what matters? -- Re: Superseding indictment of Julian Assange as of 6/24/2020

Zenaan Harkness zen at freedbms.net
Sat Jun 27 10:19:07 PDT 2020


On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:36:54PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 03:53:01PM -0400, John Young wrote:
> > Assange will be sacrificed and discarded by journalists once no longer useful.
> > This is a long-standing practice to assure official protection and privilege.
> > Assange once advocated this warning but was eventully coopted by journalists
> > who joined his team and pushed the outreach to duplicitous journalism.
> > 
> > Braying about threat to journalism by Assange's prosecution is a deception op
> > conducted in cooperation with authorities. Snowden's promoters have admitted
> > consulting with USG on what to publish, what to redact, what to withhold.
> > Barton Gellman describes his following this CYA standard procedure in Dark
> > Mirror.
> > 
> > WikiLeaks burned sources with loose security, incoherent management, Julian's
> > vanity and opportunism, thinking he could use cohorts for his purpose without
> > penalty. The indictment outlines the parties he enlisted, quite a few likely
> > to have decided to cooperate, like Sabu, the "Teenager," maybe Appelbaum,
> > others pseudonymed.
> > 
> > Those he has manipulated will turn against him under pressure from prosecutors
> > against them, their families and friends. Same happened to Manning, Swartz,
> > kirakou, Hammond, long list of others.
> > 
> > Snowden will eventually be handed over to USG by those he came to trust the
> > most. Trust wears thin over time and goosed by planted suspicions and doubts,
> > ambition, need for income. And fans are notoriously fickle, don't give a shit
> > after the excitement wanes, smears are spread, bots and media countermesures
> > are unleashed, rewards are offered like Greenwald's "irresistables"
> > undergirding The Intercept.
> > 
> > And there is always the AP option for terminating JA. Treachery of supporters
> > is too.
> 
> 
> Much true here.
> 
> True men of principle do not suffer greatly for vainglorious ends.  Though some may get caught up in the superficial, we should feel sorry for them on that count, whilst at the same time upholding principles worthy.
> 
> Manning may have procured her relief from her "double jeopardy" with a (temp) non-disclosure, yet she remains vigilant to a tee in not "being a dog and knifing Assange" for her own physical freedom - the loyalty of a champion, and for the right foundation of righteous principle, so a huge and gracious -thank you- to Manning!
> 
> Assange had things to learn on his journey it appears - are any of us exempt from such?  Let's not shoot the messenger.  Let's take a leaf from Manning's book of grace and loyalty - if we asked her, would she hesitate to say "punch up, not down" ?
> 
> Assange was part of a team, and as incoherent and flawed as it may have been, that team achieved massive wins - never forget that the results, from a broader perspective have shaken the foundations of empire, with its relentless revenge mission against Assange still in full swing to this day after so many years.
> 
> If as you say, Assange 'has manipulated' people on his Wikileaks journey, just how many more years would -you- keep him locked up in Maxi, how many more years from now (of Assange in jail), depriving his children of their father, do you personally say that Assange ought be kept in the slammer in order to mete out sufficient "justic" in your mind?
> 
> This is a serious and real question to you John (no matter that we are not the judiciary prosecuting him) - what be your position on the actual pennance Assange, as you imply, ought pay?
> 
> Yes there are always many options - perhaps we can help to spread the word of caution, of loyalty, remind folks that ultimate dignity is that in our own mirrored eyes, before our maker and with none between ...


John perhaps the following will resonate.

This battle some of us have been in is not "merely against empire," it is a battle for justice, truth, transparency, agency, righteousness, and in too many cases, for life itself (the evils of Barack "Drone-Bama" come to mind for example).  "We fight not against men ..."

In present times, when a supporter of such actually worthy goals goes in to bat, to support, he may well be surprised to find that "a little genuine support for a good cause" ends up locating him in a battle royale - in fact battle after battle after night of the living dead battle!  Some of us have experienced this in wrenching, Soul purifying (hopefully) clarity.

And when we appear to battle against "bleedingly obvious" stupidity and uncoordination, incoherency and so many flaws it rips tears from our hearts and eyes, literally, we are too often left desperatery wondering, should we plead to the Gods?  Are we doing something wrong in helping?  Why do every 5 steps forward seem to result in 4, 5 or 6 steps backwards?  Am I able to continue with even tiny steps forward in the face of this madness?  And many more similar ...

Keep heart John and stay true to you.  You might have noticed - we are in extraordinarily testing times.

When the Soul with a penchant for doing good in the face of evil, begins to solidly stand, and act in pursuance of that which his conscience pricks him with an awareness of, the human in training is tested.

Sometimes severely tested.  Gut wrenchingly, repeatedly, relentlessly tested.

Did I mention that sometimes we get tested?

We may forget at times, but we choose our path - not the evil that we fight, we did not choose that, but we make the choice to act, and we choose how to act, what to do at each step.  We can even choose to stop our good work, but that way great sorrow, self loathing and pity, depression and other ills do lie in wait and pounce on us as a hungry wolf ...


It's ok to fail.  Pick self up, may be try again.


It is never other men we ought seek dignity before - in fact, we have a sacred duty to let no man come between us and our maker, however you may conceive of this.

How can a man ever hope to have dignity when he seeks the approval of another?

Approval is an acceptable response to our actions (from those who for odd reasons feel compelled to "approve" of other men), but success, and failure, are imposters to the spirit - we know this of course but it is good to remind ourselves occasionally.

(And not that it matters in the Wikileaks saga, since intention of some at least was fundamentally good and success and failure are imposters and all, but in the WL saga, great strides were made - a paradigm was busted ╬┐pen, and in the not too distant future, we will witness a cadre of Gen-Z'ers follow in these "transparency or die" footsteps (which reminds me that in principle at least, the USPS and public ledger systems may provide the kind of radical transparency which some wish to see imposed on any power hierarchy we are under).)


If you pray, then pray.  If you meditate or contemplate, do that.

Always remember if you do slip and find yourself seeking the approval of men, that the things that matter, matter to those who matter, and no one else matters much at all..


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list