monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Whistle blowers like Julian Assange

Hmm...not exactly an unbiased source.

The Wikileaks founder is scathing about the "weaponised text" of the global news media, but when it comes to fake news and scandal, Julian Assange has a different view.

WikiLeaks is very happy that there is a narrative about fake news out there because we have a perfect record of having never got it wrong in terms of authentications.

And once again, consider how incredibly stupid he presumes his supporters are.

Trump's Big Lie is that he doesn't lie.

...with the personal opinion posted as fact.

Wikileaks thoroughly researches and cross-references, and has yet to be proven to be fake news.

We had lots of critics in the Democratic Party, liars in the Democratic Party... saying that what we published was not accurate -- trying to imitate (intimate) it, sometimes saying it directly.

blatham wrote:

Quote:

Trump's Big Lie is that he doesn't lie.

That is the biggest truth that is killing the USA today!

- and the truth shall set you free.

We need a wikileaks in ALL countries.

But I'm still more for Assange than against him.

I see Wikileaks and Assange as a modern "Robin Hood" so to speak

There's too much secrecy in the world on the part of governments as it is.... letting a little sunshine in is rarely a harmful thing.

Or simply because we have the right to have access to such information?
Why shouldn't we know what or our elected governments are actually doing?
Surely it is in the best interests of democracy for us to know?:

Who is harmed, or embarrassed, by us knowing?:

personally as an Australian I am extremely proud of him for having the guts to stand-up to such an arrogant, two faced regime…. The failed super power the world would be better off without; of course this is the opinion of all my friends and I, all true blue Australians.

WHILE WIKILEAKS HAS undoubtedly facilitated the release of information that is both true and important, it is Assange’s Trump-like willingness to traffic in such unsubstantiated rumors, conspiracy theories, and innuendo not supported by evidence that undermines his claim to be a disinterested publisher, not a political operative.

This willingness to traffic in false or misleading information was very much in evidence during his work on behalf of Trump, and it is a consistent feature of Assange’s advocacy for other people and causes.

I believe that he has a self-serving agenda.

Here are two articles which reinforce my low opinion of Assange:

Carl Miller‏
@carljackmiller
Here’s a quick throwback. ‘Trump will not be permitted to win’ says Assange. Banks, big business, corporate media, would all conspire to make it literally impossible. https://youtu.be/JQ7lYRnF1F8

So, either Julian's omniscient grasp of power structures is way off or he was lying.

What does ego and nhilism have to do with his factual research?

But no one's disputing the authenticity of the leaked material.

None of the criticism of WikiLeaks that I've seen has ever charged that the leaked e-mails themselves were fake or inaccurate.

I see Finn found a post of yours where you're glowing in your praise of Julian, almost to the point of adulation.

You seem to have the habit of (purposefully?) misreading my posts.

Keep on topic, and don't let him lead you up any more blind alleys.

You seem to have the habit of (purposefully?) misreading my posts.

Information can be weaponized in other ways; a release of an embarrassing exchange of e-mails at the right time can derail legislation or delegitimatize a leader.

That, and making statements without evidence of any kind.

Strategies At A Happy Weight Injury Plan

(...) The insistent demand that we choose between protection of individual liberty and expansion of the state’s efforts to redress injustices masks the reality that the two grow constantly and necessarily together: Statism enables individualism; individualism demands statism. The creation of the autonomous individual, that imaginary creature of Hobbes and Locke, in fact requires the expansive apparatus of the state and its creation, the universal market, to bring it into existence. And, as Tocqueville predicted, once liberated, the individual no longer has reliable personal networks to which to turn for assistance, and instead looks for the assistance of the state, which grows further to meet these insistent demands.
(...)
Liberalism is failing not because it fell short but because it was true to itself. Liberalism is failing because liberalism succeeded. As liberalism has “become more fully itself,” as its inner logic has become more evident and its self-contradictions manifest, it has generated pathologies that are at once deformations of its claims and realizations of liberal ideology.
(...)
In effect, this immorality tale is the Hobbesian vision in microcosm: First, tradition and culture must be eliminated as arbitrary and unjust (“natural man”). Then, we see that absent such norms, anarchy is the result (“the state of nature”). Finding such anarchy unbearable, we turn to a central sovereign as our sole protector, that “Mortall God” who will protect us from ourselves (“the social contract”). We have been liberated from all custom and tradition, all authority that sought to educate by habit and within the context of ongoing communities, and have replaced it with a central authority that punishes wrongdoers who abuse their freedoms. And, now lacking any informal and local forms of authority, we are virtually assured that those abuses will regularly occur, and that the role of the state in ever more intimate personal affairs will increase (“prerogative”).