The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJonathan Cook Archive
The US Is Using the Guardian to Justify Jailing Assange for Life. Why Is the Paper So Silent?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Julian Assange is not on trial simply for his liberty and his life. He is fighting for the right of every journalist to do hard-hitting investigative journalism without fear of arrest and extradition to the United States. Assange faces 175 years in a US super-max prison on the basis of claims by Donald Trump’s administration that his exposure of US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan amounts to “espionage”.

The charges against Assange rewrite the meaning of “espionage” in unmistakably dangerous ways. Publishing evidence of state crimes, as Assange’s Wikileaks organisation has done, is covered by both free speech and public interest defences. Publishing evidence furnished by whistleblowers is at the heart of any journalism that aspires to hold power to account and in check. Whistleblowers typically emerge in reaction to parts of the executive turning rogue, when the state itself starts breaking its own laws. That is why journalism is protected in the US by the First Amendment. Jettison that and one can no longer claim to live in a free society.

Aware that journalists might understand this threat and rally in solidarity with Assange, US officials initially pretended that they were not seeking to prosecute the Wikileaks founder for journalism – in fact, they denied he was a journalist. That was why they preferred to charge him under the arcane, highly repressive Espionage Act of 1917. The goal was to isolate Assange and persuade other journalists that they would not share his fate.

Assange explained this US strategy way back in 2011, in a fascinating interview he gave to Australian journalist Mark Davis. (The relevant section occurs from minute 24 to 43.) This was when the Obama administration first began seeking a way to distinguish Assange from liberal media organisations, such as the New York Times and Guardian that had been working with him, so that only he would be charged with espionage.

Assange warned then that the New York Times and its editor Bill Keller had already set a terrible precedent on legitimising the administration’s redefinition of espionage by assuring the Justice Department – falsely, as it happens – that they had been simply passive recipients of Wikileaks’ documents. Assange noted (40.00 mins):

If I am a conspirator to commit espionage, then all these other media organisations and the principal journalists in them are also conspirators to commit espionage. What needs to be done is to have a united face in this.

During the course of the current extradition hearings, US officials have found it much harder to make plausible this distinction principle than they may have assumed.

Journalism is an activity, and anyone who regularly engages in that activity qualifies as a journalist. It is not the same as being a doctor or a lawyer, where you need a specific professional qualification to practice. You are a journalist if you do journalism – and you are an investigative journalist if, like Assange, you publish information the powerful want concealed. Which is why in the current extradition hearings at the Old Bailey in London, the arguments made by lawyers for the US that Assange is not a journalist but rather someone engaged in espionage are coming unstuck.

My dictionary defines “espionage” as “the practice of spying or of using spies, typically by governments to obtain political and military information”. A spy is defined as someone who “secretly obtains information on an enemy or competitor”.

Very obviously the work of Wikileaks, a transparency organisation, is not secret. By publishing the Afghan and Iraq war diaries, Wikileaks exposed crimes the United States wished to keep secret.

Assange did not help a rival state to gain an advantage, he helped all of us become better informed about the crimes our own states commit in our names. He is on trial not because he traded in secrets, but because he blew up the business of secrets – the very kind of secrets that have enabled the west to pursue permanent, resource-grabbing wars and are pushing our species to the verge of extinction.

In other words, Assange was doing exactly what journalists claim to do every day in a democracy: monitor power for the public good. Which is why ultimately the Obama administration abandoned the idea of issuing an indictment against Assange. There was simply no way to charge him without also putting journalists at the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Guardian on trial too. And doing that would have made explicit that the press is not free but works on licence from those in power.

Media indifference

For that reason alone, one might have imagined that the entire media – from rightwing to liberal-left outlets – would be up in arms about Assange’s current predicament. After all, the practice of journalism as we have known it for at least 100 years is at stake.

But in fact, as Assange feared nine years ago, the media have chosen not to adopt a “united face” – or at least, not a united face with Wikileaks. They have remained all but silent. They have ignored – apart from occasionally to ridicule – Assange’s terrifying ordeal, even though he has been locked up for many months in Belmarsh high-security prison awaiting efforts to extradite him as a spy. Assange’s very visible and prolonged physical and mental abuse – both in Belmarsh and, before that, in the Ecuadorian embassy, where he was given political asylum – have already served part of their purpose: to deter young journalists from contemplating following in his footsteps.

Even more astounding is the fact that the media have taken no more than a cursory interest in the events of the extradition hearing itself. What reporting there has been has given no sense of the gravity of the proceedings or the threat they pose to the public’s right to know what crimes are being committed in their name. Instead, serious, detailed coverage has been restricted to a handful of independent outlets and bloggers.

Most troubling of all, the media have not reported the fact that during the hearing lawyers for the US have abandoned the implausible premise of their main argument that Assange’s work did not constitute journalism. Now they appear to accept that Assange did indeed do journalism, and that other journalists could suffer his fate. What was once implicit has become explicit, as Assange warned: any journalist who exposes serious state crimes now risks the threat of being locked away for the rest of their lives under the draconian Espionage Act.

ORDER IT NOW

This glaring indifference to the case and its outcome is extremely revealing about what we usually refer to as the “mainstream” media. In truth, there is nothing mainstream or popular about this kind of media. It is in reality a media elite, a corporate media, owned by and answerable to billionaire owners – or in the case of the BBC, ultimately to the state – whose interests it really serves.

The corporate media’s indifference to Assange’s trial hints at the fact that it is actually doing very little of the sort of journalism that threatens corporate and state interests and that challenges real power. It won’t suffer Assange’s fate because, as we shall see, it doesn’t attempt to do the kind of journalism Assange and his Wikileaks organisation specialise in.

The indifference suggests rather starkly that the primary role of the corporate media – aside from its roles in selling us advertising and keeping us pacified through entertainment and consumerism – is to serve as an arena in which rival centres of power within the establishment fight for their narrow interests, settling scores with each other, reinforcing narratives that benefit them, and spreading disinformation against their competitors. On this battlefield, the public are mostly spectators, with our interests only marginally affected by the outcome.

Gauntlet thrown down

The corporate media in the US and UK is no more diverse and pluralistic than the major corporate-funded political parties they identify with. This kind of media mirrors the same flaws as the Republican and Democratic parties in the US: they cheerlead consumption-based, globalised capitalism; they favour a policy of unsustainable, infinite growth on a finite planet; and they invariably support colonial, profit-driven, resource-grabbing wars, nowadays often dressed up as humanitarian intervention. The corporate media and the corporate political parties serve the interests of the same power establishment because they are equally embedded in that establishment.

(In this context, it was revealing that when Assange’s lawyers argued earlier this year that he could not be extradited to the US because extradition for political work is barred under its treaty with the UK, the US insisted that Assange be denied this defence. They argued that “political” referred narrowly to “party political” – that is, politics that served the interests of a recognised party.)

From the outset, the work of Assange and Wikileaks threatened to disrupt the cosy relationship between the media elite and the political elite. Assange threw down a gauntlet to journalists, especially those in the liberal parts of the media, who present themselves as fearless muckrakers and watchdogs on power.

Unlike the corporate media, Wikileaks doesn’t depend on access to those in power for its revelations, or on the subsidies of billionaires, or on income from corporate advertisers. Wikileaks receives secret documents direct from whistleblowers, giving the public an unvarnished, unmediated perspective on what the powerful are doing – and what they want us to think they are doing.

Wikileaks has allowed us to see raw, naked power before it puts on a suit and tie, slicks back its hair and conceals the knife.

But as much as this has been an empowering development for the general public, it is at best a very mixed blessing for the corporate media.

In early 2010, the fledgling Wikileaks organisation received its first tranche of documents from US army whistleblower Chelsea Manning: hundreds of thousands of classified files exposing US crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Assange and “liberal” elements of the corporate media were briefly and uncomfortably thrown into each others’ arms.

On the one hand, Assange needed the manpower and expertise provided by big-hitting newspapers like the New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel to help Wikileaks sift through vast trove to find important, hidden disclosures. He also needed the mass audiences those papers could secure for the revelations, as well as those outlets’ ability to set the news agenda in other media.

Liberal media, on the other hand, needed to court Assange and Wikileaks to avoid being left behind in the media war for big, Pulitzer Prize-winning stories, for audience share and for revenues. Each worried that, were it not to do a deal with Wikileaks, a rival would publish those world-shattering exclusives instead and erode its market share.

Gatekeeper role under threat

For a brief while, this mutual dependency just about worked. But only for a short time. In truth, the liberal corporate media is far from committed to a model of unmediated, whole-truth journalism. The Wikileaks model undermined the corporate media’s relationship to the power establishment and threatened its access. It introduced a tension and division between the functions of the political elite and the media elite.

Those intimate and self-serving ties are illustrated in the most famous example of corporate media working with a “whistleblower”: the use of a source, known as Deep Throat, who exposed the crimes of President Richard Nixon to Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein back in the early 1970s, in what became known as Watergate. That source, it emerged much later, was actually the associate director of the FBI, Mark Felt.

Far from being driven to bring down Nixon out of principle, Felt wished to settle a score with the administration after he was passed over for promotion. Later, and quite separately, Felt was convicted of authorising his own Watergate-style crimes on behalf of the FBI. In the period before it was known that Felt had been Deep Throat, President Ronald Reagan pardoned him for those crimes. It is perhaps not surprising that this less than glorious context is never mentioned in the self-congratulatory coverage of Watergate by the corporate media.

But worse than the potential rupture between the media elite and the political elite, the Wikileaks model implied an imminent redundancy for the corporate media. In publishing Wikileaks’ revelations, the corporate media feared it was being reduced to the role of a platform – one that could be discarded later – for the publication of truths sourced elsewhere.

