Donate $25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome collection of files from June 1996 to the present

24 November 2010. Add count of Wikileaks offerings.

23 November 2010. Add three Wikileaks mail list messages.

Wikileaks 7X Silver

Wikileaks tweets biblically: "The coming months will see a new world, where global history is redefined."

Wikileaks says it will release 7X the Iraq War data dump. It is not clear if that means number of files (~2.8MB) or total size of the files (~2.5GB) -- the largest previous single release, ~2.6GB, consisted of 6,700 Congressional Research Service reports.

Wikileaks offerings to date, approx. size
based on a WL archive stashed by Cryptome


December 2006 to February 2008


February 2008 to April 2010 (with CRS reports)


Collateral Murder (long) 630MB
Afghan War Diary 140MB
insurance.aes256 (encrypted)


Iraq War Diary (unzipped) 460MB

Earlier giant Afgan and Iraq dumps by Wikileaks have led to a series of innovative uses of selected parts of the data or ingenious applications of all the data reduced to human-consumable narratives, videos, jokes and ridiculous grandstandings. Latest emanation in Google fusion tables provides no greater scrutibility than the incomprehensible multi-thousand-fold arrays published by Wikileaks.

Wikileaks and a few supporting and oppositional media have provided nutshells of what the data is or might be or may turn out to be -- or may not.

What to make of 2.8 million data  or 2.5GB mash-up -- words, titles, sentences, names, dates, numbers, lies, stats, bits of junk?

Research libraries brag of their millions of holdings of which a few hundred will be used by an individual or perhaps a few thousand by a dedicated scholar. Wartime officers and TLAs claim to be swamped with spy data which they are unable to process, so ignore to rely upon their own direct sources. Computers process large amounts of data when provided with algorithms to manage the purpose of the job. High-speed stock market computers process data so fast that humans cannot follow so slow hand-helds generate human-consumable summaries which all too often are no more than best and worst guesses of what the data signifies amply coutured in the best financial investment public relations finery.

Big dumps are like big libraries, big millions killed in war, big billions made on the market, big threats to nations, to health, to peace of mind. For that spy agencies were invented and luxuriously funded in secret.

Wikileaks says that it is the intelligence agency for the people -- a peculiar comparison due to the customary exaggeration, deception and betrayal of bloated and wasteful intelligence agencies. Billions spent spent on them for quadrillions of data classified, lost, misunderstood, abused, covered-up with public relations narratives of biblical fire and brimstone pretension.

For most of its years Wikileaks attacked journalism as untrustworthy while regularly issuing press releases and complaining of being ignored by the press, now it claims to be journalism for official protection from officials. For most of its years Wilileaks attacked spies as treacherously self-serving, now it voluminously big tweets as a public interest spy service trustworthy for faith-based investment while maintaining paranoid secrecy about its allegedly threatened operations, a spies-like-us signal to its big-brother role model which excells at marketing black magic arts and sciences.

7X is in that patois of whispering promises of manifold return on investiment for riches to come. Open your wallet. "Keep us strong."

7X sounds like evangelical code for seven pieces of silver.

From: Julian Assange <julian[at]>
To: volunteers[at]
Cc: "Julian Assange." <julian[at]>
Subject: [WL-Volunteers] two letters re wikileaks
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:00:36 +0000 (GMT)

Some notes as investigations editor. Please comment and proof,
and I may submit it as an editorial.

			  Two letters.

The first letter is an assult on censorship and a call to harmonize
the speech and press laws of nations by summing their freedoms
rather than subtracting them.
The second letter is a sceptical view of both traditional and
alternative media behavior and the Wikileaks experience in dealing
with both.


