“Oh my God! If left unplugged, this gusher will cause irreparable harm to America’s global reputation!”
[ Image Source ]
Here is where we must make an effort to sustain real skepticism. Sometimes, paradoxically, this means provisionally rejecting questionable conspiracies and taking certain things at their face value.
In this case, it ought to be apparent that WikiLeaks is no U.S. government operation: The outrage against it is too real, too ubiquitous and variously expressed, too characteristic of furtive pathocrats spotlighted in their secret machinations and willing to use any means — including the dissemination of disinformation such as that embodied by this article and others like it — to demean, discredit, defund and destroy the wielders of the light. WikiLeaks has mortified people in power by showing them as they really are, it has shown us the crimes hidden by the “fog of war,” and it has altered global perceptions of the ongoing combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. If it were a government operation, it would not have been permitted to do these things.
Against these facts, the author tries to justify his aspersions against the site by observing that its diplomatic cables have been released to “the world’s most ultra-establishment of news media”: “the New York Times ... the London [sic] Guardian and Der Spiegel.” While his criticism of the New York Times’ role in promoting the Iraq invasion in 2003 is sound, the fact remains that the paper is the US’ “newspaper of record” and as such confers a cachet of respectability on its contents, while the Guardian and Spiegel are both highly regarded in Europe and considered independent and somewhat left-leaning; if WikiLeaks wants its releases taken seriously and widely read, it could hardly have chosen better.
Even more tenuous is the attempt to suggest that Julian Assange is a US stooge on the grounds that, for example, he accepts the conventional conclusions about 9/11. The author conveniently forgets that only a relatively small minority has definitively rejected those conclusions; although many people are not wholly satisfied with them, they will not fully renounce or repudiate them because they understand that they lack an evidentiary basis for doing so. And that Assange also doesn’t buy the conspiracy theories regarding the Bilderberg Group shows him once again firmly aligned with majority opinion. It is, of course, quite possible that Assange is wrong, but this is hardly evidence of his acting as a double agent on behalf of elite entities bent on silencing free speech on the internet.
As the author admits, however, attempts to control the internet long antedated the appearance of WikiLeaks. The site’s revelations will doubtless spur more and stronger efforts, but this would be as a backlash against the leaks site, not as part of a plot that includes it.
Meanwhile, we have watched as governments thunder accusations of treason at Assange; Paypal, credit card companies, banks, Amazon.com and even WikiLeaks’ DNS company have all refused to work with the site; and alleged leaker Bradley Manning, who has been convicted of no crime, is expected to serve a 52-year sentence — so far almost entirely under psychologically torturous solitary confinement — on suspicion of passing on classified documents for public release. All of this seems unnecessary, assuming that the conclusions suggested by this article are valid.
Remember as you read this: If we who oppose the pathocratic elite are fragmented and mutually suspicious, as articles like this are intended to leave us, we cripple ourselves. And whose interest does that serve?