Hi All ; > Nice, Dawie.
Yes, very succinct and insightful. > This piece be might be pertinent: > <http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/80481/game-changer?page=0,0> > Game Changer > Why Wikileaks will be the death of big business and big government. Keith, let me say that nothing would make me happier than if you were correct, alas there is another more sinister viewpoint. Is WikiLeaks.org “the Internet’s 9/11?” Best Regards, Peter G. Thailand www.gac-seeds.com WikiLeaks: Now a Household Term By Josh Ogden Neithercorp Press – 12/24/2010 A couple of months ago, if I had stood up at a dinner party and proudly declared that I had to take a “Wikileak,” nobody would have gotten the joke. I would have made a fool of myself! What changed? Well, I may still be a fool, but now everybody and their grandmother knows what WikiLeaks is, and I think if I hear Assange’s name one more time, I’m going to have a brain aneurysm. Did WikiLeaks do something different? The November 28 release of US diplomatic cables (dubbed ‘Cablegate’) may have been larger in file size than previous data dumps, but has it yet revealed anything as visceral or intense as the 17-minute video (released in April of 2010) in which 12 people, including two Reuters journalists, are gunned down by an AH-64 Apache helicopter? The difference lies, almost entirely, in the way the corporate media is now treating the subject. There has been a clear shift in the posture and strategy of mainstream news sources, US officials and prominent political figures. WikiLeaks.org has been thrust to the forefront of the global news cycle. As we all know, the most important news is often that which is reported least; those stories which are aggressively censored and sometimes even retro-actively removed from mainstream news feeds. Suddenly, the innermost circles of controlled media appear to be playing a different game with WikiLeaks. They have pointed their spotlight at it. This is what originally raised my suspicions that something must be amiss. Perhaps most suspicious of all was when Time magazine began extensively covering WikiLeaks, and named Julian Assange as Readers Choice for Person of the Year. Though that “honor” officially went to Facebook.com creator and NSA darling Mark Zuckerberg, the sustained focus on Assange and WikiLeaks by Time and other elite publications was a major red flag. It became apparent that the globalist establishment had taken a special interest in WikiLeaks, and that they wanted it to become a household term. Many people believe that when a story dominates the international news cycle for weeks on end, it’s because that story is important, or because it’s something the public wants to read about. They have it backwards. Media monopolists have known for a long time that they are the ones who decide what’s “important,” and they get to decide what the public “wants” to read about. In the spirit of the examples set by Time Magazine and old Bill Hearst, media does not reflect public interest and opinion, it aims to manufacture it. It’s this reversal of causality that makes media consolidation so dangerous. Julian Assange and his associates may have made WikiLeaks.org, but the mainstream media made it famous. Questions Abound Is Mr. Assange an asset? Is the intelligence cooked? Did some George Soros foundation provide funding for WikiLeaks? What games are afoot here??? First off, let me address the Soros angle. John Young of Cryptome.org has conducted an investigation into the allegations that WikiLeaks was financed through some George Soros organization, and could not confirm any of these claims. You can read that thread here, along with email responses from representatives of Soros’ Open Society Foundations and tax reports which make no mention of WikiLeaks. Do we trust Soros’ underlings to tell the truth? Not likely! Conclusion: this can be neither confirmed, nor denied. (But if Glenn Beck’s talking about it, it’s probably a dead-end.) Moving on… Julian Assange has a long history of outspokenness against corruption, and considerable “street cred” among hackers. His skills and intelligence are beyond question. But we all know that there are innumerable ways by which people can be made to compromise their ethics. Although I have modified my stance several times already as new information comes to my attention, I do not currently believe that Julian Assange is an intelligence asset. However, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt on that, especially considering his troubling remarks about 9/11. Forgive me if I’m out of line here, but I think the guy who invented deniable encryption should be smart enough to know that skyscrapers don’t just magically demolish themselves when the smoke detectors go off. Which leads me to the next question… Where’s the hard-hitting 9/11 evidence? Among all the data released thus far, I don’t think there has been so much as a single memorandum, or even a sticky note, pertaining to that fateful day. In fact, very little has been revealed that was not already widely known or suspected. This point has been raised by some in support of the argument that the content of the leaks is “cooked,” or controlled in some way by US intelligence. I agree, and disagree. Allow me to explain. Of course the content of classified US documents is controlled. Just because it’s a secret, does not make it true. The leak of the diplomatic cables has given us a glimpse at some of the US government’s internal propaganda. Face it, if “grunts” (Kissinger’s word, not