Wayne Madsen: Wikileaks is CIA Front Operation

When your contribution to the first-time revelation of an insider at a major-newsmaker that it is a CIA front operation-

First time for you...

Again...research the subject and learn a little about it.

Then try to play the game-

"find the agents".

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by atreides

 

I can't help but notice that the original source of this material, hyperlinked right at the top of the page you link to, costs $7 to access.

From my perspective, they are fear-mongering for profit, just like the SPLC when they recently implied people join militias because they hate blacks, while their directors collect $300,000 a year while the people they "help" (the victims of hate crimes, or actually mild annoyances in most cases since the KKK has dwindled down from 2 million to 2,000 members) get peanuts.

Yes, Wayne Madsen charges a $7/month subscription fee and he works out of partially subsidized office space at the National Press Club.

For several hundred years newspapers also charged subscription fees. (They still do, of course, now you just have an alternate mechanism of access.) Actual newsgathering, as opposed to news-reposting on message boards, does in fact require money.

I'm not inclined to believe everything printed in every newspaper in the world prior to 1994 is a fabrication because they charged subscriptions (though certainly the golden age of yellow journalism saw more than its fair share of outrageous stories). I'm not inclined to believe Wayne Madsen has fabricated quotes from John Young, opening himself up to a fairly significant libel lawsuit.

I guess could be wrong on both points, however!

reply to post by Mr Mask


First time for you... Again...research the subject and learn a little about it. Then try to play the game- "find the agents".

The Wayne Madsen story was already posted in a thread elsewhere on ATS? If you could give me a hyperlink I'd like to go apologize to that thread's OP for doubling the post. Thanks!

[edit on 1-4-2010 by atreides]

reply to post by atreides


agreed. cryptome seems more legit to me but i dont have much to base that off other than vibes.

ive always had a funny feeling about wikileaks. and all the latest hype has had me feeling even more skeptical... as soon as they started talking about needing to decrypt a government video, and actually having poeple "donate $/cpu's" give me a break. then the april 5th hype. just seems very un-whistleblowerish if you ask me...wouldnt you release it right away...specially if its something as sensative and dangerous as what they claim...poeple have been "suicided" for much less, and these folks are treating it like the premiere debut to an upcoming blockbuster movie...

then again they could both be fronts.

reply to post by LurkerMan


great points ... Russia Today brought up the issue of the oddity of the 4-5 premier, too ... will be curious to see what Wayne Madsen has to say in his next segment on RT

reply to post by atreides


It would have been helpful if the blogger had posted links to those 150 emails he/she so claims on cryptome but it has not been done so it's just another random blog with tale. The only links provided are to some other random website. Complete fail imo.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by December_Rain]

The Wayne Madsen story was already posted in a thread elsewhere on ATS? If you could give me a hyperlink I'd like to go apologize to that thread's OP for doubling the post. Thanks!

[edit on 1-4-2010 by atreides]

Sigh...

That was not my point, nor was your article something I attacked.

You also didn't write the article, so defending it against an attack that was never issued is a waste of everyone's time (including mine since I feel I need to explain this to you).

There are paid provocateurs in the media (alternative and otherwise).

That being the case, it is a sure bet that "we" as a "collective source of radical minds" are probably "aware" of the personalities.

So...with that being the case (if you accept that), then it doesn't take much of a leap of logic to assume that a few of these mouth-pieces are those "provocateurs".

I'm sure its not you.

I'm sure its not me.

It is someone(s) with a large audience, easy access to fringe minded groups, and very influential amongst said "radicals".

So...that would make them "famous" or "infamous" people who "sway" radicals.

So...how many names fit that description?

I think you decided to take an issue with my "duh to the info" as if I was "blaming you for writing it".

I'm sorry...not the case.

My duh was pointed towards the millions of people following the words of sensationalits who are making money off of riling up "radicals and fringe types".

And if you have not noticed a HUGE increase in such a thing, then I am afraid you may be "looking the wrong way".

That is my opinion.

If I had actual proof...I am sure I wouldn't have a chance to share it (or at least paid to play ball and keep it silent).

Thanks for your interaction...it was "something".

Oh...and enjoy "your day"...mark it on the calendar...it comes once a year.

Wink








[edit on 1-4-2010 by Mr Mask]

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by atreides

 

It would have been helpful if the blogger had posted links to those 150 emails he/she so claims but it has not been done so it's just another random blog with tale.

Here's the links:

cryptome.info...

cryptome.info...

Sorry it wasn't as convenient for you as your standards demand.

Hi Mr. Mask - would love to keep this thread on the topic of wikileaks instead of moving it to a discussion about you and your accomplishments. Perhaps you could consider starting your own thread, or choosing to participate in one of the countless others on the topics you're outlining?

Thanks, Mr. Mask!

reply to post by atreides


I AM on topic.

The article is YET ANOTHER indication of what is happening with agents infiltrating "groups" like us on ATS.

I think they are looking for people a little more radical then your average 9/11 truther, sure. I doubt they are hunting for folks like me (or you).

It is my opinion that sites like wikileaks are probably government based and secretly so.

There are many reasons to do this....many instances where it has happened in the past.

Now...I hate to ask this of you since this is your thread, but can "you" stay on topic since you have failed thus far to do so?

I am interested in this subject and I would like it to evolve past "you complaining about me" while I'm on topic and trying to discuss this subject.

I think (and have called it for some time now) that wikileaks (along with all the other Johnny-come-lately news sources and alternative media sources making a buck off of conspiracy) is indeed a government controlled instrument.

Originally posted by Mr Mask
reply to post by atreides

 

I AM on topic.

The article is YET ANOTHER indication of what is happening with agents infiltrating "groups" like us on ATS.

