From: Andrew Johnson
Date: 2010-12-09 20:13:12
Two or 3 people have asked me my thoughts on the Wiki leaks affair and so I have written then out below. My thoughts are largely based on these things – The fact that it has received wide media coverage What wikileaks has not leaked What could have happened to wikileaks, but hasn’t. My take is basically this 1) The media want to get attention focused on Wikileaks. 3 years ago, I corresponded with Mike Rudin – a BBC producer – regarding my friend – Dr Judy Wood’s Whistleblower Court case regarding the events of 9/11. He would not help to get it reported. Neither did anyone else “pick up” on Press Releases I wrote – despite the verifiable evidence and court documents enclosed – filed by former professors of engineering and economics respectively. 2) Julian Assange thinks 9/11 was done by OBL et al www.belfasttelegraph… – this is easy to disprove, once you have gathered the evidence (sort of partly what Dr Judy’s case is about – though it’s incidental to the case – which was about Science fraud by NIST’s contractors tinyurl.com/911qtam). 3) I have e-mails from someone I know *FROM 2006* which involve someone in the Icelandic Government and Julian Assange – how weird is that!! (Bearing in mind the Icelandic financial crash – my friend was warning them what might be in the offing.) tech.groups.yahoo.co… (the YouTube channel linked in that post has been deleted now) 4) The media seem to be a “mixed up” about how they are portraying Assange – a type of “folk hero” or creating a “threat to national security” – they don’t seem to be sure which. 5) It was recently reported that the Dept. of Homeland Security had seized some web domains: www.thewhir.com/web-… Oddly – Wikileaks wasn’t one of them…. 6) The only damning thing that he really seems to have helped disclose are the unlawful killing / murder of civilians in Iraq (as shown on the video they released a while back) by US forces. However, people are already familiar with these sorts of atrocities (e.g. Abu Gharib a few years ago – and the use of White Phosphorus in Fallujah). So it’s almost like the media are acclimatising folk to these terrible illegal acts being “an inescapable reality” – whilst holding no one accountable. In 2001, Steven Greer collected 400 military and govt. witnesses to their involvement in “UFO matters” – he held a press conference and invited the world’s media. A small amount of US coverage resulted. In 2007, CNN started to cover the stories of a few of the witnesses on the “Larry King” programme. Some of the accounts were of events from 40 years earlier. My point is…. In my experience, information rarely, if ever, gets mainstream exposure/coverage without a good reason. In the case of the coverage for wikileaks, the reasons to me are 2 fold a) To get people focused on cyber-security issues and the idea of websites “breaking” information b) To disclose illegal acts in a way which makes people less accountable (i.e. the news comes up on sort of “unofficial” website) and get us used to them being a part of everyday life. As I see things, the Psychological Games being played through the media are quite complicated – but are generally designed to keep people in a state of fear, ignorance, confusion or apathy because it’s too time consuming to work out how much they have been manipulated. Perhaps there is a real concern that, as people spend more time communicating over the internet, the desired level of ignorance among the middle classes is slowly going down.