Julian Assange’s lawyers filed a petition with the Inter-American Court for Human Rights and WikiLeaks is mentioned in a new Mueller indictment unveiled Friday, two of the topics that were discussed on the 14th Vigil on Friday.
Guests included Peter B. Collins, John Kiriakou, Brian Becker, Ian Shilling, Craig Murray, Cathy Vogan and Ray McGovern, hosted by CN Editor-in-Chief Joe Lauria. You can watch it here in its entirety:
How will history judge him?
1. As the hero of our time?
2. As a victim?
3. As an egotist?
4. Alt-right and Russian patsy?
5. Hypocritical censor of information within his own organization.?
6. Victim blamer through proxy?
7. As an evader of due process owed to two women without a voice?
Guests included Peter B. Collins, John Kiriakou, Brian Becker :)
I have a suggestion for one of the future vigils. If someone were to put together archived footage of Julian where he addresses allegations against him or talks about Wikileaks and its findings, it could make a very powerful vigil. He is silenced right now, what if he speaks from the past?
Thanks for these weekly efforts. The buffering though makes viewing almost impossible every week. I do lots of streaming w/o this occurring. Can someone verify if you tube is doing this?
This is a YouTube feed. If you want to watch it on YouTube you can just click on the words “YouTube” on the lower right hand side.
Thanks for the info on the youtube connection. It is much easier to view there.
Julian Assange done danced with the Devils, Putin and Trump, et al., and learned the hard way why it’s a bad idea dealing with the Mob, Russian or American.
Total nonsense! Didn’t happen.
Have another slug of the Kool Aid, danny.
What I don’t understand about Julian Assange and his supporters is how they can talk about legitimate injustices, such as illegal settlements in Israel, or the rise of extreme right wing groups and politicians in the West, while at the same time ignoring the fascist behaviour of the likes of Vladimir Putin…even praising the guy as some kind of liberating force in the world……seems like evidence that most people will believe anything as long as it suits there particular mind set.
People, even smarter peope, often get sucked into the trap of “Dichotomous Thinking”, which is “either/or”, “this or that”, polar thinking.
They see the failures of one side (like the U.S. or Hillary/Dems) and drift towards the polar opposites, supporting one, merely in opposition of the other.
It’s akin to “Tribalism”
Even Assange recognized the poor choice in Mafia Don Trump (along with Hillary), but he chose to help Trump….rather than going after both.
I see it on message boards all the time. People bash interventionist policies of the U.S. but support those similar of Russia (or vice versa).
George Orwell noted a similar behavior in his “Notes on Nationalism” wherein he stated:
“Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits,
but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.
Stanley Milgram noticed a similar pattern in his book “Obedience to Authority” stating:
“in democracies, men are placed in office through popular elections. Yet, once
installed, they are no less in authority than those who get there by other means”
(Milgram, 1974, p.179).
Essentially this portrays the typical failures with regards to freedom and individual rights.
It is not the process by which the authority is selected, but the authority itself that
needs to be scrutinized.
Followers attracted to a “side” often fail to hold their own leaders accountable.
I don’t know if this explains it or not, but it’s a thought.
It’s interesting you mention tribalism above.
There are some Philosophers and Political/Social Historians whom feel that tribalism has been used as a method of propaganda.
It seems fitting to this discussion here, and to the present time, given the yearly World Economic Froum gathering at Davos currently underway.
Some of those aforementioned Philosophers and Political/Social Historians consider there may be such thing as a true Global Elite.
Given the seeming human instinct for grouping things into mere polar opposites (like heaven/hell, good/bad, right/wrong, god/devil, etc.), similarly what you call “Dichotomous Thinking”, these Philosophers and Historians feel that instinct may be able to be manipulated, as a way of controlling other humans.
Tribalism was often a way for tribal leaders to garner greater loyalty from their followers.
Those leaders identified and called-out a common enemy from a competing tribe, labeling themselves as the “good”, the other tribe as the “bad”.
