Julian Assange and Slavoj Žižek Live From London July 02 2011

the name of the file is '.' — dot

whats up with that?

No worries, our file indexer seems to have messed that up. My client shows a properly named .mp4

Oh, and for those of you who'd like to stream the video, there's a proper version here: http://bit.ly/lkgKMg

Democracynow for some reason still has a version of the stream on its front page that's in a loop and that you can't pause or move back and forth in. I mailed them about it the day before yesterday.

This is also now available on youTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VdFtb4zNXE
(Julian Assange and Slovenian Philosopher Slavoj Žižek -- Live From London July 2; time 2:01:09).

I heard the whole thing on live stream. Slavoj Zizek, or "Herb" as I call him (to get around all the pronunciation prob.s) is an embarrassment on the dais with Julian Assange.

Apparently Democracy Now's Amy Goodman was not embarrassed enough by Herb's gibberish that they are featuring a one hour version on the newscast. I may listen to it again to hear Assange who is always calm, measured and doesn't say "basically" EVER. He was very patient while having to sit through Herb's glossolalia masquerading as erudition.

Thanks, Zizek is a genius.

I don't understand why you would go to the trouble of composing a post simply to display that you have a personal issue with M Žižek.
If you don't want to listen to Prof Žižek, then don't. If you have criticisms of his arguments, then present them.
Frankly, I'm surprised at the presence of an ad hominem attack on this forum which is usually civil and informed. This type of attack doesn't add anything to the development of the political consciousness that will be very necessary for our very survival.
(BTW, if you listen to the audience response to Prof Žižek, it's quite clear that the mood in that room was not like the opinion voiced above).

I guess you can take issue with Zizek's style of presentation, his eagerness to provoke, the lack of structure, the heavy reliance on anecdotes (and how he sometimes almost seems to tailor his argument around them), but to say that all that is only masquerading as erudition isn't right.

Martin has analyzed the Herb business very well. After watching Herb twitch through one his presentations to a college audience I began to squirm myself.

The audience gives him far too much leeway in the manner of a tolerated relative with Tourrettes' Syndrome.

It is my opinion that Herb has his naive college crowd buffaloed and uses the crutch of pop culture to stroke the listener's narcissism and infantilism. That is the source of the applause and crowd response.

Also Martin knows I'm not a troll. I actually believe what I'm saying completely. Contrasting Herb that with Assange, H. should be embarrassed to do his act on the same stage. Unfortunately he is not.

comprehending Zizek is like meditation, it requires a state of absolute focus and concentration. Whereas i don't agree with everything he says, in fact, i disagree with him alot of the time...he really is a pretty brilliant dude if you can get around his accent, pronounciation and speech impediment and ACTUALLY LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAYS. i'll admit, in the first half of the interview i did find his rambling to be a little hard to follow and one response got particularly off-topic to the point where i found myself wanting Goodman to step in, but once i got into "Zizek-consumption mode", particularly in the second half of the interview...ZIZEK OWNED IT, his last few comments are absolutely brilliant

the fact that you call him "Herb" makes you sound like an ignorant xenophobic cunt Loni.... its fucking pronounced SLA-VO-AH ZI-ZEH-K ....it's not fucking rocket science. you probably prefer dubbed movies, don't you?

on another note, what is with the uncriticall assange pumping loni? sure he was quiet and reserved, unlike Zizek's passionate rambles, but in this, and the last couple interviews i've seen him do...HES STARTING TO LOOK PRETTY SKETCHY!!!!

just look at his response to Amy's question about the sex charges he's facing in sweden and the response from the media there....he REFUSED to answer the question instead pussyfooting around the question in his response, trying to justify himself.

