5 ms·

Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

33 points by johanam 6y ago

api 6y ago
I recall reading this long ago, but had forgotten about it. Meanwhile since 2016 I have been wondering why in the world Assange would have so obviously been in the bag for Donald Trump. Was he Russian intelligence? I always was skeptical of the Russia thing, or thought it was exaggerated at least. Did Assange go fascist along with so many others in the former hacktivist subculture? Maybe but I didn’t see any overt proof of that. Then I see this again and wonder if it was less about being in the bag for Trump than being against Hillary Clinton and the people around her. It seems like Assange and I’m sure others were determined that Hillary Clinton should be kept out of the presidency at any cost. I feel like there has got to be a story here that hasn’t been told. My own opinion is this: I get wanting change and there are a lot of bad things you can say about the current powers that be, but if you want revolution you have to offer something better than the status quo. Fascism and race nationalism are things that are decidedly worse than the status quo. I don’t support nihilistic revolution for the sake of revolution either. It almost always ends up in something as bad or worse than what existed before. Revolution only works when there are better ideas or at least better people, and I see neither.
- thestateofhn 6y ago
  Its quite a jump to go from Julian Assange releasing documents that implicate Hillary Clinton. To then state he is in the bag for Donald Trump, and to even further state that he could be a fascist. Do you have any evidence to support these claims he could be a fascist other than the fact he released documents on Hillary? Edit: While I don't like to bring post history into this. This user also called Glen Greenwald a fascist only one day ago.
  - api 6y ago
    I didn’t outright call either a fascist, just said I wondered and suspected given what seems to be their biases. In Assange’s case he clearly and obviously has been in the bag for Trump. He timed the release of Hillary’s emails so they could be harnessed as part of a disinformation smear campaign right before the election but not long enough before to allow a response. This campaign was also the genesis of the mythos of the Q movement. As for Greenwald there seems to be a clear spin to just about all his work for the past few years. In both their cases I find it impossible to believe that there are no leaks or whistleblowers for them to report upon that concern the Trump orbit. Trump’s entire career is a history of shady deals, con artistry, and exaggeration, and are there still people who argue that he is not a fascist after the events of January 6th? He re-enacted Mussolini’s march on Rome almost exactly, but thankfully with far less competence. We are lucky he and most of his followers are bumbling fools.
    - pure_simplicity 6y ago
      In today's radicalized political climate labels like racist, fascist, and terrorist get flung around so carelessly that they have lost their meaning and power. People simply refuse to take you seriously once they recognize how improperly these terms are applied and as such are effectively being redefined. The fact that such an extreme proposition (someone being a fascist) is even entertained and on such flimsy grounds is troubling. Glenn Greenwald is a progressive and a critic of Trump, yet he's suspected of being a fascist? It seems like these terms are used as ad hominems to defame character, rather than arguing based on the merits, because the mainstream left can't stand honest criticism from their own side of the political spectrum. It seems all it takes to raise suspicion of being a fascist is saying some favourable things about Trump or some things that benefit Trump politically. The problem with that is that everyone that's honest is gonna have to say favourable things about Trump some of the time, cuz he's simply not that bad. Trump is just a 90's democrat with a New York attitude that somehow managed to get elected as a republican president, yet here we are talking about him and half the country as if Hitler and his movement have been reincarnated. About the january 6th thing. I've personally heard Trump's political strategy to challenge the election being expounded for months by the people involved and it did not involve any violence at any point. They expressly warned against the use of violence, feeling that it was unnecessary, unethical, and counterproductive. The violence was perpetrated by a separate group that acted against the express wishes of the president and did not even attend the rally, but went straight to the capitol. Trump and his confidants were well aware how counterproductive violence would be before the events of january 6th unfolded. He's not a stupid guy. If he had wanted a coup, I guarantee you he would have had it executed properly, but his eyes were already on 2024, and for him to peacefully protest the alleged stealing of this election was gonna be a win-win situation: either he proves his case and is vindicated, or he demonstrates the alleged corruption of the system which will fuel his next run for office. I don't blame you for having such a caricatured picture of Trump, though. It's what the media has been spoon feeding everyone for years now. Unless you go out of your way to look for the person behind the caricature, you will have a hard time understanding anything that is going on. Both sides need to stop demonizing each other.
