Cryptome founder:"Wikileaks is a fraud"

[lupercal]

barracuda, while I greatly admire your haystacking skills, you haven't disproven a single point I've made. Let's break them down:

1. Was Young invited to front for wikileaks? Yes.

2. Did Young call wikileaks "a fraud" in his email of July 7, 2007? Yes.

3. Has he withdrawn, retracted, modified, or removed that statement from his own website, cryptome.org? No.

4. Did he make the same charges in an interview published in CNET on July 20, 2010? Yes, and more:

Young: And I say, oh-oh. That's over-promising. The very over-promising is an indication that it doesn't work. And we know that from watching the field of intelligence and how governments operate. When they over-promise, you know they're hiding something. People who are really trustworthy do not go around broadcasting how trustworthy I am.

CNET: It sounds like you've become more critical of Wikileaks over time.

Young: It's not just them. It's also that they're behaving like untrustworthy organizations. So yes, if the shoe fits, fine.

I don't want to limit this to Wikileaks, but yes, they're acting like a cult. They're acting like a religion. They're acting like a government. They're acting like a bunch of spies. They're hiding their identity. They don't account for the money. They promise all sorts of good things. They seldom let you know what they're really up to. They have rituals and all sorts of wonderful stuff. So I admire them for their showmanship and their entertainment value. But I certainly would not trust them with information if it had any value, or if it put me at risk or anyone that I cared about at risk.

Nevertheless, it's a fascinating development that's come along, to monetize this kind of thing. That's what they're up to. You start with free samples.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html

5. Have you or anyone else demonstrated that Manning, Patterson, Coombs, or Courage to Resist has ever received a damn cent of the money Asshat promised them? No.

6. Is that YouTube you posted remotely relevant? No, and in any case Young's very next words, which you omitted to quote, are that wikileaks is "dangerous."

Have I left anything out?

[slimmouse]

It appears to me that the "naysayers" inference in the wikileaks episode conforms to the standard hegelian dialectic procedure - namely Problem, reaction, solution.

But surely where this falls down in this situation is at the reaction stage ? From what Ive seen, the overall reaction surely isnt going to script ?

The naysayers also seem to be wanting it both ways insofaras, they argue that these leaks are anything but damning on the one hand, and yet, this is what will be used to close down the internet on the other ?

How does that work ?

[barracuda]

Have I left anything out?

Only substance.

[Montag]

It appears to me that the "naysayers" inference in the wikileaks episode conforms to the standard hegelian dialectic procedure - namely Problem, reaction, solution.

But surely where this falls down in this situation is at the reaction stage ? From what Ive seen, the overall reaction surely isnt going to script ?

The naysayers also seem to be wanting it both ways insofaras, they argue that these leaks are anything but damning on the one hand, and yet, this is what will be used to close down the internet on the other ?

How does that work ?

This is how it works Slimmouse, if Wikileaks is a psyop, with the useful, vapid stooge as its figurehead: When you unleash something like this, there are bound to be chain reactions... The spooks have put these snippets out there as IEDs in a sense, to boomerang back on the targets that they have animus for. They are probably rofling quite a bit on a day to day basis. Lol. If I don't say so myself.

We should probably be looking at if anything is going on besides Wikileaks. When the PTB do something like this to avert everyone's attention, our Spidey sense should be up for what else is going on. Well, taxes are being cut for the rich in the US, haha... But that's standard business as usual.

[Elvis]

if Wikileaks is a psyop, with the useful, vapid stooge as its figurehead

If anyone's a vapid stooge, I don't think it's Julian Assange.

[Montag]

If anyone's a vapid stooge, I don't think it's Julian Assange.

We are in agreement (I don't want to resort to invective like the Wikiboosters, but I hope you get my point)... People here claim to be into deep poltiics, but they view far too much on a very surface level IMO. They will never understand the dark arts of the CIA, and other like institutions IMHO.

[Elvis]

If anyone's a vapid stooge, I don't think it's Julian Assange.

We are in agreement

Eh? But in your previous post you just implied, at the least, that Assange is a vapid stooge.

In over 50 pages of back & forth on this, the assertions that Wikileaks is or is not a spook front have not been established with any certitude except in the minds of those who won't budge a nanometer from their positions, even before a tiny fraction of the cables have been read.

The question is well worth examining, and closely, but I am certain of one thing: if I was working at CIA-DOD-State Dept-spook central, I'd be working my ass off to discredit and cast suspicion on Assange and Wikileaks in whatever way I could. Circumspection, in spades, seems in order.

[Montag]

Eh? But in your previous post you just implied, at the least, that Assange is a vapid stooge.

In over 50 pages of back & forth on this, the assertions that Wikileaks is or is not a spook front have not been established with any certitude except in the minds of those who won't budge a nanometer from their positions, even before a tiny fraction of the cables have been read.

