Oh my, Julian loves conspiracy theories after all!


It’s true!

Wikileaks’ Julian Assange and Conspiracy Theories

By Michael Collins

“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.” Julian Asange, Wikileaks, July 19(Image right)

John Young was one of the co-founders of Wikileaks. He quickly left the organization in disagreement with some of its policies (CNET). Young was a natural choice for Wikileaks since he’s operated a leak website, CRYPTOME, since 1996. His site just released two articles on July 31 attributed to Wikileaks’ Julian Assange (me@i.1.org). The announcement read:

“These essays on conspiracies by Julian Assange (me@iq.org) were retrieved today from his website iq.org. The first from the currently active site, dated November 10, 2006, and the second at archive.org, dated December 3, 2006.” CRYPTOME – 31 July 2010 (author’s emphasis)

The essay titles indicate an entirely different take on conspiracies than that indicated by Assange in his 9/11 comments. In fact, in these two essays from 2006, Assange defines conspiracies as the critical state function to maintain power. The titles are:

State and Terrorist Conspiracies me @ iq.org November 10, 2006

Conspiracy as Governance me @ iq.org December 3, 2006

In the second essay, Conspiracy as Governance, Assange outlines the centrality of conspiracies to maintaining elites.

“Conspiracy as governance in authoritarian regimes

“Where details are known as to the inner workings of authoritarian regimes, we see conspiratorial interactions among the political elite, not merely for preferment or favor within the regime, but as the primary planning methodology behind maintaining or strengthening authoritarian power.

“Authoritarian regimes create forces which oppose them by pushing against a people’s will to truth, love and self-realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce further resistance. Hence such schemes are concealed by successful authoritarian powers until resistance is futile or outweighed by the efficiencies of naked power. This collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population, is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial.” Julian Assange, Dec. 3, 2006

Assange proceeds to define conspiracies as “cognitive devices” that are able to “out think the same group of individuals acting alone.” He argues that “deceiving conspiracies” operate by distorting reality to achieve some specific goal. The outcome is of these conspiracies is likely to be “misplaced. Programmers call this effect garbage in, garbage out.”

After defining the dangers and centrality of government conspiracies in the first and second essay, Assange proposes the following:

“Attacks on conspiratorial cognitive ability.

“A man in chains knows he should have acted sooner for his ability to influence the actions of the state is near its end. To deal with powerful conspiratorial actions we must think ahead and attack the process that leads to them since the actions themselves can not be dealt with. We can deceive or blind a conspiracy by distorting or restricting the information available to it.” Julian Assange, Dec. 3, 2006

“Distorting or restricting the information available” to conspiracies is the justification for dis-intermediating the flow of information, as Wikileaks has done in the past. Gather raw data and simply post it. The strategy most recently with the Afghanistan leaks involved choosing three mainstream media news organizations as intermediaries – The New York Times, the Guardian, and Der Spiegel.

Assange closes by suggesting turning the tables on conspiracies as a means of forming public opinion and policies by the governing elites.

“We can reduce total conspiratorial power via unstructured attacks on links or through throttling and separating.

“A conspiracy sufficiently engaged in this manner is no longer able to comprehend its environment and plan robust action.

“Usually the effect runs the other way; it is conspiracy that is the agent of deception and information restriction. In the US, the programmer’s aphorism is sometimes called ”œthe Fox News effect”. Julian Assange, Dec. 3, 2006

Despite his remarks about 9/11 conspiracy theories, in 2006 Assange clearly outlined how conspiracies are used to shift government policy through justifications based on deliberate deception. False flag operations like those exposed in Turkey in just the past two years are perfect examples. His theory elaborates how deception was used in the Gulf of Tonkin incident.


Claiming an attack on United States Navy vessels by North Vietnam’s navy, President Lyndon B. Johnson got all the justification he needed start the Vietnam War that brought so much pain and loss. After the false flag incident, the U.S. Senate approved massive troop build ups and aggressive war making for years.

The government finally admitted that the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident was a fraud in 2005. Will we have to wait 41 years after each suspected “deliberate deception” to find out that major policy changes and war making efforts were formed by false flag attacks?