mine) like Private Bradley Manning had access to this stuff, there’s not going to be anything in there about 9/11. The government’s own people need to be constantly reassured about the official story on every subject, for the sake of consistency in their dealings with the media and the public. This accounts for much of what we are seeing. Additionally, it seems as though the mainstream media has been ‘cherrypicking’ when it comes to deciding which cables are “newsworthy.” This explains why internal propaganda, particularly that which promotes common globalist talking points, tends to feature so prominently in mainstream coverage. The most obvious example would be the large volume of internal strategic assessments on Iran, which allege (among other things) that Iran has been exerting influence upon Iraq, and inventing fancy new suicide vests for “Al-Quada” to use against coalition forces. On the other hand, there have also been some revelations, discussed mostly in foreign and independent press, which do nothing for the globalist agenda, and are more than just “embarrassing.” For example, one leaked cable quotes a Pfizer executive in Nigeria admitting that the company hired private investigators to dig political dirt on a Nigerian attorney general, forcing him out of office and successfully convincing him to drop a lawsuit regarding a drug trial that caused deaths and deformities among Nigerian children. Of course, those of us who follow alternative media sources have known about this developing situation for years. It first made international headlines in 2004, when Nigerian officials began destroying and banning Polio vaccines which they believed to be causing HIV/AIDS and making their population infertile. But these new details, straight from the horse’s mouth as it were, lend further credibility to long-held suspicions regarding the malicious nature of these campaigns. So far, only about 1 percent of the total cache of 250,000 diplomatic cables has been publicly released through WikiLeaks.org. Even that small portion has not been fully analyzed by the alternative media. Earlier this week, a Norwegian newspaper called Aftenposten claimed that it had received the full cache, as has the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, but these organizations have yet to release any new materials. The point is that the vast majority of this data has not yet been analyzed. Not to mention the mysterious 1.4 GB file titled “insurance.aes256,” which has been released but remains encrypted pending Assange’s untimely death. (I will discuss this further in my next article.) There is a lot of sifting yet to be done. It is up to individuals, not news organizations, to volunteer their time, pore over these cables, and publish their findings however possible. I am convinced that there is much yet to be seen. In time, perhaps we actually will get to learn something new about 9/11. Incidentally, this is latest directive (dubbed “Operation Leakspin”) issued on 4chan.org to the members of the loose hacker collective commonly known as “Anonymous.” These are the people who, in the immediate wake of the suspension of WikiLeaks’ funding sources, retaliated with DDOS attacks against major corporate websites including those of Mastercard and Paypal (dubbed Operation Payback). A fool’s errand, and an irresponsible strategy, but one that was quickly corrected. This latest Anonymous directive is a hopeful sign, indicating to me that Anonymous is not just a leaderless group of reckless vandals, as the mainstream media would have us believe. Sure, many of the denizens of 4chan are just teenage hacker wannabes. These people we call “script kids,” meaning all they really know how to do is download and run malicious scripts written by someone else. Don’t be fooled though; these impressionable young ones are quite capable of causing serious damage to information systems, when given the right “help.” This makes them prime targets for Feds and other infiltrators hoping to provocateur and incite destructive acts. However, there is a minority of very clever individuals that dominate these communities. They are the ones issuing the directives. They see the big picture, they understand that this is a war for public opinion, and they know that any further destructive acts would only play into the hands of an establishment that is just begging for an excuse to intervene on the web. I will further explore the dynamics of this conflict in my next article. Thus far, I have discussed the mainstream media, Assange, and the contents of the leaks themselves. I have posed just some of the many unanswered questions surrounding this whole mess. Now it is time to have a closer look at WikiLeaks.org… Encryption as a Tool for Social Justice In my conversations over the past few weeks, I have found that many people still don’t really understand how WikiLeaks works. You or I could not simply go out, buy webspace, and start publishing classified documents. Even if one had a way to securely obtain such documents, the prospect of hosting them on the internet is a problem unto itself. So what makes these guys so clever? What did they do differently? The concept of deniable encryption was introduced over a decade ago by Julian Assange and ultimately developed into a filesystem called Rubberhose. The basic idea was to create a method of file encryption that is resistant to threats of torture against the sender or recipient. File encryption can be taken to extremes. 