In its own words: “WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public. Since July 2007, we have worked across the globe to obtain, publish and defend such materials, and, also, to fight in the legal and political spheres for the broader principles on which our work is based: the integrity of our common historical record and the rights of all peoples to create new history.” Since the dramatic release of a US military film of a US airborne shooting of unarmed journalists in Iraq, Wiki-Leaks gained global notoriety and credibility as a daring website that releases sensitive material to the public from whistleblowers within various governments. But are they what they purport to b? How could its founder and Editor in Chief, Julian Assange, deny 9/11 is a conspiracy when surely he would have received documentation to those facts among the millions of document his organization has benefited from?
William Engdahl said in 2010 that, “Wikileaks founder and “Editor-in-chief”, Julian Assange, is a …mysterious Australian about whom little is known. He suddenly became a prominent public figure offering to mediate with the White House over the leaks. Yet a closer examination of the public position of Assange on one of the most controversial issues of recent decades, the forces behind the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center shows him to be curiously establishment. When the Belfast Telegraph interviewed him on July 19, he stated,
“Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It’s important not to confuse these two….” What about 9/11?: “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.” What about the Bilderberg Conference?: “That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes.”
Evidence suggests that many whistleblower ‘leaks’ were actually calculated disinformation such as the Afghan documents in 2010. Back in January 2011, historian Webster Tarpley put a big hole in the well-crafted mythos of WikiLeaks, writing, “Assange’s various document dumps tell us nothing of importance about 9/11, the Rabin assassination, Iran-contra, the 1999 bombing of Serbia, the Kursk incident, the various CIA color revolutions, or many of the other truly big covert operations of the past decades.” Also, read Tarpley’s article,“Wikileaks helps West to justify attack on Syria,” that was written last month.
Were these CIA fed disinformation leaks to discredit Wikileaks and try to add a new spin to the establishment propaganda? Was Wikileaks always meant to be a disinfo outlet, was it an attempted hijack by the deep state while Assange started out a conspiracy denier, thus the 9/11 and other conspiracy denials? It’s not easy to say for sure, but the last several years of releases (2016 DNC leaks by Seth Rich, have been more significant and would suggest Assange is perhaps not establishment, and that he was likely a target like many NGO’s that might prove harmful if not controlled or that might prove rather useful if controlled.
WikiLeaks serves as a scapegoat for Hillary Clinton’s $1.2 billion election loss. Despite the fact WikiLeaks published information damaging to the Bush administration and Trump administration, media has unfairly labeled Julian Assange as a partisan actor working against Clinton and the Democratic Party. Ultimately, WikiLeaks and Assange aren’t hackers; they’re publishers. The United Kingdom has deemed WikiLeaks a “media organization” and WikiLeaks emails as evidence admissible in court. Yes, even Russia, and countries like Saudi Arabia and France have had their elite politicians and spy agencies exposed by Wikileaks.
Chronological History of Events Related to Wikileaks
DOJ Quietly (Midnight, Election Eve) Releases Docs Showing Mueller Investigated and Chose Not to Charge Assange, WikiLeaks, and Roger Stone For DNC Hacks
WIKILEAKS: Chemical Weapons Watchdog Ordered Deletion of ‘All Traces’ of Findings That Syrian ‘Chemical Attack’ May Have Been Staged