Julian Assange LiveStream
punks at tfwno.gf
Sat Apr 20 17:14:38 PDT 2019
On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 17:48:31 -0400
John Young <jya at pipeline.com> wrote:
> Assange presaged this in his papers "State and Terrorist
> Conspiracies," November 10, 2006 and "Conspiracy as Governance,"
> December 3, 2006, published a few weeks after WikiLeaks was founded
> in October that year.
What I see in those articles is more than a few mentions of 'good governance', something that I obv. think is as real as good cops and unicorns.
So, if by 'good governance' assange meant a government staffed by 'good' cops, 'good' politicians and other 'good' state scumbags, then I would agree that the document is evidence of assange being some sort of government agent. But it might also be argued that when he refers to 'good governance' he doesn't necessarily mean state governance. (though I personally wouldn't had used such ambiguous language)
anyway, quotes from the articles :
"...unjust systems of governance"
"...mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them
with more open forms of governance"
"We must understand the key generative structure of bad governance"
"...replace the structures that lead to bad governance with something better."
"Most witnessed acts of injustice are associated with bad governance, since when governance is good, unanswered injustice is rare."
> Bluntly, WikiLeaks is a perfect waterhole to attract leakers to be
> documented by waterhole watchers.
True. That is either a hard to fix bug, or a feature. If we assume assange is honest, then it's a bug and unlucky limitation of the system.
> Org secrecy combined with public protection avowal essential by spy guide.
I candidly admit I wondered a few times if wikileaks had some powerful backers. Secrecy for sources on the other hand seems more justified.
> The org's various sustained, ostentatious gambits for 12 years have
> been masterfully planned and executed as regularly done by
> professional spy agencies.
Well, that's where I'd partially disagree. It seems to me that the most important 'gambit', the collateral murder video, is basically an anti-state gambit that cost manning and and assange dear.
Other stuff published by wikileaks is more suspect, or closer to irrelevant filler.
> Press co-optation and manipulation, after initially, to 2010
> Collateral Murder press conference, condemning the press until
> needing to invoke press privilege.
It's perfectly legitimate to condemn 99% of the press since the so called 'MSM' bviously are nothing but state mouthpieces. At the same time, it would be legitimate to invoke press privileges for people publishing stuff like the collateral murder video and other stuff that actually damaged the ruling class to some degree.
> Iceland, Sweden, Interpol, UK arrest, Manning, embassy asylum,
> Snowden, lately RU-hacked emails, long-rumored indictment,
> media-staged arrest, Mueller report celebritization, with months if
> not years of sustained publicity to come.
you seem to be overlooking that a good deal, if not the majority of publicity on assange and co. now is BAD publicity?
> End game: Show trial(s), conviction(s), appeal(s), followed by pardon
> if not suicided or whacked.
Well, show trial and pardon would certainly make the theory of assange being some sort of govt. agent more plausible.
Just like show trial and then lynching would prove that assange is honest.
> New identity and pension possible, or a
> Sabu-like continued undercover service.
> >On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 04:56:02 -0400
> >John Young <jya at pipeline.com> wrote:
> > > or converted to a high value undercover (deeper than since 2006).
> > Not sure how serious your comment is, but if you actually
> > mean that assange is some sort of 'undercover agent' since 2006, do
> > you mind providing some details? (facts, 'sources' or something...)
More information about the cypherpunks