If We Lose our Internet Freedoms Because of Wikileaks, You Should At Least Know Why

(also see “Trying to Explain the World” – How the Globalist’s PR Agents Use the Wikileaks Psyops Program )

by Scott Creighton

Just a little more background on the “hero” Jullian Assange and Wikileaks…

Wikileaks was started up in Dec. of 2006. Oddly enough, as a supposed “leak” site, a dissident site, it was given a great deal of immediate mainstream attention from the likes of the Washington Post, TIME magazine, and even Cass Sunstein the now infamous Obama administration who wrote a paper on how to “cognitively infiltrate” dissident groups in order to steer them in a direction that is useful to the powers that be.

The TIME magazine article is curious because it seems that right off the bat they were telling us how to interpret Wikileaks in such a way that sounded strangely familiar to George W. Bush back just after 9/11…

“By March, more than one million leaked documents from governments and corporations in Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the former Soviet Bloc will be available online in a bold new collective experiment in whistle-blowing. That is, of course, as long as you don’t accept any of the conspiracy theories brewing that Wikileaks.org could be a front for the CIA or some other intelligence agency.” TIME Jan. 2007

Now remember and read closely… this article was written PRIOR to Wikileaks’ first big “leak”, which according to the article was to  occur sometime in March of 2007. So why would TIME magazine be writing about them in the first place if they hadn’t done anything yet? Also, let’s not pass up on that delicious irony: this is TIME magazine singing the praises of a supposed “leak” site which will supposedly expose all kinds of “conspiracy theories” while at the same time telling their readers NOT to believe in those silly “conspiracy theories” circulating about Wikileaks. Just so long as you believe the “right” conspiracy theories, you’ll be alright I guess.   This of course perfectly matches Jullian Assange’s own statements about 9/11.

TIME goes on to explain that the Wikileaks version will be the “correct” version (even though they had yet to publish anything at that point… pretty far out on that credibility limb for TIME if you ask me…)

“Instead of a couple of academic specialists, Wikileaks will provide a forum for the entire global community to examine any document relentlessly for credibility, plausibility, veracity and falsifiability,” its organizers write on the site’s FAQ page. “They will be able to interpret documents and explain their relevance to the public. If a document is leaked from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community can freely scrutinize and discuss it…”  TIME Jan. 2007

You have to remember, Wikileaks first started targeting China obviously and as we all know from history, typically dissident movements within targeted nations are often funded and run by covert CIA operations. Since Wikileaks started off with a host of Chinese dissidents, it would be logical to assume that at least some of them have links back to the agency. But it gets better.

Few of you might know that just prior to the unveiling of Wikileaks, the intelligence world had an unveiling of their own… a “social media” based resource called “Intellipedia”.  Some of you might find this interesting…

“With its own versions of a certain search engine and a certain online encyclopedia, the intelligence community is evolving its use of tools now widespread in the commercial sector, generating both success and controversy.

The new tools include a federated search engine called Oogle and Intellipedia, a controversial intelligence data-sharing tool based on Wiki social software technology.”  GCN Sept. 2006

So we see that in Sept. of 2006 there is a concerted effort in the intelligence community to embark on several new “pedia” type programs one which serves as a data-base and another which works like a Google search engine. Why wouldn’t there be a third?

John Young of Cryptome (a well-known and established whistle-blower site) was working with Jullian Assange in Dec. of 2006 while they were getting all of this off the ground so to speak. eventually he came to a conclusion about Wikileaks and Assange. The following is from one of the last email communications with Assange that John Young sent him which he had released to the public once he came to his conclusions.

