"Basic solidarity in WikiLeaks & Anonymous" - Julian Assange

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by Anonymous, Oct 16, 2012.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Freedom isn't free, justice isn't free and solidarity isn't
    free. They all require generosity, self-discipline, courage and a sense of perspective.

    Groups with unity flourish and those without unity are
    destroyed and replaced by those who have it.

    Traditional armies gain unity through isolation, ritualized
    obedience, and through coercive measures applied to
    dissenters up to and including death.

    Groups who do not have techniques of unity derived from
    solidarity and common cause will be dominated by groups with coercive unity.

    In the end it is the techniques of unity that dominate our
    civilization. Unified groups grow and multiply. Groups which lack unity imperil themselves and their allies.

    It doesn't matter what principles a group espouses. If it
    is not able to demonstrate basic unity it will be dominated
    by alliances that do.

    When a group grows large the public press becomes a medium through which the group talks to itself. This gives the public press influence over the groups self-awareness. The public press has its agendas. So do insiders who speak to it.

    For large groups, group insiders who interface with the public press are able to lever themselves into a position of
    internal influence via press influence.

    Because Anonymous is anonymous, those who obtain this or other forms of leadership influence can be secretly decapitated and replaced by other interests.

    This is exactly what happened in the Sabu affair. An
    important part of Anonymous ended up being controlled by the FBI. The cooption of its most visible figure, Sabu, was then used to entrap others.

    FBI agents or informers have subsequently run entrapment
    operations against WikiLeaks presenting as figures from

    According to FBI indictments the FBI has at various times
    controlled Anonymous servers. We must assume that currently
    a substantial number of Anonymous severs and "leadership"
    figures are compromised. This doesn't mean Anonymous
    should be paralyzed by paranoia. But it must recognize the
    reality of infiltration. The promotion of ""
    and similar assets which are indistinguishable from an
    entrapment operations must not be tolerated.

    The strength of Anonymous was not having leadership or
    other targetable assets. When each person has little
    influence over the whole, and no assets have special
    significance, compromise operations are expensive
    and ineffective. The cryptography used in Friends of
    WikiLeaks is based on this principle while WikiLeaks as
    an organization has a well tested public leadership cohort
    inorder to prevent covert leadership replacement.

    Assets create patronage and conflict around asset
    control. This includes virtual assets such as servers,
    Twitter accounts and IRC channels.

    The question Anonymous must ask is does it want to be
    a mere gang ("expect us") or a movement of solidarity. A
    movement of solidaarity obtains its unity through common value and through the symbolic celebration of individuals whose actions strive towards common virtues.

    Assessing the statement by "@AnonymousIRC".

    In relation to alleged associates of WikiLeaks. It is
    rarely in an alleged associates interest, especially
    early in a case, for us to be seen to be helping them
    or endorsing them. Such actions can be used as evidence
    against them. It raises the prestige stakes for prosecutors
    who are likely to use these alleged associates in a public
    proxy war against WikiLeaks. We do not publicly campaign
    for alleged associates until we know their legal team
    approves and our private actions must remain private. This calculous should be obvious.

    Several weeks ago, WikiLeaks began a US election related
    donations campaign which expires on election day, Nov 6.

    The WikiLeaks campaign pop-up, which, was activated weeks
    ago, requires tweeting, sharing, waiting or donating once
    per day.

    Torrents, unaffected even by this pop-up remain available
    from the front page.

    These details should have been clearer but were available
    to anyone who cared to read. The exact logic and number of
    seconds are in the page source. We are time and resource
    constrained. We have many battles to deal with. Other than
    adding a line of clarification, we have not changed the
    campaign and nor do we intend to.

    We know it is annoying. It is meant to be annoying. It is
    there to remind you that the prospective destruction of
    WikiLeaks by an unlawful financial blockade and an array
    of military, intelligence, DoJ and FBI investigations,
    and associated court cases is a serious business.

    WikiLeaks faces unprecedented costs due to involvement
    in over 12 concurrent legal matters around the world,
    including our litigation of the US military in the Bradley
    Manning case. Our FBI file as of the start of the year
    had grown to 42,135 pages.

    US officials stated to Australian diplomats the the
    investigation into WikiLeaks is of "unprecedented scale
    and nature". Our people are routinely detained. Our editor
    was imprisoned, placed under house arrest for 18 months,
    and is now encircled in an embassy in London where he has
    been formally granted political asylum. Our people and
    associates are routinely pressured by the FBI to become
    informers against our leadership.

    Since late 2010 we have been under an unlawful financial
    blockade. The blockade was found to be unlawful in the
    Icelandic courts, but the credit companies have appealed
    to the Supreme Court. Actions in other jurisdictions are
    in progress, including a European Commission investigation
    which has been going for over a year.

    Despite this we have won every publishing battle and
    prevailed over every threat. Last month the Pentagon
    reissued its demands for us to cease publication of
    military materials and to cease "soliciting" US military
    sources. We will prevail there also, not because we are
    adept, although we are, but because to do so is a virtue
    that creates common cause.


    Julian Assange
    Embassy of Ecuador
  2. Anonymous Member

    Looks like the solids are flowing pretty freely to me.
  3. Tourniquet Member

    Me thinks the laddy doth assume too much.
  4. Herro Member

    He needs to dye his hair.
  5. Anonymous Member

    Assange has Ecuador behind him now, and so obviously has no further use for Anonymous.
  6. Anonymous Member

    Let's all get behind Arseange

    and push the numpty out of the embassy
  7. Anonymous Member

    Assange, anonymous is not your personal army, nor is it your friend.
  8. raboon Member

    My FBI handler will be along in just a moment with a witty response.
  9. Anonymous Member

    if he wants unity he just needs to do his job, big leaks are fine but we need the 2008 wikileaks back.
  10. Anonymous Member

    He thinks his job is to grandstand. Time for Assange to leave the stage and let others less egotistical take charge.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Anonymous Member

    Solidarity =/= "Support me! Support me! I'm in charge, support me!"

    Man needs some dictionary tech. And a less lecturing tone.
  12. Anonymous Member

    Anonymous have abandoned Assange, and he's grasping at straws. I don't wish him ill, only that he'd go away.
  13. Anonymous Member

    I think it is dead.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Anonymous Member

    He should now spell his name Ass-ange
  15. Anonymous Member

    You have to admit though, no guy in history, not even Clinton, was given so much shit for sticking his cock in the wrong place. I mean, what guy hasn't regretted fucking some broad now and again?
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Everybody is free to start its own version of Wikileaks. A few did, with limited results so far, AFAIK.

    TL;DR It is easy to talk. To do is slightly more complex.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Are you fucking nuts????

    Someone has given you everything to do about what you do now (hating Scientology with EVIDENCE).

    And Now you tell him to fuck off, and that "Anonymous is not your friend???"
  18. You can't BETRAY a person who 's done so much for you, Anonymous.

    It's beyond me.
  19. Anonymous Member

    Yes. Yes it is.
  20. You fucking nuts.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins