Global Research Feature Article—
Editor’s Preface: As our readers are aware we have published many articles on this site and our companion site, Cyrano’s Journal, in support of WikiLeaks and in defense of its chief editor and founder, Julian Assange. In a previous bulletin note to our subscribers I even said that, regrettably, far too many voices on the left had been mild in praise, silent, or even hostile to WikiLeaks. I thought this rather odd, if not downright ungrateful and not very smart from a political standpoint. I felt and I continue to feel that if genuine, WikiLeaks is one of the best things that could have happened on the world political front in a very long time, as concentrated wealth and power have reached a point of hypocrisy, arrogance, and criminal destructiveness of such horrendous magnitude that exposure and retaliation is now the only hope humanity has to save itself and everything else that is struggling to live in this tortured planet.But how can there be any public response if people remain atomized and politically in the dark? The abrupt emergence of WikiLeaks on the world stage quickly began to change the equation, raising the hopes of political activists the world over, including, of course, those who labor in the information trenches of the Internet.But WikiLeaks is such a strange, unexpected and improbable phenomenon that some incongruities are now peaking the curiosity of astute and respected observers on the left (such as Michel Chossudovsky, head of Global Research, a very valuable information asset for progressives), and some of these are positing straightforwardly that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks may simply constitute a masterful disinformation operation whose main beneficiary, appearances to the contrary, is the United States (ruling class) and its global accomplices. A logical and difficult question is why the disinformers themselves—i.e., The New York Times, Der Spiegel, etc., and even establishment liberal organs like Britain’s The Guardian—would participate in neutralizing the effects of pro status quo disinformation? Why would they cooperate in any way with Assange instead of simply confining him to the Siberia they usually send countless other anti-corporate dissidents and anti-imperialists?My own take is that there are several factors that could explain such a posture. I don’t think these arguments clear the deck of possible objections, but they do have some cogency. Consider:The fatalist argument.
- Mainstream media editors and owners—in substantive ways willing and witting propaganda appendages of the global capitalist hegemon—may have reasoned that Assange could not be contained and that the materials were going to be circulated throughout the Net with or without their participation. At least playing ball with Assange would mean some form of containment of the possible harm, as they could gain the power of “redaction” while affording a closer study of the man and his operation.
- It’s capitalism, stupid!
- Careerism, competitiveness and “professional pride” play a huge role in the actions of men at the top of the power pyramid, and the media and political spheres are as crammed with such types as corporate boardrooms. Maybe none of the media giants wanted to be “scooped” or, better, “dissed” by being left out of such tsunami of revelations.
- Dangerous example
- WikiLeaks represents a risky example of whistleblowing—of industrial dimensions—for a global regime propped up by elaborate lies and mythologies, many of which were created and remain focused on keeping the American population passive and supportive, however reluctantly, of the imperialist agenda. WikiLeaks can and may indeed give many other people ideas around the world, extremely dangerous ideas when we consider that we’re talking here about exposing not only the chicanery and mediocrity of the ruling circles, but a long list of heinous crimes whose secrecy remains essential to the continuing legitimacy of their rule.
- Harm done
On balance, the reputation, such as it is, of US officialdom, and America’s pretense to ethical leadership has been dented if not damaged permanently among wider segments of the world and domestic population than ever before when compared with many decades of patient work by regular left activists. Embarrassing secrets have come to the fore and more may be in the offing. Some of these revelations have done considerable harm to the official image of America’s military interventions—from lofty purposes to methods. Depending on the establishment source proffering the opinion, the revelations have been denounced as “trivial” in new information value to “great betrayals of the national security”, meriting charges of treason or even outright assassination. Judging from the brouhaha, it’s difficult to believe that the powers that be would risk exposing their dirty laundry to the world for the sake of gaining some momentary advantages. Still, the murky waters of ruling class politics, especially its undercover operations, warrant the question: Is WikiLeaks too good to be true? Is it a gigantic government con job? Or is Assange’s collaboration with the mainstream media a Faustian pact whereby while he hopes to gain access to mass audiences he ends up being used by the commercial media and the political interests it represents? In this essay, obviously not a happy one, our esteemed colleague and fellow activist Michel Chossudovsky makes the case that it is. We hope the truth lies elsewhere.
—Patrice Greanville
_____________________________
Global Research, December 13, 2010 [print_link]
“World bankers, by pulling a few simple levers that control the flow of money, can make or break entire economies. By controlling press releases of economic strategies that shape national trends, the power elite are able to not only tighten their stranglehold on this nation’s economic structure, but can extend that control world wide. Those possessing such power would logically want to remain in the background, invisible to the average citizen.” (Aldous Huxley)______
“I felt and I continue to feel that if genuine, WikiLeaks is one of the best things that could have happened on the world political front in a very long time” – Agreed. It should seem obvious. The Wikileaks drama goes to show how low political consciousness really is. The sheer arrogance, if not so obnoxious and dangerous, is really bordering on the comically absurd these days. It’s amazing how the elite strut as if they have something to actually be proud of – that smug Obama face. They really must be so cynical, and have such low expectations for… Read more »
PaulD: Yea, these are people who not only stage enormous crime, they go about as you say being treated and expecting to be treated like royalty. That day you mention when all those ultraposh playgrounds of the rich are ruined by floods and constant lousy weather, I’d like to be on a boat on the beach watching the whole thing and toasting their long-deferred misery!
BPrescott/ Anneheim, CA