ORDER IT NOW

The undeclared role of the corporate media, dependent on corporate owners and corporate advertising, is to serve as gatekeeper, deciding which truths should be revealed in the “public interest”, and which whistleblowers will be allowed to disseminate which secrets in their possession. The Wikileaks model threatened to expose that gatekeeping role, and make clearer that the criterion used by corporate media for publication was less “public interest” than “corporate interest”.

In other words, from the start the relationship between Assange and “liberal” elements of the corporate media was fraught with instability and antagonism.

The corporate media had two possible responses to the promised Wikileaks revolution.

One was to get behind it. But that was not straightforward. As we have noted, Wikileaks’ goal of transparency was fundamentally at odds both with the corporate media’s need for access to members of the power elite and with its embedded role, representing one side in the “competition” between rival power centres.

The corporate media’s other possible response was to get behind the political elite’s efforts to destroy Wikileaks. Once Wikileaks and Assange were disabled, there could be a return to media business as usual. Outlets would once again chase tidbits of information from the corridors of power, getting “exclusives” from the power centres they were allied with.

Put in simple terms, Fox News would continue to get self-serving exclusives against the Democratic party, and MSNBC would get self-serving exclusives against Trump and the Republican Party. That way, everyone would get a slice of editorial action and advertising revenue – and nothing significant would change. The power elite in its two flavours, Democrat and Republican, would continue to run the show unchallenged, switching chairs occasionally as elections required.

From dependency to hostility

Typifying the media’s fraught, early relationship with Assange and Wikileaks – sliding rapidly from initial dependency to outright hostility – was the Guardian. It was a major beneficiary of the Afghan and Iraq war diaries, but very quickly turned its guns on Assange. (Notably, the Guardian would also lead the attack in the UK on the former leader of the Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn, who was seen as threatening a “populist” political insurgency in parallel to Assange’s “populist” media insurgency.)

Despite being widely viewed as a bastion of liberal-left journalism, the Guardian has been actively complicit in rationalising Assange’s confinement and abuse over the past decade and in trivialising the threat posed to him and the future of real journalism by Washington’s long-term efforts to permanently lock him away.

There is not enough space on this page to highlight all the appalling examples of the Guardian’s ridiculing of Assange (a few illustrative tweets scattered through this post will have to suffice) and disparaging of renowned experts in international law who have tried to focus attention on his arbitrary detention and torture. But the compilation of headlines in the tweet below conveys an impression of the antipathy the Guardian has long harboured for Assange, most of it – such as James Ball’s article – now exposed as journalistic malpractice.

The Guardian’s failings have extended too to the current extradition hearings, which have stripped away years of media noise and character assassination to make plain why Assange has been deprived of his liberty for the past 10 years: because the US wants revenge on him for publishing evidence of its crimes and seeks to deter others from following in his footsteps.

In its pages, the Guardian has barely bothered to cover the case, running superficial, repackaged agency copy. This week it belatedly ran a solitary opinion piece from Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s former leftwing president, to mark the fact that many dozens of former world leaders have called on the UK to halt the extradition proceedings. They appear to appreciate the gravity of the case much more clearly than the Guardian and most other corporate media outlets.

But among the Guardian’s own columnists, even its supposedly leftwing ones like Gorge Monbiot and Owen Jones, there has been blanket silence about the hearings. In familiar style, the only in-house commentary on the case so far is yet another snide hit-piece – this one in the fashion section written by Hadley Freeman. It simply ignores the terrifying developments for journalism taking place at the Old Bailey, close by the Guardian’s offices. Instead Freeman mocks the credible fears of Assange’s partner, Stella Moris, that, if Assange is extradited, his two young children may not be allowed contact with their father again.

Freeman’s goal, as has been typical of the Guardian’s modus operandi, is not to raise an issue of substance about what is happening to Assange but to score hollow points in a distracting culture war the paper has become so well-versed in monetising. In her piece, entitled “Ask Hadley: ‘Politicising’ and ‘weaponising’ are becoming rather convenient arguments”, Freeman exploits Assange and Moris’s suffering to advance her own convenient argument that the word “politicised” is much misused – especially, it seems, when criticising the Guardian for its treatment of Assange and Corbyn.

The paper could not make it any plainer. It dismisses the idea that it is a “political” act for the most militarised state on the planet to put on trial a journalist for publishing evidence of its systematic war crimes, with the aim of locking him up permanently.

Password divulged

The Guardian may be largely ignoring the hearings, but the Old Bailey is far from ignoring the Guardian. The paper’s name has been cited over and over again in court by lawyers for the US. They have regularly quoted from a 2011 book on Assange by two Guardian reporters, David Leigh and Luke Harding, to bolster the Trump administration’s increasingly frantic arguments for extraditing Assange.

When Leigh worked with Assange, back in 2010, he was the Guardian’s investigations editor and, it should be noted, the brother-in-law of the then-editor, Alan Rusbridger. Harding, meanwhile, is a long-time reporter whose main talent appears to be churning out Guardian books at high speed that closely track the main concerns of the UK and US security services. In the interests of full disclosure, I should note that I had underwhelming experiences dealing with both of them during my years working at the Guardian.

Normally a newspaper would not hesitate to put on its front page reports of the most momentous trial of recent times, and especially one on which the future of journalism depends. That imperative would be all the stronger were its own reporters’ testimony likely to be critical in determining the outcome of the trial. For the Guardian, detailed and prominent reporting of, and commentary on, the Assange extradition hearings should be a double priority.

So how to explain the Guardian’s silence?

The book by Leigh and Harding, WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy, made a lot of money for the Guardian and its authors by hurriedly cashing in on the early notoriety around Assange and Wikileaks. But the problem today is that the Guardian has precisely no interest in drawing attention to the book outside the confines of a repressive courtroom. Indeed, were the book to be subjected to any serious scrutiny, it might now look like an embarrassing, journalistic fraud.

The two authors used the book not only to vent their personal animosity towards Assange – in part because he refused to let them write his official biography – but also to divulge a complex password entrusted to Leigh by Assange that provided access to an online cache of encrypted documents. That egregious mistake by the Guardian opened the door for every security service in the world to break into the file, as well as other files once they could crack Assange’s sophisticated formula for devising passwords.

Much of the furore about Assange’s supposed failure to protect names in the leaked documents published by Assange – now at the heart of the extradition case – stems from Leigh’s much-obscured role in sabotaging Wikileaks’ work. Assange was forced into a damage limitation operation because of Leigh’s incompetence, forcing him to hurriedly publish files so that anyone worried they had been named in the documents could know before hostile security services identified them.

This week at the Assange hearings, Professor Christian Grothoff, a computer expert at Bern University, noted that Leigh had recounted in his 2011 book how he pressured a reluctant Assange into giving him the password. In his testimony, Grothoff referred to Leigh as a “bad faith actor”.

‘Not a reliable source’

Nearly a decade ago Leigh and Harding could not have imagined what would be at stake all these years later – for Assange and for other journalists – because of an accusation in their book that the Wikileaks founder recklessly failed to redact names before publishing the Afghan and Iraq war diaries.

The basis of the accusation rests on Leigh’s highly contentious recollection of a discussion with three other journalists and Assange at a restaurant near the Guardian’s former offices in July 2010, shortly before publication of the Afghan revelations.

According to Leigh, during a conversation about the risks of publication to those who had worked with the US, Assange said: “They’re informants, they deserve to die.” Lawyers for the US have repeatedly cited this line as proof that Assange was indifferent to the fate of those identified in the documents and so did not expend care in redacting names. (Let us note, as an aside, that the US has failed to show that anyone was actually put in harm’s way from publication, and in the Manning trial a US official admitted that no one had been harmed.)

The problem is that Leigh’s recollection of the dinner has not been confirmed by anyone else, and is hotly disputed by another participant, John Goetz of Der Spiegel. He has sworn an affidavit saying Leigh is wrong. He gave testimony at the Old Bailey for the defence last week. Extraordinarily the judge, Vanessa Baraitser, refused to allow him to contest Leigh’s claim, even though lawyers for the US have repeatedly cited that claim.

Further, Goetz, as well as Nicky Hager, an investigative journalist from New Zealand, and Professor John Sloboda, of Iraq Body Count, all of whom worked with Wikileaks to redact names at different times, have testified that Assange was meticulous about the redaction process. Goetz admitted that he had been personally exasperated by the delays imposed by Assange to carry out redactions:

At that time, I remember being very, very irritated by the constant, unending reminders by Assange that we needed to be secure, that we needed to encrypt things, that we needed to use encrypted chats. … The amount of precautions around the safety of the material were enormous. I thought it was paranoid and crazy but it later became standard journalistic practice.

Prof Sloboda noted that, as Goetz had implied in his testimony, the pressure to cut corners on redaction came not from Assange but from Wikileaks’ “media partners”, who were desperate to get on with publication. One of the most prominent of those partners, of course, was the Guardian. According to the account of proceedings at the Old Bailey by former UK ambassador Craig Murray:

Goetz [of Der Spiegel] recalled an email from David Leigh of The Guardian stating that publication of some stories was delayed because of the amount of time WikiLeaks were devoting to the redaction process to get rid of the “bad stuff.”

When confronted by US counsel with Leigh’s claim in the book about the restaurant conversation, Hager observed witheringly: “I would not regard that [Leigh and Harding’s book] as a reliable source.” Under oath, he ascribed Leigh’s account of the events of that time to “animosity”.

Scoop exposed as fabrication

Harding is hardly a dispassionate observer either. His most recent “scoop” on Assange, published in the Guardian two years ago, has been exposed as an entirely fabricated smear. It claimed that Assange secretly met a Trump aide, Paul Manafort, and unnamed “Russians” while he was confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in 2016.

