Wikileaks - The Proposition - The Stakes

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Example

A wire service editor decides alone what news audiences will receive from another continent. The idea is that if the gatekeeper’s selections are biased, the readers’ understanding will therefore be a little biased.

The above quote from your gatekeeper link is very important in that this is what the general public see everyday, not everyone has the privilege of seeing truth on ATS or the INTERNET for that matter, I imagine that most of the general public in not paying attention to Wikileaks and if so they are looking at it as criminal and not something trying to set us free from the gatekeepers.

Great to see you in person SDog,, excellent presentation, clear and concise my friend, thank you.

S&F

I forgot to say that I did like your video, alot of interesting thoughts, and I agree in general.

I am now thinking of something else too - ah, how do I articulate this? Perhaps it is not one's access to the net they want to restrict - perhaps it is the anonymity they wish to do away with?

All must now be monitored because everyone is a potential spy. And this in turn is just a short leap away from national ID cards, micro chips, etc.

I am wondering too - why these WL/JA stories are all over the MSM?

They're even reporting on this on our local noon news - which is largely fluff, very little international news or politics. Consider this also - lately we had a stomach flu outbreak here - when did this make the news? When it was OVER. Conversely - Swine Flu was reported on EVERY day - when there were few cases anywhere near here. I believe the general sentiment regarding the hype of Swine Flu was that it was an agenda to sell vaccines.

So why has our local noon news turned into the WL show? Queen Elizabeth could be abducted by a UFO in broad daylight and they'd not report that. What, and displace the cooking demos and rock bands they usually have on? No way.

So why is this WL saga making even such "fluff" broadcasts?

There is some hidden agenda to all of this.

Originally posted by Whiffer Nippets
I agree about "TPTB" wanting to restrict the internet, but I don't think Wikileaks is any kind of a "catalyst".

Look at it this way - people will go 50/50 for/against Wikileaks. Consider the opinions you see on this site. Some think the guy is a hero, some think he is a spy who has gone against the government.

On the contrary.. the civil war. Maybe not completely equal in division, but enough to serve my point. No matter how divided if one side steps up to the plate to make change, the other side will have to react unless they just take it.

Not the best analogy, but you likely get my point.

Exellent post SD, as always.


And I tend to agree with your proposition.

However, just a couple of points: The (US) government's primary opposition to the release of its "secrets" seems to be based in its belief, at some very basic level, that if it is forced to deal openly and honestly with other, possibly hostile, persons/governments, its ability to secure the greatest benefits for its own citizens will be imperiled.

Diplomacy is the first tool of a just State; the last tool being war.

But diplomacy is dependent upon negotiation, and in negotiation one never reveals the absolute extent to which one is willing to concede in order to secure agreement.

In a sense, the type of "transparency" which WL is enforcing upon the so-called Powers That Be is precisely the anathema to a primary concept upon which human society (currently) is based,and that includes the PTB :


To be exposed is to be vulnerable. To be vulnerable is to invite exploitation.



Point Two:

No matter how much we like to rail against the "Evil Banksters" , the "Wall Street Fat Cats", and/or the "Corrupt Politicians", one thing we tend to forget is the "They" are exactly the same species as "Us". Their sometimes despicable actions are often the result of adaptations to an environment they are ill-equipped to deal with, and into which they carry the same foibles and short-commings as the rest of us.

They are, or at least were, at one time, just like us.

And "We", in our own ways, albeit on a far smaller scale, engage in many of the same behaviours we decry in "Them".


We maximize our profits ("I've got a family to feed!").

We break laws ("I was late for an important meeting. But I'm a good driver, and I was being careful").

We lie. ("I shouldn't have stayed up so late to watch the finals. I'll just call in sick tomorrow.")


No, of course I do not condon much of what my government does, supposedly in my name. And so, Yes, I too support, at least in theory, this new "Digital Bunker Hill".

But, if I were to be honest and "transparent" to myself, the thought of not being able to maintain my personal privacy, of having to conform to the same openness and code of "transparency" I demand of my government or my employer, makes me very uncomfortable.

Kind of like having to endure one of those infamous "Porno-Scanners" at the airport.


Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I'm happy to show it to the entire world.

reply to post by Bhadhidar


Nice apologia.

...the thought of not being able to maintain my personal privacy, of having to conform to the same openness and code of "transparency" I demand of my government or my employer, makes me very uncomfortable.

...Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I'm happy to show it to the entire world.

You as an individual are not acting as an elected or legal representative of others - it's not the same thing. At all.

We have a right to ask our representatives for transparency and accountability. NOTE: Accountability is impossible without transparency.

these people controlling everything, the actual "system", they are not doing for the money

they are doing because they are bored

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I see what you're saying, but there really is no reason to stir up people if "they" want to restrict the net. In fact, they could probably just DO IT with no warning or reason at all - and likely 90% of the populace wouldn't even notice. As long as they could still get shopping, facebook, and porn - they'd not notice that some sites were missing.

But maybe "they" are trying to foment some kind of uprising? Maybe *that is* the point?

Investors and advertisers saw the internet as an untapped global market which reached demographics once only dreamed about, but failed to realise that it had implications in promoting free trade, of all commodities, including information. Those that had developed the internet based on a desire for global communication and networking, on a none-profit basis, invested those revenues back into the system and into promoting those goals. As far as those that seek to hide the crimes that they commit, especially those who are not brave enough to get their own hands dirty, and pay others, or brainwash, others to do their dirty work, have a vested interest in suppressing freedom of information. Only those who profit from the suffering and exploitation of others have a desire to see information constrained.

An oldie but very good thread that goes into some of the aspects of Gatekeeping. Rich23's posts are particularly informative.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Has anyone latly thought that the worlds media(large corps) are now slowing down the news coming out about wikileaks. Whos got there hands in whos pockets. This has the potential to alter our future. And the world goverments know it. Thats why we need more great news sites like this. Keep up the great work.

Aarys

And so, I am compelled to add my thoughts on your excellent points.

I thought long and hard about the nature of the matter. I reflected deeply about the wellspring from which this phenomenon has sprung into the forefront. The elements of the matter may be something we could debate but the exercise is necessary for me to understand more fully the perspective you bring to the dialog.

The first matter of note, to my mind, is the interrelationship between the source, the message, the medium, and the intended audience. This cocktail of elements provide the flavor of the conflict which we face.

The problem with gatekeeping as a 'naturally evolved' social construct is that it depends primarily on exclusive access to mediate, and or fully control the flow of information. By its very nature, exclusivity of access, and authority to control are matters of trust. There are several elements of trust which merit evaluation here.

In my day... long ago, we were exceedingly careful about the classification of information. It costs a lot of money to render certain information 'classified', it is not simply a matter of discipline. Most technocrats, and bureaucrats are trained to consider the matter of classification independently; without consultation or oversight. Review happens in matters of years and in many cases, effectively - never.

We had to trust that the source of the information, primarily agents of the state, understood classification protocols, that the rationale for invoking the special handling and restrictive concealment such information received had a direct and immediate reasonably measurable purpose. Any discussion of the matter included considerations of "need to know," "operational security," "sensitive sources," "concealment of ways and means," and in times of direct conflict, "tactical" or "strategic" advantage.

Intelligence, had flavors too; foreign, national, military, etc.

But in the last century or so, as our governance became increasingly focused on commerce, and the well-being of the commercial sector as a measure of the health of the state, new pressures added new components to the mix. There were new secrets about 'technology" and not just the military kind. Secrets were kept about economics, finance, corporate undertakings, and soon the ill-defined and mostly closeted relationships between transnational corporate entities and our (or other) governments (acting as a member of the corporate community.)

It became clear that we were seeing business secrets being included within the genuine 'state' secrets, being afforded the same protections, and diluting the protective efforts that could be hitherto focused on classic non-corporate intelligence.

Today the corporate and governmental are no longer separate... and certainly not separate in the manner of the civil and the governmental.

Gatekeepers' scope and breath, their reach, entered the personal 'civilian' world because we could no longer be restrained from common discussion. The Internet, our latest virtual medium of communication, made it impossible to secure the new secrets..... then it became a problem.

