WikiLeaks Is Not A CIA Psy-Ops

I have read many a post on ATS regarding the idea that WikiLeaks is CIA funded and keeps its' files secret when they should be released immediately for verification and implementation of the curious minds on ATS.

I would like to offer a different perspective.

WikiLeaks has intentionally used the current free form basis of the internet as a means to not only cultivate awareness and stature but to...cultivate awareness and stature.

What does this mean?

It means that much of the information that has been released, despite the fact that we as a forum may have already assumed it, runs counter to mainstream propagation of government sponsored ideaology and information.

WikiLeaks, by holding back the files, not only for the verification of the information they hold, have created a slow starting snowball of awareness that is now being made available through mainstream channels (however bastardized) for the common citizen who does not visit these forums or is even inclined to think that the government/mainstream information is false.

While the majority may not react with concerted attention and critical thought, there is a decidedly more intense awareness of WikiLeaks and the values they have propagated. Their is more attention and more discussion on these topics that were so shortly ago relegated as Conspiracy Theory.

In the pre-internet days, there was a static mode of communication between the heads of state and the populace. Those days are over and I seriously am not interested in people who deign to say that Wiki is endangering the lives of Soldiers when our governments have been doing so throughout the centuries and recent decades.

Transparency is the issue here. And the day of an elected official legislating themselves pay raises when the political parties are vying for the use of tax dollars for their use should be over. The cloak of secrecy they can cite through national security should be over.

Communication is key to successful collaboration and I for one am pleased that communication is occurring more and more rather than less.

reply to post by MemoryShock


as citizens we are asked to allow all sorts of things to be done to us with the saying
IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE...................
then what are you worryed about

well if the govenment has nothing to hide and wiki would be comiting media suicide if they released something that got a patriot soldier killed (even i would condem that)
then why is the govenment so scared of transperency?
why do we have to be fully transparent if the govenment can hide behind state diplomatic imunity?

wiki have stated they are taking their time to ensure no one is put at risk
does the govenment act with such care?

thanks for this op gives me a chance to rant

xploder

reply to post by MemoryShock


All indications to date, including the many years of work before most started paying attention to them, is that they are probably not CIA, or any other hidden organization ... this isn't to say that they aren't, it is to say that other than in the minds of the conditioned, the fearful, and those who are pathologically contrarian for its own sake, there is no such evidence to date.

An eloquent and insightful post! I mostly agree with what you are saying here. Releasing all documents at the same time would cause the general populace to put up psychological barriers. The information would soon be swept under the rug and quickly forgotten. In this format awareness is being gradually instilled in the masses at a processable pace. Looking back on the leaks that have been released it is apparent that Assange is steadily building up to something quite significant.

I am still concerned that some of the information he is releasing could be detrimental to international relations, but it is possible that the information made available to the public could supersede the current political paradigm and evoke a more impassioned public...but we shall see...

At the very least we will have an acceptable degree of transparency in government; a characteristic that should be inherent in the structure of any democracy.

reply to post by MemoryShock


Wikileaks does not have to be a psy-op. It doesn't even have to be cointelpro. All that is required is for whoever is feeding Wiki to be agenda based and then the agenda simply trickles down.

You want secrets? OK fine here are secrets, secrets I have hand picked for distribution... some real, many not... presented as "leaked"...all geared to feed the masses and to sate their curiosity - thus keeping them from digging for the real skeletons in my closet...

The pusher only sells you the drug... the source manufactures it.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


read what the leaker thought
he thought that the cables were inportant enough to knowingly
take a massive risk in wistleblowing them
look at the responce
more wistle blowers coming forward
how can we be a just society without justice for all
INCLUDING the govenment?

crime is crime even if the criminal is a diplomate or country

xploder

reply to post by schrodingers dog


People feel more comfortable if they can easily frame an organization or characters into their simplistic worldview. In this case, like trying to get the round peg into the square hole. It's just not making much sense.

Assange is already a wanted man. What more evidence do these detractors need? Even if he did turn up dead, they would still nit-pick over the evidence RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES.

