This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Friday, August 6, 2010

Wikileaks and Afghanistan

As you probably heard, Wikileaks released a bunch of documents on the Afganistan war.

The timing was suspicious. The release happened the same time that Congress approved another $50B+ for the war in Afghanistan. Wikileaks was the headline, instead of the $50B+ wasted.

Mainstream media reporters were given the opportunity to review the documents, before they were published. Were some really unfavorable documents removed? State thugs formally refused to review the documents before release. However, undercover State spies probably work for the mainstream media.

Allegedly, Bradley Manning is also responsible for this leak. He hasn't been officially charged yet.

A lot of people are organizing "Free Bradley Manning!" groups or raising legal fees. Forget it. He's in the army. He gets a military trial, and not a regular civilian trial.

It's weird that the US military has weaker security procedures than my employer. Bradley Manning had a CD-RW drive on his work computer, and used it to leak the documents. My employer refuses to allow non-approved USB devices on their network. Putting a CD-RW drive on a computer with secret documents makes me think "WTF? How stupid are they?"

There is no public disclosure of who funds Wikipedia. Allegedly, some State insiders are the biggest donators. Wikipedia has a definite pro-State troll bias. For example, psychiatric drug pages include no references to negative side-effects or anti-psychiatry.

Who is secretly funding Wikileaks? If I were a high-ranking State parasite, "Infiltrate and subvert Wikileaks!" would be a priority. Funding can always be diverted through third parties. Julian Assange might be sincere, but his assistants may be undercover State spies. Lamo, who turned in Bradley Manning, may be an undercover State spy. The mainstream media is portraying Lamo as a hero, for catching Bradley Manning.

Suppose that Wikileaks has been infiltrated and subverted. A future leaker with *REALLY* dangerous information decides to turn to Wikileaks. An undercover spy catches him, the story is quashed, and nobody would ever know.

The best analysis of the Afghanistan Wikileak is "This contains no information that a reasonably-informed person didn't already know.", even though Jon Stewart was ridiculing people who said that. I already knew that the war in Afghanistan is one huge boondoggle, disaster, and war crime. However, details of specific abuses might help wake up some slaves.

The mainstream media has loudly denounced Wikileaks as "public enemy #1". This is proof that Wikileaks is not dangerous. If Wikileaks really were dangerous, then the mainstream media would not mention it at all. This may be carefully orchestrated "leak theater".

Contrast the Wikileaks coverage with Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential campaign, which was not covered at all.

The occasional "leak" creates the illusion that State insiders have no other important secrets.

If only the mainstream media started saying "'Taxation is theft' is so stupid! People who say that should be kidnapped and tortured!" That would be the best possible endorsement of the truth.

If the mainstream media denounced my blog as being subversive and dangerous, that's the best possible endorsement I could get.

The Afghanistan Wikileak does not really threaten the status quo. It isn't that dangerous. The most dangerous secrets are the "hidden in plain sight" secrets. Some "hidden in plain sight" State secrets are:

  • Taxation is theft!
  • The USA has an unfair monetary system.
  • War is the health of the State!
  • A government violence monopoly is unnecessary.
An explanation of those ideas is more dangerous than anything Wikileaks will ever post.

Have State agents infiltrated and subverted Wikileaks? The leak occurred the same time as a new war funding bill. Details of specific abuses don't threaten State terrorists' power, but may help wake up some slaves. The most dangerous State secrets are the ones hidden in plain sight.

1 comment:

Tennessean said...

Interesting article.

The comment about Ron Paul not getting mentioned is interesting. There was a libertarian sympathetic Republican candidate for the Tennessee Senate in the recent primary named Stacey Campfield. He sent out a large format postcard that had one section with several endorsements such as "Endorsed by the Tennessee Tea Party" and another separate section with a number of favorable quotes such as "This man would make a fine Senator", by a big name State Politician.

As you can imagine, there was absolutely no news coverage about this candidate at all. A complete blackout.

Until the night before the election. Normally the news never runs partisan info at that late hour since it would bias the election.

But they ran their first mention ever of this candidate. It was the lead story on every single station in the state on all the evening news broadcasts. In it they interviewed big name State Politician. Did you really say "This man would make a fine Senator"? He said yes, but he never endorsed him, he only said he would be a fine senator.

Now that should be OK since the postcard made clear which were the actual endorsements and which were the friendly quotes.

Not according to the news. According to the news, Campfield lied, claimed a false endorsement, is a stinking liar, is not a true Christian, can not be trusted, etc etc.

I flipped between four different stations during the evening news. Every single station had this as their lead story. A complete slam.

Amazingly, he still won the primary despite the blackout and the synchonized media hit pieces.

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at