PDA

View Full Version : Julian Assange and Wikileaks: “Donald? It’s a Change Anyway”



Trish
01-04-2017, 10:00 AM
Repubblica met Julian Assange in the embassy, nicely decorated for the Christmas season.
These last ten years have been intense ones for his organisation, but the last two months have been truly hectic: WikiLeaks’ publication of Hillary Clinton’s and US Democrats’ emails hit headlines around the world.

The US government hit back, accusing WikiLeaks of having received these materials from Russian cybercriminals with the political agenda of influencing the US elections, a claim some experts question. In the midst of these publications, Ecuador even cut off Julian Assange’s internet connection. Finally, in November, Swedish prosecutors travelled to London to question the WikiLeaks’ founder after six years of judicial paralysis. In a matter of a few weeks, they will be deciding whether to charge or absolve him once and for all. Next February, Ecuador will be holding political elections. If Julian Assange loses asylum, will he be extradited to Sweden and then to the US?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/julian-...anyway/5564584

Interesting piece. My impression of Mr. Assange is that his goal is to topple all governments with specific focus on China and America. The interview touched on the history between himself and Hilary Clinton but what I came away with and found most disturbing was this sense that he has been seduced by one of the things he claims to despise, misuse of power. He has become the conduit to manipulation.

If we want to see what our future may look like we should all pay attention to what Mr. Assange does and how those who are using him are manipulating leaders and governments.

MisterVeritis
01-04-2017, 10:02 AM
He has become the conduit to manipulation.
If we want to see what our future may look like we should all pay attention to what Mr. Assange does and how those who are using him are manipulating leaders and governments.
How often have I been manipulated by someone telling me the truth?

MMC
01-04-2017, 10:10 AM
:wink:


Assange To Hannity: Source For WikiLeaks Was Not Russian Government.....


In an exclusive interview with FOX News Channel's Sean Hannity the founder of WikiLeaks Julian Assange said Russia was not the source for the DNC and John Podesta hacks.


[HANNITY: Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?


JULIAN ASSANGE: Yes. We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party.]


Hannity's full interview with Assange will air Tuesday night at 10pm ET. More from the interview:



[ASSANGE: Our publications had wide uptake by the American people, they're all true. But that's not the allegation that’s being presented by the Obama White House. So, why such a dramatic response? Well, the reason is obvious. They’re trying to delegitimize the Trump administration as it goes into the White House. They are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate President...

ASSANGE: Our source is not a state party, so the answer for our interactions is no. But if we look at our most recent statement from the US government, which is on the 29th of December, OK, we had five different branches of government, Treasury, DHS, FBI, White House presenting their accusations to underpin Obama’s throwing out 29 Russian diplomats. What was missing from all of those statements? The word WikiLeaks. It’s very strange.].....snip~


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...overnment.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/01/02/assange_to_hannity_our_source_was_not_the_russian_ government.html)

Trish
01-04-2017, 10:12 AM
How often have I been manipulated by someone telling me the truth?
I think we can all be manipulated when we are given selected information. It's human nature. The older we become the more we realize we should avoid knee jerk reactions. Disseminating pieces of information in sections over a period of time can manipulate the meaning of the information. I'm not saying the information shouldn't be released but I think we should always question the motivation of the person releasing the information and realize that the information we are subjected to was selected for a purpose.

MMC
01-04-2017, 10:19 AM
I think we can all be manipulated when we are given selected information. It's human nature. The older we become the more we realize we should avoid knee jerk reactions. Disseminating pieces of information in sections over a period of time can manipulate the meaning of the information. I'm not saying the information shouldn't be released but I think we should always question the motivation of the person releasing the information and realize that the information we are subjected to was selected for a purpose.

So how does that concept work with Whistleblowers. Like those with the Panama Papers?

Subdermal
01-04-2017, 10:21 AM
I think we can all be manipulated when we are given selected information. It's human nature. The older we become the more we realize we should avoid knee jerk reactions. Disseminating pieces of information in sections over a period of time can manipulate the meaning of the information. I'm not saying the information shouldn't be released but I think we should always question the motivation of the person releasing the information and realize that the information we are subjected to was selected for a purpose.


