#Guardian Lies..A New Blog Spot EXPOSES The Guardian

http://guardianlies.com/

#Wikileaks UPDATES: #occupywallstreet !

http://thedisclosureproject-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2011/09/occupywallstreet-wikileaks-update.html

#Wikileaks #wlfind #Guardian EXPOSED AGAIN !

http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com/2011/09/hackgate-guardian-political-corrupt.html

#Cryptome #Wikileaks #Murdoch :Wall Street Journal Secrecy

To: "Whalen, Jeanne" <Jeanne.Whalen[at]wsj.com>
From: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:45 +0600
Subject: RE: from the WSJ

Jeanne,

Following up our telephone exchange on Friday:

1. You said the WSJ editor turned down the use of Rupert Murdoch's
penthouse for an inteview because editorial and business are kept
separate and Murdoch is business. That is hoarily disingenuous for
no media keeps editorial and business separate, the two are
inseparable with business always in control.

2. I said there is no need for me to comment further on Wikileaks, 
the story is now a churn of publicity stunts by Wikileaks, its
supporters and detractors.

3. You said there was interest in reporting on Cryptome in addition
to Wikileaks. I said that is another story, not related to Wikileaks.

To amplify 3, Cryptome shares with Wikileaks and many others
older and newer, the aim of reducing secrecy in government,
business, organizations, institutions and individuals.

Pervasive secrecy corrupts as an essential protector of those who
want control and manipulate the citzenry and subjects. Those who 
advocate secrecy always justify it by claims of threats that require 
secrecy to prevent or fight.

In truth, secrecy protects and empowers those who use it and 
weakens those for whom it is invoked to protect.

Secrecy hides privilege, incompetence and deception of
those who depend on it and who would be disempowered
without it.

The very few legitimate uses of secrecy have served as the
seed for unjustified expanded and illegitimate uses.

A vast global enterprise of governments, institutions, organizations,
businesses and individuals dependent up the secrecy of abuse
of secrecy has evolved into an immensely valuable practice whose
cost to the public and benefits to its practitioners are concealed
by secrecy.

Secrecy has led to a very large undergournd criminal enterprise
dealing with stolen, forged, faked, and planted "secret" information
involving governments, businesses, NGOs, institutions and
individuals. Its value likely exceeds that of the drug trade, with 
which it works in concert to hide assets, procedures and operators
that is keep the secrets in emulation of the secretkeepers.

Ex-secretkeepers are involved in this undergroung enterprise
as beneficiares, informants, facilitators of exchanges with
the agoveground secretkeepers and as spies for hire.

Secrecy is the single most threatening practice against democracy
and democratic procedures such that it is highly likely that there is
no democracy or democratic institutions unsullied by secrecy.

Secrecy poses the greatest threat to the United States because
it divides the poplulation into two groups, those with access to
secret information and those without. This asymmetrial access
to information vital to the United States as a democracy will
eventually turn it into an autocracy run by those with access
to secret informaton, protected by laws written to legitimate
this privileged access and to punish those who violate these
laws.

Those with access to secret information cannot honestly
partake in public discourse due to the requirement to lie
and dissumlate about what is secret information. They can
only speak to one another never in public. Similarly those
without access to secret information cannot fully
debate the issues which affect the nation, including
alleged threats promulagsted by secretkeepers who
are forbidden by law to disclose what they know.

Senator Patrick Moynihan, among others, has explored
the damaging consequences of excessive secrecy. Attempts
to debate these consequences have been suppressed
or distorted by secrecy practices and laws.

Efforts, governmental and private, to diminish secrecy
have had modest effects, and the amount of secret information
continues to grow virtually unchecked and concealed by
the very means questioned, secrecy itself.

These secrecy-reduction efforts are continually being attacked 
by the secrets enterprise by secrecy-wielding oveseers, including 
presidents, legislators and the courts. 

While some of the privileged media challenge these practices, 
most do not and thereby reinforce the unsavory.

It should not be surprising that this leads to an increase in 
efforts to challenge secrecy practices by those excluded, 
including such initiatives as, among many others around
the globe, Cryptome and Wikileaks.

Cryptome disagrees with the use of secrecy by Wikileaks
and its monetization of secret information which mimics
those it ostensibly opposes, say, Rupert Murdoch, among
untold others.

John

http://cryptome.org/0002/wsj-secrecy.htm

#Guardian: Why we are publishing Julian Assange's (unauthorised) autobiography

• Canongate admires what Assange and WikiLeaks achieved. We are proud of the book itself, and aware of the sweet irony of it all

• 

Julian Assange – the Unauthorised Autobiography 'is a compelling portrait of one of the most mercurial figures alive today'. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

GUARDIAN STAB ASSANGE IN THE BACK BUT CANNOT SEE THE STRAW IN THEIR OWN EYE. CENSORSHIP OF THE MOST EVIL KIND.  PLEASE SEE LINK

http://wikileaksleaks.blogspot.com/2011/09/wlfind-assange-guardion-censorship.html

It wasn't supposed to happen like this.

Late last year Canongate, the publishing house I work for, signed Julian Assange's autobiography to huge media attention. Julian had just been released from Wandsworth prison and wanted to find a publisher for his book. And why not? Everyone else was at it. Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the disillusioned former WikiLeaks spokesperson, was busy spinning his memoir. The Guardian and the New York Times were eager to put their respective versions of events across. Here was Julian's chance to raise some much-needed money for WikiLeaks and to set his critics straight. And Canongate Books seemed like the perfect fit: a small, independent publishing house that has always been happy to take a risk and admired what Julian and WikiLeaks had achieved.

The first three months couldn't have gone much better. Canongate's managing director, Jamie Byng, and I travelled up to Norfolk to see Julian in early January. Our first priority was to find a ghostwriter to work on the project. Julian was very clear about what he wanted: "I have all the facts. Find me a novelist who can turn those facts into stories."


We struck it lucky with the writer we found: an award-winning novelist who was equally comfortable writing serious, hard-hitting reportage. He was a strong character too. Somebody who could put his hand up and tell Julian when he was talking shit or veering off subject. It was a brilliant combination and the two men worked late into the night, most nights, drinking whisky in the icy-cold drawing room at Ellingham Hall through January, February and March.


At the same time, Canongate – on Julian's behalf – struck rights deals with 38 of the best publishing houses around the world. This really would be a global book launch, which seemed fitting for the founder of WikiLeaks and his international fanbase. What could possibly go wrong?


Julian's ghostwriter delivered a brilliant first draft of the book, bang on schedule, at the end of March. We read it and loved it. Julian didn't. He didn't love it. We're not even sure how much he actually read. It was an extraordinary reaction to a manuscript he should have been grateful for and immensely proud of.


What followed was a series of broken promises. We set Julian free to work on the manuscript himself. He had six weeks to edit and rewrite. On the day he was supposed to return it to us, we heard that he'd lost all of his work. It was buried in one of his many laptops and he couldn't find it (dogs and homework came to mind). Then he told us he wanted to cancel his contract. But he couldn't repay his advance. He had already signed it over to his lawyers to cover his escalating legal bills.

There have been countless other twists and turns to this extraordinary story. But the reason we've decided to publish the book – against Julian's will, but with clear forewarning – is this: with no prospect of ever seeing Julian's advance repaid to us, and with little chance of convincing Julian to engage with that first draft, we had only one sensible option – to publish the draft that we felt was so strong and which conformed so closely to the original brief.

There is a financial imperative, of course. We hope that in publishing the book we will recover some of our losses. But we are also immensely proud of the book itself. It is a compelling portrait of one of the most mercurial figures alive today.


As for that much commented-upon subtitle, The Unauthorised Autobiography, it is definitely a publishing first. And given we're talking about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks there is, of course, a sweet irony to it too.


• Nick Davies, not to be confused with the Guardian reporter Nick Davies, is publishing director at Canongate

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/22/julian-assange-unauthorised-autobiography-wikileaks-canongate?CMP=twt_gu

#Wikileaks :Congressional Research Service releases report on WikiLeaks, publishing classified info, Espionage Act, & the 1st Amd:

 http://bit.ly/qbuRvc

#wlfind #Cablegate at work...

http://www.cablegatesearch.net/crowdsource-central.php