			  First Letter

Censorship, like communism, seems like a reasonable enough idea to
begin with. While "from each according to his ability and to each
according to his need" sounds unarguable, the world has learned
that these words call forth a power elite to administer them with
coerisive force. Such elites are quick to define the needs of
themselves and their cronies as paramount. Similarly, "from each
mouth according to its ability and to each ear according to its
need" seems harmless enough, but history shows that censorship also
requires an anointed class to define 'need' and to make violence
against those who do not agree and continue talking. Such power is
quickly corrupted.

The first ingredient of a democracy is the people's right to know,
because without such understanding no human being can meaningfully
choose to support anything, let alone a political party.  Knowledge
is the driver of every political process, every constitution, every
law and every regulation. The communication of knowledge is without
analog. It is not a piece of furniture and it is not a man throwing
a ball. It is unique and demands its own place at the summit of
society. Since knowledge is the creator and regulator of all law,
it must be placed beyond law.

When speech is not free and knowledge of how society operates is
restricted, each man becomes an atom, unaware of his own destiny
and that of those around him.  That the world will change if there
is ever truly free speech is not something to be afraid of, rather
it is a cause for celebration.

Mankind has successfully adapted changes as monumental as electricity
and the engine. It can also adapt to a world where state sponsored
violence against the communications of consenting adults is not
only unlawful, but physically impossible. As knowledge flows across
nations it is time to sum the great freedoms of every nation and
not subtract them. It is time for the world as an international
collective of communicating peoples to arise and say 'here I am!'.


	  		  Second letter.

Wikileaks has been a substantial success, yet with a couple of
exceptions, both mainstream and alternative media are paralyzed
unless we write press releases or aggressively "lobby" for pickup
of our material -- no matter how good the material is. Everything from
the main manual for Guantanamo Bay to sensitive reports on Kenyan
corruption can sit out in the open before 100,000 readers, including
many journalists, and there will be no re-reportage without additional
work from us.

Such is the demand to control the public that forums of influence
behave as fresh faced coquettes with too many suiters.  These
coquettes long ago stopped cooking their own food and now expect
everything to be done for them and lovingly presented on a silver
platter with a kiss.

When Wikileaks releases documents not in small embargo pools, but
immediately to the world, impact is very substantially reduced.
Making document supply unlimited while journalistic demand remains
fixed pushes perceived (but not actual) journalistic self-interest
beneath the threshold of story "profitability".  Wikileaks has
released substantial scoops recently without using an embargo pool
and all have been unreported.  Observe that the selection criteria
for what is reported is akin to what laws get passed, where voters
are replaced by high income readers and lobbyists are replaced by
more lobbyists.

Do you think books are popular because of what they say? Think
again, even the greatest work is franchise operation that bribes
everyone from the author to the book store into its promotion.

The seething internet is also not a solution, indeed, far from
it. While professional investigative journalists are losing their
jobs en-mass to press-releases, bloggers, syndication, email,
websites, language and cultural homogenization (the daily demand
for words is almost fixed, but supply has increased tremendously
so value per word has fallen), their analytical abilities have not
been replaced.

It is easier for Wikileaks to push material into the New York Times
or the Guardian than it is to generate original reportage in less
influential papers.  This is counter-intuitive, but lesser known
outlets only reprint press releases, opinion, or thieve stories,
while the Times and the Guardian just do it most of the time. The
blogosphere, with few exceptions, is no better and merely cuts and
pastes what is in the professional press and adds "I agree" together
with some flourish, such as reminding the reader how their pussy
cat predicted it all along.  The primary motivation of bloggers
appears to be an intense desire to demonstrate an in-group position
on the issue de jour. We can see this with great clarity at somewhere
like  Bloggers have, despite all the rhetoric, little
or no interest in revealing a new truth before they know which way
the wind blows, even when it is thrust before them and all that is
required is some hours to make it look pretty.

A good example of this latter phenomena is the Wikileaks release
of a high level classified intelligence report on the battle of
Fallujah -- one of the most important events in the Iraq post war
environment.  We gave it to thousands, but it was our writers and
professional journalists at traditional media bodies who wrote about
it. Everyone else cut & pasted.