I think they are looking for people a little more radical then your average 9/11 truther, sure. I doubt they are hunting for folks like me (or you).

It is my opinion that sites like wikileaks are probably government based and secretly so.

Great contribution!

Originally posted by Mr Mask
There are many reasons to do this....many instances where it has happened in the past.

sensing it's about to unravel ...

Originally posted by Mr Mask
Now...I hate to ask this of you since this is your thread, but can "you" stay on topic since you have failed thus far to do so?

I am interested in this subject and I would like it to evolve past "you complaining about me" while I'm on topic and trying to discuss this subject.

... and here we go!

Mr. Mask - I'm happy to help you locate a thread that might better meet your needs. Would that be helpful to you? Thanks, Mr. Mask!

reply to post by Mr Mask


I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Mask.

You can understand anything and everything done by people with the power to make it happen by reading three simple texts: Sun Tzu, Machiavelli and the 36 stratagems.

Smoke screens, double agents, hidden fronts, misdirections of misdirections, it's what they do because it's the most successful thing to do. These aren't new tactics they just evolve the tactics with new technology. Humans in power have been doing this for thousands of years. It's how they stay in power and how they gain power.

I don't care who it is, no one who is within a mile of the truth that these forces try to hide will not be alive. No one. They are not incompetent, in fact they often FEIGN incompetence to make you think so (hey, that's one of the stratagems!).

The figureheads of the conspiracy theorist group comprise of people trying to make money and people trying to mislead people. And there is a good chance that many do both. So either these people are dead wrong (else they would just be dead) and trying to make money, or they're quarter-truth traps set up by the people trying to stop people from figuring this stuff out.

It is certainly no mere coincidence that these topics are becoming very prevalent. People are waking up but the powers that be have quickly taken control of the wake up process (OH HAY, ANOTHER STRATAGEM!).

Stay alert. Stay skeptical. Deny ignorance.

EDIT: And don't mind me mentioning this, but I'm highly suspect of someone new to a site posting this and then attacking a poster who is in fact on topic for not being on topic.

You should ask your supervisor for better training next time.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by SpectreDC]

reply to post by SpectreDC


Well said, and I agree with everything you have shared.

Mostly the last lines.

Those who wish to keep us confused and "buying the junk"...are not idiots and very keen on taking you for a ride.

Stay skeptical indeed...it is more important now then any time i've lived through yet.

PS- I agree that they use the tactics you mentioned, and I also agree that they hijacked the conspiracy wagon years ago. People "just now joining" may be blind to it. Or just sent to spread more lies.

Originally posted by SpectreDC


EDIT: And don't mind me mentioning this, but I'm highly suspect of someone new to a site posting this and then attacking a poster who is in fact on topic for not being on topic.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by SpectreDC]

You found us out! You are being watched, SDC ... pay no attention to the black van parked directly outside your window.

reply to post by Mr Mask


It's those three texts man. I'm not lying when you can see through everything using them. It's amazingly simple and yet....it's just so ingenious.

What's hard is when there's a possibility of 4 stratagems fitting as well as aspects of Sun Tzu and Machiavelli involved in things going on. You have misdirections of misdirections that lead no where and massive lines of misdirections leading to somewhere else. And more times then not the truth is out in the open but just slightly skewed.

3 things immediately come to mind:

1) Isn't Wayne himself self admitted ex-gov (specifically NSA)? portland.indymedia.org...

2) The recent revelation of D.O.D documents that detailed exactly how they intended to discredit Wikileaks.
www.nytimes.com...

3) Why has Wayne chosen now to spread this news? Could it be damage control just prior to the April 5th video debut?

One could go stark raving mad trying to assess the amount of information/counter information there is out there. A poster above had a good point about weighing how dangerous to government interests Wikileaks... leaks, have been. IF the 4/5 video is as iron-clad and damning as they imply, I think we will have our answer right there. In relation to both Wiki and Wayne Madson.

Excellent contribution and great questions!

Originally posted by DeathTribble
3 things immediately come to mind:

1) Isn't Wayne himself self admitted ex-gov (specifically NSA)? portland.indymedia.org...

yes - in fact Wikileaks called out "Ex-NSA Wayne Madsen" in their Twitter feed

that said, he's also a regular contributor to RussiaToday where he's very critical of the US ... then again, so is Wikileaks ... maddening

Originally posted by DeathTribble
2) The recent revelation of D.O.D documents that detailed exactly how they intended to discredit Wikileaks.
www.nytimes.com...

Wouldn't a front operation need to "burn" the group it was fronting at least occasionally or it would be too obvious it was a front group?

Originally posted by DeathTribble
3) Why has Wayne chosen now to spread this news? Could it be damage control just prior to the April 5th video debut?

Wayne is a journalist and journalism is dictated by news cycles. Wikileaks is currently at the forefront of the news cycle.

Originally posted by atreides
I'm not inclined to believe everything printed in every newspaper in the world prior to 1994 is a fabrication because they charged subscriptions (though certainly the golden age of yellow journalism saw more than its fair share of outrageous stories). I'm not inclined to believe Wayne Madsen has fabricated quotes from John Young, opening himself up to a fairly significant libel lawsuit.

Okay, I see your point on that. But, the story is written as speculation, and therefore the source is important in that case.

If Wikileaks were a CIA front, they wouldn't be changing the laws of Iceland to be favorable to anonymous sources in order to protect their anonymity.

Originally posted by Mr Mask

When your contribution to the first-time revelation of an insider at a major-newsmaker that it is a CIA front operation-

First time for you...

Again...research the subject and learn a little about it.

Then try to play the game-

"find the agents".




Apparently your have done research on this subject. Would you mind sharing the entities that you believe have NOT been compromised by TPTB. It would certainly be a helpful start. Thanks