The question is well worth examining, and closely, but I am certain of one thing: if I was working at CIA-DOD-State Dept-spook central, I'd be working my ass off to discredit and cast suspicion on Assange and Wikileaks in whatever way I could. Circumspection, in spades, seems in order.

You were calling me and those who think like me vapid stooges no? I returned the favor...

[JackRiddler]

.

Message to Posterity: Wikileaks Threads on RI

In November and December 2010, the Rigorous Intuition board saw the near-simultaneous creation of many threads approaching the Wikileaks phenomenon from different angles. Long discussions developed organically in several of these, and sometimes seemed to be held in radically alternate realities. As an aid to your historical research, this notice is being posted in six of those threads on Dec. 10 to remind you of the others.

Here are the current top-of-the-board discussions, with start author and date, in order of the number of posts as of Dec. 10:

The Wikileaks Question
by JackRiddler » Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:10 pm (27 pages)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30362

Assange Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde Land.
by seemslikeadream » Fri Aug 27, 2010 3:29 pm (9 pages)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29320

Questioning WikiLeaks Thread
by Montag » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:50 pm (7 pages)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29933

Cryptome founder/Wikileaks co-founder:"Wikileaks is a fraud"
by lupercal » Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:19 am (5 pages)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30479

The rush to smear Assange's rape accuser.
by barracuda » Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:17 pm (3 pages)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30485

Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels WIKI!
by seemslikeadream » Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:29 pm (2 pages)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30359

EDIT:

JackRiddler, you missed the seminal thread on the Swedish issue:

Julian Assange wanted in Sweden for alleged rapes
by jingofever » Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:09 am (5 pages)
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29246

Some pretty relevant information in that thread, already in August-September.

PS, Posterity: There are other shorter current ones as well as some older ones, so be sure to prompt Skynet to do a date-delineated search for you. Hope you are enjoying your flying cars and conveyer belts, cool jumpsuits, jauntes to Jovian moon colonies, casual sex changes and group marriages, and governing your Galactic Federation of Sentient Species by means of the Universal Metamind Congress. How's immortality treating ya? Do you still "get" irony? Do you trust Starfleet?

[lupercal]

I am certain of one thing: if I was working at CIA-DOD-State Dept-spook central, I'd be working my ass off to discredit and cast suspicion on Assange and Wikileaks in whatever way I could. Circumspection, in spades, seems in order.

In other words, you're sure that anyone who doesn't fall hook, line and sinker for every lousy southern-strategy psyop to come down the pike is working for that *ahem* in the White House. Thanks Elvis, I'll keep that in mind.


p.s. this is NOT to say I'm not disgusted by the entire weak-sauce capitulating Obama administration, including his State department; I am. But they're getting played just like we are on this one, just like they got played on the TSA scam and every other media hoax cooked up by the security apparatus, just like JFK got played on Cuba and Vietnam regularly until he wised up, at which point the oil boys rid themselves of that annoyance.

So just by lumping the DOD-NSA with the state department, you're giving in to the propaganda, which incidentally is where a lot of half-way skeptics like AJ and Tarpley also fall down. Why, I'd rather not guess.

[lupercal]

And just to underscore the fact that the CIA -- an unelected, extra-constitutional, largely unaccountable, completely criminal and parasitic private army solely dedicated to propping up the MIC -- is at war with the State Department, a legitimate office of the elected civilian government, there's this from the UK Guardian, demonstrating that the CIA doesn't even perform the function it was chartered to, providing intelligence:

After CIA rebuff, state department turns to Google
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington, The Guardian, Tuesday 12 December

Some people may Google to locate lost loves, or check out potential new ones. The state department resorts to the internet search engine when it is trying to penetrate the clandestine world of international nuclear weapons proliferators.

A junior foreign service officer, employed at the state department for only a few months, who was given the task of investigating Iranians with possible links to the country's nuclear programme typed "Iran and nuclear" into his browser, the Washington Post reported yesterday.

The officer's initial search turned up more than 100 names, including Iranian diplomats who had defended the country's nuclear enrichment programme or attended meetings at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

The list was eventually narrowed down to 12 Iranians, who could now be subject to travel bans or curbs on their business dealings under a draft resolution before the United Nations. The resolution would freeze the assets of 11 institutions and a dozen individuals suspected of aiding Iran's banned enrichment programme, including the commander of the Revolutionary Guards, and the director of Iran's main nuclear energy facility.

The newspaper said the state department adopted the research method after the CIA refused to reveal any names of Iranians involved in the country's weapons programme.

The agency claimed that agents on the Iran desk were already overworked, and that such a disclosure could compromise its intelligence sources on Iran.

But it is also believed that the CIA was reluctant to tip its hand on Iran following its failure before the 2003 invasion of Iraq to establish that Saddam Hussein had failed to realise his nuclear ambitions, and that the country did not have a dangerous arsenal.