In other words, we don't really know who Assange answers to. We can only SPECULATE at this point.

There's no argument that the information being leaked should be public knowledge. Governments hate an informed public and they hate transparency.

reply to post by MemoryShock

In a perfect world, you make a good point. Increasing information value through time limiting dissemination. There is still however a couple of problems...

Why is there really nothing about Israel with all the information channels traveling around it?
Why is the information simply embarassing like a bunch of schoolgirls caught in gossip?
Why is there really nothing a third party, who has been involved in "activities," can pinpoint and say, yep, did that?

I remember a couple of years ago I pitched an idea to a company that makes documentaries. Low and behold, documentary made and it has circled the globe a few times. Problem is that they didn't really, say anything, so the documentary is rather entertaining "fluff" with cutesy CGI. They didn't add in the weapons program info or the political reasons behind blowing up a plane full of passengers carrying embargoed materials. The Wikileaks fiasco seems similar to me in this regard, no meat all fluff, it's entertaining and that's where the buck stops. Personally, I don't want entertainment, like so many others I want the bloody truth and it's that simple. So until WikiLeaks starts spitting out hard data, which it very well may in short order, then personally I will consider it a psyop following a thrid party agenda.

Cheers - Dave

Do people not realize that we've only seen a small fraction of what needs to still be released?

Originally posted by bvproductions
Do people not realize that we've only seen a small fraction of what needs to still be released?

They do and this is the fact that is most exposing of their pre-disposition.

As I said in the other thread:

Over the recent months I have seen ...

People who call themselves truthseekers turn away from facts.
People who question everything cower under their laptops.
People who fancy their independent thought become feeble conformists.
People of intellect abstaining from thought and reason.
People hiding in absolute apologia.
People putting down their mirrors.
Most of all people resorting back to their self defined archetypes when the truth arrives at their doorstep.

Why?

Because they are scared.

And when people fear they lash out at the messenger.

But the inescapable fact is that ...

The Truth Spares No One!


And think about it, only a minuscule amount of these cables have been released. No one has enough information to make a valid assessment, and still these folks have sprinted to their conditioned mental prisons pre-empting any will to look at anything with open eyes.

It is a shame, on ATS no less, where one might have expected a slightly more aware reaction to the historic events unfolding before us ... instead the reaction is exactly the same as one would expect if one sampled the local mall food court patrons.

And these folks who are so afraid, what have they done other than being afraid?
When was the last time they disclosed truths that others use against us?
Or is the limit of their reach, their courage, and their will, limited to a google search box?

And so it goes ...

reply to post by MemoryShock


I think wiki is CIA (or whatever 3 letters you want to subscribe to) because of the timing of these leaks - and the almost in your face scripting of events...it is a movie.

I think the mere fact the owner of wiki denies 911 truth and ET/UFO topics as crazy people is a HUGE red flag.

This is merely an attempt to help war/s be started and take our eye of something more important - like the economy or disclosure or whatever.

The other thing that struck me as odd was the conditioning for the release "due to be released soon" fiasco. Surely you'd just release the stuff without the (again) scripted version they seem to run...

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


have you ever thought how counter productive it would be to get dragged into the 9/11 debate?
dont you think that would be counter productive to the acual LEAKS ?
why would you put off the sheeple before you start
remember they are still in the dark
and 9/11 will switch them off like a switch
think about it

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


So do you think wiki really does know about 911 being an inside job and the presence of ETs on our planet from day 0 till now? Hmm.

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by MemoryShock

 

I think wiki is CIA (or whatever 3 letters you want to subscribe to) because of the timing of these leaks - and the almost in your face scripting of events...it is a movie.

I think the mere fact the owner of wiki denies 911 truth and ET/UFO topics as crazy people is a HUGE red flag.

But, as someone previously posted, the impact of the timing is also a good thing because the common people has enough time to process the information.

And although the 911 point is certainly something "bad" it also keeps Assange image of "mainstream correctness" so he can not be marked as some crazy "truther".

