25 thoughts on “The WikiLeaks Fraud”

  1. The answer is simple: He is on the other side. Victory for the US is seen as a negative thing. From his PoV, he is fighting the good fight the best way he can (and the ends justify the means).

  2. Purpleslog,
    I don’t think that’s the answer – at least not the one I gathered from listening to his interview. To me it seems that Julian is exploiting what we already know to be true but rarely have a chance to witness; that war is an awful hell. Everyone involved, innocent or not, becomes a victim in one way or another. There is no such thing as victory. War is an act that must be avoided by any and all means.

    I don’t classify that as “the other side”. I define that as pacifism. And Lord knows the world could use some pacifist propaganda for a change.

  3. You’re correct regarding the “the ends justifies the means” concept with leftists. The left is much more serious about politics compared to the right. To the left, politics is religion. This is probably why they’ve dominated politics in the West for the last 60 years. The left will do everything from planting “racists” in tea party gatherings, to making threatening phone calls to their own congressmen while claiming to be right wingers.

  4. Seerov,
    Do you care to provide any evidence or examples of that? I think we’ve all seen enough footage (or have seen in person) to know nobody would have to go to the trouble to plant racists at tea party gatherings.

    On the contrary, one could easily point to the torture doctrine of Cheney, illegal detainment, domestic wiretapping, and faulty intelligence on WMD as the gold standard of “the ends justifies the means” philosophy, championed by the last administration. They weren’t “leftists”.

  5. Tim, talking about Cheney etc. That’s a tu quoque fallacy, and classical rhetorical trick. Bringing up what they do, doesn’t negate the argument of what the left does.

    Besides, the left are openly talking about doing these tactics. See here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/inside-man-how-a-prankster-plans-to-destroy-the-tea-party-movement.php?ref=fpa

    Also, regarding Julian Assange (aka “proff” in the late 80s/early 90s internet). Interested readers should note that he is very well known in the black hat hacker community. Try digging up info on this guy, you’ll notice you’ll get very little on him on the open web.

    Very odd, yes?

    There is a reason for that, though I’d rather not bring it up on the open web, as I’m sure TDAXP would want the legal scrutiny.

    If any of you know any hackers, particularly old school hackers that have been around since the 80s/early 90s, you should ask them about Assange.

    He is not all that he seems, but his modus operandi remain the same: he is an information broker, and a shady one at that.

  6. Tim your absolutely correct, the left doesn’t have to plant “racists” in the tea party movement because regardless if such people exist or not, the left will just make them up anyway(1). Recently some degenerates from the national black caucus claimed that racial epithets were said while walking amongst some tea party folks. After a conservative commentator offered $100,000 to the national negro college fund for proof of these epithets, surprisingly no evidence was ever provided(2).

    The fact is, when it comes to American politics, the real race hate comes almost exclusively from the left. The President of the United States actually comes from a church that regularly incites racial hate towards white people and this is 100% acceptable to the “tolerant left.” Meanwhile, the biggest Nazis on the right (Glenn beck, Sarah Palin) remind their listeners weekly that their greatest heroes are Martin Luther King and Rosa parks.

    Your comments regarding torture and wire tapping make no sense, but you may be correct regarding the WMD argument on the run up to the war in Iraq? I believe we went to war in Iraq to geopolitically position ourselves near the worlds’ largest oil reserves at a time when geologists agree we probably have (at most) 40 years of oil remaining. We’re also in a position to disrupt any major Eurasian powers (or group of powers) from reaching a regional hegemon status.

    Understand timmy, I’m not condemning the left, instead I’m encouraging the same level of seriousness from the right. The left has been kicking the rights ass in the West for the last 60 years by using voting fraud, ruining people’s lives and reputations with selective outrage regarding “racism”,, stuffing ballot boxes, suppressing free speech, inciting and excusing riots and violence against right wingers on college campuses and mastering dirty trickery.

    Of course, by nature I don’t think the right is capable of many of these methods, but if I have one goal, its that I can open the rights eyes to the fact that Jesus ain’t gonna’ save them. Defeating the left requires a ruthlessness (using 100% legal means) and an understanding that the left considers politics to be war/religion. The left is about winning. The right still tries to conduct politics in the spirit of chivalry. For the last 100 years the left has taken advantage of Western honor and pissed on their traditions (literally and figuratively) while people on the right feel that they have to qualify “controversial” attitudes and opinions with the words “I’m not a racist but” _______fill in the blank(when expressing opposition to illegal immigration or affirmative action). The left will just tell right-wing “white boys” to shut up(3).