      - api 6y ago
- finnthehuman 6y ago
  >Meanwhile since 2016 I have been wondering why in the world Assange would have so obviously been in the bag for Donald Trump. I somehow missed the confusion around Assange. His M.O. has been so consistent. When the cables came out, it was what I expected from the organization I read about years prior on slashdot back in highschool - back when it was new and only a curiously to the tech press. I remember very well listening to NPR in 2010 and struggling to understand why NPR struggled to understand who this Assange guy was. And how they took the scraps of his personal history they managed to find, and were so bewildered that they weren't able to create a more romantic story about his motivations than the plainly expressed ones. When the emails came out in 2016, I had smartened up to the way the media could only ever understand him as a power broker, and wasn't surprised by the confused coverage. But wikileaks actions were still within my expectations from the organization I read about on slashdot back in highschool. I like to think I know better than to be suckered in by an official line, but the quality of unprovable explanations can be judged by their predictive accuracy. Wired Magazine, 2016: Want to Know Julian Assange's Endgame? He Told You a Decade Ago https://www.wired.com/2016/10/want-know-julian-assanges-endgame-told-decade-ago/ https://www.wired.com/2016/10/want-know-julian-assanges-endg... >I get wanting change and there are a lot of bad things you can say about the current powers that be, but if you want revolution you have to offer something better than the status quo. Part of the idea of democracy as we understand it today is that speaking truth to power is itself helping make the world a better place. Even if Team Edward has worse policy than Team Jacob, that doesn't mean choosing not to expose Team Jacobs's flaws when the opportunity presents itself.
  - api 6y ago
    An interesting take but I am not sure it holds up in the post-truth world of “firehose of falsehood” tactics. Speaking truth to power assumes that truth can be recognized as such and that it will be comprehended rationally. What we saw with the email leaks was that the fact that a leak occurred was used as a “hook” to spin a massive network of falsehoods. To this day nobody remembers anything about that leak except “pizzagate.” Was there anything of legitimate truth-to-power interest in there? Maybe, but it was instantly drowned in the ocean of bullshit that is social media. Other far more damaging leaks have occurred but nobody remembers them. They are messages in a bottle bobbing somewhere out there in that vast ocean of shit. You see... you can lie with the truth. Just twist it and tack on falsehood. The small amount of truth there makes the lie more powerful. Maybe that was the establishment’s response: “flood the zone.” If so it worked. If Assange isn’t a fascist in the bag for fascists, he is naive. Personally I still lean toward him being in the bag for the fascists. He strikes me as someone too smart not to see what I outlined above and how the current tactics of his organization play right into it. Wikileaks tactics cannot work unless we can drain the real swamp, namely social media, and get people talking like facts and reality matter. In the present climate leaks are ineffective or worse actually enable more deception.
mleonhard 6y ago
This reads like Chomsky's Understanding Power, especially the extensive references.
taxicabjesus 6y ago
> There was nothing politically hapless about Eric Schmidt. I had been too eager to see a politically unambitious Silicon Valley engineer, a relic of the good old days of computer science graduate culture on the West Coast. But that is not the sort of person who attends the Bilderberg conference four years running, who pays regular visits to the White House, or who delivers “fireside chats” at the World Economic Forum in Davos. My Grandmother had a subscription to American Free Press, a weekly/biweekly/monthly (?) newspaper. One of their reporters had covered the annual Bilderberg conference for decades. The regular media did not discuss the Bilderburgers' activities. The organization kept a very tight lid on the existence of their group and where they'd be meeting, but that reporter successfully figured out what they'd discussed year after year. Future presidents tended to show up -- it was a part of the vetting process I guess, "will this 'Bill Clinton' fellow be useful to us?" and so forth. Both parties' candidates would tend to make an appearance, so they'd be up to date on the Agenda for the years to come. The Bilderberg group was named after their first meeting location, "Bilderberg Hotel, a hotel in Oosterbeek in the Netherlands, namesake of the Bilderberg Group" (wikipedia disambiguation page). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_meeting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_meeting
braindead_in 6y ago
This kind of gives me the Mr Robot vibes.

