Unity for Assange’s Plight Is Necessary To Build a Movement for Democracy

Posted on by

Source

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange remains in solitary confinement inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he was granted asylum in 2012 against the threat of extradition to the United States for his publishing activities. In recent months, Ecuador’s President Lenin Moreno, under pressure from the U.S. began threatening to evict this political refugee.

In response to this dire situation, people across the political spectrum began to form solidarity through #Unify4J, an online platform to organize a social media movement in support of Assange. Among those include prominent Trump’s supporters. In the midst of Trump administration’s draconian measures on immigrants and empowerment of white supremacist groups, the idea of working with Trump’s key allies triggered reaction among the left. Recently, Classconscious.org, an outlet spearheading global civic action for Assange’s freedom, scrutinized the idea of uniting with ultra-right forces that back Trump and urged the movement to draw a line.

Strife around the same issue arose from the former associate and early proponents of WikiLeaks. Barrett Brown, an award-winning journalist, previously imprisoned for charges relating to a Stratfor hack, has been one of the strong voices in support of the whistleblowing site. He described how he has long stood up for the organization’s mission of transparency at great risk to himself, yet in recent months he became upset about what he perceived to be Assange’s alliance with fascists and radical right supremacist groups.

Brown, who recently launched the project Pursuance, an open source software that allows individuals to share information and organize, has ramped up criticism toward Assange in his most vulnerable time. This created the conflict with the Courage Foundation, an organization that provides assistance for whistleblowers. Courage was co-founded by Assange and it has both WikiLeaks and Brown as beneficiaries. According to the article on the Daily Beast, three of Courage’s trustees reportedly instructed Courage’s respected director Naomi Colvin to cut off Brown as some kind of retaliation against his hostile remarks toward Assange. This led to the unfortunate resignation of Colvin, who was forced to walk out from the organization as a matter of principle for her opposition to exclude anyone based on political speech.

Birgitta Jónsdóttir, a former member of Iceland’s Parliament, who now joined the board of Pursuance, responded to this alleged retaliation against Brown. Jónsdóttir, who worked for WikiLeaks in the 2010 publication of the Collateral Murder video, recently tweeted her thoughts on her old colleague: “It’s beyond sad to watch the hubris of one man being able to do so much damage and alienate people who risked everything for the cause. WikiLeaks is now far closer to alt right groups then digital rights groups, by choice of its overlord.”

The divisiveness that has grown among progressives around the advocacy of WikiLeaks brings extreme alarm. It weakens any kind of efforts to resist government and corporate oppression. Finding a way to overcome this force becomes now important, not only for Assange’s freedom, but also for creating a viable movement for democracy.

Innovation on the Internet

So, where does this divisiveness really come from? Since its mainstream recognition in 2010, WikiLeaks was accused of many things in different places and by various groups of people. WikiLeaks once tweeted: “In Russia, Julian Assange is a MI6 agent; In US, a Russian agent; In Iran, a Mossad agent; In Saudi, an Iranian agent; In Libya, a CIA agent. World wide establishments accuse those who expose them of being the enemy of the people.” The latest accusation became ‘WikiLeaks, as an agent of fascism!’

The latest accusation became ‘WikiLeaks, as an agent of fascism!’ Yet, the organization cannot be pigeonholed into these labels. Needless to say, none of these characterizations are accurate. WikiLeaks is a 100% publicly funded transnational journalistic organization that is not bound to any nation, corporation or political parties. This borderless existence comes to challenge our preconceived notion of journalism based on a model that operates within the confinement of the nation-state. WikiLeaks can be best looked at as an innovation of journalism on the Internet. Just as many inventions of the past, it brought disruption to the system and became controversial. Think of Johannes Gutenberg and his invention of the printing press. The spread of the printing press made it possible for people to read the Bible and democratization of knowledge enabled by his technology has brought the decline of Church’s authority.

In a similar way, Assange together with mathematicians, activists and journalists all around the world, invented a new form of journalism that is much more effective in revealing corruption of governments and institutions. With a pristine record of accuracy, it published more classified information than all media combined, exposing human right abuses, government spying, torture and war crimes on a scale that was unprecedented.

Birth of this global Fourth Estate was a game changer. It radically altered the media landscape. Just as scientists and inventors of the past who were imprisoned for their unconventional beliefs and discoveries, Assange has been persecuted for the breakthrough of this innovation. In the 17th century, Galileo’s thought that provided the evidence about the Earth revolving around the Sun was met with condemnation by the orthodoxy of the Church. In these contemporary times, WikiLeaks and its idea of transparency for the powerful seem to have become a heresy that is regarded as a punishable offense by the state.

Ethos of cypherpunks

Without understanding the essence of this new invention, people’s attitudes toward WikiLeaks swing back and forth. Whether it is capitalism or socialism, Democrats or Republicans, many demand WikiLeaks to demonstrate its allegiance to their political ideology and support their preferred candidate. They conflate the invention with the inventor, becoming obsessed with Assange.

One publication put him in a category of a leftist, while another turns him into a right winger. People speculate and get overly attached to Assange’s political views. Ultimately, the opinion of this inventor does not and should not matter. In the same way that people don’t have to know who invented electricity to have a light or a combustion engine to drive a car, everyone can benefit from this new journalism and use it to enrich society at large.

Yet, for those who still feel the need to know, Assange’s thoughts are not shaped by a conventional political dichotomy of left and right. The ideas that conceived WikiLeaks originated from the philosophy of cypherpunks, an electronic mailing list that advocates privacy through the use of strong cryptography.

The motto of this loosely tied network that became active since the late 1980’s is depicted with the expression “cypherpunks write code”. Adam Back, a cryptographer who was cited in Bitcoin’s white paper described it as a particular mindset to make changes through creating alternatives, rather than engaging in typical political efforts of petitions and protests. Back noted how pressuring politicians and promoting issues through the press tends to be slow and creates an uphill battle. He pointed out how instead of appealing to authority for change, people can simply “deploy technology and help people do what they consider to be their legal right”, and then society will later catch up to reflect these values.

Assange describing himself as part of cypherpunks that came from a different tradition than libertarians in California, articulated their unique efforts to balance power between the individual and the state. He said, “By writing our own software and disseminating it far and wide we liberated cryptography, democratized it and spread it through the frontiers of the new internet.” Being true to this ethos of cypherpunks, Assange deployed the technology of a secure drop box that runs on Tor, a free software that routes Internet traffic to enable the anonymous submission of material.

Liberating the First Amendment

The creation of WikiLeaks brought a major upgrade to the existing model of free speech. In the U.S. where tradition of freedom of speech began, in its inception, the First Amendment right was not able to fully embody its potent creative power. The idea of democracy, a government established under the rule of people, expressed in the preamble of the Constitution “we the people” remained an ideal. A move toward its fulfillment came from below by those who opposed the ratification of the 1787 Constitution that lacked the guarantee of individual liberties. The anti-federalists demanded that the Bill of Rights was necessary in order to restrict governmental power and their efforts made it possible for freedom of expression to be codified into law.