Only those who recoil at the truth feel manipulated by it.

Trish
01-04-2017, 10:25 AM
:wink:
Assange To Hannity: Source For WikiLeaks Was Not Russian Government.....
In an exclusive interview with FOX News Channel's Sean Hannity the founder of WikiLeaks Julian Assange said Russia was not the source for the DNC and John Podesta hacks.
[HANNITY: Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Yes. We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party.]
Hannity's full interview with Assange will air Tuesday night at 10pm ET. More from the interview:
[ASSANGE: Our publications had wide uptake by the American people, they're all true. But that's not the allegation that’s being presented by the Obama White House. So, why such a dramatic response? Well, the reason is obvious. They’re trying to delegitimize the Trump administration as it goes into the White House. They are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate President...
ASSANGE: Our source is not a state party, so the answer for our interactions is no. But if we look at our most recent statement from the US government, which is on the 29th of December, OK, we had five different branches of government, Treasury, DHS, FBI, White House presenting their accusations to underpin Obama’s throwing out 29 Russian diplomats. What was missing from all of those statements? The word WikiLeaks. It’s very strange.].....snip~
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...overnment.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/01/02/assange_to_hannity_our_source_was_not_the_russian_ government.html)

Thanks MMC!

Can I ask what your thoughts are with respect to this piece. Was there anything that stood out to you?

Trish
01-04-2017, 10:27 AM
Only those who recoil at the truth feel manipulated by it.
Can you add more. :0)

MisterVeritis
01-04-2017, 10:29 AM
I think we can all be manipulated when we are given selected information. It's human nature. The older we become the more we realize we should avoid knee jerk reactions. Disseminating pieces of information in sections over a period of time can manipulate the meaning of the information. I'm not saying the information shouldn't be released but I think we should always question the motivation of the person releasing the information and realize that the information we are subjected to was selected for a purpose.
So I am manipulated if I hear the truth over an extended period of time?

I believed the Democratic party was corrupt. I believed the DNC was corrupt. I believed that the Queen, Crooked Hillary, despised ordinary Americans. I believed the Democrat party leadership despised many portions of its so-called base. The Podesta emails confirmed my beliefs. The eDNC emails confirmed my beliefs.

I voted for Trump. Was I manipulated by the truth?

Subdermal
01-04-2017, 10:30 AM
Can you add more. :0)
Not without muddying the message, no.

Trish
01-04-2017, 10:40 AM
So I am manipulated if I hear the truth over an extended period of time?
I believed the Democratic party was corrupt. I believed the DNC was corrupt. I believed that the Queen, Crooked Hillary, despised ordinary Americans. I believed the Democrat party leadership despised many portions of its so-called base. The Podesta emails confirmed my beliefs. The eDNC emails confirmed my beliefs.
I voted for Trump. Was I manipulated by the truth?
I really don't want to make this a political discussion with regard to who we voted for this election even though, imo, there is a small connection but I'll answer your question as best as I can. You've cited everything in terms of what you've learned and know about the DNC and Hilary but you mentioned nothing of what you learned or know about Donald Trump. Yes, you by your own example have shown we are selective in what we allow to influence us. I am no different from you.

On a personal note: I have no issue with who you voted for. It is certainly your right.

MisterVeritis
01-04-2017, 10:45 AM
I really don't want to make this a political discussion with regard to who we voted for this election even though, imo, there is a small connection but I'll answer your question as best as I can. You've cited everything in terms of what you've learned and know about the DNC and Hilary but you mentioned nothing of what you learned or know about Donald Trump. Yes, you by your own example have shown we are selective in what we allow to influence us. I am no different from you.
On a personal note: I have no issue with who you voted for. It is certainly your right.
Trump has been running for years. I listened to him call into Fox and Friends. He gave his views over a long period of time on a variety of subjects. He also used Twitter and Facebook. I also heard repeated over and over and over again every negative thing anyone ever had to say about him.