ive lost ALL respect for assange, he's acting like every other corrupt politician. and who the fuck does he think he is? talking shit about bloggers like that? HE IS NOT A REAL JOURNALIST. HES NOTHING BUT A FUCKING MIDDLE MAN WHO NEEDS TO GET HIS HEAD OUT OF HIS ASSHOLE!!!!!!! he does not go into dire situations and put his life on the line to get peoples stories out, other hackers/journalists do all the work and send it for him to aggregate....and that is all. Being a "gatekeeper" to these info-sources does not put him on par with lets say the John Pilgers and REAL journalists of the world. FUCKING EGOMANIAC.

also, if you listened to the interview in it's entirety, you will have noticed Assange is holding back documents to PROTECT HIS OWN ASS. he states how he is holding back on releasing the Bank of America documents because "wikileaks is being blackmailed" which i interpret as "i am being blackmailed, and i AM wikileaks, therefore wikileaks is being blackmailed". the dude has gotta realize wikileaks is bigger than he is. im finding him harder and harder to trust.

also, the way he talked proudly with a huge smile on his face while bragging about staying at "miss egypt's" house in bw the UK and US consolate .....sounds pretttttttty fucking sketchy to me. on both the intelligence connection issue and rape issue...seems like he thinks he's the GOD OF MEN or something...what an asshole!

Yesterday I wanted to hear what interview parts were on air on DN! But I turned it off because of prolonged technical difficulties. Apparently a second part will be broadcast today which I listen to in the evening. Our time here is 9 AM right now.

Assange plays the womanizer part, as he pretty much has to. It's predictable but he overplays it by a fair margain. I personally don't like him or his style very much, but he had a few good things to say.
He is not Zizek though. Zizek is brilliant and I like his anecdotes. I also agree with AnarchoSyndicate about the Zizek consumption mode.

Somebody's Zizek consumption mode in Germany had to absorb this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwTJXHNP0bg

I call it the Mr. Potty Mouth you tube. It has the most views and so always comes up at the top of the queue at the video site.

OTOH Democracy Now has done features on Irwin Corey, the stand up comedian who most closely represents what Herb does in real life. The difference is Corey had a history of real activism. It's worht looking up for this discussion. I'll see if I can locate it.

Elsewhere I'm sampling Herb's book called "Living in the End Times" (not very popular and readily available at my library.) I skipped to the part on architecture. It is a hoot but not in any good way. Once one has heard Herb's act, the references to pop culture become more and more strained, repetitive and tiresome.

i think that was the most brilliant reflection on toilet's possibly (probably) EVER!!! whodathunk a society's ideology could be reflected in their toilet technology!?

i, for one, not only like to look at my shit after i take a dump- it is essential determiner of our own status of health- but am also a squatter, nothing but the bottom of my feet will ever touch that grimey fucking toilet seat!!!

as far as im concerned Zizek is as much a humourist as he is a philosopher. and that was a perfect example.

but...Zizek, has never claimed to be an activist as far as i know. A dissident thinker, yes, but ive never seen him call himself an activist, nor do i think he considers himself one in the "direct action" sense. I do think, though, that he could be considered an activist in an "advocate" sense.

can you please provide an example of Zizek's "out of line" use of pop culture (from the Goodman-Assange Interview) so i can have an example to reference/reflect upon.

@AnarchoSyndicate,

Out of line is a subjective phrase I think. I've also recently heard someplace that someone taught his cat to use the loo. The posture of feet only on the device must be precarious.

As to out of line stuff, Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" comes up over and over again.

I can't say that I'd ever listen to him again but I'm sure there's a way to work the Strawberry Shortcake line of infantwear into something.

What I don't get is anyone such as A. Goodman showing him any time at all. I stated this in a mail response to DN! referring the patience she and Assange had to sit through (including backhanded insults of Assange by Herb) as being the tolerant relatives of a Tourette's patient at Thanksgiving Dinner.

Maybe they will listen to me now.

so the opinions of people with tourettes are invalid then, in your opinion? he is without question a touretter, but that does not make him any less intelligent, or negate the validity of his reflections.

