wikileaks

for me intelligence is surprisingly simple often. it goes like this, something is happening in the world, at one or more places (most often one) i publish an opinion about the case.

if it meets the criteria of the secret services it is published.
these criteria are diverse, making some errors helps. not telling the truth outright may help, saying things that suit nato usia or israel works great. in actual cases of emergency i take pains to please those powers and still get a message out.

when the better opinion of the case is not a secret but not the peoples one, and it happens to be my perception, chances it gets through are great.

if on the other hand i say something they don't want known, or that hits a mark most people didn't even know was painted on them, i tend to get censored.

then my original idea turns into a case of reverse engineering, what is the thing that is not meant for you, the public.

my relation with media in general is similar the past so many years (ups and downs, but basically it got a tad worse over the whole and a tad less agressive in the personal).

not much perhaps. its not like i think it got better over the past 1o years or so at all, with freedom of expression or freedom of conviction.

the paranoia is also growing, there is some sort of imperialisation on ideas going on, that turns ideas that before say 5 years were all but unspeakable into newly made secrets.

the mechanics and intentions of this censoring, mediastrategy, control, you name it, seem to fertily breed new fears, so over the whole i think it is getting worse. it can be a tad misleading that wikileaks really means a thing to the secrecy circles on the planet, yet it is bound to happen on neigh every subject, so that is doubtfull.

Now that i feel the need to post, means intrinsically i have been censored in expressing my opinions and insights, wich in turn means i have something to think about, being :what is it that others are not supposed to know.

don't worry if you are an interested reader, it happens quite a lot.

very often it happens when it concerns actual mediatopics of the current moment, especially the ones that are made to be trending about 'terrorism'.

the reason for this is so much is secret about them. and the reason for that is that we are fed with what is mostly bullshit for an analyst result on a daily bases.

so it is strikingly common for me to find inconsistency's and propaganda items in current affairs. and it is as common to be made aware of the limit to what the public is allowed to know.

i think what explains my ease in collecting the impressions that are bound to be target of censoring is that i have a long history of critical research and observation of politics in the wider sense. (in actuality but also in theory, in practice, in experimental ways, pure facts, scientific analyses and on more social levels i am strongly interested , and have allways tried to stay somewhat up to date.)

personally i experience that as a historical interesse, because history repeats so many of the features but also because more often then not for what is going on now there are a lot of interesting historical examples. so wether i am right or not i experience it as historical work.

i take some time getting to the point, but the crude message that it is very hard to get opinions out, let alone get the opinions you want out, even as historical data, or objective sidenotes and observations must be made clear.

doubts are the sanest thing for everyone to have with the news we are fed.

so quite contrary to the last two times i delved a bit into the newest wikileaks,
militairy reports tend to be boring and superficial, mostly in abreviations, and many people studied the first two leaks with more interesse then me (it was all not very new to me).

also i had the idea that if great revelations ( as opposed to finetuned precise comparisons and statistical analyses) were in they would tend to be the focus for enough researchers without me.
people with way better (imo statistic) tools to extract some more information from the pile of rather raw data.

i also felt it was incomplete, as an example the team and unit involved with shooting the reuter reporter appeared to be both absent and prominent in ways that are only and best explained by interference.

nevertheless i had the idea the bulk of data was indeed what it said raw relatively undoctored data. reasoning there is just to much of it to just cook it all up i assumed the real catalogue would be the base for the release, no matter to what extend it would be (eg. mechanically by random generation) doctored.

that means i think atm, it was partly doctored partly screened, but still opened up data for interpretation, and unfortunately mostly for statistical analyses for wich i do have a talent even without the tools, but lack the inspiration to set out on so great a task.

however i read about what researchers and journalists found there when i could and for what i met. counting that as my statistical sample.

maybe i am cynical, because i tend to inform myself decently in as far as i can, and for many people it was the great eyeopener in some way, but for me it was hardly.

so with the new release upcoming i was still a bit sceptic. what now, well i can tell you there is every attempt to make it seem i take the stuf serious, wich i do only less as a result of that ofcourse.

i think of them in a similar way, an incomplete and interfered resource.
most probably taken from at least partly original files however and with the need to reflect actual diplomatic activitys and circumstance , for someone as suspicious as me, that is still more then the military files a trove indeed.

and even if for me acces to wikileaks is still blocked it was interesting to read what the great (and very loyal) newspapers published as their impressions.
especially the guardians raw documents be they few and select, i read with fascination, the ones i did. i was to convinced i was also fed information through their absolute say in my choice and its limitations to want to go through all, or more then i feel like at the whim.

i guess i think that whenever i am fed information it is unwise to absorb to much propaganda, and i think that is wiser also. this feels better, to reflect on the credibility before even giving statistic credibility for my appreciation of them.

so what do i think.

i dont have enough data to judge yet, from what i seen and read, i doubt slightly this is the real thing. otoh it is somewhat to complete in some aspects to be fully doctored and made up.
at least that seems the case to me atm. that beside a lot of the dispatches are historically interesting (typically like when mandela was released) wich would work fine to sweeten the case for the media and provide the right kind of interesting storys to grab peoples attention over some period and to be convincingly paralel to a history we know, so as to remain convincing.

so i am not interested in such cables (their virtue is mostly that nothing new can essentially be in so they form some rudimentairy check on the real setup of such diplomacy).

i am in no way connected sufficiently to the heap of documents to say anything definite about that unfortunately. (i try to find them all not for no reason, it is enough that i could get a long way in analysing quite some recent history perhaps to a point i could not before.

and its great for laughs:D. like predictable they all have their own agendas , the diplomats, and all of them evade the truths what they can. one example, bruns i think he is named, a vice to clinton produces fine reads that are food for thought because he is very reluctant to do much more then listen eg.

since if one thing is clear it is that there is a limit to the integrity of the documents (else there wouldn't have been a need for censoring me) i will now give you the most rational and secret reason why the documents are doctored.

these documents are taken from a network for loyal usian citizens, everyone with some security clearing (there are many different kinds and levels) had acces to them (at least theoretically).
that means they had been doctored to confirm the biases and wanted opinions of a innercircle of "secret bearers" that ofcourse need to stick close to the regimes policy's for security reasons.

i think that is one prime reason why these documents confirm most aspects of usian foreign politics so clearly. and i think it is the bigger secret (because it is a good thing to know when you work with the data) that had me censored.

i think ill get back to the topic soonish. but eh.. like you are not supposed to... keep in mind they were preaching for their own parish in publishing exactly (perhaps) that what we now all read

you wont find a positive report about ahmedinajaadh for example on sirpnet or a moderate opinion on northkorea, they just dont need their lower level officials to think that nuanced.

kind regards, hope to been of help