Julian Assange

What is the agenda behind Julian Assange and Wikileaks? Helping or destroying civilization? Since 2006, the quasi-unanimous answer was: Helping. To the minds of 2/3 of the world, Assange is a hero.

He exposed corruption in Africa, and leaked compromising files, promoting civil liberties and freedom of the little people from the tyranny of our present government.

A very noble intention, worthy of admiration indeed. But such was the intention behind Marxism and Communism. Civil liberties and freedom of the little people. It ended up with Lenin and Stalin replacing a tolerant and open-minded tsar, by a dictatorship responsible for 20 millions deaths in 20 years.
In China, it ended up replacing emperors and presidents by a man who, in 30 years, created a 40 to 70 millions death toll.
In both cases, it all started by: Revolution. Revolution killed the ancient government, and replaced it with a deadlier one.

Such is the fate awaiting the release of Wikileaks and Anonymous files against the US government. Assange created a spark of revolution, that once started, did not stopped but increased in power with each new minimal controversies. Look no further than in this very own forum. Look up any government-related thread. Calculate how many members wants total revolution and overthrowing of the US government against those who know better. Easily 10 to 1. All that started with leaked files showing how the government was corrupted to the core. All that started with Anonymous and Wikileaks promoting directly or indirectly revolution.


How do I know that Assange is not a hero? Who will react with such anger and threat to a simple movie, if he has really nothing to hide and is proud and confident in his work? The CIA are sincerely proud of their tactics; they don't have a damn concern if one movie amongst thousands decides to portray them negatively (Matt Damon's "Bourne" movies).
Yet, here is Assange boiling with rage in his little Ecuador house, publicly loathing the only movie done about him (I'm talking of "The Fifth Estate"), while 10 other movies, more appealing and distracting to the population, were presented at the same time.

Also, which innocent people will refuse meeting with the producers and lead actor? Even families of criminals accepted to meet with the producers and actors portraying the said criminals (Johnny Depp's "Public Enemy", Jeremy Renner's "Dahmer"). And yet, Assange refused the only occasion to actually defend himself. Do you seriously believe that a truly innocent man would have refused exposing and defending his view to the filmmakers?

So stubborn was Assange, that when the producers failed to arrange a meeting with him, the lead actor (Benedict Cumberbatch) sent an e-mail to Assange, telling him how much he really wanted to get his point of view, in order to adequately portray him, and not follow blindly the script. Here is the answer of Assange (the message was published online by Assange himself, even though they agreed that it was a personal conversation) to Cumberbatch:

(next post)

Dear Benedict,

Thank you for trying to contact me. It is the first approach by anyone from the Dreamworks production to me or WikiLeaks.

My assistants communicated your request to me, and I have given it a lot of thought and examined your previous work, which I am fond of.

I think I would enjoy meeting you.

The bond that develops between an actor and a living subject is significant.

If the film reaches distribution we will forever be correlated in the public imagination. Our paths will be forever entwined. Each of us will be granted standing to comment on the other for many years to come and others will compare our characters and trajectories.

But I must speak directly.

I hope that you will take such directness as a mark of respect, and not as an unkindness.

I believe you are a good person, but I do not believe that this film is a good film.

I do not believe it is going to be positive for me or the people I care about.

I believe that it is going to be overwhelmingly negative for me and the people I care about.

It is based on a deceitful book by someone who has a vendetta against me and my organisation.

In other circumstances this vendetta may have gone away, but our conflict with the United States government and the establishment press has created a patronage and commissioning market – powerful, if unpopular – for works and comments that are harmful to us.

There are dozens of positive books about WikiLeaks, but Dreamworks decided
to base its script only on the most toxic. So toxic is the first book selected by Dreamworks that it is distributed to US military bases as a mechanism to discourage military personnel from communicating with us. Its author is publicly known to be involved in the Dreamworks production in an ongoing capacity.

Dreamworks' second rights purchase is the next most toxic, biased book. Published and written by people we have had a bitter contractual dispute with for years, whose hostility is well known. Neither of these two books were the first to be published and there are many independent authors who have written positive or neutral books, all of whom Dreamworks ignored.

Dreamworks has based its entire production on the two most discredited books on the market.

I know the film intends to depict me and my work in a negative light.

