12 December 2010

Wikileaks CIA, Soros and Competitors Backlash

It is often reported that John Young accused Wikileaks during its formation of being associated with the CIA and/or George Soros. Not correct, he said its lofty goals and secret procedures mimic those authoritarian meddlers, which remains correct. Here are his statements and Wikileaks acknowledgement followed by predicted competitor backlash:

http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm

Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 06:58:04 -0800
To:
From: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com>

[This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g.
Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'.
This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer
and plenty of backbone.]

Announcing a $5 million fund-raising goal by July will kill this effort. It 
makes WL appear to be a Wall Street scam. This amount could not be 
needed so soon except for suspect purposes. 

Soros will kick you out of the office with such over-reaching. Foundations 
are flooded with big talkers making big requests flaunting famous names 
and promising spectacular results.

I'd say the same about the alleged 1.1 million documents ready for
leaking. Way too many to be believable without evidence. I don't believe 
the number. So far, one document, of highly suspect provenance.

Instead, explain what funding needs there are and present a schedule 
for their need, avoid generalities and lump sums. Explain how the funds 
will be managed and protected against fraud and theft. 

Instead, operate on a shoe-string for a few months, best, for a couple
of years, establish WL bonafides by publishing a credible batch of 
documents for testing public feedback and criticism. Show how to 
handle the heat of doubt and condemnation. Use that to support 
fund-raising.

At moment there is no reason to believe WL can deliver on its
promises. Big talk no action, the skeptics say.

BTW, the biggest crooks brag overmuch of how ethical their operations 
are. Avoid ethical promises, period, they've been used too often to fleece 
victims. Demonstrate sustained ethical behavior, don't preach/peddle it. 

__________

Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 07:21:34 -0800
To:
From: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com>

[This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g.
Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'.
This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer
and plenty of backbone.]


Addendum:

The CIA would be the most likely $5M funder. Soros is suspected
of being a conduit for black money to dissident groups racketeering
for such payola. 

Now it may be that that is the intention of WL because its behavior 
so far fits the pattern.

If fleecing the CIA is the purpose, I urge setting a much higher
funding goal, in the $100M range and up. The US intel agencies
are awash in funds they cannot spend fast enough to keep the
Congressional spigot wide open. Academics, dissidents, companies,
spy contractors, other nation's spy agencies, whole countries, are 
falling over themselves to tap into this bountiful flood. But competition
is fierce, and accusations of deception are raging even as the
fleecers work in concert.

Chinese dissidents -- a brand name among many -- are already 
reaping huge benefits from covert funding from the US and from 
the PRC, along with others in the former Soviets, in Africa and 
South America, inside the US, UK and Europe, in the Middle East 
and the Koreas, who know how to double-cross ditzy-rich Dads 
and Moms.

In solidarity to fuck em all.

__________

From:
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 11:26:00 -0500
To:

[This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g.
Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'.
This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer
and plenty of backbone.]


Advice noted. We'll polish up our sheers for cutting fleeces golden.

__________

[This message was not distributed by the closed wikileaks list.]

To: Wikileaks <wikileaks[a t]wikileaks.org>
From: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: [WL] Funding / who is on this list.
Date: Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 11:47:00 -0500

Cryptome is publishing the contents of this list, and how I was induced to 
serve as US person for registration. 

Wikileaks is a fraud:

[This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g.
Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'.
This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer
and plenty of backbone.]

Fuck your cute hustle and disinformation campaign against legitimate
dissent. Same old shit, working for the enemy.

__________


From: 
Subject: Re: [WL] Funding / who is on this list.
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 12:36:29 -0500
To: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>

Heh.

John, please do not do that. If you're wondering about the WL, the  
list has grown and there were enough accidental wl mentions [e.g in  
the somali document and a cc] that not mentioning it became of little  
additional obscurity especially since you're receiving the mail. No  
one has bothered to change the warning which after all doesn't really  
hurt.

Even if you think we are CIA stooges, you can't treat everyone on the  
list that way.

__________

http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak2.htm

To: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com>
From: Wikileaks <wikileaks[a t]wikileaks.org>
Subject: martha stuart pgp
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 12:20:25 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: None

J. We are going to fuck them all. Chinese mostly, but not entirely a feint. Invention 
abounds. Lies, twists and distorts everywhere needed for protection. Hackers monitor 
chinese and other intel as they burrow into their targets, when they pull, so do we. 
Inxhaustible supply of material. Near 100,000 documents/emails a day. We're going to 
crack the world open and let it flower into something new. If fleecing the CIA will 
assist us, then fleece we will. We have pullbacks from NED, CFR, Freedomhouse and 
other CIA teats. We have all of pre 2005 afghanistan. Almost all of india fed. Half 
a dozen foreign ministries. Dozens of political parties and consulates, worldbank, 
apec, UN sections, trade groups, tibet and fulan dafa associations and... russian 
phishing mafia who pull data everywhere. We're drowing. We don't even know a tenth 
of what we have or who it belongs to. We stopped storing it at 1Tb.