Also see: Michael Collins: Chris Floyd Skewers Wikileaks

END

This article may be reproduced in part or whole with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

About author View all posts

Michael Collins

DC area

21 CommentsLeave a comment

  • That Assange’s views on conspiracies have evolved or changed over time?

    That he considers some conspiracy theories more credible than others?

    Or something else I am missing?

  • both conspiracies and conspiracy theories.

    I see no contradiction in those stances.


    “The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • What’s the line from Shakespeare? “Treason never prospers”, for the good and sufficient reason that when it does, none dare call it treason. I think there’s a lesson in there somewhere :-)

  • I have several points.

    From my post post of July 28, it looks like Assange has become part of the corporate media. He franchised the Afghanistan leak to the premier corporate media outlet in the U.S., the New York Times which began spinning it in Judith Miller like ways. Haven’t we done this before?

    Assange elegantly outlines a conspiracy process at the core of governance and offers remedies (of which Wikileaks could be one). Although he gave NO examples, many come to mind.

    Then, after he’d done his franchising (rather than dis-intermediated leaks as some Wikileak’s projects have been), he gratuitously slams the 9/11 folks. What’s that about? He’s done nothing on 9/11 (to speak of). But, while arguing for the pervasiveness of conspiracies, he simply dismisses any theories contrary to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory as nuts (by implication). Doesn’t work for me.

    My point is that Assange can be as hypocritical and inconsistent as any other corporate media spinmeister and there’s a certain nastiness there when someone on the rise gratuitously slams others using only his notoriety as proof.

    If the reader wonders if Assange is becoming what he warned us about in 2006, that would be fine. I don’t know the answer but the question is worth asking at this point given all the attention to this material and process (recall, Wikileaks was the source of the East Anglia climate change leaks used by global warming deniers very effectively).

    There is not just one 9/11 conspiracy theory, there are many of varying persuasive power. The one that fits perfectly into Assange’s 2006 papers is critical. There was a clear effort by multiple parties to distort any inquiry into 9/11, to make sure that there was not a search for truth; to assure that vital documents were withheld, critical questions were never asked. One example is the appointment of Philip Zeklikow as 9/11 Commission director. Zelikow wrote the justification for the Iraq invasion as a key Bush transition team member andwas a very tight ally of Condi Rice. He controlled much of what the Commission did and wrote. Was his appointment an accident? I’d like a document dump on that mess.

    I do not agree with Assange’s emphasis on conspiracies as outlined in the two papers. It represents process over content at the expense of reality. The repressive economic system, failure to enforce the law for the elite, perpetual war, etc. end up operating as dynamic forces of control in their own right. Controlling information flow and creating self-serving story lines is important but not the core problem. Conspiracy processes require something to conspire about. This makes the conspiracy concept that Assange presents a derivative than primary problem.

  • From my post post of July 28, it looks like Assange has become part of the corporate media. He franchised the Afghanistan leak to the premier corporate media outlet in the U.S., the New York Times which began spinning it in Judith Miller like ways. Haven’t we done this before?

    Since he receives no salary from it, who co-opted who?


    “The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • that sells a lot of papers and lets them spin their spin, you’re part of corporate media. John Young in the CNET article cited in the original post comments on the money question. But you don’t need money to explain an alliance that is highly significant to the NYT, one that was voluntarily provided by Assange. I truly think he is “part of” but substituting “currently allied with” should make it undeniable. It’s a fact. It happened. Plus, these leaks don’t tell us much new, at least not now (and especially considering the primary sources – US and Afghan intel). What’s new – every single day – is that the Afghanistan war goes on without significant broad based challenges by our elected representatives.


  • Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them,and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows,or with both~FDouglas

  • conspiracy. In a only slightly roundabout way.

    Separation of the government and the governed is a natural part of the process. It is the system rebooting itself, as the old form becomes corrupted and stifles progress more than it facilitates it. Just on the ground level it can seem quite messy and drawn out.