The First Amendment reads;

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Establishment of Bill of Rights as a vital part of checks and balances of power was revolutionary. Yet these rights that were meant to provide protection of individuals from government’s overarching power were granted and regulated by central authority. In the structure of the constitutional republic, the unaccounted power of the Founding Fathers was kept unchecked. This created a loophole that makes the system vulnerable to commercial interests. Big business gained power by exploiting this weakness in security of the system and hijacked the government. Transnational corporations that have no allegiance to any country began using national governments and their system of representative democracy as instruments to control the populace and advance their own agendas.

With privatization of public airwaves and consolidation of media, an oligarchic class put the First Amendment under its proprietary control, restricting user access and setting terms and conditions for their use. In this dictatorial form of governance, journalists and editors are installed as an arbitrator of truth to manage and monitor public opinion. Through a creed of objectivity, they justify censoring any dissenting thoughts that challenge government official lines crafted by the corporate masters. This was evidenced by the 2013 documentary film Mediastan that exposed the former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller’s cozy relationship with the US government, the military and the CIA.

It was in this context of corporate dictatorship that Assange used cryptography as a nonviolent democratic weapon to revolt. From its onset, the US Constitution framed by white property owners with their imperfection manifested in slavery, genocide of natives and denial of women’s rights corrupted the source code of equality written in the Declaration of Independence. Now, over 200 years later, Australian born computer programmer and journalist aimed to restore this original code of democracy through building a publishing platform online that is run on free software.

With the creation of WikiLeaks, Assange liberated the First Amendment from this archaic system of national governance. Significance of this invention is that it decentralized the function of free press, extending the First Amendment protection that has been exclusively preserved for the profession of journalists to ordinary people. Now, through this innovative anonymous submission system, anyone in the world with Internet connection can communicate with people around the globe about the fraud and wrongdoing of any governments or institutions. Without fear of retaliation, people can now transcend boundaries of nation-state to form association with one another and redress their grievances.

With scientific journalism at its core, this new media of the Internet replaced the source of legitimacy from the profession’s creed of objectivity to the actual documents themselves that are authenticated. Access to full achieves in a searchable format empowered everyday people all over the world. They can now engage in their own history as it is happening and use information to create social change.

Claiming creative power within

The US government under Obama began a war against the First Amendment, trying to stop this WikiLeaks’ mission to bring free speech to the world. In this battle now being carried on by the new President Trump, Assange, as a lightning rod got inflamed with mainstream media hype of Russia Gate, demonizing the organization’s role in the 2016 US election. Without any solid evidence, Democrats throw around opinions, blaming Assange for the victory of Trump. They accuse the organization as collaborating with a fascist, when in fact the release of John Podesta emails exposed the Democratic establishment as actively aiding Trump candidacy with their strategy to elevate “pied piper” GOP candidates.

Some of Assange’s former allies also got caught up with the heat that fixates public gaze on his personality. By expressing disdain toward Assange’s flaws and what appeared to be their personal grudges against him that should be reconciled individually, they plunge themselves into the orgy of identity politics. While they are fully entitled to their opinion and criticism about his character, the timing and the way it was voiced when he can’t respond is concerning. This only adds fuel to the establishment’s character assassination of this political prisoner, who was placed under surveillance cameras and intense media scrutiny to the level that no one in the world are made to endure.

In facing the struggles of the racial injustice in the civil rights era, Martin Luther King Jr. recognized the similar force of divisiveness that could destroy the movement. In a sermon delivered in 1957 in Montgomery, Alabama, King identified it as hatred and described how it “distorts the personality of the hater.” He noted how this hatred has created “something of a civil war” inside people that divides them against one another. He reminded all about a redemptive power of love that could “save our world and our civilization”:

“Love is creative, understanding goodwill for all men. It is the refusal to defeat any individual. When you rise to the level of love, of its great beauty and power, you seek only to defeat evil systems. Individuals who happen to be caught up in that system, you love, but you seek to defeat the system.”

Just like cypherpunks who tap into the creative power within to bring change, this veteran leader of a civil rights movement knew that in order to abolish unjust laws of racism, we must first become that change by embodying universal brotherhood within ourselves. He understood that the blacks’ fight against their oppressors to claim their rights lock all into a perpetuating power struggle and how the levers of control that they use to try to defeat opponents will be used against them to deny their rights. For this, King insisted all to adopt the principle of “love your enemies” and lay down a sharp sword that cut through both ways.

Reign of the heart

This radical love that embraces even one’s opponents is the heart that accepts all existence, giving all a right to express themselves equally. This heart that does not favor certain opinions as good and judge others as bad is the cornerstone of our democracy. The function of the First Amendment is to connect us to this silent pulse of the heart, placing it at a center of society to preserve the liberty of all people.

In the interview conducted by an award winning filmmaker John Pilger, renowned political analyst Noam Chomsky once said, “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all”. Democracy dies when we deny speech of those whom we oppose and our collective heart suffocates, with each individual not being able to speak freely. Tyranny triumphs the rule of law when we can’t breathe through diverse opinions and perspectives to inspire one another to form a court of public opinion.

WikiLeaks enabled the true function of the First Amendment. As a countenance of democracy, this revolutionary journalism protects people against suppression of speech by allowing all voices including views that are unpopular and marginalized. This can illuminate what liberals consider WikiLeaks’ troubling appearance of associating with Trump Jr. and speaking up for conspiracy theorists like a Infowars radio host Alex Jones, when he got censored by Silicon Valley tech giants.

In the article “No, Julian Assange Is Not a Fascist”, Gary Lord who writes political commentary has cut though the corporate media headlines that twist WikiLeaks’ professional contact with President Trump’s son. By presenting their Twitter direct messages in a full context, he dismantled the widely held myth that Assange supports Trump and WikiLeaks helped his campaign. What is revealed in these exchanges was WikiLeaks asking Trump’s son to help them publish his father’s tax returns (which was ignored), while refusing inquiries of both Cambridge Analytica and Trump Jr., regarding the upcoming publications. Lord summed up the nature of their interaction as WikiLeaks just doing the things that any good journalistic organization would do.

In Trump cabinet’s aggressive pursuit to criminalize journalism, Assange is now seized in the embassy, deprived of sunlight and health care, being cut off from the outside world. As the fate of press freedom looks grim, cynicism and apathy spread with many of his colleagues in mainstream media turning away from his predicament and spectators lamenting this tragedy from afar. The fact is, it is not Assange who has created damage and alienated people as critics say. Rather, it is our lack of understanding of true meaning of free speech that brings damage to efforts of those who risked everything for democracy and has condemned Assange to profound solitude.

