US Intell planned to destroy Wikileaks

[Peter Presland]

Wanted by the CIA: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange

By Matthew Bell
Monday, 19 July 2010
His obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? "I believe in facts about conspiracies," he says, choosing his words slowly. "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news." What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." What about the Bilderberg conference? "That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes."

The boldface bit is part of the reason I continue to have serious reservations about Assange. Like I've said before (on this thread I think), he is making major efforts at wikileaks/self promotion and I'm not altogether sure which takes precedence.

It seem John Young at Cryptome is still broadly in support - though with reservations - and in spite of publishing all the 'Wikileaks Insider" stuff.

These from JY in the comments section of a Wau-Holland foundation web site article:

The original purpose of Wikileaks remains exemplary so long as it fulfills its promises, (excluding Julian's initial aspiration to raise $5 million and the failure to induce outsiders to "wiki" the product). At present it is not doing that as well as it has in the past. The need for funds has led to a singular focus on publicity and neglect of the promise. This broadening of its base of public participation could lead to a restoration of Wikileaks as a genuine wiki with far greater numbers of persons taking part, open and accountable to contributors (it must avoid a takeover by self-serving censors like Wikipedia). More importantly, this base-broadening could also lead to giving up the spy-like characteristics of Wikileaks leadership that fosters suspicion that it is not what it claims to be a democratic enterprise, thus refusing the inevitable corruption of a copyrighted brand like that wholly controlled by the globe's spooks who have manage to raise millions upon millions by the villainous, secrecy-obsessed, anti-democratic scam. This worldwide institutional betrayal of the public by governmental, commercial and personal spies cannot be defeated by adopting the means and methods of authoritatives to conceal their their enriching operations, that only leads them to applaud their successful hegemony. Wikileaks should have no inside secrets needing to be leaked by insiders or sock puppeted by outsiders, it should not present itself as a singular enterprise above all others, thus inviting attack and incredulity, instead it should foster other ventures like itself by preparing to be supplanted not institutionalized. There will always be better means of transparency so long as those riding the crest do not kill newcomers out of fear of dying or, worse, not gaining a lifetime source of income. Shutting the fuck up and gracious suicide is to be considered when your time has come. Mea culpa.

And

Monetization of leaks, whether by government, commerce, non-profits, or individuals, has a long history, much longer than the free type which is a very recent development, thanks to the cheapness and ubiquity of the Internet.

Paying for leaks and stolen information (including forgeries and disinformation) is as venerable as spying itself, both feed and enrich one another. What is also new is transparency about leaks and spying, both of which customarily occur in secret, and in which deception and treachery are commonplace.

The best funding model for Wikileaks is to sell material it is given by contributors, and in some case paying for the leaks. WL has tried to auction material which is reported to have been unsuccessful, but there is no way to know for sure.

The monetization of the State Department cables and other not-yet-disclosed submissions is a powerful stimulus to do what has always been done, do it and keep it secret in order to game the bids and keep submissions coming for free, dressed in noble clothing of high purpose, exactly as spies do.

However, it will take a sophisticated operation to avoid being co-opted, corrupted, criminalized and/or destroyed by very lethal, ruthless and violent competitors.

Assange has hinted at these roilings, and anyone who has operated a freedom of information/journalism site or business or NGO has experienced overtures from vultures with hard to resist enticements.

Assange was reported to have said in a Guardian interview yesterday that he might leave Wikileaks, that it could survive without him though still benefiting from his drive. This could indicate he has had offers to break free of the reputable Wikileaks and to form a new venture along commercial or government models which pay very well, in particular as official spying has become increasingly privatized and lucrative.

Julian is a spectacular showman for the youngsters of the Internet era who are disgusted with the seniors.

Political office or spying for the global industrial spies Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Cisco, thousands of others admitting only to "customer data gathering."

Wikileaks has a decent market for its contributor data protected only at the moment by thinnest of veneers of a few unknown accessors, how thin is unknown due to lack of transparency, i.e., secrecy, a sure sign of treachery in the offing.

The 'Sabretache' comment is mine