Harding’s transparent aim in making this false claim was to revive a so-called “Russiagate” smear suggesting that, in the run-up to the 2016 US presidential election, Assange conspired with the Trump camp and Russian president Vladimir Putin to help get Trump elected. These allegations proved pivotal in alienating Democrats who might otherwise have rallied to Assange’s side, and have helped forge bipartisan support for Trump’s current efforts to extradite Assange and jail him.

The now forgotten context for these claims was Wikileaks’ publication shortly before the election of a stash of internal Democratic party emails. They exposed corruption, including efforts by Democratic officials to sabotage the party’s primaries to undermine Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton’s rival for the party’s presidential nomination.

ORDER IT NOW

Those closest to the release of the emails have maintained that they were leaked by a Democratic party insider. But the Democratic leadership had a pressing need to deflect attention from what the emails revealed. Instead they actively sought to warm up a Cold War-style narrative that the emails had been hacked by Russia to foil the US democratic process and get Trump into power.

No evidence was ever produced for this allegation. Harding, however, was one of the leading proponents of the Russiagate narrative, producing another of his famously fast turnaround books on the subject, Collusion. The complete absence of any supporting evidence for Harding’s claims was exposed in dramatic fashion when he was questioned by journalist Aaron Mate.

Harding’s 2018 story about Manafort was meant to add another layer of confusing mischief to an already tawdry smear campaign. But problematically for Harding, the Ecuadorian embassy at the time of Manafort’s supposed visit was probably the most heavily surveilled building in London. The CIA, as we would later learn, had even illegally installed cameras inside Assange’s quarters to spy on him. There was no way that Manafort and various “Russians” could have visited Assange without leaving a trail of video evidence. And yet none exists. Rather than retract the story, the Guardian has gone to ground, simply refusing to engage with critics.

Most likely, either Harding or a source were fed the story by a security service in a further bid to damage Assange. Harding made not even the most cursory checks to ensure that his “exclusive” was true.

Unwilling to speak in court

Despite both Leigh and Harding’s dismal track record in their dealings with Assange, one might imagine that at this critical point – as Assange faces extradition and jail for doing journalism – the pair would want to have their voices heard directly in court rather than allow lawyers to speak for them or allow other journalists to suggest unchallenged that they are “unreliable” or “bad faith” actors.

Leigh could testify at the Old Bailey that he stands by his claims that Assange was indifferent to the dangers posed to informants; or he could concede that his recollection of events may have been mistaken; or clarify that, whatever Assange said at the infamous dinner, he did in fact work scrupulously to redact names – as other witnesses have testified.

Given the grave stakes, for Assange and for journalism, that would be the only honourable thing for Leigh to do: to give his testimony and submit to cross-examination. Instead he shelters behind the US counsel’s interpretation of his words and Judge Baraitser’s refusal to allow anyone else to challenge it, as though Leigh brought his claim down from the mountain top.

The Guardian too, given it central role in the Assange saga, might have been expected to insist on appearing in court, or at the very least to be publishing editorials furiously defending Assange from the concerted legal assault on his rights and journalism’s future. The Guardian’s “star” leftwing columnists, figures like George Monbiot and Owen Jones, might similarly be expected to be rallying readers’ concerns, both in the paper’s pages and on their own social media accounts. Instead they have barely raised their voices above a whisper, as though fearful for their jobs.

These failings are not about the behaviour of any single journalist. They reflect a culture at the Guardian, and by extension in the wider corporate media, that abhors the kind of journalism Assange promoted: a journalism that is open, genuinely truth-seeking, non-aligned and collaborative rather than competitive. The Guardian wants journalism as a closed club, one where journalists are once again treated as high priests by their flock of readers, who know only what the corporate media is willing to disclose to them.

Assange understood the problem back in 2011, as he explained in his interview with Mark Davis (38.00mins):

There is a point I want to make about perceived moral institutions, such as the Guardian and New York Times. The Guardian has good people in it. It also has a coterie of people at the top who have other interests. … What drives a paper like the Guardian or New York Times is not their inner moral values. It is simply that they have a market. In the UK, there is a market called “educated liberals”. Educated liberals want to buy a newspaper like the Guardian and therefore an institution arises to fulfil that market. … What is in the newspaper is not a reflection of the values of the people in that institution, it is a reflection of the market demand.

That market demand, in turn, is shaped not by moral values but by economic forces – forces that need a media elite, just as they do a political elite, to shore up an ideological worldview that keeps those elites in power. Assange threatened to bring that whole edifice crashing down. That is why the institutions of the Guardian and the New York Times will shed no more tears than Donald Trump and Joe Biden if Assange ends up spending the rest of his life behind bars.

(Republished from Jonathan Cook by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 88 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Fred777 says:

    As of this moment an article about THE JEWS has 41 comments while a story about one of the few legitimate journalists in the world getting railroaded has none.

    • Thanks: Tom Welsh
  2. G J T says:

    Assange is an intelligence operative and has been since day one. This is all one giant psyop.

    • Agree: noname27
    • Troll: Tom Welsh, Tsar Nicholas
    • Replies: @Deep Thought
    , @Biff
  3. Durruti says:
    @Fred777

    As of this moment an article about THE JEWS has 41 comments while a story about one of the few legitimate journalists in the world getting railroaded has none.

    It has your comment, & now, mine.

    I have some questions about the legitimacy and accuracy of Assange (he writes about secrets, but bails on the most important ones). He has yet to explain who did 9/11, assassinate John F. Kennedy, the reason for the butchery of American sailors on The LIBERTY, or The Fate of the Palestinian People, who are being Ethnically Cleansed & Genocided by the Rothschilds & other Zionist Oligarchs, and just who controls America.

    Cook writes:

    Assange threatened to bring that whole edifice crashing down. That is why the institutions of the Guardian and the New York Times will shed no more tears than Donald Trump and Joe Biden if Assange ends up spending the rest of his life behind bars.

    I fail to see the danger to the “edifice” from Assange’s ‘revelations,’ – that were already known by many.

    Assange faces 175 years in a US super-max prison on the basis of claims by Donald Trump’s administration that his exposure of US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan amounts to “espionage”.

    Most importantly, if Assange is actually in Jail, he must be freed, and allowed to go on his way.

    • Agree: Old and Grumpy
  4. Jewish Israeli citizen Jonathan Cook should be recalling that back in 2010 when the Assange story was being aggressively pumped by intel-agency-tied news media such as the NY Times & Guardian –

    Bibi Netanyahu was assuring Israeli media that Assange was co-operating with Israel to shield Israel from negative ‘leaks’, saying essentially that Assange was Mossad … indeed, Assange has remained staunchly pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian, anti-9-11-truth

    And then 82-year-old Zbigniew Brzezinski showed up on USA television, PBS News Hour 29 Nov 2010, blurting out that it was obvious the ‘Wikileaks’ were from intel

    Corp media is ignoring Assange because they know the whole story is fake, and Assange was and remains, intel, and the UK trial is a sham. Notice how Assange is not de-platformed & blocked from raising funds despite alleged ‘serious criminal charges’; it’s a gov op so they can still solicit shekels.

    From a recent article on how, rather hilariously, Chief Judge Arbuthnot of the court holding the Assange ‘trial’ in London right now, has a son Alex making millions of pounds selling anti-Julian-Assange ‘cyber security’ services, even marketing with Assange’s name … which Assange’s so-called ‘defence’ lawyers aren’t saying much about, caring little about the clear conflict of interest:

    [MORE]

    Multiple pieces of evidence show Assange & Snowden are both fakers in an elaborate fraud sponsored by the intelligence agencies – multiple links to the Rothschilds, people dead after contacting Assange, Snowden ‘leaking’ to Dick Cheney’s biographer, both being anti-9-11-truth & supporting Israel, both of them hiding files that would make their ‘extraditions’ impossible, etc.

    Many assume Assange is genuine, and credit the dubious story Assange was ‘living in the London Ecuador embassy’ all those years, not just there for photo-ops & meetings

    So how is Assange fake, given he revealed those awful US crimes, giving him apparent ‘legitimacy’? Multiple motives:
    – Being a ‘rat trap’, inducing real dissidents or whistle-blowers to contact Wikileaks or Assange-Snowden media, so they can be sidelined, silenced, even killed
    – Frightening the world with USA power, brutality & surveillance
    – De-legitimising real dissidents, who stay obscure without CIA-tied media backing by such as NY Times or UK Guardian
    – Paving the way for a more globalist New World Order, furthered by Wikileaks stories of yet more USA government crimes
    – Flat-out profit, as for the family of Assange court’s Chief Judge Lady Emma Arbuthnot … her son Alexander … his company Darktrace “established in response to data leaks from Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks and from Edward Snowden”, highly successful, with 40 offices and over 1000 employees, millions of pounds …

  5. Assange is a hero for using Wikileaks to expose government corruption and giving the public info that they’re entitled to know. He and Seth Rich exposed how the corruption of Hillary Clinton and the DNC during the 2016 election. Of course, she lost Bigly, but she’s still running loose and trying to interfere in the 2020 election and the government and courts are protecting her.

  6. Alfred says:

    All young Guardian readers should switch to

    https://off-guardian.org/

    if they want a taste of what the Guardian used to be like.

    Here is a typical article:

    Is evidence masks don’t work being purged from the internet?
    At least two studies have been removed from websites, with very little explanation given.

    • Agree: Miro23
  7. Emslander says:

    Assange crossed several uncross-able people: Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama and Colin Powell. He must be tortured, killed and buried head-down.

