Cryptome founder:"Wikileaks is a fraud"

[82_28]

Because some here are not convinced that Wikileaks is the real deal does not mean they are anti-Wikleaks. I for one see the pro-Wikileaks crowd on the same level as the anti-Wikileak crowd,,,,, for myself, I just allow my intuitive faculty to guide my present understanding without taking sides.

I guess some people are impatient and like to take a final position before all the data is in and processed.

Meta-positions are the same as regular old positions.

Also please refrain from conflating anti-anti-WikiLeaks with pro-WikiLeaks.

No they're not. They are not the same as "regular old positions". What they are are a new process in which to disseminate the data necessary for the bullshit to be pulled off on a more abstract level. The certitude about wikileaks here (on RI and on other threads -- not this one) is absolutely absurd -- for or against.

Are you pro-war or are you anti-war?

Has the economy effected you negatively or are you doing well?

Do you believe racism was once and for all vanquished with Obama or have you now moved on to a new racism which isn't racism but simple "concern for the country"?

Has Comcast throttled you from snagging the movie you wanna watch or are they still "allowing" the data to flow freely?

Have you purchased the stocking stuffers yet?

[Montag]

No, because he is posting dozens of stream-of-conciousness speculations cloaking RightThink bogeymen and making no effort to substantiate or otherwise render them meaningful. If this board was called heyguesswhatjustoccurredtome.com or alexjonesreckons.com then i wouldn't complain, but its not, and his practise of 'post lots, ignore feedback & questions' makes a mockery of this places pretensions.

All you had to say to the guy, is you find his material light on evidence long on the verbiage, I think that would have gotten across your point.

It is interesting how you, lupercal and 82_28 just keep coming out with the hate speech, but couldn't scrape a decent evidence trail or even coherent argument together between the lot of you. Supports my theory that RightThinkers actually can't do reasoned evidenced debate, because their Strict Fathers tell them what to think regardless.

Hate speech? I don't think you know what hate speech is. B/c we don't agree we are promulgating "hate speech"? Here's a definition of it: Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.

What is a right thinker? You mean a conservative? I just meant the "mainline", lefties and peaceniks. I'm a lefty and a peacenik, myself... Sometimes I have great empathy for the sheep that are ripe for shearing other times, I guess I can be downright mean to them. I guess I was in a disgruntled state of mind about Assange's overexuberant fan club.

To tell you the truth I was kind of speculating a little (envisioning a plausible scenario) b/c I felt the place was turning into an Assange love fest (which I've felt since Wikileaks first became visible). My real position is I don't know. How anyone can disregard all the Assange/Wiki warning flags, I don't know, but that's what many here appear to be doing. Vaya con dios, if you won't have it any other way, but I'm just saying beware everyone.... It reminds me of Obamamania all over again (which I was not part of in the least, voted for McKinney and I think I have since been vindicated).

[Stephen Morgan]

Montag, every time I open or respond to this thread, I have to hear fucking Alex Jones say "Webster Tarpley". Can we somehow disable the autoplay function on that goddam audio? Or remove the embed in favor of a mere link?

Using Firefox? Get the Flashblock Add-On.

[Montag]

Montag, every time I open or respond to this thread, I have to hear fucking Alex Jones say "Webster Tarpley". Can we somehow disable the autoplay function on that goddam audio? Or remove the embed in favor of a mere link?

Using Firefox? Get the Flashblock Add-On.

Don't worry it's been fixed... It wasn't doing that on my computer. I'm using Firefox, don't know if my operating system might have something to do with it, I'm using Ubuntu.

[Stephen Morgan]

Montag, every time I open or respond to this thread, I have to hear fucking Alex Jones say "Webster Tarpley". Can we somehow disable the autoplay function on that goddam audio? Or remove the embed in favor of a mere link?

Using Firefox? Get the Flashblock Add-On.

Don't worry it's been fixed... It wasn't doing that on my computer. I'm using Firefox, don't know if my operating system might have something to do with it, I'm using Ubuntu.

Always nice to see a fellow Ubuntist. Thinking of moving over to Slackware, though, when Natty Narwhal adopts Unity as its GUI. Depends how easy it is to install gnome-shell. Could switch to Kubuntu or Xubuntu, I suppose. Not sure how well MythTV would work with them, though.