Members of the “good” tribe thus naturally formed a closer cohesion and adherance to that “good” tribe, creating more tribal harmony and obedience.
Similarly, the other tribe would do the same, labeling themselves as the “good”, the other as the “bad”, for the same reason.
Note how no countries or leaders ever call themselves the “bad”, or evil. Both sides are always representing themselves as fighting for the cause of good.
It became a propagandist method of social group construct.
Going back to the WEF group at Davos, given humans seeming penchant for this “Dichotomy” (which can also be seen in other aspects of life, like sports and politics, with two teams competing against one another, leading their followers to follow them in the process), these “elite leaders” can more easily compel the masses to follow their national leaders.
It’s no secret that the richest of the rich are present at Davos. There are Russian billionaires/Oligarchs working alongside American billionaires/Oligarchs, ditto for the wealthiest Chinese, Mexicans, and so on……
Their stated goal is to create global policies.
If these billionaries/Oligarches were truly working together, as a cohesive group, secretly running the world & global affairs, and given humans disposition towards needing a common enemy to form group cohesion (“in-group” vs “out-group” psychology), would it not bode well in their best interests to create the illusion of “tribes” amongst these nations/leaders?
Modern humans fear monarchs and or single central strong powers. If these wealthy elite were proven to be the true ruling elite, the masses may have better cause to rise against them.
This can be seen in the two-party political structure.
Many people have described the Dems and GOP merely as two subsidiaries of the same ruling elite.
Thus if so, why not on a globel scale?
If modern humans are present with polar”opposing” national tribal leaders, like Putin & Trump, or Putin & Obama, or whatever, they may form better cohesion with and compliance of “their” particular national tribal leader.
National “leaders” like Putin, Trump, Jinping, May, etc. may just be puppets of those true ruling elite, but presented as national sovereigns, in order to appease their populations, and provide for better national cohesion and obedience by those populations.
It’s called population control.
After all, much of the human rights crackdowns occurring in Russia are similarly occurring in China, Europe, the U.S., Mexico, and elsewhere.
It’s similar to the historic tactic of “Divide & Conquer”.
The worldwide body of citizens are perhaps tough to control, by a central authority, but by presenting national authorities, dividing those populations into opposing groups (like nationalities), those citizens are more easily congregated & controlled, by their respective “leaders” (whom are truly controlled by the Global Elite).
You divide that global population into opposing national groups, in order to effecuate better control over them.
This follows a similar thought of Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they are.”
Those national “leaders” are serving greater leaders. the global elite.
It may not be as crazy or far-off as it may sound.
The known population control method of manufactured dissent is quite similar in nature.
“Even Assange recognized the poor choice in Mafia Don Trump (along with Hillary), but he chose to help Trump….rather than going after both.” Assange published the corruption of the DNC because it was a huge story of corruption, nothing similar available from the GOP side.
But as the Federal Judge ruled in the suit brought by Bernie supporters, the DNC is not a government institution. It is not even a public institution. It is a private club, like a yacht club subject to its own rules. As such, even if the Russians broke in to their unprotected IT systems (highly unlikely), so what? A mountain out of a molehill that is making even Benghazi look relevant; at least that involved the US government.
I don’t think anyone is saying Putin is not an autocrat. His domestic policy, however, is very different from his foreign policy. He does genuinely seem to be okay with a multipolar world where people work together to overcome serious issues and no one nation can dictate to others what government they should or should not have. His domestic policy is quite draconian, but he hasn’t been rolling around the planet attempting to spread his form of government to other countries, by force if necessary.
“but he hasn’t been rolling around the planet attempting to spread his form of government to other countries”
There is plenty of evidence he has done exactly that.
The Ukraine is example.
Syria is another example.
Known Russian Troll Farms are evidence of covert operations of the same.
Russia is just as guilty as the U.S.
Your statements show just how effective his propaganda really is.
How can you honestly believe that “His domestic policy is quite draconian” yet believe his international/foreign policy isn’t?
That is absolutely ridiculous.