And of course he fucking references "Psycho", he's a fucking PSYCHOANALYST by admission. Cinema is THE BEST way to illustrate abstract concepts and points, for instance, when i describe my conception of the universe, i ALWAYS reference the ending sequence of Men In Black....it's a perfect illustration of something that would be otherwise complex to describe. And what better film is there for a psychoanalyst to pick than Psycho?! i cannot think of one.

backhanded insults directed at Assange?? really? hmm. i must have missed that, can you please reference...because from what i recall (and its been a few days since i watched it) Zizek pretty much agreed with everything Assange said...i found his statements to concur with and reinforce Assange's arguments, not counter them.

Well the opening salvo (or spew) by Herb had him saying that he had thought Assange was an idiot but changed his mind after hearing him speak. I wonder if the observation was returned by J. We may never know.

I tried to find that Irwin Corey stuff but the DN! archive is not apparently that deep.

There is an anecdote about Thomas Pynchon in which he had Irwin Corey accept a National Book award for him. I would have liked to have been there for that one.

I did prick up my ears when Herb mentioned Brecht's observation (in Three Penny Opera) to the effect that why rob a bank when you can own one instead? But this is like trying to find the pony in the pile of horseshit that he speaks the rest of the time.

I wonder if Zizek would dare mention Obama without reassuring us with mantra:

“I mean, I still have all sympathy and respect for President Obama.”
(http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2010/10/18/part_iislavoj_zizek_far_right_and_anti_immigrant_politicians_on_the_rise_in_europe)

Nevertheless, consider couple of DISSIDENT points Zizek made on DN
(DN keeps him to the ground as much as possible):
++++++++++++++++++++
OBAMA, HEALTHCARE

And so, again, although I have no illusions about what Obama can do and so on, I am still proud that already before elections I supported him, although this had no great impact here, of course. But in contrast to my very more radical leftist friends whose motto was “he’s just a nice human face on the same imperialism,” “he will even serve better the interest of capitalism,” or whatever, no, I think we see now, apropos the healthcare reform, that we are fighting the central battle here.
(http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/15/slovenian_philosopher_slavoj_zizek_on_the)

++++++++++++++++++++
OBAMA, BP, AFGHANISTAN

Here, it may surprise you, but I still have sympathy for Obama. But in my view, one of his greatest failures is not Afghanistan. There, the situation is very complex. I don’t know what I would have done. It’s how he reacted to the oil spill. You know why? Because he played this legal, moralistic game, as if the — you know, like, I will kick — we know where — BP, they will make — sorry, but in a tragedy of these proportions, you cannot play this legalistic game who is guilty and so on.
(http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/18/slavoj_zizek_far_right_and_anti)

+++++++++++++++++++
OBAMA, PALESTINE

Let me give you another example, again, I am not a total fan of Obama, although I still have certain respect for him- but…this is cynicism at its purist, you remember this outcry in Zionist circles where Obama made the simple point that the basis of peace should be the sixty seven boarders. My god. The critical reaction was as if Obama said something, I don’t know, following orders from Al Qaeda or what. But this was the official U.S. policy expect that the obscenity of the situation was that although this was part of the official U.S. policy it was part of the unwritten deal not to talk about it- to ignore it. That’s our situation here.
(http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/7/5/watch_full_video_of_wikileaks_julian_assange_philosopher_slavoj_iek_with_amy_goodman)

++++++++++++++

And here’s something PROFOUND from ZIZEK on WIKILEAKS/ASSANGE:

ZIZEK: I know. Endless paraphrase of that wonderful line from Brecht’s Beggar’s Opera: “What is robbing a bank compared to founding a new bank?” What is your, under quotation marks, “terrorism” compared to the terrorism, which we simply accept, which has to go on day by day so just things remain the way they are? That is where ideology helps us. When we think of violence, terrorism, we always think about acts, which interrupt the normal run of things, but what about violence that has to be here in order for things to function the way they are?
So, I think, if – I’m very skeptical about it – in my provocative spirit we should use the term “terrorism”, it’s strictly a reaction to a much stronger terrorism that is here. So, again, instead of engaging in this moralistic game “Oh, no, he’s a good guy”. Like Stalinists said of Lenin “You like small children, you play with cats, you wouldn’t . . .” – as Norman Bates says in Psycho – “you wouldn’t hurt even a fly”. No, you are, in this formal sense, a terrorist. But if you are a terrorist, but then, by God, what are they who accuse of you terrorism?