I believe it will distort events and subtract from public understanding.

It does not seek to simplify, clarify or distil the truth, but rather it seeks to bury it.

It will resurrect and amplify defamatory stories which were long ago shown to be false.

—

My organisation and I are the targets of political adversary from the United States government and its closest allies.

The United States government has engaged almost every instrument of its justice and intelligence system to pursue—in its own words—a 'whole of government' investigation of 'unprecedented scale and nature' into WikiLeaks under draconian espionage laws. Our alleged sources are facing their entire lives in the US prison system. Two are already in it. Another one is detained in Sweden.

Feature films are the most powerful and insidious shapers of public perception, because they fly under the radar of conscious exclusion.

This film is going to bury good people doing good work, at exactly the time that the state is coming down on their heads.

It is going to smother the truthful version of events, at a time when the truth is most in demand.

As justification it will claim to be fiction, but it is not fiction. It is distorted truth about living people doing battle with titanic opponents. It is a work of political opportunism, influence, revenge and, above all, cowardice.

It seeks to ride on the back of our work, our reputation and our struggles.

It seeks to cut our strength with weakness. To cut affection with exploitation. To cut diligence with paranoia. To cut loyalty with naivety. To cut principle with hypocrisy. And above all, to cut the truth with lies.

The film's many distortions buttress what the prosecution will argue. Has argued. Is arguing. In my case, and in that of others. These cases will continue for years.

The studio that is producing the film is not a vulnerable or weak party.

Dreamworks' free speech rights are not in jeopardy – ours are.

Dreamworks is an extremely wealthy organisation, with ties to powerful interests in the US government.

I must therefore question the choices and motives behind it: the opportunism, fears and mundanity; the unwritten rules of film financing and distribution in the United States; the cringe against doing something useful and brave.

I believe that you are a decent person, who would not naturally wish to harm good people in dire situations.

—

You will be used, as a hired gun, to assume the appearance of the truth in order to assassinate it. To present me as someone morally compromised and to place me in a falsified history. To create a work, not of fiction, but of debased truth.

Not because you want to, of course you don't, but because, in the end, you are a jobbing actor who gets paid to follow the script, no matter how debauched.

Your skills play into the hands of people who are out to remove me and WikiLeaks from the world.

I believe that you should reconsider your involvement in this enterprise.

Consider the consequences of your cooperation with a project that vilifies and marginalises a living political refugee to the benefit of an entrenched, corrupt and dangerous state.

Consider the consequences to people who may fall into harm because of this film.

Many will fight against history being blackwashed in this way. It is a collective history now, involving millions of people, because millions have opened their eyes as a result of our work and the attempts to destroy us.

I believe you are well intentioned but surely you can see why it is a bad idea for me to meet with you.

By meeting with you, I would validate this wretched film, and endorse the talented, but debauched, performance that the script will force you to give.

I cannot permit this film any claim to authenticity or truthfulness. In its current form it has neither, and doing so would only further aid the campaign against me.

It is contrary to my interests, and to those of my organisation, and I thank you for your offer, and what I am sure is your genuine intent, but I must, with inexpressible regret, turn it down.

Julian Assange

www.theguardian.com...

(continued to next post)

For more clarity, the book referred to was written by Assange ex-right hand, who pulled off of Wikileaks an wrote about it after having vainly warned Assange that the files leaked will create more harm than help.

In another article, which I forgot to retain (at that time not knowing the Assange problem very well), after Cumberbatch replied by answering that he would nevertheless continue the movie, and try as much as he could (because of lack of contact with Assange) protect Wikileaks's interests as well, Assange sent one last e-mail, in which he threatened Cumberbatch of serious consequences if the actor pursued making the movie.
Several weeks before the release of "The Fifth Estate", after an interview with Cumberbatch, the newspaper "The Guardian" (for those who doesn't know it, Wikileaks leaks its files through "The Guardian"; you could say "The Guardian" is Wikileaks link to the population) released an edited version of the interview, retaining only an out-of-context incriminating phrase, damaging for awhile Cumberbatch's reputation, until the actor, his friends, and the original interviewer corrected The Guardian by showing the un-edited interview, with the incriminating phrase now in context.

This having failed, at the release of The Fifth Estate, most media and popular critics (including The Guardian) attacked the movie as being not once truthful, deceptive, and wrongfully accusing Assange and Wikileaks.


