5 July 2012

Who's Who at WikiLeaks

A sends:

See here a story entitled: "Who's Who at Wikileaks?" where you are quoted as saying:

-- Young finally quit the organization on January 7, 2007. His final words: "Wikileaks is a fraud... working for the enemy" --

Is this quotation correct and do you still stand by the statement? Would you like to clarify who is "the enemy"?

The East and associated interests?

Cryptome:

I did not "quit" WikiLeaks, I was unsubscribed from its private mail list for disputing grandiose ambition. And am still disputing that unfortunate promotional aspect of WikiLeaks, a widespread defect of information providers of all stripes. "Who's Who at WikiLeaks" is itself a promotional gambit of the defective means to garner attention with a grandiose headline and slanted research. That is, the enemy.

This is the full message from which the quote was cobbled:

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

[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.

The enemy are those who set up and participate in false public interest initiatives to mislead the public, a very ancient practice of power groups who sponsor dissidents to serve as controlled opposition. CIA and most if not all national intelligence agencies (and their host governments) engage in this practice by supporting NGOs, individuals, churches, universities, think tanks, media outlets, including so-called alternative outlets, anti-war initiatives, indeed, it is prudent to consider any long-lived group as having been either set up by authorities or co-opted once successful (usually through favorable tax treatment and funding). It is a difficult task to sort out who is complicit and who is not due to the quick adoption by covert operations of the honest groups means and methods.

Not all members of honest groups know what their organizations are being used for. When they learn the truth they become premier leakers. However, leaks are often deliberate deceptions, so the challenge is to be wary but not crippled by paranoia.

WikiLeaks is not the first nor the last which will be accused of complicity with the authorities. The analysis of "Who's Who at WikiLeaks" could be applied to hundreds of other public interest groups. Not all have benefited from as many insiders leaking as WikiLeaks, nor have as many had to shift their policy and procedures in response to leaks.

I told the WikiLeaks mail list in December 2006 WL would face leaks itself, smears, attacks, betrayals. That has come to pass, my leaks merely the first and many more will follow.

WikiLeaks has matured sufficiently to exploit opposition, in the manner of the enemy it ostensibly fights.

None of this message is private -- but the file headline smells like formulaic propaganda.