“All the messages received were published. My objections had been building, shown in later messages, after initial support. The finally fed-up turnaround occurred with the publication today of the $5 million dollar by July fund-raising goal — see messages at the tail-end. I called that — along with a delay in offering a public discussion and critique forum and failure to provide a credible batch of leaked documents for public scrutiny — a surefire indication of a scam. This is the exact technique used by snake oilers, pols and spies. Requests to Cryptome to keep stuff quiet are regular fare and they always get published. Next up, the names and affiliations of the perps if they don’t reveal themselves in an open forum.” John Young, Dec. 2006

Go here to read the entire email exchange, from start to finish, including the emails sent to Daniel Ellsberg (apparently he has been emotionally attached to this project from before day-one… so much for Mr. Ellsberg’s journalist objectivity)

It would appear that John Young had problems with the peer review part of the Wikileaks process… notice how that is first and foremost what TIME magazine praises about Wikileaks? Sounds to me like someone is trying to fix the narrative.

So it would appear that TIME and the Washington Post had to come out with supportive articles about Wikileaks because someone was “leaking” information and questions about them and their little project looked doomed to fail before it even got off the ground. Perhaps they got a little help writing all that propaganda from one of Jullian Assange’s first partners in the project… a PR guy affiliated with ABC and News Corp’s Rupert Murdoch.

“Phillip Andrew Hedley Adams, AO (born 12 July 1939) is an Australian broadcaster, film producer, writer, social commentator, satirist and left-wing pundit. He currently hosts a radio program, Late Night Live, four nights a week on the ABC, and he also writes a weekly column for the News Limited-owned newspaper, The Australian. Adams is (or was) on the Advisory Board of Wikileaks.

Adams began his advertising career with Foote Cone & Belding and later with Brian Monahan and Lyle Dayman became a partner in the agency Monahan Dayman Adams. They took that company to a successful public listing and Adams became a millionaire in the process. He developed such successful campaigns as “Life – Be In It”[4], “Slip, Slop, Slap[5], “Break down the Barriers”, “Guess whose mum has a Whirlpool” and “watch the big men fly for a Herbert Adams Pie”,”

“News Limited is an Australian newspaper publisher. Until the formation of News Corporation in 1979, it was the principal holding for the business interests of Rupert Murdoch. Since then, News Limited has been wholly owned by News Corporation.”  Wiki

Now that’s just another of the curious associations that Wikileaks seems to hold, though you would never hear about that from Glenn Greenwald or John Pilger. But you will hear about it from me. You tack PR guys with News cork affiliations onto Chinese dissidents who have been probably funded by the CIA in times past… mesh that up with John Young’s 2006 conclusions, and you come away with a different view of Wikileaks altogether… especially when you look at the sum total of the work they have “leaked” over the years. Of course there may still be some of you who prefer to take TIME magazine’s telling suggestion to dismiss the “outrageous conspiracy theories” and for those of you who are still in that category, I offer… Cass Sunstein.

Cass Sunstein also wrote about Wikileaks in Feb of 2007 prior to their release of the first set of Chinese “leaks”. But Sunstein also wrote about infiltrating dissident groups later in 2008. Sunstein currently heads the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for Barack Obama.

“Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled “Conspiracy Theories,” in which they wrote, “The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.” They go on to propose that, “the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups“,[22] where they suggest, among other tactics, “Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”

Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of secret government payments to outside commentators, who are then held out as independent experts; they suggest that “government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes,” further warning that “too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed.”[22] Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, “might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts.”” Wiki

This internal discourse on the purpose and the practice on infiltrating dissident groups in order to undermine existing “conspiracy theories” was written in 2008, but don’t suppose that it hadn’t been done before. Hell, just look up the Black Panthers for god’s sake. But just take a look at the line “government can supply these independent experts with information” and you start to get the idea behind Wikileaks. Again, consider the type of “leaks” that have been coming out about Iran and North Korea and you get the picture.

“The Central Intelligence Agency disclosed the existence of its top-secret Intellipedia project, based on Wikipedia software (and now containing more than 28,000 pages), in late October. The agency hopes to use dispersed information to reduce the risk of intelligence failures. NASA officials have adopted a wiki site to program NASA software, allowing many participants to make improvements.”

Wikileaks.org, founded by dissidents in China and other nations, plans to post secret government documents and to protect them from censorship with coded software.”

