Document:Nothing too Threatening to Publish

 article  by John Young dated 2011-07-10

---

Source: Cryptome


Wikispooks Comment

---

Written in inimitable John Young style, it pretty well sums up the position that Wikispooks aspires to. The admonition in the last line is probably the single most important part of the piece.

★ Start a Discussion about this document

---

Nothing Too Threatening to Publish

Cryptome responds to an inquiry:

Have a seat, here is a follow-up to the oft-asked question, "is there any threatening information Cryptome would not publish," and Cryptome's answer, "no, there nothing we would not publish," may be understood that nothing truly threatening to persons, institutions and nations will be sent to Cryptome. Nor to the media, nor any other public interest outlet, Wikileaks and the rest. Claims of receiving this kind of material are bogus or based on stupidity and ignorance, all too often lying to conceal being deceived.

The reason is simple, such information is too valuable to give away for free, patriotic rationales notwithstanding (patriots are all too often misinformed due to the myopia patriotism fosters).

This kind of information is worth much more on the black market, under the negotiating table, in drop boxes, to spies, to nations, to extorionists, to blackmailers, and the full range of cheaters for profit.

Fake threatening material is amply distributed, some given away freely to promote a source, there is perhaps more of that than the genuine material, especially from those who ignorantly believe the fake material is genuine -- the insiders conceit.

Redactions of so-called threatening material is similarly bogus, a technique for exaggerating the importance of the material and more importantly, to enhance value of the redactor.

In the case of national threats, it should be understood that such threats are never conveniently assembled as transferable packages. Only fools think that. Instead national protections are diversely distributed in order to prevent their theft or corruption, and are booby-trapped with markers and tracers that can track the entire path of meddling, access and transfer.

That is why it takes sophisticated, prolonged analysis to constitute diverse sources of information into a credible account and weed out the false and misleading -- again in particular the false and misleading believed by a source to be genuine who is most likely being exploited as an unwitting dupe.

It is no accident, for example, that Daniel Ellsberg withheld material from the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers affair -- withholding is enhancement of value. And no accident that the Times and Ellsberg cannot give up touting their role as instances of higher responsibility. Disclosure of tiny selections from a vast official literature on the war like this requires commensurate exaggeration of significance by editorial masquerade.

Masquerade, entertainment, is what brings in the profits , never the undoctored material which is nearly always tedious and demanding and incomplete. A blazingly effective disclosure is always bogus, and for that it is to be enjoyed and celebrated as fictional output like intelligence briefs and investigative journalism exposes.

To be sure, it can be argued that all "information," a fabricated neologism, a kissing cousin to vanity-driven "intelligence," and as bogus as "news" or "gospel" or "disclosures."

Not to overlook that official secrets are the greatest threat to democracy no matter who is coerced or duped into protecting them by being seduced with insider privileges.

In opposition to secrets and their complicit dramatic disclosure, democracy requires patient trial and error, study and understanding of how to make it work against those who desire to asymmetrically dominate its openness whether by government, commerce, education or belief distortion of what is publicly known of authoritative deception.

To level the playing field of information exaggeration, it would be fair to ask Cryptome and its kissing cousins whether they would sell truly threatening information underhandedly rather than publish free samples to build a market for the rest. The answer will always be a lie wrapped in indignation. Followed by a confidential come hither note like this.

As we see in the forever breaking and threatening news world of porcine spies and pig kissing "public interest" barbecuers.

If nothing else, disbelieve Cryptome [and Wikispooks - ed]. Think for yourself.