11 December 2010
Wikileaks Streams of Hidden Money
>Wikileaks Donation To Manning Defence Fund (
Indeed. More may be revealed by Daniel Schmidt (my preferred ID for him over the RL choker) either by promotional leaking before or in his upcoming book about, har, haven't we all been called, "The Most Dangerous Website in the World."
Daniel was quoted today or yesterday saying there were unidentified financial irregularities, always a hot button. Another report is that he was in charge of Wikileaks finances. Wow, what surefire appeal to those avid to believe cheating was going on and the confessor is being squeezed by the authorities (see below).
I imagine there were and are several streams of income -- compartmented for concealment from exploited volunteers, from tax authorities, from other donors -- a quite common financial management technique. The chief financial officer sometimes knows of these and sometimes is used as an unknowing fool to cover them up by what he thinks is thorough knowledge.
I assume Schmidt smelled a rat, or a payment was missed, and confronted Assange which led to the break. Recall I was booted from the WL mail list over this exact issue of duping volunteers for free service then bragging of millions to be made -- a distinguishing feature of public benefit scams old as their first implementation.
Wau Holland (among others) has likely been used as part of the WL bait-and-switch subterfuge, as it has indicated by emphasizing it does not handle all of Wikileaks donations. The Wau upcoming release on WL donations will be merely a limited hang-out to test public gullibility. Then more if there is an outcry of disbelief, and then a bit more to see if that will calm the crowd, but never a total disclosure of sufficient magnitude that will initiate a criminal investigation of fraud, extortion, money laundering, bribery, threats -- the standard array associated with these enterprises -- as Assange clearly stated was his goal at the beginning of WL. Who else was behind the scam remains to be revealed.
As with businesses and governments, so-called non-profits are used to launder money and earn a cut (generous donation, paid as expenses, legal fees or hard-to-trace bags of cash as reported today about a Madoff abetter) for doing so. There is obviously a profit-sharing arrangement (publicity to attact donations) between Wikileaks and the media making boodles of money from the daringly scandalous "publication of classified information," always a big moneymaker above and below public view. Leaks were invented for that with evermore secrets to feed the stream. As in war, truth is the first casualty of public benefit initiatives, mea culpa.
Assange's teasing extortion of Bank of America with threat to release the contents of an executive's hard drive is comical but it moved the market (peddling financial secrets are the oldest profession's stock in trade). Barron's writes that Assange is a perfect tout of market manipulation, among many others who monetize leaks and pufferies for fraudulent offerings.
I have been pushing this view during interviews but the media will not publish anything that reveals their complicity. And why should they, it has worked profitably since media was invented to promote and enjoy the bribery and perquisites of wealth and power while braying its all in the public interest.
Inevitably, there are internal fights over sharing the booty, and tell-alls and denials will churn the process for more.
Will you ghost-write my "guide to big profits in radical transparency through new and social media" for free, most trusted Anonymous? I will need a $50K good faith donation to not shop this to another Anonymizer.
Cryptome once got an $11,000 anonymous donation, published an account, said a rat was smelled, and none have come since. Really, you have to believe me.
IRS smells a rat, every year now John Young is audited, this is "revealed for the first time." IRS pries where the other comparatively toothless TLAs cannot. However, an agreement to puke up more taxes calms the priers for another year. Quote of an auditor: "Mr. Young, the IRS prefers that you give up Cryptome to make more money to pay more taxes." Under the law this urge for an official bribe, aka increased taxation, is not illegal. No, the USG is not out to get John Young for defying the powerful, it's just business, the USG selling protection, or something really, really vital of which the true cost and profitability must remain deeply secret.
Someone wrote recently, "There's Cryptome. Why has John Young not been accused of rape?" What, didn't you know that?