Firefox has some good add-ons, FLASH-AID, FlashBlock and TubeStop, which respectively install the latest 64-bit Flash on 64 bit systems (the ubuntu-restricted-extras version is 32 bit), stop automatic loading of flash on web pages and stop automatic playing of youtube clips, all useful.

[justdrew]

default GUI, you can switch to several other choices once it's up and running

[wintler2]

..
What in the living fuck are you talking about wintler? You think, you seriously think, I or any other valued and trusted member here is coming at you with "hate speech"?

No, not at me, but at Julian Assange, you and others are, at least how i think of hate speech. To malign/smear someone based on personal 'spidey sense' and freestyle conjecture and without regard to contrary evidence is hateful.

..Fuck, how insulting. Who and what the fuck is a "RightThinker".

someone who puts across rightwing POv's, including 'post-science' waffle about how unknowable everything is.

Jesus dood. It doesn't need to come to that or this. Don't fucking accuse anybody of anything if you don't wanna be a "RightThinker" yourself holmes. The way it seems you're playing this all out in your head or whatever is like someone playing poker that demands that his awesome straight is somehow better than the opponent's flush. But, but, but wait! I had a straight! "Hate speech", my ass dude.

No discernable content.

All you gotta do is let the conversation develop. Now, I understand that you got it goin' on with your grasp of shit, but some of us don't. Some here, including myself aren't fit to piss next to wintler1 let alone the improved model wintler2. Jesus brother, give up the attitude and allow the conversation to develop.

It is not a conversation when you don't accept feedback, e.g. ignoring requests to put up some evidence for your smears of JA or respond to contrary evidence. You blather on regardless, turning the place into a one-way broadcast medium, and then regress when i give you feedback. Sure i didn't do it nicely, but previous attempts to do it nicely changed nothing. Sometimes yelling is appropriate.

You were perfectly fine in my eyes until you had to feel the need to be a fucking dick about all this. I'll let you know when I complete my course in Hate Speech 101 and then we can go from there. Until then, I got nuthin' as far as hate speech.

No discernable content.

[wintler2]

Hate speech? I don't think you know what hate speech is. B/c we don't agree we are promulgating "hate speech"? Here's a definition of it: Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.

You got me: i misused an established term, thats not what i meant, Apologies. 'Hateful' is closer to what i meant, exemplified by the truly noxious posts by lupercal, which i dare anyone to try and defend.

.. My real position is I don't know.

I don't know either, but i'm willing to give a mob apparently doing all the right things the benefit of the doubt, until such time as someone shows they are black or at least grey hats. I think they deserve a fair go, not to be torn to pieces based on crappy conspiracism.

How anyone can disregard all the Assange/Wiki warning flags, I don't know, but that's what many here appear to be doing. Vaya con dios, if you won't have it any other way, but I'm just saying beware everyone.... It reminds me of Obamamania all over again (which I was not part of in the least, voted for McKinney and I think I have since been vindicated).

'It reminds me of' is hardly evidence, is it? What are the warning flags you see, supported by what evidence?

[Montag]

'It reminds me of' is hardly evidence, is it? What are the warning flags you see, supported by what evidence?

I think in the deep political arena there's a lot of getting a feel for things. A lot of it walks like a duck talks like a duck then it is a duck sort of stuff. I think that is where a great amount of the division that I'm seeing here lies. Those of us who think we know a dodge when we see it, and others who must have the "hard data" to make a complete picture. There's a lot of piecing things in deep politics IMO.

Pattern recognition and marks of shifty/shady operators additionally are important. As I said the John Young archetype works better for me than the Anne Hamilton-Byrn cult mathematician/hacker/transient cum "investigative journalist", but that's just me. And apparently -- although I'm not certain -- a minority of us here.

p.s. I was just setting up an outline there (the media does this especially the gossip media, but also the "hard news" at times too). The cult is just a connection/coincidence it's entirely possible there's nothing there. Oddly, the children of that cult's hair was dyed peroxide blonde.

I must admit on the cult thing I'd say the media can't do any right (in my eyes). If they focused on it heavily I'd think that would be suspicious... I'd say it's not being reported heavily, but that can be looked at as suspicious too.