Efforts to free Julian Assange challenges us all to uphold this right to free speech, with moral courage to love our enemies. When politics wins, democracy loses. Only through our united front built upon our feeling of truth, can we bring the reign of the heart that can dismantle the levers of control and realize universal ideals that all men and women are created equal.

Nozomi Hayase, Ph.D., is an essayist and author of WikiLeaks, the Global Fourth Estate: History Is Happening (Libertarian Books, 2018). Find her on twitter @nozomimagine.

GENERATION BEING BORN NOW IS THE LAST TO BE FREE – ASSANGE IN LAST INTERVIEW BEFORE BLACKOUT (video)

Posted on by
Before his links to the world were cut by his Ecuadorian hosts, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gave an interview on how technological advances are changing humankind. He said global surveillance will soon be totally unavoidable.
The interview was provided to RT by organizers of the World Ethical Data Forum in Barcelona. Assange, who is currently stranded in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London with no outside communication except with his legal team, has a pretty grim outlook on where humanity is going. He says it will soon be impossible for any human being to not be included in global databases collected by governments and state-like entities.

This generation being born now… is the last free generation. You are born and either immediately or within say a year you are known globally. Your identity in one form or another –coming as a result of your idiotic parents plastering your name and photos all over Facebook or as a result of insurance applications or passport applications– is known to all major world powers.

“A small child now in some sense has to negotiate its relationship with all the major world powers… It puts us in a very different position. Very few technically capable people are able to live apart, to choose to live apart, to choose to go their own way,” he added. “It smells a bit like totalitarianism – in some way.”

The capacity to collect and process information about people has been growing exponentially and will continue to grow fast, he stated. With advancements in applying Artificial Intelligence (AI) to big data, the next logical step is coming.

READ MORE: Ecuador pledged to not kick out Assange, but threat of US prosecution still serious – lawyer to RT

“Look at what Google and Baidu and Tencent and Amazon and Facebook are doing. They are basically open-cut harvesting the knowledge of humankind as we express it, when we communicate with each other… This classical model, which people in academia call ‘surveillance capitalism’… has changed now.

It’s a really very important and severe economic change. Which is to take the surveillance capitalism model and transform it instead into a model that does not yet have a name, an ‘AI model’. Which is to use this vast reservoir to train Artificial Intelligences of different kinds. This would replace not only intermediary sectors –most things you do on the internet is in a sense more efficient intermediation– but to take over the transport sector, or create whole new sectors.

Assange also predicted that the scale of hostile activities through cyberspace will see a breakout point as soon as AI is trained to sufficiently automate hacking attacks.

“There is no border [online]. It’s 220 milliseconds from New York to Nairobi. Why would there ever be peace in such a scenario?” he said. “[Entities online] are creating their own borders using cryptography. But the size of the attack surface for any decent-sized organization, the number of people, different types of software and hardware it has to pull inside itself means that it is very hard to establish.

I don’t think it’s really possible to come up with borders that are predictable enough and stable enough to eliminate conflict. Therefore, there will be more conflict.

View full video:

Azcarate, Spinelli, Eurocommunism, How European are the Italian Eurocommunists?

Posted on by

SOURCE Urban One of the surprises of the last Italian elections was your candidacy for the Chamber of Deputies on the Communist platform. Your decision to run for election in support of Communist policies was received with a mixture of horror and disbelief, not least because you were one of Italy’s two Commissioners on the Brussels Commission and a leading European Federalist. Those not familiar with the intricacies of Italian Communist politics had reason to be puzzled. Has the PCI sufficiently changed its attitude to Europe for Altiero Spinelli to embrace it, or has Altiero Spinelli changed his politics because the Italian Communists appeared to be set for victory? In either case, there were questions to be asked, both in respect of your attitude to the Communist Party and of the Party’s attitude to the policies you represent. What made you decide to run on the Communist ticket? Spinelli My mandate at the European Commission was about to expire when the elections were announced (it expired at the end of 1976); and as I was close to 70, I decided to return to Italy and retire from public life. In the meantime, I was keeping a close watch on the Italian situation, … Continue reading →

Ο Raul “Ilargi” Meijer μιλάει για τον Julian Assange

Posted on by

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nUpV8JR38c

Γ. Χωλ: Καλησπέρα Raul “Ilargi” Meijer. Έχεις ένα ιστολόγιο, το “Automatic Earth” με το οποίο ασχολιέσαι ενεργά. Μπορείς να μας πεις λίγα λόγια για το “Automatic Earth”; Πότε ιδρύθηκε; Ποιοι είναι οι στόχοι του;

Ilargi: Ιδρύθηκε σχεδόν 11 χρόνια πριν. Το ιδρύσαμε μαζί με τη Nicole Foss επειδή θέλαμε να γράψουμε για οικονομικά θέματα αλλά οι άνθρωποι για τους οποίους γράφαμε προηγουμένως στο “The Oil Drum” δεν ήθελαν να το κάνουμε και θεωρήσαμε ότι ήταν υπερβολικά σημαντικό θέμα για να μην το κάνουμε.

Γ. Χωλ: Και τι κάνεις εδώ στην Άθήνα;

Ilargi: Στηρίζω μια ομάδα ανθρώπων που βοηθάνε άστεγους και πρόσφυγες. Έχω γράψει αρκετά άρθρα στο “Automatic Earth” πάνω σε αυτό το θέμα.

Γ. Χωλ: Τώρα, παρ’ότι έχεις γράψει άρθρα που δείχνουν ξεκάθαρα πόσο σημαντική θεωρείς την προσπάθεια να προστατεύεται ο Julian Assange, (διάβασα ένα που έγραψες σήμερα που ήταν πολύ εντός θέματος και δυνατό άρθρο), δεν συμφωνείς ακριβώς με τον Julian Assange όσον αφορά τη σπουδαιότητα της προστασίας της ευρωπαϊκής ολοκλήρωσης ή της Ευρώπης των πολιτών.

Σ’ένα άρθρο με τίτλο “Είμαι ο Julian Assange” στις 16/5/18, έγραψες: “O Julian Assange δείχνει να είναι οδυνηρά κοντά στο να εξωθεί χωρίς επισημότητες από την πρεσβεία του Ισημερινού στο Λονδίνο. Εάν αυτό συμβεί, οι συνέπειες για τη δημοσιογραφία και την ελευθεροτυπία θα αντηχούν στο κόσμο για πολλά χρόνια.” Θα ήθελες να πεις περισσότερο γι’αυτό;

Ilargi: Νομίζω ότι υπάρχει αρκετός κόσμος που δεν συνειδητοποιεί τις συνέπειες αν ο Assange αφεθεί να τον φάνε οι λύκοι.