33 points by johanam 6y ago

api 6y ago

I recall reading this long ago, but had forgotten about it. Meanwhile since 2016 I have been wondering why in the world Assange would have so obviously been in the bag for Donald Trump. Was he Russian intelligence? I always was skeptical of the Russia thing, or thought it was exaggerated at least. Did Assange go fascist along with so many others in the former hacktivist subculture? Maybe but I didn’t see any overt proof of that. Then I see this again and wonder if it was less about being in the bag for Trump than being against Hillary Clinton and the people around her. It seems like Assange and I’m sure others were determined that Hillary Clinton should be kept out of the presidency at any cost. I feel like there has got to be a story here that hasn’t been told. My own opinion is this: I get wanting change and there are a lot of bad things you can say about the current powers that be, but if you want revolution you have to offer something better than the status quo. Fascism and race nationalism are things that are decidedly worse than the status quo. I don’t support nihilistic revolution for the sake of revolution either. It almost always ends up in something as bad or worse than what existed before. Revolution only works when there are better ideas or at least better people, and I see neither.

thestateofhn 6y ago
Its quite a jump to go from Julian Assange releasing documents that implicate Hillary Clinton. To then state he is in the bag for Donald Trump, and to even further state that he could be a fascist. Do you have any evidence to support these claims he could be a fascist other than the fact he released documents on Hillary? Edit: While I don't like to bring post history into this. This user also called Glen Greenwald a fascist only one day ago.
- api 6y ago
  I didn’t outright call either a fascist, just said I wondered and suspected given what seems to be their biases. In Assange’s case he clearly and obviously has been in the bag for Trump. He timed the release of Hillary’s emails so they could be harnessed as part of a disinformation smear campaign right before the election but not long enough before to allow a response. This campaign was also the genesis of the mythos of the Q movement. As for Greenwald there seems to be a clear spin to just about all his work for the past few years. In both their cases I find it impossible to believe that there are no leaks or whistleblowers for them to report upon that concern the Trump orbit. Trump’s entire career is a history of shady deals, con artistry, and exaggeration, and are there still people who argue that he is not a fascist after the events of January 6th? He re-enacted Mussolini’s march on Rome almost exactly, but thankfully with far less competence. We are lucky he and most of his followers are bumbling fools.
  - pure_simplicity 6y ago
    In today's radicalized political climate labels like racist, fascist, and terrorist get flung around so carelessly that they have lost their meaning and power. People simply refuse to take you seriously once they recognize how improperly these terms are applied and as such are effectively being redefined. The fact that such an extreme proposition (someone being a fascist) is even entertained and on such flimsy grounds is troubling. Glenn Greenwald is a progressive and a critic of Trump, yet he's suspected of being a fascist? It seems like these terms are used as ad hominems to defame character, rather than arguing based on the merits, because the mainstream left can't stand honest criticism from their own side of the political spectrum. It seems all it takes to raise suspicion of being a fascist is saying some favourable things about Trump or some things that benefit Trump politically. The problem with that is that everyone that's honest is gonna have to say favourable things about Trump some of the time, cuz he's simply not that bad. Trump is just a 90's democrat with a New York attitude that somehow managed to get elected as a republican president, yet here we are talking about him and half the country as if Hitler and his movement have been reincarnated. About the january 6th thing. I've personally heard Trump's political strategy to challenge the election being expounded for months by the people involved and it did not involve any violence at any point. They expressly warned against the use of violence, feeling that it was unnecessary, unethical, and counterproductive. The violence was perpetrated by a separate group that acted against the express wishes of the president and did not even attend the rally, but went straight to the capitol. Trump and his confidants were well aware how counterproductive violence would be before the events of january 6th unfolded. He's not a stupid guy. If he had wanted a coup, I guarantee you he would have had it executed properly, but his eyes were already on 2024, and for him to peacefully protest the alleged stealing of this election was gonna be a win-win situation: either he proves his case and is vindicated, or he demonstrates the alleged corruption of the system which will fuel his next run for office. I don't blame you for having such a caricatured picture of Trump, though. It's what the media has been spoon feeding everyone for years now. Unless you go out of your way to look for the person behind the caricature, you will have a hard time understanding anything that is going on. Both sides need to stop demonizing each other.
    - api 6y ago
finnthehuman 6y ago
>Meanwhile since 2016 I have been wondering why in the world Assange would have so obviously been in the bag for Donald Trump. I somehow missed the confusion around Assange. His M.O. has been so consistent. When the cables came out, it was what I expected from the organization I read about years prior on slashdot back in highschool - back when it was new and only a curiously to the tech press. I remember very well listening to NPR in 2010 and struggling to understand why NPR struggled to understand who this Assange guy was. And how they took the scraps of his personal history they managed to find, and were so bewildered that they weren't able to create a more romantic story about his motivations than the plainly expressed ones. When the emails came out in 2016, I had smartened up to the way the media could only ever understand him as a power broker, and wasn't surprised by the confused coverage. But wikileaks actions were still within my expectations from the organization I read about on slashdot back in highschool. I like to think I know better than to be suckered in by an official line, but the quality of unprovable explanations can be judged by their predictive accuracy. Wired Magazine, 2016: Want to Know Julian Assange's Endgame? He Told You a Decade Ago https://www.wired.com/2016/10/want-know-julian-assanges-endgame-told-decade-ago/ https://www.wired.com/2016/10/want-know-julian-assanges-endg... >I get wanting change and there are a lot of bad things you can say about the current powers that be, but if you want revolution you have to offer something better than the status quo. Part of the idea of democracy as we understand it today is that speaking truth to power is itself helping make the world a better place. Even if Team Edward has worse policy than Team Jacob, that doesn't mean choosing not to expose Team Jacobs's flaws when the opportunity presents itself.
- api 6y ago
  An interesting take but I am not sure it holds up in the post-truth world of “firehose of falsehood” tactics. Speaking truth to power assumes that truth can be recognized as such and that it will be comprehended rationally. What we saw with the email leaks was that the fact that a leak occurred was used as a “hook” to spin a massive network of falsehoods. To this day nobody remembers anything about that leak except “pizzagate.” Was there anything of legitimate truth-to-power interest in there? Maybe, but it was instantly drowned in the ocean of bullshit that is social media. Other far more damaging leaks have occurred but nobody remembers them. They are messages in a bottle bobbing somewhere out there in that vast ocean of shit. You see... you can lie with the truth. Just twist it and tack on falsehood. The small amount of truth there makes the lie more powerful. Maybe that was the establishment’s response: “flood the zone.” If so it worked. If Assange isn’t a fascist in the bag for fascists, he is naive. Personally I still lean toward him being in the bag for the fascists. He strikes me as someone too smart not to see what I outlined above and how the current tactics of his organization play right into it. Wikileaks tactics cannot work unless we can drain the real swamp, namely social media, and get people talking like facts and reality matter. In the present climate leaks are ineffective or worse actually enable more deception.