    For the last 60 years the West has been under the thumb of a banking/big media/social Marxist cabal. This cabal has had one huge advantage; the control of the 3 major information/reality shaping apparatuses (news media, entertainment media, education system). This is now changing, thanks to the second greatest innovation of Western man/womyn: The Internet(the first is the Gutenberg printing press). The Internet is allowing the rays of truth to shine through the dark clouds of leftest/banking/big media disinformation.

    This doesn’t mean it will be easy, as the banker-leftists are becoming more and more worried they’re becoming much more vicious in their rhetoric(calling a peaceful political movement “teabaggers” which is a sexually explicit term). I will even predict that the banker/big media/left will attempt to implement “hate speech laws” like we see in Europe in order to silence those who oppose the agenda of the anti-West banker/big media/left.

    The “racist” will be treated as the heretic was during the inquisition. WE need to remember as these days approach that anti-racism is nothing but a code for anti-white. In the end however, regardless of what the banker/media/Marxist cabal through at us, the West will rise like the Phoenix from the ashes. We have truth, nature, history, and the spirit of our forefathers/mothers on our side, but we must first overcome our own fear.

    If we can defeat our own self-doubt (fear) first, nothing in the physical or spiritual world will stop us from achieving Nature or God(s) purpose for us in this universe and beyond.

    (1) http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/mar/20/congressman-claims-health-care-bill-protesters-hur/


    (3) http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/2010/04/15/infiltrating-the-white-boy-tea-parties-are-leftists-like-the-westboro-hatemongers/

  7. Purpleslog,
    Thanks! Try again when you get a chance – would love to check them out.

    Ironically, the topic of “political generalization” came up with Jon Stewart last night in a funny segment (starts at the 5:10 mark):

    From my observations the current rhetoric on the right involves far more generalization and outright distortion than anything coming from the left. Seerov’s comment above is a good example of that delusion – one I don’t see supported by current reality (which is why I requested to see some useful evidence).

    In reality, we’ve got a Democratic President that should thrill any conservative. He passed a healthcare reform bill that is nearly identical to the bill once championed by Republicans in the 90’s. He’s taking small practical steps toward Reagan’s dream reducing the threat of nuclear weapons, and he has lowered the tax burden for nearly all working Americans in the middle class. That’s the reality.

    However, the response of “conservative” opposition, from Fox News to Newt Gingrich, has been the delusional charges of “socialism” and a “radical agenda.” This sort of language makes for good TV, and keeps Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck flush with cash, but it provides nothing in terms of solutions and distorts the reality toward something that will never flourish – something destined to death and heavy regret.

    David Frum is the only Republican worth listening to anymore, and because of that, he’s been labeled a “liberal”. Of course:

  8. Seerov,
    Thanks for the links. I can get a sense of your passion, and your sources make valid points -there will always be pranksters doing shady things and distorting truth on both sides – I’m sure we can agree on that.

    However, I do not share your conspiratorial perspective regarding the other things you wrote. The truth is always on the surface – the folks who insist it’s hidden, complex, and buried in codes typically do so out of self-interest. Call it the huckster magic of Glenn Beck and Dan Brown. It’s a fine art of seduction. Instead, I prefer the basic realities laid out by someone like David Frum (see interview posted above) or Andrew Sullivan:

    Also, immediately belittling me as “timmy” reveals more about you and your perspective than it does me or mine.

  9. I can’t stand Andrew Sullivan. He is devoid of both wit and wisdom. I do not understand his fame. I let my subscription to the Atlantic Monthly end some time back because of his presence.

    I won’t re-post the links, hopefully Dan can recover the comment. I am pretty sick right now (hot and cold sweats, coughing, sneezing/dripping). That has sapped my energy and focus and has temp dropped me 20 IQ points.

  10. Purpleslog,
    There does seem to be plenty of apt criticism about Sullivan. However, I do find his perspective to be refreshing and honest. His stance against torture, his obsessive frustration about Sarah Palin, and his disgust with the Pope to name a few.

    Thanks for the reply – hope you feel better soon.