I must confess that these actions are hardly convincing that the organisation behind them is as innocent and trustworthy as they led us to believe. As I will repeat, even criminals's families and US Organisations are more tolerant when movies portraying them negatively are being released. And they have alot more interests to protect than Wikileaks.

The reason behind this comportment is simple: Wikileaks is yet the only organisation that influence so heavily the population into attacking and overthrowing the current government. If people begins to doubt or see beyond the supposed veil of "justice", revolution will be delayed further more until the Elite finds another organisation to promote it.

This is why I strongly believe that Assange is really not the great hero everyone is led to believe; the result of his work have been total anarchy and revolution.

****

Beside, you should remember that Stalin and Mao Zedong too were considered heroes by their own people; they caused respectively 20 and 70 millions of deaths. In both cases, intellect and religions were destroyed to be replaced by total service and work to the Elite. When one word was out of place, when one negative view was expressed, those who whispered those words were shot.

You don't seem to realize this, but all those things are still permitted in the US. You can have a negative view about the government and stay alive; you can believe in any type of religion and stay alive. The current government is not the best; but it's most certainly the less worst of most other types of ruling. Be glad you're still living in a free country, and not in the Communist era. If you find it hard, imagine what you would have gone through during Stalin and Zedong's rule.

Just my thought on the matter,
Starheart.

reply to post by starheart

Be glad you're still living in a free country, and not in the Communist era. If you find it hard, imagine what you would have gone through during Stalin and Zed ong's rule.

Stay tuned. Mao and Stalin didn't possess the bomb "back then" in enough numbers like the US does now. Thats the big stick. The reason the US can and does throw its weight around today.

Who is capable of making war with the beast? What would likely happen if they became successful?

Thanks for the read of Julians letter.

Caveat emptor

reply to post by starheart

I think you need to wake up slightly. Wikileaks is the tip of a huge iceberg. The internet, or rather use of, is exposing a considerable amount of corruption and a.se covering. The ability to distribute information across the globe allows us at the bottom to collate all this stuff and shake our head in dismay at the sheer volume. No need for conspiracies!!!!

There are some who think we should leave well alone since these activities are essential to keep the really bad people at bay (enemy no 1 : muslim extremist). That is wrong, totally wrong. The number of "bad people" is insignificant compared to the number of and damage caused by self serving corrupt a.se covering individuals. They are the problem. The world is waking up.

I suspect a couple more decades of financial corruption, lost homes, lost savings , mass unemployment before folks truly say enough is enough.

FYI : muslim extremism. This is a phase they are going through just like christianity did 300-400 years ago. The problem is the extremists today have access to much more deadly weapons and a far larger world to endanger.

reply to post by starheart


Love him or hate him, the truth of the matter is that video as well as document evidence do not lie. Reminds me of the old adage "Don't shoot the messenger".

reply to post by intrptr

Stay tuned. Mao and Stalin didn't possess the bomb "back then" in enough numbers like the US does now.

Yeah? Well, Zedong and Stalin had The Hulk!
Sorry, just kidding!

True, Stalin and Mao didn't had the bomb. However, the US had it for over 70 years. Trust me, would they have wanted to kill us all, they would have done so long long ago, way before we had Internet, and way before everyone around the world could connect with each other. They have great weaponry, but they can't use it against us; it will be war crime, and they already done that with Iraq War and Afghanistan War.
So, they can't use their big fancy bombs and lightning bolt weapon... unless, the government gets attacked by the civillians (revolution). During revolution, the Constitution is bypassed by State of Emergency so to allow the military to react in self-defense... which means, to act toward the civilians as though they were strangers attacking the US.

This is why people like Wikileaks and Anonymous tries to persuade everyone to revolt and overthrow the government: now the US will be able to use their bombs against the population and wipe 310 millions people in one shot and without one word of reprimande from the UN or the other world leaders.

This is why I agree with the 10% of ATSers: we must not violently revolt against the government. It will end up worser than the revolutions of France, Russia, and China. Because, as you pointed out, the government has BOMBS, not guns.

And this is what those who follows Wikileaks and Anonymous don't understand, because they're too blind to what is really going on behind the scene.