We were inundated with vast amounts of negatives for Trump.

So what influenced me? Trump promised to build a southern wall, to deport illegal aliens, to simplify the tax code, rebuild and revitalize the military, and to reduce the regulatory state.

Trish
01-04-2017, 10:47 AM
So how does that concept work with Whistleblowers. Like those with the Panama Papers?
Great question! This is simply my personal opinion. I think the difference is the parties involved in the release of the information. With regards to the Panama papers, the information was given to an entity that researched the information before disseminating it to key parties. In this instance, Mr. Assange has an objective regarding governments and how "he" perceives they should run. The information was released to all sources with only his assurances that the information was true.

Am I making sense? lol

Trish
01-04-2017, 10:52 AM
Trump has been running for years. I listened to him call into Fox and Friends. He gave his views over a long period of time on a variety of subjects. He also used Twitter and Facebook. I also heard repeated over and over and over again every negative thing anyone ever had to say about him.
We were inundated with vast amounts of negatives for Trump.
So what influenced me? Trump promised to build a southern wall, to deport illegal aliens, to simplify the tax code, Rebuild and revitalize the military, and to reduce the regulatory state.

And your reasons are all valid and important to you. That's why I didn't want to make this a election related issue.

I seeded this for several reasons. The obvious reason is because Assange is currently in the news but I also wanted to stimulate conversation about fake news; the manipulations of news and information; and what it means for us in the future.

MMC
01-04-2017, 10:58 AM
Thanks MMC!

Can I ask what your thoughts are with respect to this piece. Was there anything that stood out to you?

A couple of things.....one when WikiLeaks was publishing all from the Bush Team. None other than Bush Administration had a problem with it.


One of the first times we met I noticed a book on your table: “The Prince” by Machiavelli. What have you learned about power in 10 years of WikiLeaks?
My conclusion is that most power structures are deeply incompetent, staffed by people who don’t really believe in their institutions and that most power is the projection of the perception of power. And the more secretively it works, the more incompetent it is, because secrecy breeds incompetence, while openness breeds competence, because one can see and can compare actions and see which one is more competent. To keep up these appearances, institutional heads or political heads such as presidents spend most of the time trying to walk in front of the train and pretending that it is following them, but the direction is set by the tracks and by the engine of the train. Understanding that means that small and committed organisations can outmanoeuvre these institutional dinosaurs, like the State Department, the NSA or the CIA.......snip~ from your link.


And 2.....Assange is understanding what the Power of Perception is. Which is why, I asked about Whistleblowers since they do have their own purpose. Yet still align it with transparency and getting the truth out.


http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.M5fa606506e3c01c888be9592835afcbao2&w=191&h=202&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0

MisterVeritis
01-04-2017, 11:02 AM
And your reasons are all valid and important to you. That's why I didn't want to make this a election related issue.

I seeded this for several reasons. The obvious reason is because Assange is currently in the news but I also wanted to stimulate conversation about fake news; the manipulations of news and information; and what it means for us in the future.
The correct answer to speech we disagree with (fake news) is more speech. We do not need a ministry of Truth.

Trish
01-04-2017, 11:06 AM
The correct answer to speech we disagree with (fake news) is more speech. We do not need a ministry of Truth.
But that's assuming everyone has the ability to eventually realize what is fake and what is fact. Your point about the "ministry of truth" is spot on. I love the term and may have to steal it. :0)

MMC
01-04-2017, 11:42 AM
Great question! This is simply my personal opinion. I think the difference is the parties involved in the release of the information. With regards to the Panama papers, the information was given to an entity that researched the information before disseminating it to key parties. In this instance, Mr. Assange has an objective regarding governments and how "he" perceives they should run. The information was released to all sources with only his assurances that the information was true.

Am I making sense? lol

That's true it was given to government agencies. By a specific government. Guess who.

Yet he isn't telling dictators or communist governments how he perceives they should be run. Furthermore he knows he still has competition.


And yes you are making sense.