Γ. Χωλ: Ποιές θα είναι;

Ilargi: Αντιπροσωπεύει κάθε δημοσιογράφο αλλά και κάθε πολίτη. Είναι ο άνθρωπος που αντάλλαξε την ελευθερία του για την ελευθερία όλων των υπολοίπων.

Γ. Χωλ: Έχει την αξιοπιστία που έχει, όπως λες, γιατί ποτέ δεν δημοσίευσε τίποτα που να μην είναι 100% επαληθεύσιμο.

Ilargi: Είναι η βάση του Wikileaks, η αλήθεια, η ειλικρίνεια. Ποτέ κανείς δεν θα του έδινε άλλο έγγραφο αν υπήρχε αμφιβολία για τη μυστικότητα του. Ότι θα προστάτευε την ταυτότητα τους και θα μεταχειριζόταν τα έγγραφα με το καλύτερο δυνατό τρόπο.

Γ. Χωλ: Επίσης έγραψες: “Οι άνθρωποι όπως η Chelsea Manning, o Kim Dotcom, o Edward Snowden και ο Julian Assange είναι μερικοί από τους εξυπνότερους ανθρώπους που έχει να προσφέρει ο κόσμος. Θα έπρεπε να θαυμάζουμε τον συνδυασμό ευφυΐας και ηθικής ακεραιότητας που δείχνουν θέτοντας τον εαυτό τους σε κίνδυνο. Αντί αυτού όμως επιτρέπουμε την παρενόχληση και στοχοποίηση τους από τις κυβερνήσεις μας επειδή δημοσιοποιούν ενοχλητικές για αυτές αλήθειες. Έτσι σύντομα δεν θα έχει μείνει κανείς να πει αυτές τις αλήθειες, ούτε να πει καμία αλήθεια.” Μου φαίνεται πολύ απαισιόδοξη εκτίμηση. Θα έλεγες ότι είναι υπερβολικά απαισιόδοξη;

Ilargi: Είναι απλώς ρεαλιστική. Πόσοι άνθρωποι υπάρχουν σαν τον Assange και τον Snowden ή την Chelsea Manning; Δεν έχουμε μια αστείρευτη πηγή.

Γ. Χωλ: Στο άρθρο σου “O Julian Assange και το Σβησιμό του Φωτός” έγραψες: “Η ιδανική κατάσταση θα ήταν η Αυστραλία να προσφέρει στον Julian Assange ασφαλή διέλευση πίσω στην πατρίδα. Ο Assange δεν έχει κατηγορηθεί για τίποτα εκτός από τη φυγοδικία (μετά από προσωρινή αποφυλάκιση, με εγγύηση) από το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο.” Έχει δεχτεί άλλες κατηγορίες αλλά αυτές έχουν φυσικά αποσυρθεί.

Ilargi: Με τι έχει κατηγορηθεί;

Γ. Χωλ: Δεν έχει κατηγορηθεί για βιασμό ή κάτι τέτοιο στη Σουηδία;

Ilargi: ΄Όχι, όχι.

Γ. Χωλ: Τι ήταν; Τι συνέβη εκεί αν δεν ήταν κατηγορία;

Ilargi: Είπαν ότι θέλουν να του μιλήσουν. Ήταν πολύ παράξενο. Απ΄όσο ξέρω η εισαγγελέας τον άφησε να φύγει, του είπε ότι είναι ελεύθερος να πάει στη Βρετανία και τότε – δεν ξέρω αν ήταν η ίδια εισαγγελέας, η Marianne Ny, αλλά το σουηδικό δικαστικό σύστημα έκανε στροφή 180 μοιρών και όταν έφτασε στο Λονδίνο είπαν ότι πρέπει να επιστρέψει γιατί θέλουν να του μιλήσουν.

Γ. Χωλ: Καρουζέλ.

Ilargi: Όμως καμία από τις δύο γυναίκες που ενεπλάκησαν δεν του έκανε μήνυση, ούτε υπήρξε κάποια καταγγελία. Μάλιστα βγήκαν και είπαν, αν και κάπως αργά: “Δεν με βίασε. Ουδέποτε συνέβη αυτό.” Μοιάζει με συκοφαντία. Και λειτούργησε άψογα.

Γ. Χωλ: Έτσι φαίνεται. Αληθεύει ότι – μιλάμε για την Αυστραλία ξανά και τον ασφαλή επαναπατρισμό. Αληθεύει ότι, χρόνια πριν, η κυβέρνηση της Αυστραλίας παραδέχθηκε ότι έχει την ευθύνη να βοηθήσει και να προστατέψει τον αυστραλό πολίτη Julian Assange. To 2011 π.χ. η πρωθυπουργός Julia Gillard είπε:

“Στηρίζουμε τον Julian Assange με τον ίδιο τρόπο που θα στηρίζαμε οποιονδήποτε αυστραλό πολίτη που θα είχε νομικά προβλήματα στο εξωτερικό της χώρας.”

Αλλά έκτοτε αυτές οι ευθύνες προφανώς έχουν ξεχαστεί. Ακόμα οι υποστηρικτές του Julian Assange δεν έχουν πρόβλημα, η αυστραλιανή κυβέρνηση να επιτρέψει στο Εκουαντόρ, ένα φτωχότερο από την Αυστραλία, λιγότερο ισχυρό και πιο ευάλωτο κράτος, να πάρει την ευθύνη που η αυστραλιανή κυβέρνηση είπε ότι θα πάρει και απλά δεν πήρε ποτέ.

Ilargi: Ποιος το έγραψε αυτό;

Γ. Χωλ: Εννοείς αυτό το σχόλιο για την Αυστραλία και το Εκουαντόρ; Εγώ το έγραψα.

Ilargi: OK. OK.

Γ. Χωλ: Δεν συμφωνείς;

Ilargi: Η αυστραλιανή κυβέρνηση έχει έναν πολύ παράξενο ρόλο σε όλα αυτά, ναι. Υπάρχει μια παλαιότερη ομιλία του μεταγενέστερου πρωθυπουργού Malcolm Turnbull που κυκλοφορεί στον Twitter στην οποία υποστήριζε πολύ τον Assange.

Γ. Χωλ: Είναι πρόσφατη ομιλία;

Ilargi: Νομίζω είναι από το 2011. Απ’ότι φαίνεται δεν τον υποστηρίζει πια.

Γ. Χωλ: Επόμενο θέμα. Θα ήθελες να σχολιάσεις την αντιπαράθεση γύρω από τον Seth Rich και τον χάκερ Guccifer 2.0; Υπάρχουν πολλές παρερμηνείες ή και διαμάχες. Νομίζω ότι πολύ κόσμος δεν ξέρει καν ποιος ήταν ο Seth Rich. Θα ήθελες να φωτίσεις τον κόσμο που δεν ξέρει;

Ilargi: Ο Seth Rich εργαζόταν στην Εθνική Επιτροπή του Δημοκρατικού Κόμματας. Βρέθηκε δολοφονημένος στην Ουάσιγκτον, όχι τόσο μακριά από τον Λευκό Οίκο. Λέγεται ότι ήταν αυτός που έδωσε τα e-mail του DNC στον Assange, στο Wikileaks

Γ. Χωλ: Αυτό είναι κάτι που λέει επίσης ο Kim Dotcom. Είναι ισχυρισμός που κάνει και ο ίδιος.

Ilargi: Ναι. Δεν ξέρω τόσο πολλά σε σχέση με αυτό αλλά προφανώς το όλο θέμα με τον Guccifer 2.0 είναι σκευωρία. Οι ΗΠΑ θέλουν να βρουν μια σύνδεση μεταξύ του Assange και της Ρωσίας. Θα έβλαπτε και τους δύο αν μπορούσαν να τη βρουν.

Γ. Χωλ: Το προσπαθούν πολύ.

Ilargi: Θα είχε πολύ αρνητικό αντίκτυπο στην εικόνα τους. Και αφού κανείς από τους δύο δεν μπορεί να αμυνθεί, αυτό το αφήγημα θα μπορούσε να συνεχίζει να χτίζεται επ’αόριστον.

Γ. Χωλ: Ναι, σωστά. Αν είσαι νεκρός ή αν σε εμποδίζουν να μιλάς, δεν μπορείς να αμυνθείς.

Ilargi: Όχι.

Γ. Χωλ: Αυτόν τον καιρό, μαζί με κάποιους άλλους συζητάμε δύο ιδέες που αφορούν τον Julian Assange. Μια από αυτές είναι καθαρά συμβολική. Έχει ως στόχο να αντιτεθεί στην προκατάληψη των ΜΜΕ κατά του Assange. Μιλάμε για τη θέσπιση ημέρας Julian Assange. Η μέρα που προτείνουμε είναι η 26η Ιανουαρίου. Ακούσαμε κάποια λόγια σχετικά με τη σημασία της 26ης Ιανουαρίου στην Ελλάδα. Όμως η 26η Ιανουαρίου είναι επίσης σημαντική μέρα στην Αυστραλία. Είναι η εθνική επέτειος. Πολλοί λένε σήμερα ότι η Εθνική Μέρα Αυστραλίας θα έπρεπε να μεταφερθεί σε άλλη μέρα που δεν θα απέκλειε τους πολλούς Αυστραλούς που νιώθουν ότι η 26η Ιανουαρίου είναι ακατάλληλη για αυτόν το σκοπό. Θα ακούσουμε την Amanda Stone η οποία το 2017 ήταν η δήμαρχος της περιοχής Yarra στη Μελβούρνη.

Amanda Stone: Εδώ και κάποιον καιρό συνομιλούμε με την κοινότητα των Αβορίγινων στη Yarra για τη σημασία που έχει η 26η Ιανουαρίου για εκείνους και έχουμε ακούσει ότι δεν είναι ημέρα εορτασμού. Είναι μέρα θλίψης και απώλειας. Σκεφτόμαστε πώς θα μπορούσαμε να θέσουμε το θέμα ώστε να εκφραστούν αυτές οι απόψεις. Φέτος (2017) τον Φεβρουάριο το Συμβούλιο αποφάσισε να ζητήσει από τα στελέχη να συμβουλευτεί την κοινότητα των Αβοριγίνων για το μέλλον της 26ης Ιανουαρίου, επίσης στα πλαίσια ενός γενικότερα αυξανόμενου κίνημα του “Change the Date” (αλλάξτε την ημερομηνία). Νιώσαμε λοιπόν ότι είχε έρθει η κατάλληλη στιγμή για αυτή τη δράση, και ότι θα υπήρχε γενικότερη στήριξη. Και όταν τα στελέχη παρουσίασαν τα αποτελέσματα της διαβούλευσης με τους αβορίγινες την Τρίτη, έτσι ψηφίσαμε. Δεν λέμε σε κανέναν τι να κάνει. Δεν θα αλλάξουμε την ημερομηνία της Ημέρας Αυστραλίας όπως έχει προς το παρόν. Δεν θα πούμε στον κόσμο πώς να περάσει την 26η Ιανουαρίου. Θα συνεχίσει να είναι αργία. Ο κόσμος θα συνεχίσει να μπορεί να απολαμβάνει τα μπαρμπεκιού τους και τα πίκνικ και τις μαζώξεις σε πάρκα και αυλές.

Lamourette Folly: Οπότε, συνοπτικά, γιατί είναι σημαντικό κατά την άποψη σας ως δήμαρχος να αλλάξει η ημερομηνία;

Amanda Stone: Για μένα ως δήμαρχος της πόλης Yarra είναι σημαντικό, ό, τι κάνουμε ως συμβούλιο να το κάνουμε χωρίς να αποκλείσουμε κανέναν. Με το να γιορτάζουμε στις 26η Ιανουαρίου αποκλείουμε ενεργά ένα σημαντικό μέρος της κοινωνίας μας, τους αβορίγινες, που δεν θεωρούν ότι υπάρχει λόγος εορτασμού, όπως μας λένε εδώ και πολλά χρόνια, και στηρίζουν βαθιά τη δράση μας. Δεν θέλουμε να αποκλείουμε κανέναν. Θέλουμε όλοι να μπορούν να γιορτάσουν την εθνική τους ταυτότητα και πρέπει να βρούμε μια κατάλληλη ημερομηνία.

Lamourette Folly: Ωραία. Έχετε κάποια κατά νου;

Amanda Stone: Όχι. Νομίζω ότι είναι κάτι που θα πρέπει να προκύψει από διάλογο. Πολύς κόσμος έχει πολλές ιδέες. Αν αποφασίσουμε ότι αυτή είναι η κατεύθυνση που θέλουμε, πρέπει να συζητήσουμε με όλους, όχι απλά να επιβάλουμε άλλη μια ημερομηνία που μπορεί να είναι αμφιλεγόμενη με άλλες ομάδες.

Γ. Χωλ: Aν απελευθερωθεί ο Julian Assange, ή ημέρα Julian Assange θα μπορούσε κάλλιστα να μετατραπεί σε Ημέρα Ακεραιότητας στα Μήντια, ή κάτι τέτοιο.

Η δεύτερη πρόταση είναι πιο απτή. Είχε ως εκκίνηση την παρακάτω ανάρτηση από κάποιον που αυτοαποκαλείται “Realist” σε μια συζήτηση που ξεκίνησε από τον Ray McGovern. Τι είπε; .