You can't counteract fire with fire. It only strenghtens the fire. However, water will counteract fire much more efficiently. War in the 21st century is not physical; its a war of ideas and thoughts. The Elite is not anymore fighting on the physical plane; their fight is about converting people mentally to their point of view. Physical conflicts are thus never destructive, but only done to strenghtens the mental war ("look how the US almost attacked Syria! Is it not clear that you must revolt against them?"). Thus, the only way to fight thoughts is with other thoughts. Infiltrate peaceful thoughts, and it will do more effects than violently manifesting.

And you're welcome for the letter; I thought it would help knowing actually Assange's thoughts from his own hand rather than from some biased newspaper's view.

Marx: People of all lands, Revolt! The rich are bad guys.

Assange: People of all websites, Revolt! The US are bad guys.

Assange has a very specific purpose in "exposing truth" about the US. It's to destroy the US with conspiracy theories, just like Russia tried to do with Operation Infektion when Russia realized she was losing the Cold War.

Sure, the US has dirty closest. But like any other countries. How come doesn't Assange also exposes illegal tortures against internet usage in China? Or african government deviation of fundings which results in famine in Africa?

RedShirt73
Love him or hate him, the truth of the matter is that video as well as document evidence do not lie. Reminds me of the old adage "Don't shoot the messenger".

There are evidences in favor of Hitler's Eugenics being the "right" way (Galton, F.). But I personally wouldn't let Hitler escape his sentence, if you know what I mean.

intrptr
reply to post by starheart

 

Be glad you're still living in a free country, and not in the Communist era. If you find it hard, imagine what you would have gone through during Stalin and Zed ong's rule.

Stay tuned. Mao and Stalin didn't possess the bomb "back then" in enough numbers like the US does now. Thats the big stick. The reason the US can and does throw its weight around today.

Who is capable of making war with the beast? What would likely happen if they became successful?

Thanks for the read of Julians letter.

Caveat emptor

Look, there is a huge difference in being a whistle blower and being someone who has an agenda against a country. There is a difference in being a whistle blower and a thief or terrorist or disgruntled employee.. It served no purpose to publish all the data he received. Putting people and families in danger in countries where people don't have the same rights we do and are often killed or imprisoned is not whistle blowing but criminal.

There are ways to do it without putting people at risk, he did not have to publish every piece of data for example. There is a place for blowing the whistle and dissent but not at the expense of innocent lives.

What is the problem, he let all the info out and now wants to complain because someone says something about him lol.

The Bot

reply to post by starheart

I'm not with you Starheart
I don't think he's a hero or savior. Whether his intentions were honorable or otherwise, I, personally don't care. When anyone, or any government, has to operate in dark closets and under domes of silence -- they're up to "no good"...unless they're planning a surprise birthday party for ME!!!
If not for "leaks" of the same genre as WikiLeaks & Anonymous (et al) have brought forth...a lot of dirty-rotten deals and the scoundrels who made them, would not be known... (consider Jekyll Island & the Federal Reserve, if you need an example) ...

I guess unbiased releasing of news or leaks really makes people mad. Well what he did was right. Erase the names of people in the leaks and then publish them. All of them. No picking which ones you want to leak because it supports your point of view. Now he did change at the end. Seems the Pakistani files he released to Dawn.com in Pakistan which is blocked in the US and other countries. Or the files released in South America that are blocked from the US. But over all he at least puts the files out and lets you build your own bias instead of some Elite who owns the media company putting the news out. And he might have a good idea of creating a leak system based on P2P where you don't have to worry about the leaks being deleted because they are so widely shared among down loaders. And finding the source of the information would be difficult in pin pointing where it came from if done right. And it should scare the government with the new P2Ps being worked on that will offer TOR type routing to hide every bodies information.

Our governments love things like this website.

www.documentcloud.org...

Why because there is only one copy out there to delet to get the document deleted from the internet. hidden P2P is a good idea Assange! Keep up the good work.

I find it funny how you try to compare Julian Assange with the likes of violent, mass-murdering dictators. It is quite obvious where you stand on the matter.