This article in the New Yorker says he and his mother were on the run from the stepfather -- possibly being surveilled by the government:
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 ... z17gggHLsE

When Assange was eight, Claire left her husband and began seeing a musician, with whom she had another child, a boy. The relationship was tempestuous; the musician became abusive, she says, and they separated. A fight ensued over the custody of Assange’s half brother, and Claire felt threatened, fearing that the musician would take away her son. Assange recalled her saying, “Now we need to disappear,” and he lived on the run with her from the age of eleven to sixteen. When I asked him about the experience, he told me that there was evidence that the man belonged to a powerful cult called the Family—its motto was “Unseen, Unknown, and Unheard.” Some members were doctors who persuaded mothers to give up their newborn children to the cult’s leader, Anne Hamilton-Byrne. The cult had moles in government, Assange suspected, who provided the musician with leads on Claire’s whereabouts. In fact, Claire often told friends where she had gone, or hid in places where she had lived before.

It's hard to tell what was going on. In this article the author says that Assange volunteered that the man was connected to the Anne Hamilton-Byrne cult. I read another article in The Age where Assange denied being in a cult, and in fact it said Assange won't discuss it -- The Great White Brotherhood.

Mendax's mother then started a relationship with a man who Mendax considered to be ''a violent psychopath'', a man with five different identities, who'd fabricated his entire background, including the country of his birth. They eventually fled, and began a life on the run, eventually ending up on the outskirts of Melbourne.

Assange will neither confirm nor deny that he's Mendax. But in an extraordinary slip recently, on SBS's Dateline program, whose reporter, Mark Davis tracked him down in Norway earlier this year (the program screened last Sunday), Assange said that this man ''seemed to be the son of Anne Hamilton-Byrne of the Anne Hamilton-Byrne cult in Australia, and we kept getting tracked down''.

Byrne was the leader of a cult, The Family, discovered in the Dandenong Ranges in the early 1980s. There were 14 children in the cult, who were treated abominably, and taught that they were all Byrne's children. All of them had their hair dyed blonde (the police finally caught up with the cult in 1987).

Assange won't discuss the link with Byrne. He says only: ''My mother was never in a cult. I was never in a cult.''

My question about his own white hair goes nowhere. However, Assange told me when we first talked (we have several conversations), that his hair went white at 15.

''I was very blond until 12-ish, until puberty. I built a cathode ray tube at 15, at school, and connected it backwards. The Geiger counter went 1000, 2000, 3000, 40,000. That was about the time. Also I had some head scans, because I had something like viral encephalitis. It was very mild. I just lost feeling in one cheek. Earlier on, at nine, I'd had head X-rays because I'd headbutted a giant earth ball.''

So there's a lot of questions with the cult connection, I think there's definitely possibly more there than he's never been in a cult, his mother's never been in a cult as it says in the Age article (Assange in his own words, the other article, of course claims he volunteered the cult info).

[Montag]

You know I haven't read Jeff's book -- it's on my list to read -- I don't see much of any intuition from people here. Yes intuition cannot be measured and quantified, but some seem to be wholly out of touch with it...

[justdrew]

You know I haven't read Jeff's book -- it's on my list to read -- I don't see much of any intuition from people here. Yes intuition cannot be measured and quantified, but some seem to wholly out of touch with it...

I'm giving plenty of intuition. I stand by my intuition that there's multiple Julians.

These people seem to be making a real run at the shit-heap empire, and it looks like it just might work. The long game here is a real change, if it's not wiped out early. WTF exactly was going on with that 'cult' remains to be seen, though we'll probably never really find out, but to me it 'smells' 'different' than say, The Finders thing. Anyway, the only 'connection' is J.A.'s own words, he may have made it up, not sure if his mother ever corroborated the story... Or it may be the tip of a rather gray iceberg and the iceberg is still out there, submerged. An iceberg with possibly good intentions, if questionable means.

[lupercal]

..
What in the living fuck are you talking about wintler? You think, you seriously think, I or any other valued and trusted member here is coming at you with "hate speech"?

No, not at me, but at Julian Assange, you and others are, at least how i think of hate speech. To malign/smear someone based on personal 'spidey sense' and freestyle conjecture and without regard to contrary evidence is hateful.

..Fuck, how insulting. Who and what the fuck is a "RightThinker".

someone who puts across rightwing POv's, including 'post-science' waffle about how unknowable everything is.