  8. I for one fail to understand why Jonathan Cook would put great effort to the defense of Assange.

    This is all a Zio TV Drama Series running for years now with good ratings. Assange was given info to facilitate the destruction of the Hilary Clinton campaign and faclitate the Zio lap dummy Trump’s election victory among other tasks.

    Wikileaks never leaked info damaging to Israel, and as Veterans Today has repeatedly pointed out, State Dept cables would be full of info mentioning the Chosen state, as they are involved in quite a bit of mischief going on in the M.E, Europe and Africa.

    Assange according to well researched reports by Veterans Today and other sources paint him as a major False Flag operation set out to purposely leak and seed info to the MSM, mostly true but not all, but all selected for a purpose. We all cannot be fooled. He had met with Netanyahu a year or so before this Wikileaks began. The story is definitely more Zio theatrics, just look at all the MSM sympathy and reporting he receives. Look at those that receive none.

    J.C’ is best to leave his lamenting and tears for the Palestinians and other Israeli victims.

    Assange, will get a pardon by Trump after his upcoming election victory.

  9. Why name Trump so conspicuously in the first paragraph when you’re writing about The Guardian and detailing mostly events from 2010 & 2011?

    Hard to accept a screed based on the ‘sacred values of journalism’ when you forfeit objectivity right out of the gate.

  10. First, I’d like to extend my warm thanks to Unz for covering the Assange when so much of the corrupt MSM refuses to do so.

    Second, the destruction of the Guardian from 2010 (when it helped Assange and Snowden) into another neoliberal stenographer for the Deep State is worth a book in of itself.

    The absolute relentness smearing of Assange, who is jailed solely for exposing US/UK warcrimes, by even self-avowed “liberal” newspapers exposes the ‘free media’ hoax. They don’t care about free speech or brave journalism.

  11. @G J T

    If Assange was doing the SAME to the opposite camp, you would call him a Nobel Peace Prize winner!!!

  12. Drew says:

    Is investigative journalism really necessary? I wonder…

    Before the fact, maybe; but after the fact, it’s mostly useless because it’s easy to infer the plot on the basis of the outcome. There’s really not much point to discovering a plot after it’s executed. And really, what American truly doesn’t know or believe the people running its government are corrupt? How Assange really provided us info we couldn’t already infer for ourselves?

    • Replies: @sally
  13. @brabantian:

    If Assange was a mossad agent, do you really think he would have been rotting in the gulag for over a decade? Oh wait, the imprisonment is fake, too, isn’t it… He’s actually on some secret island paradise with Epstein, right? Sure, and we’re all trapped in a giant computer simulation… Don’t stand with Assange, just keep hitting ctl-alt-delete until the program crashes and we’re all free!

    For those still here in the real world, can you imagine that just maybe, if Assange were still free, the world’s cower19 bio-führers might not have gotten away with this world Kung Flu insanity…?

    • Agree: Ivan
    • Replies: @Miville
  14. For those interested “The Real Watergate: . . .”

    By Geoff Shepherd

    The reason in my view is very simple and obvious. Mr Assange upset the liberal world’s designs for who should be the president of the US. His reporting in contrast to nearly every other news outlet described and sourced a candidate deeply rooted in nearly every the most of the country, had decided they did not want in leadership.

    They his his reporting as a betrayal of the liberal establishment. I did not read his expose’s, but clearly they were counter to the narrative and the expected outcomes for the US election. Whether his reporting had impact on voting, and I doubt it or not — his point of view despite being supported by evidence is viewed as betrayal and no small amount of jealousy, I suspect.

    • Agree: Ivan
  15. @Tommy Thompson

    Despite wondering about all you have state, Wikileaks is still a publication. Assange is a publisher. He shouldn’t be prosecuted. As despicable as the modern press is, you still them to be able to freely publish content of their choice.

    Interestingly I also think you have accidentally laid out a reason why both the MSM and political class need Assange silent and gone.

  16. The Guardian, judged by its stories over the last four years that involved Trump and the Republican party, make it clear it’s just another tool to disseminate leftist propaganda. It’s not a newspaper at all .

    • Replies: @Alden
  17. trickster says:
    @Fred777

    The denizens on this site are obsessed with Jews. They must have photos of them pinned to their dart boards. It is becoming a sport here on Unz, Jews this, Jews that and Jews the Other. Its a feeding frenzy in the crocodile pit where the majority snap at an imaginary morsel with the Jew tag…..and even in their rage and enthusiasm miss the target and bite each other.

    The majority dont know any Jews and have never met one. Many of them have gone to restaurants and sat next to one without knowing. Soros, the Rothchilds, the Warburgs and Jews are everywhere. Its getting to the point where if I continue perusing this site I will have to check my whole house and the house lot every time I come home……just in case there are any scoundrels with malignant intentions, black coats, curls and Lee Van Cleef hats skulking about.

    To your point if one writes an article of 100 words headlined ” Jew billionaire builds orphanage for Black Kids” there would be no end of poisonous comments screamed into willing ears. There would be froth and spittle everywhere !

    Another article of 1500 words headlined ” Catholic priests violate altar boys over a 10 year period” gets a yawn.

    It is amusing to see the reactions, the bleating and the braying. In the meantime the Jews are barely aware of or care about the existence of the Goy. To them it must be a lark that without lifting a finger, with just a look, they can make the rabble jump and squirm in discomfort.

    Paranoia and obsession rules, reason has flown and only emotion circles before returning to the roost with pigeons (aka victims) with the same mentality.

    Just watch the trolls debouch at my comment LOL.

  18. Agent76 says:

    Sep 07, 2020 Wikileaks’ Julian Assange in court to stop corrupt UK/USA extradition

    Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, being kept in a UK prison against his will and no crime committed, is back in the corrupt UK courts to stop the corrupt British and corrupt Americans from extraditing him to the USA, bith governments upset he reveals that these two countries committed crimes against humanity – and so far have got away with it because no US President or UK Prime Minister is sitting in The Hague prison.

    Sep 22, 2020 DAY 11 Joe Lauria’s Daily Report on Assange Extradition Hearing

    Joe Lauria will report every weekday at 5pm BST on the Assange extradition hearing.

  19. GMC says:

    Oh boy, Hollywood is already writing the script for this movie – Oh wait – is anyone in Hollywood sticking up for Mr. Assange ? One – Pamela Anderson. Like the guy or not – whether he’s an intel huckleberry gone rogue or a patsy for the 1st amendment – this is serious shit when it comes to Journalism. Andre Vltchek might/ probably has just been assassinated for his life time work as a fighter for justice, so its time to look at the Freedom of Journalism in a very serious light – even if MSM won’t. There should be a million people storming that judge’s Dog and Pony show – but the Brits are as programmed as the Americans are.

    • Thanks: Majority of One
  20. Turk 152 says:

    I think Chris Hedges frames it nicely: https://consortiumnews.com/2020/09/23/chris-hedges-the-cost-of-resistance/

    Is this about Journalism, or Lords and Serfs and how the Lords reaction to real threats to their power? Julian Assange, more than Donald Trump, shaped history by defeating Hillary Clinton; there is no way Trump would have won in 2016 without Wikileaks. We would be living in a Hillary Clinton Presidency right now without Wikileaks, and the Rulers know it.

    What is beguiling is that Trump ordered the prosecution of Assage, even though the only reason he is power is because of him. I have been judging Trump favorably because of his enemies, but it does give one pause as to whether anti-establishment Trump meme is just pure malarky.

    • Replies: @sally
  21. GeeBee says:

    Having featured a tweet in which he said that:

    It should be proof, if more were needed, that these people aren’t journalists, they are courtiers of the British state

    Jonathan Cook follows with these words in the article:

    In truth, there is nothing mainstream or popular about this kind of media. It is in reality a media elite, a corporate media, owned by and answerable to billionaire owners – or in the case of the BBC, ultimately to the state – whose interests it really serves.

    Cook, with his reference to ‘billionaire owners’, is almost there, but he fails to land the necessary big punch by completing the final link, achieved by asking the question: “If the BBC really serves the British state, then whom does the British state serve?”

    The ‘official’ answer is, of course, that under a ‘democracy’ it serves ‘the people’. The true answer, on the other hand, is that as in all states that operate under ‘democracy’, the illusion of power residing with ‘the people’ is assiduously nurtured by officialdom, whereas in reality the state serves the Money Power. The long history of this same Money Power gradually sapping the traditional state’s power, and insidiously replacing it with its own hegemony, is traceable to the sixteenth- and more especially the seventeenth-century. By the 8th May 1945 the process was at last complete (after an inconvenient delay of twelve years owing to a pestiferous nuisance attempting – and almost succeeding – to confer true power to the ordinary volk.)

    Once the Money Power becomes wealthier than ‘the palace’, the end of good governance is nigh, and ‘the people’ are reduced to mere helots, by a gradual process designed to marginalise, deracinate and subdue them to the point where resistance is futile. This is where we are today. The ‘coronavirus’ nonsense has graphically, if unwittingly, underlined this point. When I was a teenager, growing up in England, it used to be a proud boast that “an Englishman’s home is his castle”. Today, that is no more than a very sick joke. As the events of this dismal year have amply demonstrated, an Englishman’s home is today little more than his prison.

  22. Baz7 says:

    How do you increase publicity about Julian Assange’s trial in the UK?

    I am astonished that The BBC or the Guardian have not published what should be a front page story on all MSM publications.

    The only publicity in the UK is on RT.com. Our press should be ashamed at their cowardice. It shows how craven and bought by power our media has become.

    I remember when the Security State apparatus visited the Guardian’s offices and forced them to destroy their hard drives physically to show their power, and shortly afterwards the editor resigned.

    Now the Guardian is useful for the odd article on social trends but has no standing as a paper that stands for any principles as it did in the past.