  11. Tim, I agree that it was disrespectful to belittle and mock you by calling you “Timmy.” I hope that you will accept my apology, as this type of behavior does not (in any way) benefit or further our discussion.

    At the same time I hope you will elaborate on what exactly calling you “Timmy” reveals about me? I try to live my life by observing a general rule that I learned in the Army; always improve your position. In the field there is always something you can do to strengthen your fighting position. You can dig a littler deeper, improve your camoflauge, reconsider your fields of fire, rethink contingency plans, etc,etc.

    I now extend this philosophy/rule/outlook to my “psychological position.” IOW, I constantly try to examine my perceptions and/or my worldview. I also attempt to locate and overcome any biases or prejudices that may exist in my thought process. Fear (insecurity) is the greatest enemy of all man/womyn-kind and stands in the way of our goals like a giant sea of violent waves. The more confident we are, the greater our ability to overcome this body of water which leads to our true potential on the other side.

    So please elaborate on what my comments reveal about me and my perspective. Thank you sir…


  12. Tim, I also thought that I should address your comments relating to “conspiracies,” David Frum, and your claim that the “the truth is always on the surface.”

    Conspiracies:To begin, it’s important to understand that a conspiracy is nothing more than an immoral, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons. So using this criteria, a conspiracy can be as big as overthrowing a government to something as small as knelling on all fours behind someone while your co conspirator pushes them backwards. I don’t choose to approach my analysis of the material world by looking for evidence of covert political actions because by nature this method of analysis is very reactionary. We should also keep in mind that a large segment of the conspiracy “movement” would be better described as the conspiracy “industry.” When analyzing information we always ask the question ” why was this information produced” before starting our analysis.

    I guess I’m beating around the bush? The biggest reason I try to avoid the conspiracy material (talk radio, Internet sites,) is that I don’t feel the need to pry into government/power-structure covert politics. I have it pretty good in this country, so if the intelligence agencies, industry, NGOs, and diplomats need to overthrow a nation here or there or decide they need to drain the blood from cows in rural areas, I won’t ask any questions. As long as conditions are right where I have the opportunity to live a peaceful and prosperous life, Ill just assume its none of my business. I’ll support enlarging the welfare state, tolerate higher taxes, I’ll even look the other way regarding phone and internet surveillance.

    The only objections I have are any loses of free speech, loss of internet freedom, large scale gun confiscations, mass forced migrations into the United State, or forcing people into camps for political, religious, historical, or spiritual beliefs.

    Things happen in the open: This is mostly true, most political or power enhancing activities do happen in the open. But these actions don’t need to be hidden. There are also activities that happen in the open because they’re supposed to look like they happened in the open. What makes covert political coalitions and activities intriguing is that fact that they happen in secret, which means the managers of these activities feel they have a greater probability of success if you don’t know why and how these activities took place.

    I need to be clear that I don’t waste much time looking for and studying covert political and power enhancing activities (ex..JFK, Iran in 1953, USS Liberty). I have more interest in examining how power is enhanced using discourse, narratives, and myths. Using discourse, narratives, and myths are better that using guns, tanks, ships.

    David Frum: David Frum is a “respectable conservative.” I don’t find that I have much to learn from him. I’m pretty sure he’s not working for my interests?

  13. Seerov,
    Apology accepted! I was only making an observation about your language, I wasn’t offended at all. Anytime one side demeans or disrespects the other side with an immediate and subtle jab such as that, it usually reveals a mind that is already locked in a certain belief and will reject an opposing view, leaving little room for debate or discussion. However, your recent posts suggest the opposite. I really dig your passion – I mean that sincerely.

    In your follow-up post, I agree with what you said about the conspiracy industry, which thrives whenever the public begins to have distrust in business and government and inspires hucksters and entertainers to chase the dollar anyway possible. I also really love what you said here: “using discourse, narratives, and myths are better than using guns, tanks, and ships.” I think that more or less is an endorsement of soft power – which is why I really like things like the recent nuclear weapon reductions (regardless of it being a stunt or not) and Obama’s careful speech to other nations. The modest realism of his foreign policy is refreshing to see. It’s often described as “an apology tour” however, I view it as a subtle and intelligent way of obtaining an upper hand as America prepares for a new composition on the world stage. Palin & Co. seem to endorse an old world view of machismo and over confidence – which historically sinks every great nation. The irony of this imperialistic mindset is almost too silly:

    Frum is interesting only because he seems to be the only conservative whose saying what needs to be said. I find him useful, but others may not.