“Αν η αμερικάνικη κυβέρνηση αλλάξει γνώμη και αποφασίσει να μην ασκήσει διώξεις στον κο. Assange (ή εάν του προσφέρει ποινική διαπραγμάτευση, καταμετρώντας τον χρόνο που πέρασε κλεισμένος στην πρεσβεία προς μικρότερη ποινή), αναρωτιέμαι τι θα επιλέξει ή/και αν θα του επιτρεπόταν να ζήσει. Η Αυστραλία τον έχει εγκαταλείψει, και τώρα το Εκουαδόρ τον έχει προδώσει. Δεν μπορεί να εμπιστευτεί κανένα αμερικάνικο προτεκτοράτο μέσα στην ΕΕ, το ΝΑΤΟ και τις “Five Eyes” (κατά βάση την ‘Αγγλόσφαιρα’). Ο Πούτιν θα του επέτρεπε να διαχειρίζεται το Wikileaks από τη Ρωσία; Υποψιάζομαι πως όχι. Ελευθεροτυπία δεν υπάρχει στη Μέση Ανατολή, στο μεγαλύτερο μέρος της Αφρικής ή στα –σταν της Κεντρικής Ασίας. Η Κίνα δεν θα επέλεγε να υποθάλψει έναν ενοχλητικό ταραχοποιό της Δύσης, η Λατινική Αμερική είναι αναξιόπιστη – αν και ο Glenn Greenwald έχει επιλέξει την Βραζιλία ως βάση του, παρά το de facto πραξικόπημα κατά της Αριστεράς στο εξωτερικό της. Πόσο καλά προστατεύονται τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα σε μέρη όπως η Ινδία ή η Μαλαισία; H Σιγκαπούρη, η Βιρμανία και η Ταϊλάνδη είναι υπερβολικά αυταρχικές. Ο Arthur C. Clark μετοίκησε στη Σρι Λάνκα. Υπάρχει άραγε κανένα πραγματικά αυτόνομο νησιωτικό κράτος στον Ινδικό ή στο Νότιο Ειρηνικό Ωκεανό; Έίναι κρίμα που ο Newt Gingrich δεν κατάφερε να στήσει τη βάση στη Σελίνη που πρότεινε. O Julian μπορεί να κατάφερνε να διαχειρίζεται το Wikileaks από εκεί, πέρα από τη δικαιοδοσία οποιουδήποτε κράτους στη Γή.”

Το σχολίασα αυτό. Είπα: “Η παρατήρηση του ΄Realist’ δεν είναι σοβαρό, κι αν επιτρέπονται τέτοια σχόλια, γιατί όχι εξωφρενικά σχόλια; Υπάρχουν Εβραίοι που θα ήταν αρκετά εξωφρενικοί ώστε να ξεκινήσουν να ασκούν πίεση για την εξεύρεση ασύλου για τον Julian Assange στο Ισραήλ. Θα αποδεχόταν εκείνος μια τέτοια ιδέα; Απλά και μόνο η συζήτηση μιας τέτοιας ιδέας θα μπορούσε να είναι χρήσιμη για το ξεμπλοκάρισμα κάποιων νοητικών φραγμών.”

Οπότε ο ‘Realist’ αποκρίθηκε. “Η εύρεση ασύλου από το Assange στη Σελίνη μπορεί να μην ήταν σοβαρό σχόλιο, όμως θέλω να τονίσω την ισχνότητα αποδεκτών που θα μπορούσαν να πληρώσουν το τίμημα της υπεράσπισης του από την οργή της Αμερικής. Απαντώντας στην πρόσκληση σας να συζητήσουμε αν το Ισραήλ θα μπορούσε να είναι ένας πιθανός ασφαλής λιμένας για τον Assange, ελπίζω ότι η ηθική του θα απέκλειε αυτό το ενδεχόμενο, ακόμα και σαν έσχατη λύση. Θα εξάλειφε όλα όσα έχει πρεσβεύσει. Όπως λένε: “δείξε μου τον φίλο σου και θα σου πω ποιος είσαι.”

Λοιπόν, Ilargi, έχεις κάποιο σχόλιο να κάνεις σχετικά με αυτή τη στιχομυθία;

Ilargi: Έίναι ένας πολύ μακροσκελής τρόπος να πεις ότι “δεν υπάρχουν επιλογές”. Δεν χρειάζεται να περάσεις από όλες τις επιλογές για να καταλήξεις εκεί.

Γ. Χωλ: Οπότε, με άλλα λόγια…

Ilargi: Άλλη μια χώρα που έχει έρθει στο προσκήνιο τον τελευταίο καιρό είναι το Μεξικό.

Γ. Χωλ: Το Μεξικό.

Ilargi: Ναι, ο κόσμος πιστεύει ότι ο Lopez Obrador μπορεί να είναι ο κατάλληλος άνθρωπος. Εγώ πρότεινα την Ισλανδία.

Γ. Χωλ: Ναι, το θυμάμαι. .

Ilargi: Είναι αρκετά ανεξάρτητοι που θα μπορούσαν να καταφέρουν κάτι τέτοιο. Αν και δεν έχω ιδέα τι άποψη έχει η ισλανδική κυβέρνηση για τον Assange. Όμως είναι ανεξάρτητοι. Είναι η μόνη χώρα που πέταξαν στη φυλακή κάποιους τραπεζίτες και είπαν στους πιστωτές να πάνε στον αγύριστο.

Γ. Χωλ: Νομίζω ότι ο Realist θα έλεγε ότι αυτές οι χώρες δεν είναι αρκετά ισχυρές ώστε να προστατέψουν τον Assange και ότι η CIA, ή όποιος τον κυνηγάει, θα τον έπιανε.

Ilargi: Η Ισλανδία έχει μια μεγάλη τάφρο. Καλή φυσική προστασία.

Γ. Χωλ: Μεγάλη τάφρο;

Ilargi: Ναι, φυσικά δεν υπάρχει καμία χώρα που θα μπορούσε να προστατέψει 100% κάποιον σαν τον Assange.

Γ. Χωλ: Υπήρχε μια παρόμοια συζήτηση ως απάντηση σε ένα άρθρο που δημοσιεύθηκε από την Caitlin Johnstone: “Όσο ο Assange αποσιωπείται, οι κατηγορίες κατά του είναι αντιδεοντολογικές.”

Εν πάσει περιπτώσει, διεξάγεται μια καμπάνια. Οι ιδέες που συζητάμε εδώ δεν είναι μέρος της καμπάνιας και δεν θέλω να της τις επιβάλω. Η καμπάνια ακολουθεί τη δική της λογική.

Ilargi: Δεν είναι ιδέες. Είναι απλά μια μακρά λίστα αδιεξόδων.