    • Replies: @Miville
  23. Hughes says:

    Whoever says that Assange is counterintelligence psyops surely can explain how letting his extradition and imprisonment to US is a good thing ? Knowing that they’ll make this precedence for more similar journalist criminalization later ?

  24. “Educated liberals”. Aye, there’s the rub.” In the ante-bellum 19th Century US, this type of individual was described as a “Mugwump”, with his mug on one side and his wump on the other. Control over the message is all important to the financial and corporate elite. After all, their minions consist almost exclusively of “educated liberals”. My own take on liberals, as a recovering journalist, is that they are wanna be radicals, but their balls have not descended and their tits have not popped. They want their cake and eat it too. Comfort, credibility and normative consensus are their lodestars.

    In essence, then, liberals are moral cowards. We must distinguish between liberality and liberalism. Those who are culturally liberal do have moral and ethical reasons for their points of view. Politically liberal, on the other hand, indicates an individual who goes along to get along. It is this class of people, almost totally innocent of possessing one iota of common sense, upon which the entire corrupted socio-political infrastructure requires in its needs for aggression abroad combined with repression at home. So in essence, political liberals (frequently described as limousine liberals) are, for their own personal interests, traitors to the common weal.

  25. @Tommy Thompson

    Tommy: I generally enjoy and respect your postings. A note of caution: Veterans Today is a limited hangout for intel-connected individuals. When I e.m.ed Gordon Duff, I was a bit shocked to receive a response from his associate Haigh, apparently a lowland Scot who has close connections with British intel. We exchanged a few e.m.s and then when I questioned one of their directions, he promptly blackballed me.

    Limited hangouts are similar to false-front edifices. They produce some good material and then amidst that matrix one is shocked to discover a poison pill. VT has succeeded in losing my trust.

    • Thanks: Kali
    • Replies: @Tommy Thompson
  26. Hadley Freeman is like the Guardian’s answer to Bari Weiss at the Times, she’s everything the Guardian has become in the last 10-15 years, and the BBC too, they’ve really fallen off a cliff.

  27. @trickster

    Der Trickster a master of psywar tactics? Not. Your concluding sentence gave it all away. True, there are some posters who infest this site who hate Joos. They remind me of mosquitos and gnats, annoying but nothing more–except, perhaps, for those few who happen to be intel practitioners of black propaganda who work to keep those juices flowing.

    During the late 50’s–early ’60’s boobtoob noose commentators deliberately conflated the meanings of discrimination and prejudice. One who automatically and axiomatically hates Joos, can be said to be prejudiced. Other individuals here have researched alternative histories and understand the roles of the Babylonian Blood Brotherhood (aka the Sanhedrin) which has dominated Talmudic Judaism (the “Chosen”) for some 2,500 years. Within their compass dwell the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Schiffs and the Lazards, to name some principals.

    People who have come to understand the roles of the “connected” Jews like George $oro$, who as a youngster cooperated with the Nazis to deport most of Hungary’s Jews to the camps, magically made his way to England, postwar, magically was enabled to attend ranking educational institutions in Britain, magically made his way to Wall $treet and became a maven/guru of trends; happens to be a “made man”. It is more than slightly probable that little Georgie of everyone else’s sorrows, is, like Jakob Schiff and and August Belmont before him, the number one Minion/agent for the Rothschild Crime Clan.

    Individuals who are aware of the above-stated 90% probability-factored accurate history may be said to discriminate when it comes to CERTAIN very well connected Jews. After all, as a Jewish character in Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby” bragged at a Hamptons party: “You gotta have gonnections.”

    • Agree: mark tapley, Daniel Rich
    • Replies: @Ivan
  28. Durruti says:
    @GeeBee

    When I was a teenager, growing up in England, it used to be a proud boast that “an Englishman’s home is his castle”. Today, that is no more than a very sick joke. As the events of this dismal year have amply demonstrated, an Englishman’s home is today little more than his prison.

    Brilliant!

    And in America, our Homes, are our Prisons, and for 3 million Homeless, they share another Cell, under a Bridge, or Bus Station, or secluded area of a Public Park.

    And a Prison incarcerates Mentally, as well as Physically. The damage inflicted is many sided and hard to cure.

    It is the Break-Out we need to prepare!

    • Agree: GeeBee
  29. I believe the whole Assange affair is just another gov. psyop. to deflect the publics attention and get them to accept infringement on our constitutional due process rights. The government has staged lots of these types of false flags that most people never think about and has also staged lots of deaths.

    We know that gov. has staged many false shootings as with Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing and Los Vegas. Fake Floyd, Arbery are also recent examples along with the staged riots that in many cases use paid rioters and fake police along with the useful idiots and opportunist looters. I have not read anything on it but I suspect that the arrest and incarceration of Ghislaine Maxwell is fake.

    I am also suspicious of the Weinstein case. I believe this is just part of the me too mov. I admit don’t know much about legal proceedings and I have no use for the Hollywood side of Zionism represented by Weinstein that is really just the opposite of the right wing side as portrayed by say Adelson but I would like someone to comment on this. How do you convict someone of a crime when there is no evidence? Just heresy testimony on alleged events from years ago. One of the women was so traumatized by Weinstein’s advances that she called him back a while later telling him he was her alternate boy friend and giving him her new phone no. None of these women filed a report with the police or went to the hospital. If someone can be convicted under a situation like this then we are all in danger.

    One of the commenters on this article has mentioned Hillary. I also question her case. We know that in 2016 Dr. Noel in his video showed and explained beyond any reasonable doubt that Hilary had Parkinson’s disease. I don’t know how fast this condition would progress but from the indications we saw at that time I question wether this devious desiccated old shill for the Zionist syndicate is even alive. I think they have been using a double. Everything the government does is a lie and a fraud. From the fake moon walk to the “War On Terror” 911, WMD’s, global warming and now the long planned fake virus. I suspect there is a lot more of these manufactured and faked events than people realize.

    • Replies: @Hughes
  30. sally says:
    @Drew

    BS.. the more those events uncovered the further the trail extends to find and uncover those whose job its is to engineer corruption of truth into propaganda. clearly, there is no government interest in detaining Assange..whatever his danger to what ever slimy little government bastard has long past.. The harassment of Assange is about CIA and Israel use of the media.. It is only in the interest of those two that the justice department wants to make an example of Assange because if and when more of his type appear, they will be prevented from exposing the intentions of those who feed adveertising dollars into maintain, MSM mind control technology. .

  31. sally says:
    @Turk 152

    BS.. the more those events uncovered the further the trail extends to find and uncover those whose job its is to engineer corruption of truth into propaganda. clearly, there is no government interest in detaining Assange..whatever his danger to what ever slimy little government bastard has long past.. The harassment of Assange is about CIA and Israel use of the media.. It is only in the interest of those two that the justice department wants to make an example of Assange because if and when more of his type appear, they will be prevented from exposing the intentions of those who feed adveertising dollars into maintain, MSM mind control technology. .

    • Replies: @Turk 152
  32. Anonymous[352] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fred777

    the LAST true journalist left in the world and his fellow companions say NOTHING…they will lose control over their craft…their pens their IDEAS…

  33. “The Truth Will Set You Free”
    Unfortunately, in Assange’s case, the truth has made him a prisoner of the evil that rules society today.

  34. Hughes says:
    @mark tapley

    His extradition and imprisonment as well the languages used in the court will set precedence for more journalist criminalization worldwide by US government. Think about the implication before you’re ramblings in nonsensical conspiracy theory.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  35. @Tommy Thompson

    J.C’ is best to leave his lamenting and tears for the Palestinians and other Israeli victims

    He has been doing this for years. And he has also criticised the mainstrem media. That’s the reason why J.A. is important for him. He is a journalist. It doesn’t seem that you have ever cared to read anything by him. I found a tweet by him, if you cannot read his long articles:

    “Getting so tired of Zionist Jews lecturing non-Jews on why they have the right to tie their identity to Israel and then decrying as anti-semites anyone who supports Palestinian rights. Have the decency and humility to consider that we might see through your anti-Arab racism”

  36. @GeeBee

    Who is this money power? It began to take hold when the Jews agent Cromwell let them back into the country in 1656. By 1690 they already had financial control of England. Since then England has always been involved in unnecessary wars that incurred more debt and more compounding interest to the money power.

    The German State not being a servant of the Rothschilds banking cartel would have been an example for all that they didn’t need the privately held monopoly as demanded in Marx (Moses Mordecai Levy) communist manifesto. Another reason to wage war against them even though the British had never recovered from the 750,000 lost in the first Zionist manufactured conflict. How many of those old British veterans of WW2 would have risked their lives to fight for this hollowed out multicultural remnant of a once great empire opon which the sun never set, had known what it would become.

    • Agree: GeeBee
  37. @Sollipsist

    Why name Trump so conspicuously in the first paragraph when you’re writing about The Guardian and detailing mostly events from 2010 & 2011?

    Hard to accept a screed based on the ‘sacred values of journalism’ when you forfeit objectivity right out of the gate.

    Maybe you haven’t read the article yet and noticed that the article is about the judgement of Assange in 2020 while Trump is the president. Events from 2010 and 2011 and events since then until today are relevant for the judgment. Maybe that’s ther reason why they are mentioned. Try reading and understanding the article.