“But the track record of the new collaborations suggests that they have immense potential. In just a few years, Wikipedia has become the most influential encyclopedia in the world, consulted by judges as well as those who cannot afford to buy books. If the past is prologue, we’re seeing the tip of a very large iceberg.”  Washington Post

Far from being a ringing endorsement of Wikileaks, Sunstein’s article seems to express what we can probably assume was the motivating factor behind the creation of such a program, and that is that they knew it had “immense potential”.

It’s unfortunate what is going to happen. We all know it. We all see it. At some point that 256 character encryption code is going to be released and all of those wanna-be hackers will busily work to decode the 1.6 gig file they downloaded from all those bit torrent sites. Of course the files are unredacted, as has already been made clear by Mr. assange himself, and the end result will obviously be that some U.S. agent in Pakistan or Somalia or even Yemen will be disclosed and killed. At that point, the Obama administration will have no choice but to shut down thousands of websites (they just ran a BETA test for that last month shutting down 70 all at once) for “national security” reasons. Once that happens, they will of course have to pass a net neutrality bill that allows for licensing requirements for hosting websites which will mean only government approved sites will be allowed and they will be constantly monitored, for the public good of course. And thus, all those troubling “conspiracy theory” sites will be gone and Cass Sunstein can sleep better at night.

I only put this information up because I want people like John Pilger and Glenn Greenwald to know the exact role they are playing in all of this. Not that it will make any difference I suppose and not that the shunting of internet freedom will affect them… Salon won’t shut down and neither will Pilger’s site. Hell, those two might even have to write articles explaining how they agree with the new measures, certainly after a U.S. agent gets killed in some country we aren’t even at war with.

Anyway, I don’t normally do predictions and I hope I am wrong. But I don’t think I am.

But just so we all know, this is the background of the mythology called Wikileaks. If we lose our internet freedoms over this fight, I certainly want us all to have a little better understanding of why.

UPDATE: John Young was just asked by AJ what he thought was the overall point of the Wikileaks program…

AJ: Is this a big theatre with Assange or are they burning him?

Young: Its a theatre operation. Partly lulling, partly testing systems. Testing public reaction “are we going to get traction out of cyber threats or not.” will this work or not, because as you know they haven’t caused any harm that is why they haven’t been charged… and then there will be some lives lost or something will happen… and at some point when this cyber war becomes a real war, we will see because the laws will be ready.  Interview John Young

45 Responses

  1. Wikileaks is Mossad propaganda for the US to continue endless Wars for Israel, it all started nearly a decade ago under a false flag attack.
    9/11 and Israel, here:

  2. Here’s an article from the Pakistan Daily, back in July:


  3. I think they are just getting the Wiki snowball rolling…. this is a GREAT tool for them – and those of us in the next paradigm already see it’s true intentions — the masses (with help of MSM) will never question it — just like when THEY catch “terrorists” the masses accept it – even while they are more and more questioning the very event that gave us the new reality of terrorists… So it’s the “doublethink” ability of the masses that while they may, eventually, question wikileaks or admit to be suspect — they STILL believe (and think it’s normal) the stories put out by Wiki — and the inevitable “solution” given by governments to deal with Wiki…

    However, I see this as a tool intel agencies are just getting warmed up — like the article from daily PK says – No doubt they want to use it’s power in the “election season” – so we’ll see Wiki (with professional wrestling bouts with police/govt officials) go on and on leaking all through and up to 2012…

    It still does boggle the mind that the public actually believes organizations and websites like WikiLeaks are “real” “independent” “a threat to the powers that be” “exposing truths” etc — The bright lights of the MSM and even govt’ officials responding to them is proof this is massive co-intel pro – and then secondly you look at what indeed has been “leaked” and it becomes even more obvious… Wiki tows the line in every category for the powers that be.

  4. Seriously, what is in wikileaks that is at all damaging to Israel? Didn’t a story just come out yesterday from an Assange former colleague essentially saying that Assange made a deal with Israel? Big f’ing surprise there. It seems the main purpose of the leaks(if you listen to the media) is to say that Iran is really really scary, engaged in terrorism and obtaining nuclear weapons and that even the Arab governments want war with them. Gee, who does that narrative serve?

