The Assange Cult and the War on Humankind

I do not do martyrdom cults and I am getting tired of hearing about Assange. He has done a series of very stupid things to land himself in the situation he is now in. If the aim is to roll back the increasingly oppressive globalist hegemony, there are much better ways.

A sign that the Assange cult knows it is headed for a defeat is that they are splitting into factions, all accusing each other of being infiltrators and saboteurs. This is amusing, because the coterie around Assange has always been full of state agents. It is to be expected that these agencies will seek to penetrate all opposition.

The Wikileaks organization itself seems to have fully separated from Assange and is functioning reasonably well. Assange clearly has not had anything to do with the operation of the organization for some time. Donations to Wikileaks are no longer going to Assange’s defence. This is well because there is a need for an organization like Wikileaks.

The actual history of Wikileaks is obscure and confusing. I have no interest in trying to sort it out. Assange is held out as its sole founder, which does not seem to be the case. It seems to have been originally conceived as a collective. It seems several of its cofounders left it in its early years, complaining about Assange’s ego problems.

There are some blogs which have claimed that the circumstances of Wikileak’s founding show it is itself a creation of some sort of deep state intelligence branch. That is probably an exaggeration. However Wikileaks, especially in its early years, clearly had support from some well resourced hidden support.

Wikileak’s original purpose seems to have been as a tool to attack the globalist/financial capitalist tendency and its owned intelligence services. This in turn suggests it was promoted by the industrial capitalist faction of the American oligarchy, particularly the technology sector.

As with most things to do with the deep state and the oligarchy, it is very hard to determine who is driving what and their real motives. We can only work things out on a “simplest explanations” basis according to what we know or have previously worked out as most probable. Hackers and Wikileakers will not help this much. However, they can wreck the operations of the oligarch’s owned intelligence services and thus weaken their social control.

Some journalists do good work, especially ones who go to where conflicts are occurring and report what is actually going on. Most are full of shit. The flawed concept of ‘journalism’ comes from the flawed concept of ‘free press’, which in turn comes from the ideology of liberalism.

In a real democracy, there would not be much use for journalists. A direct democracy would necessarily have to create its own information services. Private interests trying to manage public perception, and self important individuals going around ‘investigating’ things where they have no public mandate to do so, would be unwelcome.

We generally do not need hackers, either. Legitimate organizations have a legitimate right to keep their information secret. The exceptions are, of course, attempts to hide unethical or illegal activities. Generally that is to be done by police organizations or public commissions, not self important people.

The exception is, of course, organizations serving illegitimate authority. That is a very big exception, of course, because most modern states are based on serving elite interest at the expense of their publics. In these, corrupt state institutions need to be delegitimated; their methods and motives exposed.

To reiterate, this is not properly done by self appointed crusaders. They get themselves in trouble and they get other people in trouble. They hurt the innocent as well as the guilty.

What they are doing is engaging in a revolutionary activity. The ethical rules of a revolution apply to them. A revolution is declared by a legitimate authority, meaning one with a real support base in the population. It is called when a legitimate grievance exists and peaceful solutions are not available. It is carried out within the organizing framework of the legitimate authority. In other words, you don’t get to just appoint yourself.

As for claiming protection as a ‘journalist’, this is an example of what is sometimes called ‘political cretinism’. It is imagining that everyone is bound by some set of rules which occur only to the people claiming it. A self styled journalist, or anyone else, is protected only by the legal principle of ‘necessity’; what they say is necessarily true.

This does not generally cover breaking into files to copy information. So, Wikileak’s activities in a normal context are not really legitimate. However, to reiterate, the activities of the people they hack are also illegitimate. In fact, they are downright illegal and tending toward totalitarianism. Only groups such as Wikileaks, with their deficiencies, are presently in a position to counter this growing abuse of power.

So, the situation is not as black and white as different sides of the discussion claim. However, there is a need to separate groups like Wikileaks from people such as Assange. Whatever use he was to any fight against globalism ended when he was arrested in 2010. Wikileaks needs to learn from its early mistakes under Assange and operate in a more effective way.

Wikileaks should have expected this type of retaliation when it exposed much of CIA’s operating secrets. If the intelligence services of the Atlanticist powers cannot suppress these kinds of leaks, they are out of business. Wikileaks cannot just pretend it is above it all, as though chanting ‘journalism’ gives it immunity. It is in a war and has to defend itself, understand who its enemies are, and choose its allies.

For Wikileaks, this means that it must maintain operational security. It has to base itself someplace secure. Its key people must stay there and keep their workplaces and identities secret. Only lower level people travel abroad and they do not draw attention to themselves. If a country becomes unsafe, they get out.

Now, to the big problem with Assange; he has some kind of death wish or martyrdom complex. I have seen this kind of thing in my own personal experiences. I was involved for awhile in a situation where someone was being harassed and pursued in an abuse of authority. She kept demanding to be pitied, but kept sabotaging attempts to assist her. I soon dropped the whole thing. Some other people wasted a lot of their time and resources over her.

I and some people close to me have been subjected to some legal harassment as well. Of course the matters were much less serious than what faces Assange. However, I am very convinced that the only course of action if you are up against a rigged judicial proceeding is to demand that the judge remove his/her self. Refuse to participate, walk out if possible, appeal to a higher level, demand the suspension of the judge. Usually, the last thing you need in such circumstances are boot licking lawyers who want to keep trying to get bully judges to listen to their theoretical arguments.

There has been something very wrong with Assange’s legal defence. I have read accounts of it from people who find that many of the people involved in it seem to have links to the British intelligence services. Briefly, a series of political hack judges are running kangaroo trials on Assange, his lawyers are not recusing them or appealing, and Assange has failed to get himself better lawyers.

Assange has kept trying to run Wikileaks from his laptop while under house arrest and holed up in an embassy. This means he is compromising the operations of Wikileaks and the safety of people who are providing information. He was also compromising his legal case. He seemed to be unable to accept that his ability to continue as a master whistle blower was at an end when he was charged.

The most absolutely foolish thing he has done has been to go to the Ecuadorean embassy. The point of seeking asylum is that the entity from which it is being sought must be capable of actually providing it. A small power with no clout with the British government and only a leased office space as an embassy, is not qualified to provide asylum.

The obvious place to have gone to was the Russian embassy. He had been working with the Russian state broadcaster RT. Even states such as Brazil, Argentina, or Venezuela, then under anti imperialist governments, would likely have been able and willing to help.

It is unlikely the British police would have thrown a cordon around the Russian embassy building. Nor would they intercept a tint-windowed car going from that building to a special plane parked at an airport. They would even have thought twice about pulling such a stunt with the Venezuelan embassy. But Ecuador?

While Assange was in the embassy, he and/or Wikileaks kept trying to publish things which complicated Ecaudor’s relations with its neighbours: still trying to act like he is above everything. The Correa government had to restrict his internet activity over his loud and indignant protests.

Now Assange is being slowly killed in Belmarsh prison. The cult around him is fracturing. My view remains that he wants to die, so let him die. There are much better hills to fight this war on.

The lesson of this is that if you are going to hack the American intelligence services, you have to do it from a secured position. You are in fact in a war. You have to work as if you are an intelligence service for a global movement to bring down globalism. You can not do it from the idea of being a ‘journalist’.

I hope Wikileaks and related organizations now understand this because we really do need to bring down the globalists. It needs to be made impossible for them to operate in secret.

I suggest a couple of other better recipients for any money being futilely spent defending Assange. Glen Greenwald needs to read the signs and perhaps leave Brazil with his family. Latin American countries which have recently elected progressive governments, await him.

Suzi Dawson of New Zealand has moved herself and family to the safety of Russia. The information and insights she is producing are more valuable than what Wikileaks has been able to provide lately.

What progressively minded people all over the world need to do now is to use the information these people are providing and start dismantling intelligence organizations serving illegitimate authority. How that might be done is a topic for future blogs. tr

Comments 1

  • There are too many errors in this piece to try to correct them all, but here are a couple of the biggies: 1) Assange and Wikileaks were not “fighting globalism.” They generally avoid engagement in politics. What they are doing is publishing what goes on behind the scenes among the rich and powerful. 2) Assange is Wikileaks’ originator and remains beloved by the organization. The reason he is no longer running Wikileaks is that he no longer has the means — computer, phone, mail — to do so. And also, Julian Assange, in his Wikileaks capacity, was not a hacker.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.