Why is Julian Assange so opposed to the movie? Firstly, the movie is a work of fiction, which Assange sees as an attempt at misrepresenting the truth. The movie is also based off of two books of which were written by hostile parties of WikiLeaks; The Guardian newspaper (which broke an agreed upon contract between WikiLeaks and itself, thus meaning that it no longer acts 'as the link between WikiLeaks and the public'), and Daniel Domscheit-Berg (the ex-spokesman and right hand man of WikiLeaks, who just happened to sabotage and destroy the organisation's dropbox system, before destroying, and fleeing with important information).

Yeah, i would be hostile too if a movei about me and my organisation was based off of two hostile books..

---

As for Julian being a hero; he is neither. The term, hero, is subjective. meaning that your hero will be different to my hero. A hero is just someone of whom another looks up to. He doesn't claim to be a hero, he just fights for the rights of the world's public.

dlbott
There are ways to do it without putting people at risk, he did not have to publish every piece of data for example. There is a place for blowing the whistle and dissent but not at the expense of innocent lives.

What is the problem, he let all the info out and now wants to complain because someone says something about him lol.

The Bot

You do know that WikiLeaks actually withheld thousands of dangerous document from publication, right?

I hope you also know that WikiLeaks actually approached the Pentagon in an offer to aid Julian Assange in redacting the names of endangered informants etc, before release.

swanne
Sure, the US has dirty closest. But like any other countries. How come doesn't Assange also exposes illegal tortures against internet usage in China? Or african government deviation of fundings which results in famine in Africa?

edit on 16-10-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)

WikiLeaks relies on information submitted by insiders. If no one from China of Africa has approached WikiLeaks in order to pass along information, than WikiLeaks will not have that information, this meaning that they cannot publish. In saying this, WikiLeaks has, in the past, exposed numerous governments around the world, including those in Africa...it isn't only the USA of which WikiLeaks has exposed.

Perhaps it's far simpler...he just doesn't want to be turned into a 'bad-guy' caricature by exexutives in movieland, who will buy thier 3rd house off his 'image'...promotion-wise, he is keeping control of his product...what would be next? Not Barbie and Ken, Barbie and Julian at Salinas, Ecuador...Assange masks, ties, socks, flashing footwear...no, he doesn't want it taken to the ridiculous...franchised movie offers of Assange - the return, Assange - the Black Knight...he's in a serious situation, it's a wonder he hasn't been fed to the fishes, I'd say the best is yet to come, on all fronts...Ecuadorian Standoff...how long will that last?

I wouldn't want to be a caricature either...

Å99

Julian is like the child who dared openly comment that the emperor had no clothes.

He wasn't the first. He won't be the last. He had some good intentions and maybe some bad ones. He's not a saint or a beast but a mostly ordinary person with spots of both and a lot of stubbornness.

He represents himself just fine in writing, and at least most of what he says is entirely true (I don't know some of the details of other things so I can't speak to those).

The reason so many people consider him a hero is because in a world of people easily cowed by The Empires, he hasn't been. That doesn't make him a superhero, but even ordinary heroes are in damn short supply today, and become more precious as a result.

The US Govt has a war against this individual man who isn't even of our country, didn't "steal" anything because our own people shared, and whose primary crime is having the gall to reveal THEIR crimes -- and, I might add, everyone else's including business.

Their threats didn't work, their demands to governments didn't work, their probably half a dozen snipers nearby haven't had a clear shot yet, so media is the next logical avenue.

I love my country and I hold dear what our government was designed to be. I don't encourage anarchy or the fall of The Empire I feel is the gradually expanding coup, in part because it's too big -- it won't wobble and get a new center, it would either come crashing down on its threat, or come crashing down period, and both would leave our country in chaos and destruction and tyranny and it's the common people who would pay most either way.

The planet's likely to get significant chaos and die-off from other originally meteorological and geological sources, without encouraging more of that tragedy from human sources. So, I am not on that train.

But I consider Assange to be a hero in his own right. Not perfect, not without flaws, not without mistakes (I am not for naming undercover people - but wiki changed that policy fortunately), but as much a hero as our world is damn lucky to have in these days.

And he is, as noted by someone else above, only the tip of the iceberg. That's why the worst people seem to want him dead the most. He is the representative for a groundswell of public sentiment about a thousand things, and that encouragement of the lurking, growing turbulence underneath, is more frightening to them in its larger and long-term effects than any one man, group, or even country could be.

reply to post by yorkshirelad

Wikileaks is the tip of a huge iceberg. The internet, or rather use of, is exposing a considerable amount of corruption and a.se covering.