Western bloggers are not failing investigative journalism merely
because they don't have sources. Wikileaks throws freshly leaked
classified documents into their laps and says "go!".  They are
failing because they just don't give a damn. If they really gave a
damn about the truth they'd throw in their jobs as technicians,
librarians, waiters, teachers and bureaucrats and become journalists,
historians, intelligence analysts, cosmologists, activists,
anti-corruption analysts etc (and it is from these last groups that
all Wikileaks writers derive).

Some say this miserly response is about source credibility, but it
is the publications most respected for credibility that carry
Wikileaks material.

Any decent journalist can look at a complicated leaked document,
such as a manual for Guantanamo Bay, and say within minutes that
it is what it claims to be sans subtle modifications, call up the
designated authoring organization and ask 'Do you deny it? Will
you investigate the leak?" and find themselves with an interesting
story for every possible response, which is exactly what Reuters,
The New York Times and even Wikinews have done with Wikileaks sourced

Real credibility, being a cousin of the truth, it is the call of
all but the game of the few. For most, the call to credibility is
merely an excuse to keep on cut & pasting press releases, fangless
opinion articles, and thieved material from other publications.
Apparently cut & paste and blather pushes out more words per second
than actually writing something useful.

The bulk of the media class does not seek real credibility.  What
it longs for is "blame-ability" which is something altogether
different. It is blame-ability that permits smiling while reprinting
egregious lies -- safe in the knowledge that the buck may be passed.
Whether it is to the mouth of Colin Powel or the pen of Judith
Miller is is blame-ability that ensures a ready supply of calumny
and catastrope without apology.
Volunteers mailing list