    • Replies: @Sollipsist
  38. @Sollipsist

    Because the Orange Mutt is not willing to let go off the Zionist teat, even after being on record for saying that he likes wikileaks before he was elected. He is one corrupt individual.
    Keep licking Zio butt Orange Mutt.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  39. Miville says:
    @Baz7

    The Guardian’s main mission used to be the blind covering up of every single evil thing USSR and Maoist China did (even when both dictatorships had become mutual foes), everyone therein was payed for that mission, the other articles about social problems in Britain or elsewhere in the world were subservient to that purpose only. I remember the 1980’s when they were defending the last Khmers Rouge being pushed over by the Vietnamese : a journal having gone down to that extremity quite often in the name of ecology and ressource management is in my eyes forever to be cancelled. The Guardian lost all its raison d’être when the wall of Berlin crumbled and China opened up to the world market. But they remained submitted to the same British interests that had always supported red dictatorships elsewhere in the world. Anybody coming from an Eastern Block country could at once smell the stench issuing from the Guardian. It has always been the voice of the most totalitarian faction of the British oligarchy that was planning to give away its former empire chunk after chunk to the new Red powers of the East, while providing them with expertise, and their contempt for the ordinary British worker was unequated in any other paper. Their clientele was the spets as they used to be called in Russia, those who provided the new Soviet regime with various specialists’ competences they had previously acquired in India or elsewhere in the British colonial empire.

    • Replies: @Alden
  40. Anon[107] • Disclaimer says:

    Bah another jew “grassy knolling” us goyim, like an oliver stone JFK financed by jew milchan. The 1967 khazar conquest of Jerusalem was 5 years in the making and needed a POTUS from 1963 who could supply enough arms to fight 3 arab national armies at the same time, JFK was certainly not the one.

  41. Miville says:
    @Beobachter

    Well that’s the way the Mossad treat most of their own former agents, especially when goy, once they have outlived their usefulness. Assange reminds me of former Soviet commissars submitted to purges in their turn.

  42. The freedom of the press is quite intact.

    …just so long as they do nothing that might displease Israel.

    • Agree: mark tapley
    • LOL: Alden
  43. Civilized relations between countries require that gathering of information be legal when committed outside of the territory of the target country and by those who do not owe allegiance to the target country, which is the case of Julian Assange. Otherwise, every employee of every intelligence agency and foreign ministry around the world would be guilty of “conspiracy to commit espionage”, which is a notion only the preposterously hypocritical, truculent, and decadent clown show called the United States of America could countenance.

  44. noname27 says: • Website

    Isn’t The Guardian just a filthy CIA Commie mouth piece?

    • Agree: Alden
  45. jsinton says:

    I don’t know why you would expect the “Guardian” to give you the straight dope about anything these days. It’s just another NWO psyops rag replete with propaganda and mind control. But then I also believe Mr. Assange needs his head cut off with a dull kitchen knife, his head put on a pike for display, and his entrails consumed by vultures. But then so does all the people he exposed also deserve the same treatment. No more Forth Estate to save us. All shades of grey, no good guys anymore.

    • Replies: @Antiwar7
  46. @Majority of One

    #25

    #15 Old and Grumpy

    I would not totally disagree with either of your comments, they seem valid to me , but the Assange story seems more complicated and has potentially many more levels then we have been allowed to see.

    The problem in all media —– MSM or so-called Alternative Media for that matter, that all information being disseminated has a purpose behind it. To obtain or create a certain impression in the viewer—– the general public or even the on the political elite. These days and maybe always, all of the information being put out into our human ether, including Hollywood movies, TV series, News reports, Web casts or alternative cannot be deemed to be innocent in intent, that is just to neutrally inform —– all is set to point us to a certain intended direction.

    Evening news histories, headlines and pic images these days are all fairly weaponized these days to direct and manage our outlook, views and create consensus or even disassociation on important social, economic or political matters.

    This includes important and key news events and even nonsensical news trivia which are highlighted and rebroadcast ad nauseum, a psy-ops of sorts. Other important news can be totally omitted, twisted or never reported and these creates another effect, as it does not exist or never occurred. A prime example may be the brutal and outlandish Israeli activities in occupied Palestine which are non-occurring events, while the virtually non existent Anti-semitism events become a major occurrence, a problem to be resolved according to the MSM managers. Maybe there is something more to the Assange story and the refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy than we are being told or not told, that is may be much of the story is omitted?

    Certainly almost no one can argue that Wikileaks did not play a key role in the last election, in dissing Hilary Clinton’s chance to be elected thanks to the leaked email trail exposing her nefarious activities as Sec of State. However this was a pointed play, not a question of just freedom of information as one can file a FOIA for that. Why go quiet on info damaging to Israel, which is involved in everything the US does overseas these days if you are seeking to release hidden govt documents that should be open anyhow? Why not have the FBI or IRS files on candidate DJ, being leaked then, and dissing his chances for election?

    Mind you, I am not a Dem or HC supporter or a Trump /MAGA cap idiot for that matter either. The argument should be that the govt and all govts should end their unending secrecy and secret activities which are only pointed against their own populations and lets move toward total govt transparency with open files so that true democratic and uncorrupted elected government can step in?

    I am not here to defend Veterans Today reports, as much of there reporting is meant to point one in a certain direction and no doubt some might be purposely seeded, but they have brought a lot and I mean a lot of hidden and buried information to light on a long list of important subjects to the world public at large and they tread where few others dare. At least they admit they are ex-Intel types and have some connections, that is more transparent than others that play otherwise, maybe like Assange.

    Nobody is calling for Assange to be thrown into the slammer, and I doubt he will, but he did play a role in interfering in the last election and surely this is what the Dem side of the political elite are chasing him down for? It has been recently leaked by the Trump team that they will probably pardon him after the election anyhow. So the Assange fight seems like a Dem vs. Repub fight, both fight dirty as seem by the honesty of our elections, which are first based on billionaire funding and dirty tricks teams. Maybe Trump won because he had the best of both of those.

    So for me Assange is not my top priority for rallying support or shedding tears over, with so many real journalists defending the down trodden and run over all over the world who are shot, imprisoned or worse not receiving even a hello from the Western politically correct Alternate Media Masters, Assange does not fit that bill. If and I said if, true that Assange fathered a couple of children during his time in the Ecuadorian embassy, that is nice tid bit that seems to have been omitted from the saga being put out and may lead to more new facts.

    • Thanks: Majority of One
    • Replies: @Kali
  47. The Guardian betrayed him. Its as simple as that.

  48. So the corrupt blacky (Obama) made a sweetheart deal with the jewy (NYT, WAPO & Guardian) fronts to nab a goy (Christian) from the Down Under… the WASP elite is dead for all intents and purposes… the king of Wakanda is the honored guest of the elders of Zion in the reconstituted Sanhedrin.

  49. Alden says:
    @Dr.C. Fhandrich

    The Guardian has been a leftist propaganda outlet for the last 100 years.

  50. @Hughes

    Assange is just another Zionist operative. This is easy to spot from his Wikileaks crap. anyone that gets lots of MSM exposure good or bad is usually an operative. People with opinions the gov. does not like are always relegated to anonymity. All the more reason to make a show trial with all the actors playing their part. I question that real court proceedings would allow “live-streaming” and remote videos.

    • Replies: @Biff
  51. Turk 152 says:
    @sally

    You start with BS, then you state everything that I agree with and you have not supported what is BS, which I believe you think is that Trump ordered Assange’s prosecution. Here is an article & video from Consrtiumnews, a pretty credible website, in which Fairbanks states her views: https://consortiumnews.com/2020/09/21/assange-hearing-day-ten-fairbanks-testifies-trump-ordered-assange-arrest-us-concedes-wikileaks-not-first-to-publish-cables-but-says-it-had-widest-reach/

    Is Fairbanks, lying? No clue, I admit I dont pal around with DC insiders, do you?

  52. @Rev. Spooner

    Trump has always been owned by the Zionist Jews. The current Sec. of treasury, Jew Wilbur Ross, former managing director of Rothschild Inc. for 25 years put together the package that bailed idiot Trump out of his casino debacle and personal debt of 1.2 billion. The senile self admitted Zionist Biden is the same thing. They are both puppet actors in the Rep. Dem. paradigm to make the goyim think they are making a difference when the Zionists policies stay unchanged. As prof. Quigley stated:

    Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.

  53. @UncommonGround

    I suggest you reread the article and give me a nickel for every dated detail that occurred before 2016, and I’ll give you a dime for every one that came after. By my count you’ll end up owing me, but feel free to check my work.

  54. Alden says:
    @Miville

    One of the greatest posts ever on UNZ.

    I’ve read some of the Guardian’s old articles. Any E European who escaped the soviet bloc was a fascist and Nazi collaborator during WW2. Any landlord who demanded that black immigrants pay their rent was a bigot. Any White British boy or man. who fought back against a beat down by a gang of blacks was a racist Any White woman girl who refused to become a prostitute for a scumbag black pimp was a racist.

    Mouthpiece of the communist party of Great Britain since 1918. Mouthpiece of Destroy All White British since 1989.

    The Soviets and Maoists lost despite The Guardian’s best efforts. It really has no reason to exist any more.

  55. Correction: In comment no. 53 I meant to type Commerce not Treasury. The Treasury is headed by another Zionist Jew, Mnuchin.

  56. sally says:
    @trickster

    I think what MOO (majority of one) had to say is dead on.. Unconnected Jews(UCJs) were abused by Connected Jews (CJs), since 1897, with a purpose to force sufficient populations of UCJ into access to British Palestine and French Syria, <=both terroritories taken from the Ottoman Empire. Why take the Ottoman Empire, I thought Germany was the Enemy? Beneath the Ottoman Empire(now British palestine and French Syria, was oil, lots of it. The CJs were able to force the western governments it controlled help the CJs chase the Ottoman out. The death camps in Poland, and Germany and Chechoslovakia were designed to chase the NCJs from Hungary, Chechoslovakia, Germany, Prussia, and the like in to Palestine. Why? Because the Ottoman had no rule of civil law..All was religious law, Without rule of law the CJs could not own the oil beneath the Ottoman land. Private ownership (that is the WEOWNTHEOIL Oil company) could not file a deed in the Ottoman court house because there was no Ottoman where house before the Ottoman were defeated. After WWI, Ottoman land because British Palestine or French Syria and Turkey, and a western type government was installed, with a court house and puppet government laws, that enabled private monopolies [ownership] in oil. the oil. The Ottoman, like the American Indian did not understand private property, or laws that could turn public assets into private estates in oil and land.

