit.***
These leaks expose no crime and nail no US lie.
***
Yet
Assange may also have done the US an inadvertent favour, just as he
did with his earlier dump of documents on Iraq, which showed there was
actually no conspiracy and no war crimes being hushed up.
***
[It] all confirms the world is as menacing as the US grimly says.
***
Overall, then, there is more in these leaks to confirm the US view of this world than there is to comfort its critics.
As the head of long-time whistleblower Cryptome (and former Wikileaks supporter - John Young - argues, Wikileaks has been more hype than substance:
Cryptome
does not seek publicity or media coverage. Wikileaks does by
issuing press releases, taunting the media, orchestrating bombshell
releases, glamourizing Julian Assange, behaving mysteriously, ...
exaggerating the value of what it publishes, editorializes about
its publications excessively -- all the methods used by those who
believe excessive valuation is a good thing.
So far - despite the media frenzy - it's more like WikiGossip than WikiLeaks.
Don't get distracted by the WikiDrama ... Unless WikiLeaks releases something which discloses criminal behavior by a large American bank, more damning information about the government's actions than the Fed's own data release, or facts which undermine the false war on terror narrative - Brzezinski himself told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative" - such as previously unknown false flags, then it's mainly a publicity-seeking melodrama more than an authentic challenge to American power.
Remember that the corporate press tends to be pro-war.
The more cynical might argue that the fact that the corporate press is
publishing all of the cables released by Wikileaks could imply that the
material is not fundamentally of an anti-war nature.
The more cynical also point out that many
credible whistleblowers - including former high-level government
officials - have been ignored over the last 10 years by the corporate
media when they have disclosed facts which challenged core U.S. policy. But Wikileaks is getting 24/7 coverage. I'm
strongly for whistleblowers ... I'm just not convinced that WikiLeaks
is as hard-hitting as other whistleblower groups out there.
All people of good faith agree that freedom
of information and freedom of speech are vital in a free society. The
real question is whether this particular organization is made up of
WikiHeroes, WikiPublicityHounds, WikiDupes, or WikiDisinfoAgents.
Only time will tell.
- advertisements -
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Zero Hedge's own 'geopol' is hiding under his creepy alias,WebsterTarpley, over @ Inforwars as he pulls apart the wikileaks BS thread by thread.
http://tarpley.net/
Be prepared for an extensive and very relevant history lesson covering the last 50 years of CIA/USSA disinformation.
{*has ZH banned geopol? Haven't heard from him in a very long time.}
"What sould we conclude ..." That organized crime syndicates (governments with forced taxation) hate the free flow of information.
Once you walk into the Hall of Mirrors it's hard to come back out.
My take.
As a civilian contractor, I worked with various government agencies including Pentagon, CIA, and NASA. I also had high government clearance level. Based on my knowledge and the scope & volume of the released info, this info could come either fromDo you remember as Richard Bruce " Dick" Cheney people deliberately leaked false info to the media prior to the Iraq war? The Wikileak info is very critical of American enemies or "bad" allies (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, Russia, etc.,). There is no any info about Israel, France, England, etc. How come?
So, I am very skeptical about Wikileak. I am very worry that America is becoming a totalitarian state without freedom of speech and with Internet censorship (something like is done in China or Russia).Sheet, I missed the 'bankileaks'? Who did Assange finger?
I just knew BAC was Af-Pak-Turk-Rusky-Iranian!
Or it's the bad bank and they've offloaded the most toxic assets to BAC with the intent to shut it down and turn it into a toxic asset graveyard.
Here is more WGT...at the end of the clip.
Alex Jones & Webster Tarpley: The Hidden Agenda Behind WikiLeaks - Alex Jones Tv Sunday Edition 2/5:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fedMe4x2iwg&feature=related
Hmmm.. So Crocketta and ITG will soon be here stating that only truthers and people concerned about chemtrails are the bandits that think this is a psyop.. Yeah.. we are all just crazy for thinking something doesn't smell right with this leak getting all the attention while other whistleblowers are ignored. Indeed
Yeah!... Add to that list SmokeyQuinn from www.TheSheepShitPile.com .