And also, he already stated that the are in fact some cables related to UFO's.

This is merely an attempt to help war/s be started and take our eye of something more important - like the economy or disclosure or whatever.

Wars be started?? Is funny, because I was just reading today that in Mexico the cables gave good AMMO to some Mexican senator to criticize the so called "Mexican Drug War" as a president double failure (because the government is loosing before the drug lords and to foreign politics). So at least in this case the cables may help to end the bloodbath.

I think if someone had a specific agenda to put out some material that was psy-ops, they would put out a few files, not hundreds of thousands of them.

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by XPLodER

 

So do you think wiki really does know about 911 being an inside job and the presence of ETs on our planet from day 0 till now? Hmm.

i think both of those issues are nothing to do with public opinion on corruption and crimes being comitted
why "pollute" the issues with things that would switch off the average sheeple?
if wl sticks to the facts they have ALOT more credability with a much larger audence

the whole point is public opinion
when the average person is discusted enought with what they are hearing public opinon will spur change

why polute the message?

xploder

I most definitely do not think Wikileaks is a CIA front..ATS has come alive with people criticizing Wikeleaks which is strange because all they have done is put the information out there. Nothing else.

It’s going to take a lot of people a long time too wean themselves off MSM news where the commentators tell them what the news means. People are not used to unspun news yet and this is causing them confusion..

There is still so much drama to unfold in the Wikileaks saga. At the moment people are accusing wikileaks of all kinds of things but I don’t believe they are all dis-info artists. Some people are making wild predictions in the slim hope that they may be true.

Cable gate is going to be old news soon as I believe we are entering a new age of information sharing that will force even the MSM to clean up its act.

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
I think the mere fact the owner of wiki denies 911 truth and ET/UFO topics as crazy people is a HUGE red flag.

How is it? Just because Assange does not share your views, and others, on certain subjects does not make him a CIA operative

Does nobody else even pause to consider how blindly most people simply accept that Wikileaks, the information that they get, and the whole ball of wax is just "AOK" and on the up and up?

Simply by saying "Hey, what if Wikileaks is being used, even unwittingly" to disseminate bunk?" seems to raise the wrath and ire of a lot of people.

I'm not saying "Trust the MSM and be skeptical of Wikileaks". I am bluntly saying "Trust nothing that you don't have first hand knowledge of. Always be skeptical to some degree."

I mean, sheesh, if we nailed Assange to a couple of 4x4's right now... it feels like he'd have his own religion about two weeks later.

~Heff

Originally posted by No Retreat No Surrender
I most definitely do not think Wikileaks is a CIA front..ATS has come alive with people criticizing Wikeleaks which is strange because all they have done is put the information out there. Nothing else.

Politics of envy.

Many, who criticise Assange (especially the MSM), resent the fact of being ignored by those with the information. The media's cry of "why didn't they come to us?" is laughable, especially since the NY Times confirmed to the BBC it was taking advice from the administration of how to present the leaks. Whereas the Guardian, in the UK, cited freedom of the press and started publishing.

Again, I say with deep conviction, many of ATS have the same mentality - why don't people bring information to us? Seriously, no one would bring confidential files to a member of ATS, who honestly believed everything was a conspiracy. You could not be trusted to handle, or even deliver, the material in a calm manner - like Assange.

The nationalisation of British banks, which I broke on ATS - three days before it happened - from my sources is a classic event. It was dismissed as "star whoring" but only a tiny few thanked me for it, when the government announced and vindicated my thread. ATS members demand inside gossip then they dismiss it when it comes.

I recall once, I discovered the DoD had public files on how staff should document UFOs (I'll find the thread in RATs). It was quite astonishing when reading the documents, it focuses on sightings that "cannot be explained" and an archive of UFO videos and pictures by the DoD.

Do you know what the reaction was on ATS? They didn't care or were not interested. Members expected full disclosure.

I want the pictures of aliens and ufos, not official policy on how to document sightings

*face palm*

Why bother, eh?