256 bit AES encryption, for example, is virtually impossible to break using brute force methods. Breaking a symmetric 256-bit key by brute force requires 2^128 times more computational power than a 128-bit key. A device that could check a billion billion (10^18) AES keys per second would in theory require about 3×10^51 years to exhaust the 256-bit key space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_attack Of course, there are other methods besides brute force (which is arguably primitive, even with a supercomputer) but AES encryption is still very strong. Therefore, the weakest link is clearly the human element. If you want to know what the secret message says, you simply find the person who sent it, and torture them until they tell give you the key. (This is where the name “Rubberhose” came from, in case you didn’t already guess.) Additionally, the founders of WikiLeaks had the foresight to set up their servers in Sweden and several other countries, taking advantage of the legal protections that those countries offer. The site claims to have been “founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa”. Assange describes himself as a member of WikiLeaks’ advisory board. However, according to Wired Magazine, Assange once described himself in a private conversation as “the heart and soul of this organisation, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organiser, financier, and all the rest”. This is probably closer to the truth. Please see the Wikipedia page on the Cypherpunk movement, with which Assange was involved. It is brief, and I think a quick perusal would benefit the reader greatly in understanding Assange’s background and political ideals. It also details some interesting ideas regarding the application of encryption technologies for political and revolutionary purposes. Next, please peruse this archived snapshot of WikiLeaks.org’s ‘About’ page, from March of 2008. (Don’t worry, the link goes to the internet archive, not to the WikiLeaks servers.) It does not indicate any author, unless I missed it, but it seems to be the result of collaboration. As you read it, you will see a certain personality begin to emerge. The author(s) express outrage at injustices world-wide, and indicate a strong sense of humanitarian compassion, but with only vague notions regarding the causes of these social ills. How many people do you know with a similar political outlook? I also find it amusing that they explicitly state: “WikiLeaks is not a front for the CIA, MI6, FSB or any other agency.” (What kind of intelligence front would even address this question?). Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, the writer(s) seem acutely aware of the possibility that WikiLeaks could become “a tool for propagandists.” I believe that it finally has, but not necessarily in the way they expected. Was all this rhetoric genuine? Was it really just a bunch of leftist hackers who wanted to use their powers for good, only to end up embroiled in a game of international intrigue and deception for which they were hopelessly unprepared? There’s not much about the WikiLeaks controversy that is truly certain. I hope that things will continue to clarify themselves as more information comes to light. For now, I am mainly concerned with how people and governments react to the highly-sensationalized controversy. As too, I imagine, are the globalists. So assuming WikiLeaks truly is “legit,” what about this creepy Cass Sunstein article? Why would this wicked creature wish to call attention to something that could severely damage his way of life? To me, it is an indication that as of 2007, the elites already had their radar pointed squarely at WikiLeaks.org, and were casing it as a potential tool for political leverage. It should be considered a great compliment to be targeted by the globalists in this way. Alternately, it could mean (as some have inferred) that WikiLeaks was set up by the elites from the beginning, and the whole operation is a psyop, but again, I don’t personally think this is the case. I may change my opinion as I learn more. Regardless of whether the Powers That Be were aware of or responsible for the embassy cables leak, they were certainly ready for it; and they now appear to be reacting in a very clear and coordinated way. Therein lies the psyop; not in WikiLeaks itself, but in the reaction to this most recent leak. Remember, this response marks a clear departure from the way the establishment has dealt with previous leaks. Just because WikiLeaks is legit, does not mean that a psyop is not taking place. So what is the psyop? What is the reaction the social engineers are hoping to achieve by simultaneously demonizing and martyring Julian Assange? Is WikiLeaks.org “the Internet’s 9/11?” Please check back for my next installment, entitled “Wikileaks and the Hegelian Dialectic,” in which I will attempt to answer these questions, and explain the globalists’ strategy as I see it. Author’s note: I hope this article has been both enlightening and thought provoking. I feel that I have only just scraped the surface, and there is much I have written that did not make it into this edit. Since this issue is a bit time-sensitive, I decided to cut it into several pieces and release the first part now. As I continue my research and prepare my next installment, I invite suggestions, tips and corrections from our friendly and abnormally intelligent readers. Merry Christmas to our Christian readers, and to everyone else, have a rockin’ Solstice party. Thanks for visiting us! _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