After bureaucratic wrangling, the CIA eventually confirmed the suspicions about some of the people on the state department list.

However, the agency said that that none of those identified by the state department were directly connected to Iran's efforts to produce a nuclear warhead.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/dec/12/usa.iran
..............................

Don't be fooled folks -- the CIA and the State Department are not, repeat NOT, the same beast.

[Montag]

Truman had a lot to say about the CIA in 1963:

Limit CIA Role to Intelligence
by Harry S Truman

December 22, 1963
http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry ... ticle.html

INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21 — I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency—CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.

I think it is fairly obvious that by and large a President's performance in office is as effective as the information he has and the information he gets. That is to say, that assuming the President himself possesses a knowledge of our history, a sensitive understanding of our institutions, and an insight into the needs and aspirations of the people, he needs to have available to him the most accurate and up-to-the-minute information on what is going on everywhere in the world, and particularly of the trends and developments in all the danger spots in the contest between East and West. This is an immense task and requires a special kind of an intelligence facility.

Of course, every President has available to him all the information gathered by the many intelligence agencies already in existence. The Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Interior and others are constantly engaged in extensive information gathering and have done excellent work.

But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.

Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without department "treatment" or interpretations.

I wanted and needed the information in its "natural raw" state and in as comprehensive a volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions—and I thought it was necessary that the President do his own thinking and evaluating.

Since the responsibility for decision making was his—then he had to be sure that no information is kept from him for whatever reason at the discretion of any one department or agency, or that unpleasant facts be kept from him. There are always those who would want to shield a President from bad news or misjudgments to spare him from being "upset."

For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.

I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.

With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about "Yankee imperialism," "exploitive capitalism," "war-mongering," "monopolists," in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people.

I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity—and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.

But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.

We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.

[barracuda]

Don't be fooled folks -- the CIA and the State Department are not, repeat NOT, the same beast.

Anyways:

From: "Jeff Paterson" <jp[at]jeffpaterson.net>
To: "'John Young'" <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Subject: RE: Manning Defence Fund: Wikileaks Default
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:28:23 -0800

Hi John.

Yes, you have my permission to post my reply to XXXXXXXX as a stand-alone
public comment from me regarding this situation.

My understanding is that the possible pending contribution from the Wau
Holland Foundation, on behalf of Wikileaks, is for 15,000 Euros approx. $20,000.

Jeff Paterson



Jeff,

XXXXXXX has shared the email [from] you below.

We would like to publish it on Cryptome.org unless you object.
If you do not object is there later or more information on the topic
you could share for publication? For example, have you received
funds from Wau Holland or Wikileaks rather than promises?

Regards,

John Young
Cryptome.org Admin


From: <jp[at]jeffpaterson.net>)
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 20:06:01 +0000


We had no desire to make a statement regarding the Wikileaks pledged
contribution, and it was unfortunate timing that it was released on the same
day of Mr. Assange's arrest. We were compelled to do so by recent statements
by Wikileaks regarding this issue, by media interest in the issue, and the
need for our Support Network to move forward in defense of Bradley Manning.

We have no idea what funds were received by Wikileaks in response to their
appeal on Bradley's behalf. If I had to guess, I'd say a few grand--$10k
max.

I believe that we may yet receive a contribution from Wikileaks, and we'll
make that public when it happens. I got a message from the Wau Holland
Foundation this morning asking for our non-profit paperwork and an
accounting of funds used so far, which I provided to them. That is something
we do regularly in applying for grants, or to receive unsolicited grants. I
believe it is a positive development.

[barracuda]

And just to underscore the fact that the CIA -- an unelected, extra-constitutional, largely unaccountable, completely criminal and parasitic private army solely dedicated to propping up the MIC -- is at war with the State Department, a legitimate office of the elected civilian government...

How 'bout a brief civics lesson...

Both the CIA and the state department are part of the executive branch of the federal government.

Just two members of the executive are elected, the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States.

The President and Vice President are supported by a whole slew of federal executive departments, federal executive agencies, plus a whole other slew of the assorted offices, bureaus and commissions that comprise the executive branch.

Nobody working in any of them, whether civilian or military, is elected.

However, most of the people working in the top jobs are appointed by the President and confirmed by congress, which is also known as the legislative branch of the federal government.

The existence and general charter of both the legislative and the executive branches of the federal government are constitutional mandates. And while neither the state department nor the CIA is specifically and inherently constitutional or unconstitutional, both are largely unaccountable, as is practically the entire federal government - all three branches of it. Because even when there are provisions for oversight in statutory and/or constitutional law, those laws are not regularly or meaningfully enforced by anybody.

All of the above is due to the fact that the United States is not functionally a democracy. Hear any bells ringing?

[Simulist]

Bravo, Barracuda.