    I also think I agree with your main objections – “loses of free speech, loss of internet freedom, large scale gun confiscations, mass forced migrations into the United State, or forcing people into camps for political, religious, historical, or spiritual beliefs.”

    We’re not so different after all!

    Thanks for those links! Although, I still can’t follow the logic behind the Tea Party. They only make sense to me if I imagine it’s the early 2000’s and conservatives are protesting the debt spending and government expanding tendencies of a Republican President and Party. Under the Obama Administration and our current obstacles, it doesn’t make much sense. The Tea Party, to me, seems to be an organization mostly consisting of white cynical conservatives.

  14. “The Tea Party, to me, seems to be an organization mostly consisting of white cynical conservatives.” (tim)

    The tea party is about 95% European American(middle America), so we could call it an expression of white political interests (implicitly). The most healthy aspect of the tea party movement is its equal distrust of the financial elites and the New (post 60’s) Left. These people see a political system where the President himself attends a highly charged racialist church which clearly incites anger towards white people, but at the same time, distrusts the power of big finance. This is critical, and major progress for middle America. The tea party isn’t really that interesting now, in ten or fifteen years is when we’ll understand the true importance of the tea party movement. One thing is for sure, the elite don’t
    like what they see. Which is why its fair-game to use offensively strong sexual terminology (teabagger) to demoralize them.

  15. Seerov,
    Well said.

    I agree with your idea of this being the loose beginnings of the Tea Party. After voters pay attention to a few election cycles and discover how both political parties produce similar corporatist policies – there very well may be a consolidation of outrage that transcends party politics and allows the people to regain control of the electoral process.

    But in my opinion, for that to happen there has to be a rejection of the delusion and anti-intellectualism that’s perpetuated by the movement’s quasi-leaders like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Hucksters like that are corrosive to truth and only veer the movement (and followers) toward paranoid and cynical ignorance.

    Although I’m hesitant about many of Obama’s policies, I do find him to be a pragmatic and conservative politician. When I listen to his opposition describe him, whether it’s Palin, Beck, Fox News, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, John Boener, etc. it’s language totally detached from reality. Rather than engage, they use a cheap route of delusion, cynicism, and short-gain politics. Not having an intellectual opposition hurts us all – so far the Tea Party seems blissfully uninterested in filling that void, and all too eager to side with opportunistic Republican candidates who represent the very things the movement claims to despise – which is why they draw my contempt, and why others are inspired to demoralize them.

  16. It’s hard for me to put Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin in the same category, though they are clearly operating in the same stream. Beck is much smarter, and his lectures on the history of Marxism and Progressivism betray a better understanding of late 19th century politics than Palin could arrive at on her own.

    That said, both parties exist to fill offices. The Tea Party, to the extent that it is ideologically driven, is about a shift in policies.

    Seerov’s right that Obama is perfectly fine working with black racists as part of his political coalition. Apart from FoxNews, the MSM has not called him on this.

    PS, I hope you recovered well!

  17. If Julian Assange is a shill like you are claiming, then you would have to explain all the people surrounding him, that help him produce wikileaks information.

    Also what about Bradly Manning and all the information he released to wikileaks? How do you explain this? This is a real guy who is in jail.

    Also what about the hacker group anonymous and how they are protecting wikileaks. How do you explain this? Also what about HBGary and how that company was doing powerpoint presentations to present to the Bank of America and other larger firms, in order to take down wikileaks? How do you explain this? Everyone is fooled except you? 🙂

    Also if your story is true, shouldn’t Assange have some previous experience or encounter with spy agencies? Why can you not find this in his past. I have researched his past and when you do the research, you find him moving from town to town as a child, in trouble with the law for minor hacking and no connection what so ever to any spy agencies. How do you explain this?

    My point being, interesting conversation, but you are just being paranoid.

    Now if you are to claim now that other smaller organizations that are copying wikileaks, they could be shills or disinformation, then that is something to check in to, but to claim that Assange could be in any way connected with any spy agency or willingly releasing disinformation, is just plain absurd.

Leave a Reply

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