Jesus dood. It doesn't need to come to that or this. Don't fucking accuse anybody of anything if you don't wanna be a "RightThinker" yourself holmes. The way it seems you're playing this all out in your head or whatever is like someone playing poker that demands that his awesome straight is somehow better than the opponent's flush. But, but, but wait! I had a straight! "Hate speech", my ass dude.

No discernable content.

All you gotta do is let the conversation develop. Now, I understand that you got it goin' on with your grasp of shit, but some of us don't. Some here, including myself aren't fit to piss next to wintler1 let alone the improved model wintler2. Jesus brother, give up the attitude and allow the conversation to develop.

It is not a conversation when you don't accept feedback, e.g. ignoring requests to put up some evidence for your smears of JA or respond to contrary evidence. You blather on regardless, turning the place into a one-way broadcast medium, and then regress when i give you feedback. Sure i didn't do it nicely, but previous attempts to do it nicely changed nothing. Sometimes yelling is appropriate.

You were perfectly fine in my eyes until you had to feel the need to be a fucking dick about all this. I'll let you know when I complete my course in Hate Speech 101 and then we can go from there. Until then, I got nuthin' as far as hate speech.

No discernable content.

Holy shit you're living in a fantasy universe. What the hell is wrong with you anyway? We post link after link to one damn red flag after another and not only to do you studiously ignore the obvious, you complain we're not supporting our claims. And then you post a pack of lies about "hate speech"? Not only are you deluded but you're making up your own language. You belong in a zoo my friend and I mean that in the nicest possible way.

[lupercal]

Whats to say in this thread - barracuda did the work on pg2 showing that the OP you launched the thread with was nonsense, and no anti-wikileaks poster has attempted to contest it - you lose by no-show.

I'm also not insisting twenty times a day that wikileaks is definately X, and so i have less to substantiate. Your revolting texts claim all sorts of things but provide no substantiation .. much like the 'rape' allegations against assange plastered across MSM now i think of it - thats shitty.

Okay in the interest of fair play and all that could you please substantiate this claim by listing the points in the OP that you believe have been shown to be "nonsense," using exact quotations of what was posted and supporting alleged refutations with actual links, perish the thought?

And yes I've already asked barracuda.

p.s. you can start by proving that Manning, Paterson, Courage to Resist or Coombs have received a red cent from A-boy.

[82_28]

Wintler, seriously, what makes you too cool for school? Forgive me, but this is the first time I have ever had to encounter such needless arrogance on this board. It ain't just me either, Mr. No Discernible Content. I think a number of people are being put off by you. All you have to do is be cool or just be indifferent.

[barracuda]

Okay in the interest of fair play and all that could you please substantiate this claim by listing the points in the OP that you believe have been shown to be "nonsense," using exact quotations of what was posted and supporting alleged refutations with actual links, perish the thought?

First of all, I have been quoting you throughout my contributions to your understanding on this thread. You have chosen - as is your god-given right - to ignore what I've demonstrated, and to instead ask for a Cliff Notes version of the arguments here - a highly unusual request.

You wrote (quote): Cryptome founder/Wikileaks co-founder:"Wikileaks is a fraud"

That much is true. John Young said that in 2007. But you've ignored my evidence that John Young may not be exactly the go-to guy for objective inside information on WikiLeaks, because of the quiver of axes he has to grind, as well as his choices in interviewers, which probably aren't going to greatly aid your own Democratic Party concerns:



You might ask yourself why John Young, trusted friend of the people's whistleblowers, is giving his time to Aaron Klein.

In any case, I have shown you footage of John Young, Cryptome founder/Wikileaks co-founder, on video, in a very recent interview, saying the following words right out loud in front of god and the internet and everybody with regards to WikiLeaks:

First let me say it a great organisation. They're doing a wonderful job, and whatever reservations I have about them is not terribly important. I think we need a lot more WikiLeaks than just one.

So deal with that, if you would.

Now, regarding Manning's defense fund, I gave you some breadcrumbs, but you didn't respond to them or even deign to bend to pick them up. (Feel free to comment upon my previous postings, as is customary in this format.) But if you require further hand-holding, I direct you to see this article:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/1 ... ng-defens/

WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said last week at a panel discussion in London that WikiLeaks had contributed “a substantial amount of money” to Manning’s defense. But upon learning Tuesday that the money had actually not been paid yet, Hrafnsson told The Washington Post that there was a misunderstanding and that $20,000 would be distributed to Manning’s defense immediately by the nonprofit Wau Holland Foundation, which manages the majority of WikiLeaks donations.