  5. there is nothing damaging to Israel. In fact, most of the Wiki “leaks” support Israel’s position on pretty much everything they have been doing for the past 10 years. India as well, for that matter.

  6. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Will ANY war criminals get indicted? Will this help the poor, the environmentally ravaged, those caught in traps of superimperialISM, the unjustly convicted .. or do we just endlessly do final exams day after day trying to make sense of any endless stream of documents which, mostly, have been tabloids for intellectuals ??

  7. What the crappy way to be famous, go in mud cluster and wash you face you India hater US idiot.

  8. You are now my most trusted name in news. I had lots of suspicions about it – i.e., what good has wikileaks done? – but in my opinion you have documented this. And, I don’t think you are wrong either. Especially the Sunstein bit. Unflippin believable. Wish I could give you a Pulitzer.

  9. The left’s sudden, extreme support for all things wikileaks also reminds me of the rise of the strange new left that catapulted Obama into office. IMO, that neoleft internet base is based in a contractor’s office.

  10. Think Progress is run by an arm of John Podesta’s Center for Progress. It’s a focus group for the Neoliberal New Dems and helped put Obama in office. and yes, its pretty much a contract operation.

  11. […] If We Lose our Internet Freedoms Because of Wikileaks, You Should At Least Know Why […]

  12. The jews are behind internet kill.
    Joe Lieberman U..S. needs Internet kill switch like China

    We have exterminated the property owners in Russia. We are going to do the same thing in Europe and America.”

    (The Jew, December 1925, Zinobit)

  13. Are you like a holocaust denier attempting to suggest that the torture, rape, renditions and murder don’t go on.

    Are you one of those seeking to distract readers from the content of the official US government documents or suggest that the documents are a fabrication?

    Are you a supporter of methods involving torture or torture by proxy?
    Did any of your forefathers fight against the Nazi’s?

  14. I’m sorry… are you talking to me?

    Assange’s documents don’t disclose a lot of stuff we don’t already know. We know innocent civilians died in Iraq. Assange would have you think that number is around 115,000 (mostly killed by other Iraqis) and yet there are several studies that put that number over a million.

    Wikileaks spends its time creating false connections between North Korea and Iran… saying that Iran is killing troops in Iraq… saying Pakistan is killing troops in Afghanistan… crap like that.

    Wikileaks probably has “real” documents, but as they admit, they are being vetted by state department officials to serve whatever need they see fit.

    that’s how disinfo works. and that is what Wikileaks is. I don’t know what the Nazi’s have to do with it. Unless of course you are talking about the Nazis that came to work here in the U.S. after the war.

  15. that’s a very telling article. this is exactly what the “leaks” are designed to do.

  16. TIME is CIA. What else would they say, to damage Assange?

    Caution is a good thing, but are you falling for the same trick?

  17. I might say that you had a point if this was Dec. 2006 or Jan. 2007, even though Young had already come out with the emails by then, but the fact is, this is 4 years later and we can clearly see the kinds of “leaks” Assange has come up with since then. There is a track record and it ain’t good.

  18. […] grase ich alle Nachrichten ab, die Erhellung versprechen. Scott Creighton von AmericanEveryman hat hier zusammengetragen, wie amerikanische Mainstreammedien Wikileaks promotet haben, noch bevor Assange […]

  19. Media Hypes New WikiLeaks Front Man – John Young

    On the same day as Julian Assange’s arrest (December 7, 2010) an article ran in The New York Observer – seemingly on cue. The article, titled The Original WikiLeaker, introduced a new and “more credible” front man for the leaking community. Exit Assange, stage left – enter cryptome.org founder John Young, “the original Wikileaker.” For those of us who suspect that the entire WikiLeaks situation is orchestrated – the timing is impeccable.

  20. The government knows what is in the cables and therefore who is in danger. They have enough time to pull them back unless they want to sacrifice them to support their argument.