True, but only Wikileaks and Anonymous achieved world-wide recognition. Only them appeared in every single newspaper. Even Internet-deprived Chinese knows about them. They are, for most third-world population, or even poor Americans, the main leaders in exposing corruption.

There are some who think we should leave well alone since these activities are essential to keep the really bad people at bay (enemy no 1 : muslim extremist). That is wrong, totally wrong. The number of "bad people" is insignificant compared to the number of and damage caused by self serving corrupt a.se covering individuals.

And I totally agree with that. Even muslim extremists tends to attack more their own citizens than a building thousands of miles away from their little headquarters. Saddam Hussein's use of chemicals weapons was against his own people, not the Americans or Europeans.
And this is what I accuse Assange of: the harm done by the leaked files outweighs much more dramatically than the benefits. All he does is release leaked files against the US government and encourage revolution, without giving one regard to all the other forms of corruption elsewhere in the world (like a real caring journalist).

Even newspapers such as "The Gazette" does a better job at exposing corruption; and it exposes ALL countries's corruption, not just the US.

As an example of real corruption exposion, who know that a Buddhist city in Myanmar treats its Muslim inhabitants and children as "dogs"? Hundred of thousands of Muslim children starve to death, because the "Buddhist" government of Myanmar consider them as worthless as dogs. Childrens there have to work as young as 10, and their works consists at carrying big buckets of rocks uphill, 8-10 hours a day, for a mere 1 dollar, for the lead government-owned construction agency. They are forbidden to have any citizenship, and thus, are forbidden to have a real job, education, health care and proper food.
You never heard Wikileaks or Anonymous denounce this; yet, it's corruption, and it's far more worse than anything the US has done.

Want to hear another corruption Wikileaks or Anonymous never released? Four camps and villages near Damascus in Syria have been cut off food by the Syrian government itself, and this, for 10 months. 7 months ago, the Syrian militia let woman go shop for bread and other resources, as long as there was only 12 pieces. 5 months ago, only grains and sugar was allowed to reach the villages, and in microscopic quantities. 3 months ago, not one source of food or medicine is allowed in. In one village, all five roads leading to it are barricaded and guarded by Syrian tanks and snipers. The people there are starving for weeks now, rice being the only food left, at one bowl per day. They have no choice now but to feed on their own dogs, cats, and tree leaves and grass. Not 10 kilometres from the starving village, in Damascus, the president and the Damascus were having a big party and buffet.
Tell me when you heard Wikileaks or Anonymous expose that.

reply to post by starheart


I think Julian Assange has aspergers and that his heart is in the right place.

He wants to make the world a better place and he sees that keeping certain info from the people is wrong and he wants to do something about it. He cannot see that he is going about it all wrong.

Through no fault of his own he lacks empathy and understanding of the damage that he could do to individuals, corporations and countries.

I like him becuase of his passion and intentions but I do not agree that his methods will achieve his desired results.

He does not fully understand the implications of his actions, but lets be honest, not many of us do.

I respect his intentions but fear the outcomes.

daaskapital

swanne
Sure, the US has dirty closest. But like any other countries. How come doesn't Assange also exposes illegal tortures against internet usage in China? Or african government deviation of fundings which results in famine in Africa?

edit on 16-10-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)

WikiLeaks relies on information submitted by insiders. If no one from China of Africa has approached WikiLeaks in order to pass along information, than WikiLeaks will not have that information, this meaning that they cannot publish. In saying this, WikiLeaks has, in the past, exposed numerous governments around the world, including those in Africa...it isn't only the USA of which WikiLeaks has exposed.

So, Assange know only what some "whistleblower" key figures tell him is the "truth". How can Assange know idf this information is true and not invented propaganda? How can Assange know if the info doesn't come from right-wing extremists, or neonazi cells in US, or the Communist party? The answer: Assange can't. All he knows is that a high-ranking guy gave him the info. Yet he'll publish it anyway. Even if it harms other people. Assange don't care, he's the sensationalist type.

And when it comes time to expose Assange, like in the Fifth Estate movie, Assange goes ballistic and threatens Benedict Cumberbach.

I don't see a hero. I see a villan trying to pass as an hero.