As I pointed out earlier, there is every reason to believe this is an issue on the Wau Holland side of the deal.

“The contribution was informally agreed upon quite some time ago, and that was relayed to the defense fund,” WikiLeaks spokesman Hrafnsson told the Post. “I was under the impression it had been formally authorized as is required by the trustees [of the] Wau Holland Fund. This situation has now been rectified, and the payment is being processed now.”

It was an informal agreement.

The figure, however, falls short of the $50,000 that the Bradley Manning Support Network was expecting from WikiLeaks. Manning’s defense attorney, David E. Coombs, has agreed to defend the soldier for a flat fee of $100,000, and WikiLeaks was expected to pay half of this, Paterson said.

“We had an informal agreement to split the cost,” Paterson said. “We identified the cost to be about $100,000, and they’re now proposing an 80-20 split apparently. I’ve always hoped that they make a contribution. If they ever do I’ll be happy to receive it, whatever it is.”

I think we can agree that both sides of the agreement agree on the agreement's informal nature.

“We understand the difficult situation WikiLeaks currently faces, as the world’s governments conspire to extinguish the whistle-blower website,” Paterson said in the release. “However, in order to meet Bradley Manning’s legal-defense needs, we’re forced to clarify that WikiLeaks has not yet made a contribution towards this effort. We certainly welcome any contribution from WikiLeaks, but we need to inform our supporters that it may not be forthcoming and that their continued contributions and support are crucial.”

Yeah, there is that little thing about the world's governments conspiring to extinguish, etc.

Loraine Reitman, a member of the group’s steering committee, shied away from placing blame on WikiLeaks.

“WikiLeaks is the reason we’ve been able to get so much money and donations,” she told Threat Level. “They’ve been linking to us and tweeting about us, and every time they do it, donations come in.”

So, the reason the Bradley Manning Support Network has been able to get so much money is because of WikiLeaks in the first place, and they use that money in order to pay for Manning's lawyer, and...

The group said that in addition to legal costs, it had covered the cost of travel for an unspecified number of visitors who had met with Manning at the Marine Corps brig where he is being held in Quantico, Viriginia. It had also paid the costs of printing and distributing leaflets, staging public forums and demonstrations and producing banners, T-shirts and stickers, among other expenses.

Printing T-shirts and stickers, huh? Everybody's got priorities, I guess. I wonder why they've been goofing around an making banners and stuff when the trial is right around the corner? Let's check that, though:

Army officials say Manning's mental health evaluation is not set to be complete until around February of 2011. Only then can a trial date be set.

Maybe because there's still some time left for further fundraising. So to recap, Manning's lawyer has received half the cost of his services already, his support group has got the T-shirt and stickers fired up, twenty large are on the way from Wau Holland, the blonde gentleman who promised him the money in the first place is incarcerated in the UK, and his trial is several months away. (I would like at this juncture to make note of the colloquial impropiety of requesting money from individuals who are currently in jail. Bad form.)

Something tells me Manning's legal fees aren't going to be the issue eventually anyways. If "they" want him in military jail, or Gitmo, or renditioned to a Syrian hell-hole, that's where he's gonna go, lawyer, constitution or whatever. But I doubt you'll be able to blame that on WikiLeaks, try as you might.

Most of this was available for you to discover in the hit-piece articles you've already posted.

Now if we can return for a moment to that world-government-conspiring-to-extinguish thing: Wau Holland has had their PayPal account suspended, leaving them stuck for eighty grand, and in the meantime, they've been coincidentally notified that there are some tax issues they need to resolve, and they've been not threatened with closure:

"But this has nothing to do with WikiLeaks," said tax authority spokesman Michael Conrad.

It's so heartening when the papers assure your world business associates that you're not threatened with closure.

Anyways, if you feel like it, please begin your response by responding to my earlier posts, then work your way through to finish up with this one, and if you'd be so kind, using exact quotations of what was posted and supporting alleged refutations with actual links. Or something else entirely. Far be it from me to tell you what to do, outside of the whole hate-speech deal.