You gave two examples (and the Crimea has been Russian since Catherine the Great; the people VOTED for re-union with Russia). Russia was invited to Syria by Assad (the US entered illegally, like a drunken party crasher). Russia was even invited into Afghanistan after the CIA and Osama bin Laden sought to overthrown the secular government there. Almost all interventions by Russia through history have been in neighboring countries.
You cannot seriously criticize Russian intervention from the perspective of America which has, what, over 700 bases in foreign countries and has been bombing over seven countries for the last 18 years?
Putin looks like a statesman relative to the Bushes, Clinton, Obama, Trump and their psychopathic State, CIA and National Security heads. After losing over 20 million while defeating NAZI Germany, the Russians take war seriously. To Americans slaughtering, maiming and displacing tens if not hundreds of millions of people has become a “computer game”. Our Establishment politicians and think tanks never learned the Vietnam lesson.
It’s pretty easy to see someone who locks people up in his own country for rapping about drug use as being an oppressor. However, the examples you give of Ukraine, where the US spent 5 billion dollars to foment a coup, and indeed carried it out even after the elected president agreed to limited powers and early elections, and Syria where the internationally recognized government asked for the help of Russia in defeating US backed terror outfits, do not fit the bill of Russian aggression. There is a difference between foreign and domestic policy. Case in point: In France right now there are street protests looking to end the reign of Emmanuel Macron, who doesn’t recognize those protests as legitimate, while he throws support to street protesters in Venezuela who are (supposedly) looking to toss out Maduro. In Venezuela it’s democracy, and in France it’s rabble. The case can be made again in Ukraine, where John McCain supported anti-government protests while denouncing things like the Occupy movement in the U.S. I’d say your brain has been nice and washed by American Opressor Propaganda if you think differently.
julain Assange cares only about himself.
Please provide particulars of the fascist behavior of Putin. He has enjoyed as much as an 80% approval rating inside Russia. None of the accusations in our MSM have any supporting evidence. He has been cast by the empire as the “evil Putin” because he chooses the welfare of his citizens over being the latest vassal to empire. Their economy continues to grow despite our sanctions, and the standard of living and life expectancy of the average Russian citizen is increasing. The empire loved Yeltsin because he let the foxes guard the henhouse, and the average life expectancy inside Russia dropped a full decade during his tenure as a result. I use facts and evidence to support my mindset. Unlike many, I don’t allow myself to be sheep dipped in MSM propaganda.
They will never! allow our era’s revered *journalist, & martyr for truth, to survive. His the “sin” of the century, exposed the Mother of the Deep State
Please put the name of the speakers as they’re speaking, since some people who tune in late might not recognize the person and would have missed the introduction. This could be as simple as the people themselves wearing one of those simple name tags that are used at meetings.
Thanks for holding these vigils!
Why the hell do you have a caricature of Roger Stone as the thumbnail for this on the homepage? What’s wrong with you?
Because he was the main topic of discussion on the vigil. That’s what news sites do.
Hahahaha Joe you rule.
Was the reference to the Mueller indictment in the homepage description all along, or did you add it later?
If I overlooked that, then that’s certainly a reed to hang using Stone’s image on, but I still think it was a poor editorial choice. You could refrain from visually reinforcing the maliciously phony Assange-Stone connection and still be a news site.
“… and WikiLeaks is mentioned in a new Mueller indictment unveiled Friday, join us live for an online discussion starting at 4pm.”
Yes, I can see it. My question was whether it said that all along.
David- Why are you always so belligerent?
Look, I don’t have an internet connection that lets me watch the discussion at this time, but considering the false Assange-Stone-Russia linkage has such currency in the corporate media, I don’t think reinforcing the connection visually in this way is doing Assange any favors.
If MSNBC did something like that I’d accuse them of playing propagandistic games!
Hey, Stone-Assange is this week’s huge Russiagate bombshell! It’s not like the media ever gets these Russiagate bombshells wrong.
Belligerent, am I? Wanna fight about it?