    Back to the point of the discussion this whole thing is looking like a 3D chess game and can backfire on any of the players anytime. I would not bet on censoring the internet the side effects of that could be devasting.

    One thing is clear the situation is growing to the point where individual players like assange will become insignificant.

  21. […] Daily ongoing and continued con job,  "Wikileaks was started up in Dec. of 2006. Oddly enough, as a supposed “leak” site, a dissident site, it was given a great deal of immediate mainstream attention from the likes of the Washington Post, TIME magazine, and even Cass Sunstein the now infamous Obama administration who wrote a paper on how to “cognitively infiltrate” dissident groups in order to steer them in a direction that is useful to the powers that be." Posted by Scott Creighton […]

  22. A theory:

    If exercising a freedom will cause that freedom to be lost, then perhaps you never really had that freedom in the first place.

  23. Dude, if you were Australian you would discount the News Corp/Adams/CIA stuff.

    The only reason Murdoch is publishing Assange is for ad revenue. And the only reason Assange is submitting through the OZ is because it is a national broadsheet.

    You’re looking too hard at the facts and as a result are blurring your vision.

    John Young did the same. Sadly.

  24. So you think Murdoch is above dealing with the CIA like the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, and all of the other MSM outlets? Is that your point?

  25. Too late. Adams, Pilger and Chomsky are already Zionists. They provide credibility for the benefit of the left-upper-middle class.

  26. Hi Tony

    I just went to your site and found a nice video by Taylor Mali, so I put that up here.

    I also have to assume that you put your email address in the wrong box and that you don’t really want to advertise your email address for all to read.

    Based on that assumption, I am going to fix that and just leave your name in the id section there.

    If I am incorrect in my assumption, just let me know and I will gladly put it back.

  27. Hi Willy

    It’s tonyryan43@gmail.com and I must have missed this in error.

    I will have to check back to that web site and find out who Taylor Mali is : ) Early next year I plan a replacement site, providing contextualised news, a library of globalisation , blogs, links to anti-globalisation and pro-democracy sites, and to reliable research sites. Also an internet radio for youth… see http://www.oziz4ozrok for this aspect.

    On Murdoch, along with Frank Lowry, I see these as high-placed associates of David Rockefeller. As such, they run Australia. As Gillard is a signed up Zionist, this is very apparent.

    However, I think the ultra right will always destroy itself by alienating the general population with its mindless violence and cruelty (rending campaigning idiots like myself, obsolete… but what can one do?).

    I think they have badly miscalculated the Wikileaks misinformation sting, because it has given birth to a thousand new and more genuine versions; supported by very sharp hackers. Another year and Wikileaks will be old hat. Nice old hat, but with yesterday’s news tag.

    Apart from that, vilification of Assange by Gillard, Arbib and McClellend has killed their political careers. Dead men walking. All important wedges in dividing the ALP and reclaiming it for workers and their families.

    More, by e-mail


  28. […] If We Lose our Internet Freedoms Because of Wikileaks, You Should At Least Know Why […]

  29. happy chriStmaS

  30. Hi, this article is very interesting, have you explored the possibility of Pirate Bay being infiltrated by corporate spies ? Pirate Bay supplies WL with money transfers and web hostings through the companies PRQ and Bahnhoff in Sweden. The staff of PRQ, in 2006, was also working for a IT security co. called Trustlab, wich is not registred anywhere as a co., but shows NSA, private security and Academic connections if googled.

    I’m working right now on a synthesis on WL with a point of view similar to yours, I’d be glad to share anything I’ve gathered so far.