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:27:16 +0000 (GMT) From: press-office[at] Subject: [WIKILEAKS] Fear in the Western fourth estate WIKILEAKS EDITORIAL Mon Nov 24 18:33:28 GMT 2008 Wikileaks often receives messages from Western journalists expressing substantial levels of fear. For instance, many Western news organizations, even when reporting a document, self-censor links to it (but not other links). Self-censoring organizations include Time/CNN, the News Statesman, and the Guardian. The "4.0" estate is no better, the Wikimedia Foundation, Digg and others have all pulled links after, or before, legal threats. Journalists working in the most of the developing world, who are occasionally arrested for hard-hitting stories, find this pusillanimous behavior incomprehensible. States with highly disconnected power hierarchies, such as Russia during the mid 1990s give us a clue to as to the difference in perceptions between developing and Western journalists. In transitional states, journalistic freedom and journalistic persecution appear to stem from the same root cause; the inability of power groups to defend themselves from journalists by using means more sophisticated than arrest or murder. Because the latter comes at some cost to the persecutor they are rarely employed. In other words all but a few "off limit" subjects can be reported freely and these limits are not yet well understood, which is why some journalists are murdered. In the West, more sophisticated means are systemic and include economic and patronage incentives and a defensive restructuring of power group activities into complex financial webs which are resistant to press exposure. While it is easy to count journalistic arrests and murders, great skepticism should be exercised in representing the lack of such assaults as marker of a free or effective press. Precisely the opposite conclusion may be true. An example letter from a Western journalist: > Hi, > > While I do not see everything which you send me of value, I do
> see much of what I've been sent as extremely significant material.
> I regret to add that I have not opened much of what you have sent me, > concern over potential 'legal ramifications' being the reason. In short, > I - like too many other journalists - have too often been effectively
> intimidated into silence. > > In the past I've endured death threats, being shot at, having the steering
> unscrewed on my car, etc...and yet, I find myself compelled to avoid > documentation with a 'controversial' legal standing, regardless of the > legitimacy of those documents. While I still break quite significant news, > I artificially limit myself to those sources which cannot engender 'legal > issues'. > > Am I a coward? I think not, but I am well aware of the tools employed to > silence those with the courage to speak, and I cautiously avoid presenting > 'the bad guys' with a 'weak point' in the defenses I've built. I am not > certain how Wikileaks has avoided the devastation such 'weak points' have > brought, but I am glad you have. > > Does the world need the ugly truths that lurk behind the sparklingly clean > and gleaming white facades that so often surround them - yes! Without broad > public awareness of the harsh realities we face, how can we, as a society, > hope to address these issues? Of course, those whom the ongoing ignorance > benefits wish to maintain it, and so the need for organizations such as yours. > > What can be done to improve Wikileaks? I imagine that you're working on a > great many things; but, perhaps paramount among these is the ongoing > establishment of the 'legitimacy' of Wikileaks as a source, a source which > can one day be utilized without raising legitimate concern over 'the > consequences'. > > When I was a boy growing up in The States, there was a TV game show called > 'Truth or Consequences'. Too often today I have seen a reality called > 'truth and consequences'. The first was funny, but the second... >
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:59:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Wikileaks Press Office <press-office[at]> Subject: [WIKILEAKS] Wikileaks letter The Sunshine Press (Wikileaks) is in a dire financial position. We need your letter of support. Although we expect to receive some $2M in funding later this year, there has been no formal funding since last year. This organization's positive world impact has never been higher, but it is, as a consequence, also more expensive run and ran out of formal funding four months ago. Since that time our staff and lawyers have funded the entire organization from their modest personal savings and anyone else they can find to assist. The reason that impartial, revelatory investigative journalism has been traditionally funded by readers is that governments and billionaires alike will not support groups which are tasked to expose and reform them. Despite being universally recognized as being the most important stimulus of democratic reforms, government funding for such organizations is non-existent. At the same time organizations which are guaranteed to have no domestic political impact are well funded. On-line donations, an important buttress to our ability to take on all governments and companies with total independence, have amounted to around $10,000 since the beginning of the year. Costs outside of court actions are almost $400,000 per year. Our $2M funding injection later this year will support a radical expansion of our mission. Until then, your support, and that of your friends and colleagues, will mean the difference between continuing to fight the good fight and shutting down. If you support our work or have benefited from our cause, please write a strong letter of recommendation we can to present to additional funding bodies. You may examine our front page or google news for ideas. Also consider an easy on-line donation; every contribution, no matter how small, will directly extend the number of months and days we can continue taking on the world: Send support letters to wl-supporters[at] Thank you. +-------------------------------------------------- | Why you receive this mail and what to do with it: | | You are receiving this mail because you were invited to | the Wikileaks Press Release list run by the transparency group Sunshine Press. | | Releases ensure you are aware, before the rest of the world, | of significant geopolitical and other disclosures released | by Wikileaks, an international platform for the first release of | of classified, confidential or censored materials of political, | diplomatic, ethical or historical interest. | | We rely on you to distribute the content of this mail to your | community, industry, press and regulators, to defend us in your | country and to invite people of integrity and commitment via | via | | Our materials range from secret Guantanamo documents to political | assassinations to confidential reports of children's hospital | corruption, and have spawned tens of thousands of press articles, | many reforms and changed electoral outcomes. | | Releases average one per week but can be higher or lower depending on | events. You can easily set the frequency to monthly or change your | subscription via | | If you know people that have access to sensitive documents of public | interest, tell them about us. We have an unbroken record of protecting | sensitive sources and defeating censorship attacks from all corners of the globe. | See | | If you are about to release an investigative report or article, we can release the | underlaying source material concurrently to substantiate the allegations, | draw attention away from the true source, deflect legal or censorship | attacks and promote secondary investigations and public awareness. | | Live bank-grade encrypted chat to the office is available via | (multiple languages spoken) | | Inquiries for speaking engagements, comment, interventions, | investigations,
| source-protection and censorship consultations | may be addressed to | | If you are serious about analysis, translation, | legal, coding, network, financial or other contributions, please contact | us via: | | See for all other information and | for secure access.