__________

To: funtimesahead[a t]lists.riseup.net
From: Hanna <snow[a t]xs4all.nl>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 22:13:32 -0500
Subject: [WL] We're all CIA stooges, apparently.

[This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g.
Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'.
This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer
and plenty of backbone.]



John Young has leaked the content of this list, sans most identifying  
info to cryptome.org

It's clear from his recent messages that he's been losing it for some  
time. We should have
checked his current mental state more thoroughly rather than relying  
on previous experience.

The impact maybe positive. It's certainly very mysterious and  
exciting to read. I don't think there's
much dissonance between our public and private positions.

__________

From: Julian Assange <me[a t]iq.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:40:14 +0000
To: funtimesahead[a t]lists.riseup.net
Subject: [WL] cryptome disclosure

[This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g.
Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'.
This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer
and plenty of backbone.]



No idea what JYA was saying!

It's clear to me however, that he was not trying to protect people's  
identities with his xxxxx'ing, but rather trying to increase the  
sexiness of the document. Perhaps he feels WL is a threat to the  
central status mechanism in his life? I think he just likes the  
controversy.

He may have done us a great favor. There's a lot of movement in that  
document. It's a little anarchist, but I think it generally reads  
well and sounds like people doing something they care about.

Btw, I suggest we be careful with Wayne Madsen too. He seems to be  
another case of someone who was fantastic a few years ago, but  
recently has started to see conspiracies everywhere. Both cases  
possibly age related.

I am not spending any more thought on it. Next week is going to be  
busy. The weeks earlier stories will be already done and that'll set  
the agenda for the rest of the week, not jya's attention seeker.

I'm willing to handle calls for .au, although my background may make  
S a better bet.

Prediction about competitors' backlash to Wikileaks:

http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm

Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:41:07 -0800
To:
From: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com>

[This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g.
Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'.
This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer
and plenty of backbone.]


Aftergood's report was unexpected, particularly for showing
wikileaks.org was active and the first document was available.
When did access become public, and was that announced here?

Or did Aftergood release private information, say in disagreement 
with WL purposes.

His comments on WL were disdainful, and appear to have
been made to buttress his own endeavor as more honorable and
respectable -- he has a habit of doing that, but so do others who
cherish their reputation (and carefully nuture support of those
who really have a problem with uncontrolled information as if
it is "dangerous to go too far, yadda, yadda.").

Reporters, and keep in mind they are competitors with WL as
much as any keepers of secrets and peddlers of inside
information, (all obsessed with appearing to be "responsible"
arbiters of what information gets published) will most certainly 
dig for unfriendly aspects of WL to gain reader attention and to 
show they are not complicit in WL unrespectable intentions.

Some will promise one thing to get information and do the opposite
for publication. Some will fuck you for failing to do what they
asked.

Expect agents of the authorities to pry into WL by way of
journalists, supporters, funders, advisory board members;
that is customary for those hoping to smoke out opposition.

Expect smears, lies, forgeries, betrayal, bribes, and the host
of common tools used to suppress dissent.

Expect taunts, insults, ridicule, praise, admiration, obsequiousness,
arrogance, skepticism, demands for who the fuck are you, I need
the information for an urgent deadline.

Expect accusations that someone else associated with WL has
already told me such and such so why are you being so coy?

Expect much flattery and disdain.

Beware of disclosing private information as a means to recruit.

Beware of releasing information about WL founders and supporters,
that will be grist for the truth twisters. Keep anonymous as possible
or WL is doomed. 

This discussion list is going to be leaked. Anonymize, anonymize
every communication with the press and potential recruits.

Somebody is going to come at me as the name on the NSI registry.
The less I know about WL people the better. And I know for sure that
everyone associated with WL is a bald-faced liar, an agent of the
authorities and the worst of the worst.

CIA answer, 25 October 2010, to a Cryptome FOIA request for its Wikileaks files.
Soros Foundations denial, 10 August 2010, of Wikileaks support.

All secret operations which promise participants protection are deceptive. This is a hoary lure of the unwary into a trap of secret complicity that is irreversible, a practice called by secretkeepers, "being read into the classified world," "taking an oath," "taking vows," "signing non-disclosure and/or secrecy agreements."

Once seduced by promises, oaths, vows or secrecy agreements there is no way to escape the threat of exposure and/or punishment. A standard means of threat is to publicly release a document redacted of names. As a heightened warning, occasionally names are "accidentally" released, leaked, by seemingly inept redaction or errant FOIA disclosure, or best, a private notification of what is known about the personal life of a potential breakaway or extortioner, say, the holder(s) of the decryption key of the Wikileaks insurance.aes256 file.

Secretkeepers brag about how effective this is to maintain control of the gulled, elected officials among them, and not least, those who monetarily benefit from protecting access to secrets.

It should be assumed that all the MSM businesses which induced Wikileaks to release classified documents to them checked with their respective investors and governments in arranging the deal about what to publish and how to do it. The NY Times has admitted to checking with the USG, not its investors, the others have remained quiet due to business practice and accommodating law requiring secrecy on cooperation with governmental authorities in managing information flow.