Γ. Χωλ: Ναι, όπως είπες. Εντάξει λοιπόν. Αυτό συνεχίζει τη συζήτηση που κάναμε με τον δήμαρχο.

Ilargi: Θα ήθελα να προσθέσω όσα είπαμε πριν να αρχίσει. Τα νέα είναι ότι η κατάσταση της υγείας του Assange δεν είναι καλή. Έχει σοβαρούς πονόδοντους. Τα πόδια του έχουν πρηστεί και η πυκνότητα των οστών του μειώνεται γρήγορα επειδή δεν εκτίθεται στον ήλιο. Όπότε σε τελική ανάλυση, το Εκουαδόρ δεν χρειάζεται να τον πετάξει έξω. Ποντάρει στο ότι θα αναγκαστεί να φύγει μόνος του.

Γ. Χωλ: Ναι, αν μπορεί.

Ilargi: Ή να τον μεταφέρουν. Σε φορείο, η σε φέρετρο.

Julian Assange: (Πλατεία Trafalgar του Λονδίνου – 8 Οκτωβρίου 2011)

Όταν καταλάβουμε ότι οι πόλεμοι ξεκινούν ως αποτέλεσμα ψεμάτων που πωλούνται σε βρετανικό και αμερικάνικο κοινό και στο κοινό σε χώρες όλης της Ευρώπης και αλλού, ποίοι είναι οι εγκληματίες πολέμου; Δεν είναι μόνο ηγέτες. Δεν είναι μόνο στρατιώτες. Είναι και δημοσιογράφοι. Οι δημοσιογράφοι είναι εγκληματίες πολέμου….. Αν οι πόλεμοι μπορούν να ξεκινήσουν με ψέματα, η ειρήνη μπορεί να ξεκινήσει με την αλήθεια.

Raul “Ilargi” Meijer on Julian Assange

Posted on by

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nUpV8JR38c

W. Hall: Good afternoon Raul “Ilargi” Meijer. You have a blog called “Automatic Earth” and you are very active with it. Can you say something about “Automatic Earth”? When was it founded? What is its aim?

Ilargi: It was founded almost eleven years ago. Nicole Foss and I founded it because we wanted to write about finance whereas the people we were writing for before that, “The Oil Drum”, didn’t want us to do that and we thought it was too important not to.

WH: And what are you doing here in Athens?

Ilargi: I’m supporting a group of people who feed the homeless and refugees. I’ve written a bunch of articles at “Automatic Earth” about that.

WH: Now even though you have written articles that show clearly how important you think it is to try to defend Julian Assange (I read one that you published today [17/8/2018] that was very much on that subject and it was a powerful article). You really don’t agree with Julian Assange on the importance of defending the European integration project or citizens’ Europe.

Ilargi: I have no idea what either of these things are.

WH: Well, let’s move on. In an article entitled “I am Julian Assange” on 16th May 2018, you wrote: “Julian Assange appears to be painfully close to being unceremoniously thrown out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. If that happens, the consequences for journalism, for freedom of speech and for press freedom, will resound around the world for a very long time”. Would you like to say more about that?

Ilargi: I think there are not nearly enough people who realize what the consequences are going to be of Assange being thrown to the wolves.

WH: What will they be?

Ilargi: He stands for every journalist but he also stands for every citizen. He is the man who offered his freedom to give everybody else freedom..

WH: You say that he has the credibility he has because he has never published anything that is not 100% verifiable and true.

Ilargi: That is the basis of Wikileaks: it’s truth, honesty. Nobody would ever give him another document if they were in doubt that he would preserve secrecy, he would protect their identity or he would treat the documents in the best way possible.

WH: You also wrote: “People like Chelsea Manning, Kim Dotcom, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are among the smartest people our world has to offer. We should be cherishing the combination of intelligence, courage and integrity they display at their own risk and peril, but instead we allow them to be harassed by our governments because they unveil inconvenient truths about them. And pretty soon there will be nobody left to tell these truths, or any truth at all.” That’s a very pessimistic assessment. Would you like to believe that it is too pessimistic?

Ilargi: Isn’t it more like realistic? How many people like Assange and Snowden or Chelsea Manning are there? We don’t have a never-ending supply of them.

WH: In your article “Julian Assange and the Dying of the Light” you wrote: “The ideal situation would be if Australia would offer Julian Assange safe passage back home. Assange has never been charged with anything, other than the UK’s bail-skipping change.” He has been charged with other things, but the charges have been withdrawn.

Ilargi: He has been charged with what?

WH: Wasn’t he charged with rape or something, in Sweden?

Ilargi: No, no..

WH: What was it? What happened there then if it was not a charge?

Ilargi: They said they wanted to talk to him. That was very strange. From what I know of the story the prosecutor let him go. Told him he was free to go to Britain and then – I don’t know if it was the same prosecutor, Marianne Ny, but anyway the Swedish justice system did a 180 and as soon as he got to London they said that he had to go back because they wanted to talk to him again.

WH: Merry-go-round.

Ilargi: But neither of the two women involved ever filed any charges against him, or any complaint. They even went out of their way, albeit far too late, to say “He didn’t rape me. It never happened.” It seems that was a smear thing. And it’s been very successful..

WH: It seems so. Talking about Australia again, and safe passage back home, it’s true that years ago the Australian government acknowledged that it had responsibilities to help and protect Australian citizen Julian Assange. For example in 2001 Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard said:

“We are supporting Julian Assange the same way that we would support any Australian citizen who got into a legal difficulty overseas.”

But for years after that, these responsibilities seem to have been forgotten. Even supporters of Julian Assange seem to assume that it is OK for the Australian government to allow Ecuador, a weaker, poorer and more vulnerable country than Australia to take responsibilities that the Australian government had said that it was taking but it seems simply was not. .

Ilargi: Who wrote that?

WH: Do you mean this comment about Australia and Ecuador? I wrote it.

Ilargi: OK. OK.

WH: Don’t you agree with it?

Ilargi: The Australian government has a very strange role in this. There is an older speech by the later PM Malcolm Turnbull that is being tossed around on Twitter in which he is very supportive of Assange.

WH: Is this a recent speech?

Ilargi: I think that was also from 2011 too. Apparently he no longer is.

WH: Next subject. Would you like to comment on the controversy Seth Rich versus the hacker Guccifer 2.0.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding and disagreement about this. I think a lot of people wouldn’t even know who Seth Rich was. Would you like to enlighten the people who don’t know?

Ilargi: From what I know Seth Rich worked for the Democratic National Committee. He was found murdered in Washington, not far from the White House. He is rumoured to be the guy who gave the DNC e-mails to Assange, to Wikileaks.

WH: This is something that Kim Dotcom apparently also says.