    Basically falsehood requires far more discipline and intelligence to successfully maintain, which most of those participating don’t have, so the truth just keeps leaking out. Freudian slips.

  • Bears repeating:

    Basically falsehood requires far more discipline and intelligence to successfully maintain, which most of those participating don’t have, so the truth just keeps leaking out. Freudian slips.

    Their Freudian slips are showing more and more. I was taken aback when McChrystal said that ‘we’re sure killing a lot of civilians.’ This was the fire breathing, water walking hero. This type of reflection just didn’t fit. There’s more but that was one of the best.

  • is that he speaks of conspiracy as a means of authoritarian governance – not “conspiracy theories”. From a cursory search, the terms “conspiracy theory” or “conspiracy theories” don’t seem to appear in the essays.

    Conspiracy as governance in authoritarian regimes

    Where details are known as to the inner workings of authoritarian regimes, we see conspiratorial interactions among the political elite, not merely for preferment or favor within the regime, but as the primary planning methodology behind maintaining or strengthening authoritarian power.

    Authoritarian regimes create forces which oppose them by pushing against a people’s will to truth, love and self-realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce further resistance. Hence such schemes are concealed by successful authoritarian powers until resistance is futile or outweighed by the efficiencies of naked power. This collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population, is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial.

    This isn’t semantic nitpicking – conspiracies are by definition real things; conspiracy can be a criminal offense in and of itself. On the other hand, “conspiracy theory” in common parlance is a pejorative term for belief in what Assange appears to refer to as “false conspiracies”.

    Correct me if I’m citing the wrong passage, that was the one that jumped out at me as closest to what you were referring to.


    “The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • …I just grab the minutes of their last meeting and say I’m going to put it on the web!

    I’ve yet to meet a salaryman who hasn’t hastily grabbed the minutes back whilst protesting plaintively that “You can’t just _do_ that! You don’t how much trouble I’d get in to!”

    Aha! I say, You’re conspiring in secret eh? What are you doing that you’re so ashamed of?

    Try it yourself some time! It’s a really fun way of trolling people!

  • No one will ever compare to him. In many ways, he’s the harbinger of the accelerating collapse of the current ruling elite. They think so little of the country, a sociopath was installed as president.

    It’s very interesting that he’s almost completely off of the radar.

  • They haven’t named an aircraft carrier after him yet.

    In a few years though, I want to see his picture on a bill. Probably the million dollar bill. That way, when we buy the loaf of bread, we’ll get a couple of hundred thousand dollar bills, with a picture of his father on them.

  • No doubt about it. One can refer to them as a conspiracy theory too; perfectly acceptable usage of the English language. The pejorative connotations to “conspiracy theory” is a manufactured pejorative by the corporate elite to dismiss, out of hand, anything that gets in the way of outrageous behavior, e.g., election fraud.

    It’s an interesting paragraph or two. The problems with his conspiracy theory are the total lack of specifics and his failure to see primary causes as more important than conspiracies to further the causes; unjust economic structure, perpetual war etc. require conspiracies to support them; typically, not the other way around.

  • I have no theory about how 9/11 occurred. But I know that we don’t have the truth. I agree with Gen. Clark when he said that the Iraq War was motivated by the need to cover up command negligence leading up to and during 9/11.

    I think Assange just made an off-hand comment about “false conspiracy theories like 9/11.” He’s had a free ride up to now but when he teamed up with the New York Times, he became part of “them.” In addition, he’s now pissed off a group that has some first rate sleuths.

    Oh well, the bigger issue is why the heck are we still in Afghanistan. The only rationale Obama offered in his West Point speech justifying the buildup was to “protect our grandchildren.” Lard help us;)

  • Just think, if the powers that be had the sense to install someone with a bit more perspective and intelligence, such as Obama, they would not have completely driven the bus off the cliff and the status quo would have taken another decade or two to collapse and we would be in far worse shape when it did.
    I think the economic stranglehold would be far more insidious and the possibility of alternatives far less obvious. As it is, they look like a bunch of greedy buffoons, so their grip on power is much more tenuous.

Leave a Reply