mleonhard 6y ago

This reads like Chomsky's Understanding Power, especially the extensive references.

taxicabjesus 6y ago

> There was nothing politically hapless about Eric Schmidt. I had been too eager to see a politically unambitious Silicon Valley engineer, a relic of the good old days of computer science graduate culture on the West Coast. But that is not the sort of person who attends the Bilderberg conference four years running, who pays regular visits to the White House, or who delivers “fireside chats” at the World Economic Forum in Davos. My Grandmother had a subscription to American Free Press, a weekly/biweekly/monthly (?) newspaper. One of their reporters had covered the annual Bilderberg conference for decades. The regular media did not discuss the Bilderburgers' activities. The organization kept a very tight lid on the existence of their group and where they'd be meeting, but that reporter successfully figured out what they'd discussed year after year. Future presidents tended to show up -- it was a part of the vetting process I guess, "will this 'Bill Clinton' fellow be useful to us?" and so forth. Both parties' candidates would tend to make an appearance, so they'd be up to date on the Agenda for the years to come. The Bilderberg group was named after their first meeting location, "Bilderberg Hotel, a hotel in Oosterbeek in the Netherlands, namesake of the Bilderberg Group" (wikipedia disambiguation page). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_meeting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_meeting

braindead_in 6y ago

This kind of gives me the Mr Robot vibes.