  31. […] before the rest were made public. . . Full story: indybay.org 1917 Espionage Act If We Lose our Internet Freedoms because of Wikileaks, you should at least know why youtube.com youtube.com youtube.com […]

  32. Great post! I’m just starting out in community management/marketing media and trying to learn how to do it well – resources like this article are incredibly helpful. As our company is based in the US, it’s all a bit new to us. The example above is something that I worry about as well, how to show your own genuine enthusiasm and share the fact that your product is useful in that case. Thanks 🙂

  33. […] would think that this propaganda vehicle, brand name Wikileaks™, had become pretty obvious by now, but unfortunately, one would be wrong. “There is harm from the […]

  34. […] Geprügelt von “The Empire Strikes Black” Blog. Abgerissen von amerikanischen Everyman Besitzer Scott Creighton. Durchbohrt von Lila Rajiva. Alle die genannten nahmen Wikileaks Stück für Stück auseinander und […]

  35. Çäðàâñòâóéòå óâàæàåìûå ÷èòàòåëè. Õî÷ó ïðåäñòàâèòü âàì ñàéò TalkART.ru – ôîðóì î âåá-äèçàéíå. Íà ñàéòå âû ìîæåòå íàéòè î÷åíü ìíîãî õîðîøèõ è èíòåðåñòíûõ ñòàòåé è ìàòåðèàëîâ ïî íåñêîëüêèì êàòåãîðèÿì: ñîçäàíèå ñàéòîâ, è ñîçäàíèå ãðàôèêè íà ïîïóëÿðíûõ ãðàôè÷åñêèõ ðåäàêòîðàõ. Òàêæå ó íàñ ñêîðî áóäåò VIP ðàçäåë, ñ òîëüêî óíèêàëüíûì êîíòåíòîì äëÿ IPB à òàêæå DLE. Çàõîäèòå, áóäåì âñåì ðàäû! talkart.ru

  36. Bạn muốn xây dựng nhà nhưng chưa tìm đươc nhà thầu uy tín, giá tốt.
    Chuyên cung cấp dịch vụ xây nhà trọn gói chuyên nghiệp,
    miễn phí thiết kế, tư vấn miễn phí, dự toán chi phí trước cho khách hàng.
    Thông tin chi tiết vui lòng liên hệ Mr. Hoang 0909898 572.

    bên cạnh đó ngôi nhà còn đem đến cho gia chủ một không gian ấm cúng.

    Cuộc sống với những lo toan cơm áo gạo tiền làm cho quý
    khách không còn thời gian chăm chút
    cho ngôi nhà của mình. Khi có một số tiền lớn để xây nhà, cũng không có đủ
    thời gian trông nom trong quá trình thi công xây xây nhà của đội thợ xây dựng….

    . Công ty trách nhiệm hữu hạn xây dựng nhà trọn gói Toàn bộ khâu thiết kế sẽ dựa vào ý tưởng của chủ nhà.
    Sau đó họa sĩ thiết kế của chúng tôi sẽ lên mô hình phác thảo
    sơ bộ trên máy vi tính cho quý khách xem trước.

    Những điểm cần thêm vào, sửa đổi sẽ được
    chúng tôi trao đổi với gia chủ cho đến khi gia chủ
    vừa ý nhất với bản thiết kế..… Kiên Giang .
    Dịch vụ xây nhà trọn gói Hòa Bình Xanh Sau khi hoàn thành bản thiết kế chúng tôi sẽ dự
    toán chi phí xây nhà trọn gói cho quý khách hàng được
    rõ. Dựa vào nguồn kinh phí hiện có của gia chủ
    mà chúng tôi tư vấn gia chủ nên mua loại vật liệu nào, có nên thêm hay bớt chi tiết trong bản thiết kế để phù
    hợp nguồn kinh phí hiện có, tránh
    trường hợp ngôi nhà chưa xây xong đã hết tiền để xây dựng…, .
    Đơn giá Từ 4.000.000 -> 5.500.000đ/m
    Diện tích xây dựng

  37. […] Daily ongoing and continued con job,  "Wikileaks was started up in Dec. of 2006. Oddly enough, as a supposed “leak” site, a dissident site, it was given a great deal of immediate mainstream attention from the likes of the Washington Post, TIME magazine, and even Cass Sunstein the now infamous Obama administration who wrote a paper on how to “cognitively infiltrate” dissident groups in order to steer them in a direction that is useful to the powers that be." Posted by Scott Creighton […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: