In my previous
articles I pointed out the most obvious problems I have with
WikiLeaks — the fact that its leaks seem to leave larger
Zionist imperial goals untouched; its antagonistic stance to
9-11 truth; it frantic validation and promotion by major media;
the falsity of many of its claims of confidentiality for
leakers; the implausibility of its achievements absent
intelligence or government connections; the contradictions
between its public advocacy of transparency and its own
secrecy; and the authoritarian tendencies in the writing and
personality of its co-founder, Julian Assange, tendencies that
contradict the anarchist persona presented for public
In brief, to the question what is WikiLeaks?
My answer is whatever it is, it has become a
vehicle for disinformation.
Next, the companion question. Who is behind
the answers are less clear.
to several sources, WL is “run” by a non-profit called the
Sunshine Press. Assange is reported to be director and
co-founder. According to the WikiLeaks website, the Sunshine
Press is an “international non-profit organization funded by
human rights campaigners, investigative journalists,
technologists, lawyers and the general public.”
doesn’t make it clear if Sunshine Press and WikiLeaks are
the same thing or two separate outfits. A little googling
gives me three Sunshine presses. None of them is our guy.
site called World News that seems to be devoted
to WikiLeaks news, I also find a video titled Sunshine
Press announcement that
refers to Sunshine realty management, a recipient of $250,0000
in grant money from
However, the URL for Sunshine Suites, sunshiney.com, doesn’t
show any relationship to Wikileaks, so the appearance of the
company next to WikiLeaks news and videos seems to be the
result of mistaken identity.
web site we want turns out to be Sunshine press.org (dot org,
not dot com).
Facebook page for Sunshine Press.org lists three URLs http://www.sunshinepress.org http://www.wikileaks.org
and http://www.collateralmurder.com and clicking on the
sunshine press.org link takes you back to WikiLeaks.
to Sunshine Press’s Facebook page, the two organizations,
WikiLeaks and Sunshine press, are the same. This seems to be
borne out by the fact that the Sunshine Press Youtube channel consists of only
more googling about sunshinepress.org yields several IP
addresses; various domain names; its server, everydns.net; the
location of the host in Sweden; the page rank (7); links (37);
and other information.
(“http://www.sunshinepress.org/. Wikileaks. Sunshinepress”) has
one IP number (184.108.40.206) , which is the same as
for sunshinepress.org, but the reverse is host-88-80-2-32.cust.prq.se. Apple-memory.org, leaks.be, wikileaks.to, sunshinepress.org, apple-memory.de and at least three other
hosts point to the same IP.
Sunshinepress.org is a domain controlled by
four name servers at everydns.net.
four of them are on different IP networks. The primary name
server is ns1.everydns.net.
mail for sunshinepress.org is handled by one mail
server at wikileaks.org.
missing the IP:s of one server: mail.wikileaks.org.
ranked #514197 world wide as sunshinepress.org and is hosted on a server
It has 37 inlinks.
Google Pagerank™ of sunshinepress.org is 7. backorder
sunshinepress.org for 49.95 USD.
vendor reliability, privacy and child safety of this site is
excellent. (more on
not listed in any blacklists.
still couldn’t find a web page devoted to Sunshine Press
itself, although, according to the WikiLeaks site, SP has been
in existence since 1996.
referencing WL at Cryptome goes back to October 2006. Sunshine
Press (which doesn’t appear in the Cryptome emails) seems to
have come into being at the same time and seems to be identical
with WL. We can tentatively conclude that there is no separate
development is a
new limited liability company formed on behalf of WikiLeaks called
Sunshine Press Productions, which is registered in Iceland:
brand new company registered on behalf of Wikileaks is called
Sunshine Press Production – the same as the formal
international name of Wikileaks, RUV reports. The chairman of
the company is Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and he shares
the board of directors with filmmaker Ingi Ragnar Ingason and
journalist Kristinn Hrafnsson. The deputy board member is Gavin
MacFadyen, a professor of journalism in London. The company is
registered at the home address of one of the board members at
Klapparhlid in Mosfellsbaer.
the names mentioned in this paragraph give us some interesting
an Icelandic investigative journalist formerly with national
broadcaster RUV and a staff member of WL since April 2010, is
now the public
face of WL.
Hrafnsson is also an outside advisor to the Icelandic Modern Media
started by Birgitta
anarchist and member of the Icelandic parliament. IMMI seeks to
a kind of Switzerland
for journalistic freedom. Investigative reporter, Wayne Madsen,
has argued that IMMI is a
stalking horse for
currency speculator George Soros’ interests.
inspiration for IMMI was reportedly a presentation by Assange
and WL’s German staffer Daniel Domscheit-Berg in Iceland, just
prior to WL’s outing of Iceland’s corrupt Kaupthing bank, which
collapsed in August 2009. Other accounts describe IMMI as
having been initiated by Soros spokesman, Mark Thompson, even
earlier, in May 2009. (Domscheit-Berg has since fallen out with
Assange and left to form his own company, OpenLeaks).
Jonsdottir is also, and significantly, a member of
International Network of Parliamentarians for Tibet, which “brings together 133
Parliamentarians from 30 Parliaments to advance the Tibet
issue in governments worldwide.” according to the activist
Tibetan autonomy, as championed by the Anglo-American elite, is
reported to be a pretext
for encroachment on Chinese sovereignty. Tibet, itself, is central
to ecosystems and desertification in the region, as it provides
water for several countries. Its grasslands also act as a
carbon sink. Recall that a recent WL leak, trumpeted by the
major media, was the reported assertion of the Dalai Lama that climate
change trumps political issues in Tibet.
while Westerners consider the Dalai Lama a benign spiritual guru,
not everyone else finds him so warm and fuzzy. Many in Asia consider him an ethnic grievance-monger, who wants to segregate
Tibetans from Han Chinese. His political positions also fit
nicely with Anglo-American imperial ambitions in that region,
for which human rights and climate-change are cover for
surveillance and control.
after all, is a highly strategic and sensitive area. The
Dalai Lama is reported to be financially supported by the National
Endowment for Democracy and NED, itself, receives CIA funding.
is not the only interesting figure in this group.
MacFadyen, with whom Julian Assange is now staying, is also
someone with strong connections to the financial elites.
MacFadyan is a senior producer-director at corporate mainstream
outlets, BBC and PBS, and a director
of the NY conference of financial and business journalists at the Columbia Journalism
He is also the director of the Center for Investigative
where Assange is listed as a teacher, along with such
well-known names as leftist author-activists, Mike Davis,
John Pilger, and Vandana Shiva. Sponsors of the CIJ are George
(which, notably, sponsors a number of pro-Tibet
projects), the David and Elaine Potter Foundation, the
Ford Foundation (another foundation with ties to the CIA), Park
Foundation, City University London and several smaller
a third connection to the Anglo-American elites. Assange is
staying at the 600 acre Suffolk manor of Vaughan
former British army captain, who owns a popular journalists’
club in Paddington in London, called The Frontline Club (along with the related
Frontline TV News).
it is reported, has sponsored a documentary that “casts doubt
on allegations of a massacre at Jenin on the West Bank by the Israel
Defense Forces in 2002″ and has received funding from George
Soros’ Open Society Institute.
side note, notice the company Assange keeps. If Assange is a
“libertarian,” then, he travels a lot in very
government-friendly circles. He is most certainly not the
anarchist he’s often portrayed to be and which hackers and
computer geeks often really are.
return to the question of WL’s origins, the first part of this
series pointed out that many of WL’s earliest staffers were Chinese
dissidents and pro-Tibet activists.
sum up, the Soros
connection turns up in six separate WL relationships:
Chinese and pro-Tibetan volunteers/advisors, some of whom
worked at Soros connected Radio Free Asia and
National Endowment for Democracy
connection through Hrafnsson to IMMI, considered by many to be
a stalking horse for Soros in Iceland
connection to Jonsdottir and her Tibetan advocacy, which parallels
objectives of Radio Free Asia
and MacFadyen’s sponsorship by the Open Society Institute, with
its pro-Tibetan positions
Club’s funding by the Open Society Institute
requests by WL in 2007 for funding from the National Endowment
for Democracy and Freedom House, both CIA connected. (Note:
Open Society Foundation denies funding WikiLeaks).
this regard, it’s relevant that the Open Society Institute had
no critical comment about Wikileaks until recently, when it
suddenly joined the chorus of voices suggesting that WL’s
actions could have jeopardized the lives of Afghan informants (WSJ, August 9, 2010).
happened about a week after border security detained
WL’s Jacob Applebaum for
several hours. (Applebaum is a security researcher and hacker
who works for the Tor privacy protection project as well as for
question. Who specifically set up WikiLeaks?
little research into the first appearance of WikiLeaks on the
web shows that Assange is not the only name associated with it
from its inception. On the Internet archive (the Wayback
machine) the earliest archived pages for
back to January 14, 2007. There are 60 pages in 2007 for the
outfit, 19 for 2008, 0 for 2009, and 87 for 2010.
click on January 14, 2007, gives us mostly dead links, but the
contact page produces two web addresses: w i k i l e a k s @ w
i k i l e a k s . o r g & p r e s s @ w i k i l e a k s . o
r g, a phone number (a cell number) in Washington DC,
+1 (202) 657-6222, and a skype address, wikileaks.
cell number turns out to be registered in Adelphi, Virginia,
and it traces back 20 miles to Reston Virginia, which seems a
bit odd, considering that WL’s professed interests originally
were in Asia and Africa and its volunteers were supposedly
mostly from the Pacific and Europe.
is a center for outfits working on US cybersecurity,
information technology, and defense, as indeed is the whole
DC-MD-Va metropolitan area. Among many similar companies HQ’d
there, one finds NCI, whose website announces
that it is “an industry leader and provider of full-spectrum IO
(Information Operations) enabling technologies and services to
promote and protect our US federal government customers’
information and information systems.”
electronic warfare (EW) and Cyberwar are its specialties.
why I hadn’t come across the Reston cell phone in articles about
Wikileaks, I did another search and found that, in fact, in
March, 2007 a Columbia Journalism Review intern, Dan Goldberg, had published something about it, only the piece had been
removed from the web.
is one angle for further research.
double-checking the domain information, I did a whois search for WikiLeaks.org which
pulled up the following information:
Domain Name: WIKILEAKS.ORG
Created On: 04-Oct-2006 05:54:19 UTC
Last Updated On: 17-Dec-2010 01:57:59
UTC Expiration Date: 04-Oct-2018 05:54:19
UTC Sponsoring Registrar: Dynadot, LLC (R1266-LROR)
Status: CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID: CP-13000
Registrant Name: John Shipton c/o Dynadot Privacy
Registrant Street1: PO Box 701
Registrant City: San Mateo
Registrant State/Province: CA
Registrant Postal Code: 94401
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.6505854708
address of the registrar, Dynadot, as it appears at page insider is PO Box 1072, Belmont,
the email is email@example.com and the phone number is
called, and Dynadot confirmed that it is the current registrar
A Cnet blog article and documents from the Julius Baer court case also confirm
that the registrar in 2008 was California
LLC, Dynadot, and that the registrant/owner was John Shipton,
an Australian citizen resident in Nairobi. This is also
confirmed by the Notice of Intent to Appear filed by Shipton and his California law
Chadwick, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. Shipton has a Nairobi address in the notice and Dynadot
has its usual San
who is John Shipton? Does he exist in his own right or is he
simply a nom-de-plume of Julian Assange? Most likely
the second, since it would be grotesquely coincidental to have
two Australian nationals resident in Kenya, both
involved in human rights activism at the same outfit. Again, more
research is in order.
original whois information for WikiLeaks appears at Cryptome.org, where the registrant’s
name is given as John Young, the owner of Cryptome and a
co-founder of Wikileaks. The Cryptome site carries the email
correspondence between Young and Wikileaks from a restricted
mailing list housed at the collective, rise-up.net, in 2006-07.
letters show Young to be first enthusiastic about WL and then
increasingly frustrated and annoyed by its methods. He calls
the claim of over a million documents exaggerated and the
repeated assertions of superior ethics and confidentiality
deeply suspect, in the absence of a track-record.
final straw comes when WL says it needs $5 million in funding
by the summer of 2007 to stay alive. Young erupts with
accusations that WL is a CIA “hustle.”
plus side for WL, the Young correspondence suggests how WL
might have got hold of names of activists. Members seem to have
been regular readers of Counterpunch, Z Mag,
and Mother Jones. I’d written several pieces for Counterpunch
in 2005-06, and it’s possible that’s how they got hold of names
that is an explanation that does not undermine WL.
the Cryptome emails note another problem that the review site,
Wikileak.com (no S) describes in great detail:
(with an S) makes extraordinary claims about confidentiality
and anonymity that are just that — claims. They’re not
justified by an examination of the actual procedures involved
in uploading documents to the site. These procedures are often
shoddy, incompetent, uncoordinated, or even deliberately
misleading, as Wikileak.com (no S) notes pointedly.
taking all this into account, WL seems to have been founded and
registered in 2006 by Julian Paul Assange/John Shipton and John
Young OR by a group of activists who, for whatever reason, let
Assange and Young wear the public face of the company.
were these activists?
original web entry on the subject (since changed) said WL was
the creation of Chinese dissidents and other activists. This is
also the claim of an article by Cass Sunstein, Obama’s
Information Czar, in The Washington Post in February
2007, “A Brave New Wikiworld.”
Young says that the Sunstein article
was the first public introduction of WikiLeaks and that
WikiLeaks might well be the cointelpro operation to infiltrate conspiracy
groups that Sunstein seemed to be arguing for in a later (2008)
this isn’t accurate. WikiLeaks had already been introduced to
the public by a Time Magazine story, “A Wiki for whistle-blowers” a month earlier than the
Sunstein piece, in January 2007. Time, Washington
Post – this is pretty high-profile coverage for an outfit
that had just begun three months earlier. What’s even more
interesting is that the Time piece, like the Post
piece, both point out the concurrent start of Intellipedia, the
intelligence-sharing project started by US intelligence in
October 2006, the month when WikiLeaks began.
articles also explicitly mention rumors about WikiLeaks
possibly being a CIA front. This is quite curious. Were these
papers simply reporting all the information available to them?
Were they going on Young’s statement at the time, or did they
have other sources for this suspicion? If the suspicions were
credible, if WL was plausibly an intel operation, why the
full-court press? If the suspicions were not credible, why
mention them so pointedly?
it’s impossible to say for sure without first-hand information.
explanation of how activists created WL, comes, once more, from
latest Cryptome posts on the subject, Young talks about Assange
as a craven spokesman for WL, seduced by money and the
promise of fame to betray the original ideals of the outfit.
Those ideals, says Young, grew out of a cypherpunk mailing list going back to 1992 that
debated issues around cryptography and privacy. Wikipedia has the list with individual
Assange, who is described as WL’s founder, the inventor of
deniable cyptography and the co-author of “Underground,” there
are three Bell lab researchers; two elite university
professors; the Chief Technical Officer of PGP corporation; the
creators of Bit Torrent and other software/technologies; the
founders of Anonymizer.Inc., Interhack Corp., HavenCo., C2Net
and of Cypherpunk itself; a researcher at Lawrence Livermore
labs; the founder and lawyer of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation; a former Chief Scientist from Intel; authors of
several books – “Assassination Politics,” “A Cypher Punk’s
Manifesto,” “God Wants You Dead,” and “A Crypto-Anarchist
Manifesto”; Sun Microsystems employees; and a noted blogger and
author on computer security issues.
are accomplished activists, no question. And if they were at
some point involved with the creation of WikiLeaks, or were
aware of it, or promoted it, then it’s no wonder that the
project quickly got such a high level of media attention. On
the other hand, the involvement of the high-profile cypherpunks
lends weight to the notion that intelligence played a hand in the
creation of WikiLeaks. It is well-known by now that important
American businesses have often been co-opted by the intelligence
that, it’s impossible that companies in the vanguard of
technological development in encryption, security, privacy, and
espionage, especially as it relates to nuclear energy (Lawrence Livermore labs), could have operated
without some monitoring or input from the CIA. Ergo, if
WikiLeaks were, in fact, the creation of the cypherpunks, I
believe intelligence would have been aware of it and involved
in it, as private contractors are deeply involved in
Homeland security at every level.
course, it’s not only US intelligence that
is involved in Homeland Security. Many have seen the hand of
the Israeli intelligence and
security business in it
WikiLeaks grew out of the cypherpunk list or not, it’s not in
dispute that Assange was quickly WL’s public face. In fact,
he’s repeatedly and abrasively insisted that he was the “the heart and soul” of the outfit, angering
colleagues and eventually leading to public fall-outs with some
of them (Young, Domscheit-Berg).
the cypherpunk list, another group of activists have been
treated as the creators of WL — the Chinese dissidents
originally named on WL’s website.
were these activists?
are the ones mentioned on the web page originally: “Chinese
dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and startup company
technologists, from the U.S.,
there is another list mentioned in an email dated December 9,
2006 from Cryptome.org’s exchanges with Wikileaks which refers
to WL’ activists by their work (I have guessed at three of them
Retired New York
architect and notorious intelligence leak facilitator (John
Young of Cryptome.org?)
2) Euro cryptographer/programmer
3) Pacific physicist and illustrator
4) A pacific author and economic policy lecturer
5) Euro, Ex-Cambridge mathematician/cryptographer/programmer
6) Euro businessman and security specialist/activist
7) Author of software than runs 40% of the world’s web sites
8) US pure
mathematician with criminal law background
9) An infamous US
10) Pacific cryptographer/physicist and activist (Julian
11) US/euro cryptographer and activist/programmer
12) Pacific programmer
13) Pacific architect / foreign policy wonk
doesn’t sound quite like “Chinese dissidents, journalists
etc.,” but both lists do refer to technologists. That fact
makes it plausible that some, or all, of the original WL
material came from hacking, and not whistle-blowing, a theory
that fits with a WL letter to John Young on January 7, 2007
suggesting that hackers were involved with some of the
material, and that WL was gathering so much material it didn’t
know where 90% of the material came from or what was in it:
going to fuck them all. Chinese mostly, but not entirely a
feint. Invention abounds. Lies, twists and distorts everywhere
needed for protection. Hackers monitor Chinese and other intel
as they burrow into their targets, when they pull, so do we.
Inexhaustible supply of material. Near 100,000 documents/emails
a day. We’re going to crack the world open and let it flower
into something new. If fleecing the CIA will assist us, then
fleece we will. We have pullbacks from NED, CFR, Freedom House
and other CIA teats. We have all of pre 2005 Afghanistan. Almost
all of India
fed. Half a dozen foreign ministries. Dozens of political
parties and consulates, world bank, apec, UN sections, trade
groups, tibet and fulan dafa associations and… russian phishing
mafia who pull data everywhere. We’re drowning. We don’t even
know a tenth of what we have or who it belongs to. We stopped
storing it at 1Tb.”
you interpret this, one thing is clear, right from the start,
Wikileaks was a conduit for a lot of material that the WL staff
themselves could not identify or source. If an intelligence
agency wanted to plant its own slanted “disclosures” in the
welter of documents being dumped on the site, it would be only
too easy to do.