It is quite funny how all these 9/11Liars are willing to swallow the absolutely unscientific but official, CIA/MSM 9/11BS, hook, line and sinker and laugh at people who raise so many other relevant and important issues... JFK... MLK... RFK... etc...etc...
Yet the SmokeyQuinns of ZH love to endlessly rant and rave and get their sheep-shit-stained, lace knickers in a twist about everyday, common and hollow economic scams.
CogDis needs to provide much more in depth counselling to the 9/11MORONS who frequent ZH.
I think EVERYONE that questions 9/11 should be at the top of roofs screaming. It is by far the most important issue of our generation. The number of people that have died since then and the relinquished liberties are quite mind numbing.. All because of a BIG FAT LIE !!
If geopol were here he might point out that 911 was another event in a continuum of evil going back for some time...I hope he weighs in.
As it is, I was born in 1961...and my first vivid media memory is JFK's assassination.I have come to the point of knowing that the America I was raised to love died on that day, when I was only 2.911 is the creeps really consolidating their power.
These scumbags from hell need punishment...severe punishment.
911 was evil, my friend.An evil we shall overcome.
Bingo. My wife being the smart lady that she is reasoned that IF wikileaks is legit JA may have a reason for not embracing 9/11 truth. Similar to the shifting sands of Ron Paul's stance, JA might be forced by necessity to denounce 9/11 truth right now to establish credibility with sheep who might potential wake up if they are lead gently down the bread crumb trail rather than straight to the 9th circle of hell (ie 9/11 truth).
I definitely don't buy any of the 9/11 bs spewed by the MSM and while I can't say what happened that day, I know it ain't what we have been told. However, I'm in a position (anonymous on ZH) where I can state that view point. Would I engage my boss with 9/11 truth debate? No, probably not. I think 9/11 truth is huge and it might be that JA and Ron Paul are simply letting others carry that banner as RP for example said he was busy with the FED and IMF and couldn't deal with 9/11 truth on top of that. Fighting the Central Banking cartel is another soft spot on the belly of the beast, 9/11 being the other big one with a handful of others that are even harder to confirm than 9/11 eg bio-wep depopulation plans and deep dark shit like that.
I believe 9/11 is the most critical event probably since Nixon broke the gold standard (40ish years). Really you have to go back to JFK to see a more pivotal event in the past 60 years. 9/11 is without a doubt the lynch pin that all the abuses of the past 10 years pivots around. Knock that pin out and the whole lie falls apart. Seeing as the PTB have released many chimeras for the good folk of the world to deal with one has to choose their focus.
With all of that said, I'm on the fence about WL and JA unless/until I see a huge revelation that harms core agendas as George Washington points out. I also fear a triple think CIA disinfo campaign to discredit Wikileaks. Man this past decade has me so cynical I don't even trust myself Jason Bourne style! (hat tip to Rusty Shorts who I shamelessly stole that line from).
Time for me to float off to other worlds when they do... I can't rationalize co-existing with that kind of nonsense.
Disinformation, oh what a business. Julian Assange was in prison just a few short years ago, convicted of a hacking offense. He was let out early. Now, is there any chance he was let out because he cut a deal, or at the very least was going to be used as a useful idiot?
Assange telling us "nothing to see here" in regards to 9/11 says it all.
Yesterday I drew a lot of heat from certain folks for that opinion. Not disinformation agents, though, probably just misguided folks.
http://psychonews.site90.net
PsychoNews: Exposing the Oligarchy, one Psycho at a time.
What if Wikileaks was not a disinformation operation?
Probably nothing to be fair.
Therefore, why not sink into thinking it is a disinformation operation?
On one hand, if admitted as true, it sends back helplessness, powerlessness as people will do nothing based on wikileaks provided information.
On the other hand, if suggested as false, it preserved the possibility that people would act if such information was revealed and confirmed as true.
You drew heat... Hehe. Whew.