You see, as citizens, we have no real interest in the systemic and mechanical maintenance of the information of government, it avails us nothing to know that a certain consul in some other country might be willing to open discussions on diplomatic negotiations for regulating trade subsidies, if the right motivation were provided. That is only of interest to the corporate citizen.... the same corporate citizen who is now the primary mover and motivator of our 'elected' leadership. Secrets gained value that had little to do with patriotism, ideology, or humanitarianism. Secrets became commercial opportunities. Those opportunities become threatened whenever the underlying paradigm of personal sovereignty (let alone national sovereignty) intruded into the medium of information flow.

Trade, commercial code, and the policy of wealth distribution became the nexus of all power in the world of governance. We didn't choose this. We didn't engineer it this way, it happened because the 'source' of secrets changed when the agents of the state became loyal to transnational agendas. When the operation of multinational cartels and their many venues of intrusion into governance become the primary definers of what is a 'threat' and what people should know, we get this.... a world where you can learn little from the dwindling sources of information, where disinformation is a science, and the psychology of masses is applied to people as if they were subjects of a larger economic royalty.

The cables we keep hearing about have relevance to the non-national secrets, most of them anyway. National secrets are channeled and much to the chagrin of many diplomats, their secrets are not 'all that' in term of humanity's survival. After all these people, despite their so-called credentials and questionably effective training, are just political appointees... people placed in positions of power by virtue of social standing.

These cables are, instead, a reflection of the theater these self-proclaimed elite have constructed in which they play roles and entertain each other while performing their duties to the person who is chiefly responsible for the appointment in the first place.

Often we hear about the sensitivity of the secrets being revealed by the press... which are apparently not affected by the 'poison fruit' of profiting from them. The outrage and emotion, grasping at straws regarding the importance of the revelation, the hypocrisy of supporting a 'free' press while condemning the sources of their information, all have tragic comedic value. But all are motivated by the same thing.

Fear. Fear of the consequences of their actions, which were likely directed by the intended audience of the cables in the first place. Independent thought is not a primary attribute of diplomats..., it evokes punishment more frequently than it reward.

There is a tremendous amount of effort being made to gain control of this information. For the most part they have succeeded... I suppose it was a likely result, considering that the commercial value of entertainment news is contingent upon access to the establishments' information. They would not risk exclusion by exercising the traditional function of the fourth estate.

It is a given that what we see is the result of selective releases... it is logical that those most prone to embarrassment will protest the loudest. The efforts to bring all manner of legal vehicle into the fray are also telling of who that institution obeys, and to what degree. Sadly, the occupants of those seats of power have become very political in the last eight or nine decades.

I suppose I have prevaricated enough.

Yes, information in the hands of the common man is counter to any singular entity's ability to impose it's 'order' on the world. Mankind is a thinking, feeling, expressive, and driven creature. Any attempts to control it without it's consent will eventually fail. Silencing dissent, hiding in the shadows, playing mind-games with the population all serve to increase how catastrophic the release of collective judgment will be.

People - all people - are equal. It is the single most important reality that all value systems must hang onto. Shame is the enemy of pride. From that vantage point, the secrets of the proud social club which currently 'governs' don't merit national protection... and their shame is a reality with which they should contend - without using our nation's laws as a weapon.

Originally posted by aarys
Has anyone latly thought that the worlds media(large corps) are now slowing down the news coming out about wikileaks. Whos got there hands in whos pockets. This has the potential to alter our future. And the world goverments know it. Thats why we need more great news sites like this. Keep up the great work.

I am wondering about this. But, I'm not sure whether it is simply due to British reporting laws, since he is now in British custody and subject to a criminal investigation. It could be slowing the flow of information. I'm not sure though, I think there may be an underlying realisation that those outside of the internet don't really understand this story and that if they stop reporting it, it may just go away. I don't think things bode well for Mr Assange though. I hope his legal team are resourceful. I am worried for him. Especially if they are trying to bury the story.

reply to post by schrodingers dog




Thanks S-Dog

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a125f5b2849e.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7ef741d6ec81.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Excellent video my friend. These are extraordinary times and you make a very vital point that I believe some people are overlooking. Thank you.

reply to post by Maxmars


Well done Maxmars! s. for you.