Ilargi: Yes. I don’t know enough about that but it seems obvious that the whole Guccifer 2.0 story is a fabrication. The US really really wants to make a link between Assange and Russia because it smears both. If they can make a connection between the two they will both look a lot worse.

WH: Τhey’re trying hard.

Ilargi: And since neither can really defend themselves this narrative can be built and built. .

WH: Yes, that’s right. If you are dead or you’re prevented from speaking, you can’t defend yourself.

Ilargi: No…

WH: Αt the moment I and a few other people are discussing two ideas in relation to Julian Assange. One of them is purely symbolic and it’s aimed at counteracting the media bias against Assange. That is the declaration of a Julian Assange Day. The day we propose is 26th January. We heard a few words from the mayor about the significance of January 26th in Greece in the context of Greece’s liberation from the Ottoman Empire. But January 26th is also an important day in Australia. It is the national day. But many people are saying today that Australia’s national day should be moved to another date, more inclusive of the many Australians who don’t feel that 26th January is suitable for the country’s national day. Let’s see what Amanda Stone has to say. In 2017 she was the mayor of the City of Yarra in Melbourne.

Amanda Stone: We’ve been talking to the aboriginal community in Yarra for some time about the meaning of January 26th for them and we’ve heard from them that it is not a day of celebration. It is a day of sadness and loss for them. We’ve been considering how we might address that to reflect those views. In February this year (2017) the Council resolved to ask the officers to consult with the aboriginal community about the future of January 26th, and that was also in the context of a growing momentum more broadly around the “Change the Date” campaign. So we felt that it was an action whose time has come, that there would be broader support for it. And when the officers presented the results of the consultation with aboriginal people on Tuesday, that’s how we voted. But we’re not telling anyone what to do. We’re not changing the date of Australia Day as it is at the moment. We are not instructing people on how to spend January 26th. It will continue to be a public holiday, 26th January. People will still enjoy their barbecues and picnics and get-togethers in parks and gardens.

Lamourette Folly: Why is it important from your perspective as a mayor to change the date?

Amanda Stone: For me as mayor of the City of Yarra it is important that we are inclusive in what we do as a council. By holding celebratory events on January 26th we are actively excluding an important part of our community, the aboriginal community, who do not find it an occasion for celebration, who have told us so for many years, and are thoroughly supportive of the action we have taken. We want to be inclusive. We don’t want to exclude anybody.We want everyone to be able to celebrate our national identity and we need to find a date that we can do that on.

Lamourette Folly: That’s great. Do you have any date in mind?

Amanda Stone: No. I think it is something that needs to come out of a conversation. And I think lots of people have lots of ideas. And if we are going to be really inclusive we need to discuss it with everybody, not impose another date that might be contentious for another part of the people.

WH: If Julian Assange is freed it could very well be changed subsequently to Media Integrity Day, or something along those lines.

The second proposal is more concrete. It was initiated by the following posting by someone who calls himself “Realist” in the discussion that was started by Ray McGovern. What he said was this:

“If the American government thinks better of it and decides not to prosecute Mr. Assange (or perhaps offers him a plea bargain counting his time cloistered in the embassy against a short sentence), I wonder where he will choose and/or be allowed to live. Australia has abandoned him, and now Ecuador has betrayed him. He can’t trust any American vassal state in the EU, NATO or the “Five Eyes” (basically the Anglosphere). Would Putin allow him to run Wikileaks out of Russia? I suspect not. No free press throughout the Middle East, most of Africa and the “–stans” of Central Asia. China is not looking to harbor a gadfly of the West. Latin America is spotty, though Glenn Greenwald makes his home base in Brazil despite the de facto coup against the Left there. How well are human rights protected in places like India or Malaysia? Singapore, Burma and Thailand are too authoritarian. Arthur C. Clarke decamped in Sri Lanka. Are there any truly sovereign nations in the Indian or Pacific oceans? Too bad New Gingrich didn’t get to establish his proposed Moon base. Julian might have managed Wikileaks from there, beyond the jurisdiction of any nation state on Earth.”

I said in response: “Realist’s” comments on Julian finding asylum on the Moon is frivolous, and if frivolous comments are permitted, why not outrageous comments? Are there Jewish people who would be outrageous enough to begin to lobby for Julian Assange to be given political asylum in Israel? Would he accept such an idea? Just the discussion of such an idea might be helpful in clearing some mental blocks.” ”

“Realist” replied: “Assange finding asylum on the Moon might be a frivolous comment but it underscores the paucity of venues that could pay the price to shield him against American wrath. In response to your invitation to discuss Israel as a plausible safe harbor for Assange, I should think his morals would preclude that possibility, even as a last resort. It would be repudiating everything he has stood for. As they say “tell me who your friends are and I’ll tell you who you are.”

Ilargi: That’s a very long way of saying “there are no options”. You don’t have to go through all the options to arrive at the conclusion that there are no options.

WH: So in other words…

Ilargi: A new country that is brought to the front in the past few days is Mexico. .

WH: Mexico.

Ilargi: Yes. People think that Lopez Obrador might be the guy to turn to. I suggested Iceland.

WH: I remember that. . .

Ilargi: They are independent enough to pull off something like that. Though I have no idea what the Icelandic government feels or thinks about Assange. But they’re independent. They’re the only country that locked up a bunch of bankers and told the creditors to go take a hike.

WH: I think what “Realist” would say is that these countries are not strong enough to protect Assange and that the CIA, or whoever is after him, would get at him.

Ilargi: Iceland has got a big moat. That is natural protection. .

WH: A big moat!

Ilargi: Yes. Of course there is no country that could give 100% protection to someone like Assange.

WH: There was a similar discussion in response to an article by Caitlin Johnstone.” “As long as Assange is silenced, claims against him are illegitimate”.

In any case, a campaign is under way. The ideas we are discussing here are not part of the campaign and I don’t want to impose them. The campaign is following its own logic.

Ilargi: There are no ideas. There is just a long list of “no options”.

WH: Yes, as you said. Right. This is continuing the discussion we had with the mayor.

Ilargi: I would like to add what we were saying before we started. The news about Assange’s health is not good. He has severe toothaches. His legs are swelling and his bone density is falling fast because of the lack of exposure to sunlight. So in the end, what it comes down to: Ecuador doesn’t even have to kick him out. They’re counting on the fact that he’ll have to walk out. .

WH: Yes, if he can. .

Ilargi: Or be carried out, on a stretcher. Or in a coffin. .

Julian Assange: (Trafalgar Square, London – 8th October 2011)

When we understand that wars come about as a result of lies peddled to the British public and the American public and the publics all over Europe and other countries, then who are the war criminals? It is not just leaders. It is not just soldiers. It is journalists. Journalists are war criminals. … If wars can be started by lies, peace can be started by truth.