what matters? -- Re: Superseding indictment of Julian Assange as of 6/24/2020
gmkarl at gmail.com
Mon Jun 29 11:51:12 PDT 2020
Thank you so much.
Our enemies are our allies, over here. Nonapproval is an indicator of
efficiency in finding the shared fight.
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 1:20 PM Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
> 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
> > > This is a long-standing practice to assure official protection and
> > > Assange once advocated this warning but was eventully coopted by
> > > 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
> > > consulting with USG on what to publish, what to redact, what to
> > > Barton Gellman describes his following this CYA standard procedure in
> > > Mirror.
> > >
> > > WikiLeaks burned sources with loose security, incoherent management,
> > > vanity and opportunism, thinking he could use cohorts for his purpose
> > > penalty. The indictment outlines the parties he enlisted, quite a few
> > > to have decided to cooperate, like Sabu, the "Teenager," maybe
> > > others pseudonymed.
> > >
> > > Those he has manipulated will turn against him under pressure from
> > > against them, their families and friends. Same happened to Manning,
> > > 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
> > > ambition, need for income. And fans are notoriously fickle, don't give
> a shit
> > > after the excitement wanes, smears are spread, bots and media
> > > are unleashed, rewards are offered like Greenwald's "irresistables"
> > > undergirding The Intercept.
> > >
> > > And there is always the AP option for terminating JA. Treachery of
> > > 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
> 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
> 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 οpen,
> 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..
There is proof inside many peoples' electronics. Proof that a marketing
group would contract development of a frightening virus. A virus that
responds to peoples' keystrokes and browsing habits, and changes what
people see on their devices. A virus that alters political behavior en
masse, for profit.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 9141 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the cypherpunks