AMY GOODMAN: For that, we can be taken off the air. I wanted to ask you, Julian, about Bradley Manning.

(http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/7/5/watch_full_video_of_wikileaks_julian_assange_philosopher_slavoj_iek_with_amy_goodman)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You're invited to compare these remarks about the Wikileaks with those of Chomsky, Ellsberg, Pilger, Greenwald... Consider Chomsky's miniature:

Now, last August, the Brookings Institute released a major poll of Arab opinion, done by prestigious and respected polling agencies, one of them. They do it regularly. And the results were extremely significant. They reveal that there is again, still, a campaign of hatred against the United States. When asked about threats to the region, the ones that were picked, near unanimously, were Israel and the United States — 88 percent Israel, about 77 percent the United States, regarded as the threats to the region. Of course, they asked about Iran. Ten percent of the population thought Iran was a threat. In the list of respected personalities, Erdogan was first. I think there were about 10. Neither Obama or any other Western figure was even mentioned. Saddam Hussein had higher respect.

Now, this is quite striking, especially in the light of the WikiLeaks revelations. The most — the one that won the headlines and that was — led to great enthusiasm and euphoria was the revelation, whether accurate or not — we don’t know — but the claim, at least, by diplomats that the Arab dictators were supporting the U.S. in its confrontation with Iran. And, you know, enthusiastic headlines about how Arab states support — the Arabs support the United States. That’s very revealing. What the commentators and the diplomats were saying is the Arab dictators support us, even though the population is overwhelming opposed, everything’s fine, everything’s under control, it’s quiet, they’re passive, and the dictators support us, so what could be a problem? In fact, Arab opinion was so antagonistic to the United States in this — as revealed in this poll, that a majority of the Arab population, 57 percent, actually thought the region would be better off if Iran had nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the conclusion here, and in England and the continent, was it’s all wonderful. The dictators support us. We can disregard the population, because they’re quiet. As long as they’re quiet, who cares? People don’t matter. Actually, there’s an analog of that internal to the United States. And it’s of course the same policy elsewhere in the world. All of that reveals a contempt for democracy and for public opinion which is really profound. And one has to listen with jaws dropping when Obama, in the clip you ran, talks about how, of course, governments depend on the people. Our policy is the exact opposite.
(http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/2/2/part_2_noam_chomsky_this_is_the_most_remarkable_regional_uprising_that_i_can_remember)

I suppose Chomsky mentioned here the same Obama dissident philospher Zizek has all the sympathy and respect for.

++++++++++++++++

Well, one is cultural Elvis of NYT (& a dissident??), and the other “arguably the most important intellectual alive”.. NYT would do anything to – ignore.

Adding to the micro-debate started here about ZIZEK/ASSANGE EGO, consider the two approaches:

ZIZEK: Now, I will make a more important point to this terrorism stuff. Let me make it clear — but I’m not crazy, I mean this in a positive sense – yes, in a sense, you are a terrorist. In which sense? In the sense that I like to repeat that Gandhi was a terrorist. What you are doing, let’s face the facts. It’s not just something that can be swallowed, oh look all the interesting news in the newspapers. Here this is happening, there Slavoj Zizek is dating Lady Gaga and here – totally not true. And here there’s Wikileaks. You effectively...

AMY GOODMAN: Do we have a denial – an official denial there on dating Lady Gaga?

SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK: Absolute denial on everything. I didn’t even listen to not one of her songs. My God, I listen to Schubert and Schumann songs. Sorry, I’m a conservative.