Some questions and issues...

...in the last century or so, as our governance became increasingly focused on commerce, ...Secrets were kept about economics, finance, corporate undertakings, and soon the ill-defined and mostly closeted relationships between transnational corporate entities and our (or other) governments (acting as a member of the corporate community.)

The "corporate community" you describe is global - and purportedly places transnational corporations on an equal footing national governments.

Q:
* Do you see that such partnerships implicitly define -and establish- global corporate government?
* Do you think transnational corporations and national governments should be equal?

Issue:
* Such "equality" gives a great deal more power to corporations because governments are saddled with far more responsibilities than the mandate to profit: governments must protect civil rights, their people, etc. It's a losing battle in negotiations.

It became clear that we were seeing business secrets being included within the genuine 'state' secrets, being afforded the same protections, and diluting the protective efforts that could be hitherto focused on classic non-corporate intelligence.

A term established under international law with the North American "Free Trade" Agreement - and subsequently exported around the world in other "free trade" agreements.

Today the corporate and governmental are no longer separate... and certainly not separate in the manner of the civil and the governmental.

One of the many travesties that needs to be set right.

You see, as citizens, we have no real interest in the systemic and mechanical maintenance of the information of government,

Oh yes I do.

... it avails us nothing to know that a certain consul in some other country might be willing to open discussions on diplomatic negotiations for regulating trade subsidies, if the right motivation were provided.

Oh yes it does. Particularly if one of the terms negotiated requires "confidentiality" between government and corporation, and prohibits government from being responsible for and accountable to its citizens.

That is only of interest to the corporate citizen....

My Aunt Fanny's butt. What? We're all too cute or too busy to care what our governments are doing with our money, in our names?

On the other hand, it is of GREAT interest to the "corporate citizen" to demand confidentiality and neutralize democracy and democratic participation.

The goal is to define nations as markets, and individual people and citizens as nothing more than "consumers."

fyi - Transnational corporations are NOT "corporate citizens" - they have NO national loyalty. There loyalty is to their bottom line. Period.

...Secrets became commercial opportunities. Those opportunities become threatened whenever the underlying paradigm of personal sovereignty (let alone national sovereignty) intruded into the medium of information flow.

There. You have it.

Personal sovereignty v/s
Corporate sovereignty v/s
National sovereignty.

I vote for personal sovereignty.

Awsome vid Sdog!


Seriously man, you should wear a mask though.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Awsome vid Sdog!


Seriously man, you should wear a mask though.

He was. S-Dog was on the sofa next to him. The one talking was a puppet. Don't ask where the puppeteer had his hand

reply to post by SLAYER69
Just the same as most here, that was great, more people should do these, i keep having this thought in the back of my head about this whole webbot november tipping point thing, a war on iformation perhaps,? the pen is mightier than the sword.
p.s are you married?

reply to post by Whiffer Nippets


I'm pretty much in agreement with you. With the FCC deciding to vote on Net Neutrality (in direct opposition to the Supreme Court), WL is another nail. Kiddie porn? Doubt that'll be the trick.

Did they create the "nail"? No tellin'.

As much as I can agree with most of Schrodinger, the "gubment" goons will NEVER go to jail.

Who watchs the watchers? They do.

One more question Whif,

you wrote:

.

" As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. " - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

much attributed to Germany at that time was created by the victors. In ww1, they had everyone convinced that the "hun" enjoyed throwing babies into the air and catching them on their bayonettes.

Deny BS.


That bit of text was actually written by a one Rabbi Daniel Lapin as a "what if".

www.aapsonline.org...

sydwalker.info...

In the past they would broadcast over radio to voice there opinions or hijack a tv station broadcast, but in this day and age there is YouTube.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


so in essence then there are individual gatekeepers who can no longer be trusted and this whole wiki stuff is going to encourage TPTB to have one location for running the web,with terminator as the guardian,I allways new that film was more than a plot ! Instead of gatekeepers,they`ll be a gatekeeper,even lawnmower man..WOW come to think of it,its been flashed infront of our eyes for years.