    Presto, overnight, CJs and their corporations filed deeds and claimed they owned oil beneath the surface of defeated Ottoman real estate. Suddenly, WEOWNTHEOIL OIL company could demand that the western government run the damn Ottoman people off the WEOWNTHEOIL OIL company's monopoly in the once Ottoman public land. No more Ottoman on WEOWNTHEOIL OIL COMPANY private property, Get off and stay off, this land is owned by the CJs. . Today the Ottoman land is known as Palestine, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, and Israel. The CJs directed the nation states they owned to conduct WWI so that Germany can be thrown [competition from German Oil Companies was eliminated] off the Ottoman Land (as the Germans were good buddies with the Ottoman) and the Ottoman that survived WWI, could learn to expect big bombs, death by skimish warfare, missile strikes, power outages, and lack of potable water, until WEOWNTHEOIL OIL COMPANY OWNS IT ALL. .

    This whole middle East thing has been about establishing for the connected Few a monopoly in oil.. and it turned out the connected few owned the democratic government that got established in Israel so the WEOWNTHEOIL OIL company could easily use them to dispose the Ottoman in favor of CJs. BTW I know lots of Jews, many are fine people, but they are just as much in the dark about world history as are USA governed Americans, one UCJ is married to a sibling.

    • Thanks: Majority of One, Kali
    • Replies: @mark tapley
  57. @Fred777

    Actually, this article is very much about THE JEWS:
    Jonathan Freedland, whom Tony Greenstein described as “The most dishonest journalist in Britain” has twisted the Guardian into a cesspit of semitism, complete with “Hadley Freeman”:
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/13/why-jonathan-freedland-isnt-fit-to-be-the-new-editor-in-chief-of-the-guardian/

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  58. …liberal media organisations, such as the New York Times and Guardian…

    As in rags that will stand up for Joe&Jane-6-pack [aka, you and me]?

    So called ‘liberals’ today don’t represent an inkling of what I once believed ‘liberal’ to be [or mean].

    Life without a label is so much better though…

  59. @trickster

    Trickster’s long comment, bursting with straw-man argument, has me suspecting that he is Jewish. Which makes me suspect that he is “israeli” or pro-“israel” and therefore anti- a lot of things. This is not prejudice.

  60. JamesinNM says:

    Pray for Christ’s return and the destruction of all evil.

    • Replies: @TKK
  61. Did Assange make any revelations – in addition to the American war crimes in Iraq which have been an open secret, about the Iraq war being carried out under orders from Israel, yet another open secret?

  62. TKK says:
    @JamesinNM

    It is astonishing to me that literate people actually believe a deus ex machina from Relevations is a viable and concrete future event.

    I imagine it must give you comfort- to believe all wrongs will be righted.

    And most importantly- you have your celestial insurance policy in place and none of these hell fires will affect you. Indeed, you believe you possess the secrets of the Universe.

    We do not give credence to any ideas from 2000 years ago: disease, germs, all medical care, food preparation, criminal justice punishments, geography, water sanitation, the treatment of the mentally ill, animals, widows, textile use. It’s a long list.

    But you choose to believe the ramblings of desert men, so dehydrated and brutal, as the foundation of your life.

    We can say there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes?) but evil has always been and will always be where humans gather and scheme.

    Pleased to meet you
    Hope you guess my name
    But what’s puzzling you
    Is the nature of my game

  63. @sally

    The oil in the region is important but but the most important reason for the Zionist invasion and occupation of this area is for strategic positioning of what the British Geographer of that era Mackinder ,called the World Island, meaning Asia, Africa and Europe. By controlling Palestine as the Zionist officially called for at the First Zionist Convention in 1897 they began the process that today is manifested in the “War on Terror” manufactured by the Zionists in order to fulfill the Yinnon plan for Greater Israel.

    Even if there were no oil in the actual Middle Eastern areas of the old Ottoman Empire the Zionists would still be there because from this bridgehead in Palestine they can control all pipeline movements from Africa, through the Afghanistan region, Pakistan and Indian Ocean and also interdict transportation from Asia. This was augmented by the Zionist breakup of Yugoslavia and the removal of Milosevic during the Clinton ad.

    There were no “death camps” but only work camps. The Jews were a minority in these camps. The Red Cross was in the camps on a regular basis and the allies flew over them all the time and even intercepted the daily reports from then camps to Berlin. The pictures that are commonly shown of bodies are in some cases victims of allied bombings of German cities toward the end of the war, or as in one case where the British bombed a work camp and some pictures are of deaths that occurred as a result of typhus that took hold because of allied bombing late in the war that destroyed transportation. For the most part the Jews were safer in the camps than in the German cities where civilian housing was a primary target of bomber Harris and the Americans. The Holohaox garbage did not get started until the 60’s. the 6 million figure was being used by the Kazar hucksters even before WW1. Hitler never had more than ap. 2.5 million Jews in his area of control. Of course since Germany as an occupied state (and still is) has had to pay billions in reparations to “the Jews” everyone wants to get on the dole.

    When the Zionist Jews gained a foothold in Palestine as declared in the 1918 Balfour letter to Lord
    Rothschild, very few Jews wanted to go there. Some years more of them left than came in. The Arabs who had alway gotten along well with the native (real semite Jews) resented their incursion and except for the Kazar Jews lackeys the British maintaining military occupation, would have driven them all out. At this point the Zionist Jews using the threat of a worldwide boycott against Germany (already under the immense pressure of the devious reparation payments) forced Germany to agree to the Havara Agreement to move Jews to Palestine.

    The big majority of Jews are not connected to this Zionist conspiracy and some Orthodox Jews are vehemently opposed to it. However the over 100 Zionist organizations, aIPAC being the most politically visible are the most powerful force in Jewmerica. The big Jew donors on the fake left and the fake right are always the biggest donors to both parties. In 2016 shabbos goy Trumps top 4 donors were Zionist Jews and still are. The Democrats are controlled the same way just by a different group of Zionist Jews. The Presidency has been controlled since the syphilitic puppet actor Woodrow Wilson was put in office using Teddy Roosevelts 3rd. party in 1910 in order to get rid of Taft who refused to go along with the coming Rothschild banking cartel. No senators will vote against the aIPAC Zionis agenda and few in the House.

    • Thanks: R2b
  64. Biff says:
    @G J T

    Assange is an intelligence operative and has been since day one. This is all one giant psyop.

    Or maybe you’re the psyop.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  65. Biff says:
    @mark tapley

    People with opinions the gov. does not like are always relegated to anonymity.

    Are you saying the government likes you?

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  66. Ron Unz says:
    @Biff

    Assange is an intelligence operative and has been since day one. This is all one giant psyop.

    Or maybe you’re the psyop.

    Exactly!

    Since the MSM has spent many years trashing or ignored Assange, probably a large majority of “normies” either hate him (as a Russian spy) or have forgotten who he is. Which leaves anti-Establishment fringe-activists as one of his main potential bases of support.

    But Deep State operatives have long discovered how to deal with those sorts, many of whom are either dim, crazy, or extremely conspiratorially-minded: just spread the lunatic rumor that Assange is a Mossad agent or Deep State operative or maybe a Reptilian.

    I have no idea whether the ones doing so on this thread are disinfo operatives themselves or just really stupid people taken in by them, but it’s almost certainly one or the other.

    • Agree: Wielgus, Kali
    • Replies: @Wielgus
  67. Lagertha says:

    Because: Julian has always been honest. Jesus, I have so little respect for you all…y’all.

    • Replies: @Sean
  68. @Biff

    Perhaps I used the wrong term but the same syndicate that fabricates the world wars, global warming, 911, WMD’s, the “War On Terror”, fake Floyd, Los Vegas type shootings (there have been lots of them), staged ANTIFA-BLM riots, the phony Wall St. protests, and now are pushing another fake virus as with H1n1, H5N1, SARS, Bird Flu, Swine Flu and the phony AIDS “epidemic” control who gets exposure on the media. This also includes the Presidential puppet actors and the Presidential election circus. The charade about the Russians and the election and the barely cobbled together impeachment put up by the Democrats were just to make the goyim think there is rift between the two fake parties. Practically everything you see on the MSM is a staged event. It’s not hard for the same group to put up a fake trial with an operative like Assange.

  69. Sean says:
    @Lagertha

    He is certainly a master at giving off the signals of being a fearless good faith whistleblower. Turning down a deal over the DNC hack because they wanted him to tell who the info come from and other such stands he is known for makes him seem like a man of principle. That is how the game is played and he played it well; was getting sex off women who he met 10 minutes before.

    Whether it’s adherence to a moral code, or self-aggrandizement out of ego, I have no idea and I doubt you have either. I suspect it is a bit of both, and maybe a legacy of the lenient treatment he got from an Austrian court over his youthful hacking. I have read of that with career criminals who did good with their first brush with local authorities –couple of years fir armed robbery– then got out, into the rootin tootin big time, proceeded to tell the FBI what to do with their deal to rat and walk, and ended up with a release date of 2220.

    At this point it may be rational for him to appear to be preparing to commit suicide and claim to have Asperger’s because he is counting on not actually serving much of whatever long sentence he gets, given that Manning was granted clemency. He is not going to be in general population in any case, look at Joe Exotic.

    • Thanks: Johnny Rico
    • Replies: @Wielgus
  70. “Why Is the Paper So Silent?”

    Because after MI5 went through all their computers they decided that cooperating with the deep state was in their best interests? Hence their policy re Syria and Russia?

    • Agree: Wielgus
  71. Wielgus says:

    Most British newspapers, dailies and Sundays, have some kind of relationship with the security services, even if only as a conduit of information in one or both directions. Getting searched would have been alarming – maybe actual radicals might shrug something like that off, but not milquetoast liberals. They decided no doubt that discretion was the better part of the valour they do not have in any case.

  72. Wielgus says:
    @Ron Unz

    I agree. I have no way of knowing for certain but I suspect Assange is pretty much what it says on the tin – a whistleblower whom the powers that be want to nail to the wall. Whistleblowers often get huge amounts of flak or are thrown under a bus, to deter others.
    Re “normies”, the slander campaign is pretty effective – a friend of mine, lefty with feminist tendencies, wanted Assange’s hide because of the rape allegations in Sweden. She said she “believed” the women making the claim, but in her world I don’t think women can possibly make false rape allegations. The allegations have now been dropped, I understand, but they did their damage.
    Dim, crazy or extremely conspiratorially-minded. Yes. Re the last, I think some people derive an odd comfort from assuming there is always the Wizard of Oz orchestrating everything behind the curtain. The reality is probably much messier.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Turk 152
  73. Turk 152 says:
    @Wielgus

    If Assange was scripted, we would currently be witnessing a drama being played out on the front page of the NYT, WaPo, the Guardian, CNN, MSNBC, CBS and the rest of the CIA stenographers commonly referred to the news. The fact that we are not, should leave no uncertainty about his authenticity.

    The chances of Assange being a multi-year operation orchestrated to influence the informed fringe minority are remote because our numbers are too small to matter. Intelligence Agency theatrics are done to influence the easily manipulated, uninformed and much larger majority in the middle.

    • Agree: Wielgus
    • Replies: @Wielgus
  74. Wielgus says:
    @Sean

    Sometimes the world is simpler than we give credit. Perhaps he gives off the signals so well because that is in fact what he is.

    • Replies: @Sean
  75. Wielgus says:
    @Turk 152

    Indeed, and they have free access to the MSM which influences far more people than get to counter-narrative sites, whose credibility is also not helped by the fact that there are tares among the wheat, ie. loons as well as people asking legitimate questions about events around them.

  76. @Turk 152:

    Excellent point.

    @Sean:

    Well crafted spoof of the Guardian! Oh wait… you were serious???

    One thing for us all to keep in mind. If Assange is finally railroaded into the permanent gulag, the free internet – sites like this one – will be gone very soon.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  77. “Statement from journalist John Goetz of Der Spiegel attesting that Assange never made the “they deserve it” comment he was accused of saying by The Guardian’s David Leigh. Goetz was at the dinner Assange is alleged to have said it. ”

    It is simply immaterial. So what and who cares . . . ? Whether he said it or not — it’s not a crime. But the practice of destroying people over perceived or accurate renderings of their attitudes, wholly protected in the US never ends.

    Laugh, those of you decrying the Assange matter should consider your own rhetoric here and elsewhere, if attitudes are the cause . . . turn yourselves in right now. There’s no shortage of attitude adjustment applause in dealing with some —

    feel free to ante up your attitudes and expressed dislikes as criminal offense and turn yourself in to the nearest police officer, but do so politely.

  78. @Beobachter

    Never going to happen. People have been making predictions like that as long as the internet has been around.

    The only thing we know with absolute certainty is that you won’t be here to write a retraction when it doesn’t happen.

    • Agree: Sean
  79. Kali says:
    @Tommy Thompson

    The argument should be that the govt and all govts should end their unending secrecy and secret activities which are only pointed against their own populations and lets move toward total govt transparency with open files so that true democratic and uncorrupted elected government can step in?

    I could not agree more with this. It’s been my contention for some time that government should be completely, wholy transparent and that all government officers should be monitered whist in office, for the duration of their government role. This would ensure, besides the obvious (governance in service to peoples), that anyone contemplating government office, entailing as it would, almost cometernal loss of privacy out side of their family life, would do so with the conviction required for true public service.

    It seems clear that, thanks to this corona psyop, people are waking up in significant numbers (even my “normy” brother and his rugby team-mates, are beginning to seriously question the narrative, now that “second wave” restrictions are being imposed). Civil disobedience, if not civil war, ultimately leading to much needed structural changes in the practice of governance, may well bring us to a place where constitutions are re-writen. Limiting government, forcing openness and honesty in practice by use of cctv recording/broadcasting of all government activity, may bring some semblance of sanity back to our planet.

    It’s important that people realise that is it only through complete transparency that governments may serve the people – not themselves and not “money-power”, which would automatically be reduced by such a move.

    As for Julian Assange, I hope he does get his pardon, but there’s nothing any one of us can do to stop what is well underway. – We’re all journalists now!

    With love,
    Kali.

    • Thanks: Tommy Thompson
  80. Sean says:
    @Wielgus

    We as individuals are alliances of genes trying to project themselves into the future, so strategic deception about our real motives, both deception and self deception–all the better to fool the mark though the lack of ‘tells’– ought to be expected. In biology costly signals are reliable. New York Times journalist Judith Miller went to jail for 85 days for refusing to divulge her sources. Some of Assange’s admissions have been against his own interests such as saying to Manning about the original pitch for Wikileaks describing it as an intelligence service. Wikileaks had to be publicly shamed into actually honouring a pledge to meet half the fee required for a lawyer to begin representing Manning.

    Assange also said he regarded Clinton as an enemy, and a feature of the DNC emails release during critical parts of the presidential race by Wikileaks was it seemed timed to dampen her surges in the polls. The documentary Risk showed Assange in a toe curling diatribe about lesbians in response to leftie lawyer Helena Kennedy trying to advise him on how to talk about the female complainants in his case. She was left rolling her eyes at his stupid refusal to shut up. The maker of Risk (Poitras, who took a big chance when she along with Greenwald was instrumental in the Edward Snowden leak) found that Assange wanted to censor the film. When you see Assange talking he seems to have no ideas of his own (beyond Aussie male chauvinism), as evidenced by his 2012 show on Russia Today in which he interviewed the head of Hezbollah about Israel’s future on the first episode.

    Assange is the most superficial of men, hegot infected by egotism because he wasn’t integrated into a national allegiance. It’s a bit like ‘When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.’ His gains are more than his losses. The US authorities have recently said he is going to get a four to six-year term in prison, so he will come out, write a book and still be ahead. And those Bitcoins people are throwing at him will be worth how much when he gets out?

    • Agree: Johnny Rico
    • Replies: @Wielgus
  81. @Johnny Rico

    Are you actually saying that Assange’s persecution, if successful, won’t have a chilling effect on the internet? I think we’ve been feeling a cold draft for some time already, but I really REALLY hope you’re right!

  82. @Sean

    Bravo, Sean, there will always be places for the most talented pristine thought leaders, those who express all the correct mandatory “opinions”… about those lovable lesbians and that horrid male chauvinism, especially the Aussie variety (oh icky poo poo, Mayt!) and all those superficial and EVER so egotistical publishers with NO ideas of their own, those out in the wilderness beyond our beloved Overton window. Particularly the ones rotting in the gulag for over a decade, who are kept incommunicado so there’s no danger of their replying to your brave smears. Keep polishing those slick sneers, Comrade, and maybe someday your (((masters))) will take note of your talents and you too can become a famous Grauniad or Chew Pork Slimes hero!

  83. Wielgus says:
    @Sean

    Considering that many people the US authorities do not like, such as Leonard Peltier, have spent several decades in their prison system, I would not count on four to six years. The task of extraditing him to the USA would be eased by encouraging a British judge to believe he would not be “inside” for long, but that is not something I would take for granted, especially considering the effort US authorities have already gone to against Assange. He has led them a merry dance – I don’t think four years in the slammer will quench their thirst for vengeance and also might not deter other whistleblowers, which is what this is really about.

    As to Assange coming out and writing a book, anything Epstein wrote would probably have sold even better. We will never know as he did not exit prison alive, discounting some fairly wacky theories in circulation. Assange “infected by egotism” – probably true and also irrelevant. Most public figures have very well-developed egos – it is a major reason why they got there.

  84. R2b says:

    Not only doesn’t he understand 911.
    He’s naive on Syria too.
    Going to bed with Antifa chicks.
    Is an attack on the Democrats after that in consequence.
    Wasn’t there just a change of guard in the US.
    I really can’t see the importance of this guy’s work.
    If this is real, forgive me, but so far I’m not convinced.
    And was it seven (7) years at the embassy.
    And two kids!
    Didn’t know that.

  85. angmoh says:
    @Fred777

    Yep… Reinforces the state of the MSM that a rational treatment of the Assange issue is this marginalised.

  86. Antiwar7 says:
    @jsinton

    Weren’t you claiming the Guardian book’s Wikileaks password reveal was inadvertent or some such baloney? That the password was “temporary”?

    All lies:
    https://www.unz.com/jcook/the-guardians-deceit-riddled-new-statement-betrays-both-julian-assange-and-journalism/

    Why would Leigh, as Leigh himself claims, have to “bully” Assange to get a temporary, meaningless password?

    The claim that the password was “temporary” was entirely made up by Leigh, with no evidence whatsoever.

    So why don’t you direct your wrath at David Leigh instead of Julian Assange?

  87. Ivan says:
    @Majority of One

    The clown outed himself too early.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Jonathan Cook Comments via RSS