AMY GOODMAN: I don’t know her representatives were not that defiant. They just said no comment

SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK: My friends were telling me the same: “You stupid, you should have said ‘no comment’ then you will enjoy much more glory and so on”. Ok, let’s go on, No, no, no, I have a more serious point to make. What does this mean? In what sense was Gandhi a terrorist? He effectively tried to stop, interrupt the normal function of the British state in India. And, of course you are trying to disrupt the normal – which is very oppressive – of the information circulation and so on.
(http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/7/5/watch_full_video_of_wikileaks_julian_assange_philosopher_slavoj_iek_with_amy_goodman)
++++++++++++++++++++++

(21:20) CBS: For somebody who abhors secrets you run a pretty secret organisation.

ASSANGE: That's not true...


(22:34) CBS: Do you want me to give you my characterization of what, I think, people think? ... Mysterious, little weird, cult like figure, ah, little paranoid.

ASSANGE: You're repeating all the ad hominem attacks by our critics.
My role when I do something like speak about that we have discovered the deaths of 109 000 individual people in Iraq, 15000 civilian casualties never before reported anywhere, that's a very serious role, that is not a role where I can engage in humor, so I'm not used to performing under the spotlight.
(https://onebigtorrent.org/torrents/10582/Julian-Assange60-Minutes-2011-01-30-CBS-)

i rewatched the first part of this and Zizek absolutely does not call Assange an idiot, not from what i heard. In fact he praises wikileaks from the start....and the funniest part is that when Assange starts describing how CNN and FOX edited the Collateral Murder footage when they broadcast it, he is essentially giving real examples of EXACTLY what Zizek was rambling about (at least at one point)...that the mainstream News is presented to us in a way that we can ignore it. So they were working well off each other from the start. He uses alot of old film references of which it's possible only HE understands, but thinks everyone else will get too....whatever one he made after the Ninotchka one i recall being kinda "out there" lol. perhaps that's why you hate him so much...you just aren't cinephiliac enough i think he said "im not dreaming" about that time as well...which i found pretty funny. the guys hilarious, but if you cant actually listen to what he says and catch his occassional moments of brilliance, then he's gonna be lost on you i guess. try reading the transcripts like NOcocacola did, might work better for ya!

oh, my bad, you are right...he does "imply" that he considered Assange to be an idiot haha, what a guy! (in his second segment)...at least he does it in a complimentary way lol.

+++++++++++++++++++++++
AnarchoSyndi claims:

"just look at his response to Amy's question about the sex CHARGES he's facing in sweden and the response from the media there....he REFUSED to answer the question instead pussyfooting around the question in his response, trying to justify himself."
+++++++++++++

First of all, there are no SEX CHARGES against Assange, but ALLEGATIONS instead. Big difference. Please, read what Naomi Wolf said on the topic:

+++++++++++++++++
Naomi Wolf vs. Jaclyn Friedman: Feminists Debate the Sexual Allegations Against Julian Assange

(http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/20/naomi_wolf_vs_jaclyn_friedman_a)

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2010/12/20/part_iifeminists_debate_on_the_sexual_allegations_against_julian_assange)
+++++++++++++++++

& more on the Swedish justice (?) treatment of the case & Assange:
+++++++++++++++++
Attorney: WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange Endangered by Bail Denial in London; Still No Charges Filed in Sweden
(http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/8/attorney_for_wikileaks_founder_julian_assange)


Glenn Greenwald on the Arrest of Julian Assange and the U.S. "War on WikiLeaks"
(http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/7/glenn_greenwald_julian_assange_arrest_and)

Attorney: Swedish Case is a "Holding Charge" to Get Julian Assange Extradited to U.S.
(http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/15/lawyer_alleged_swedish_sex_crime_is)
+++++++++++++++++++
In short, Assange was constantly available to Swedish "investigators" = interrogators = prosecutors = inquisitors...
and Assange repeatedly offered his testimony while he was in Sweden, and later on, from England. They at first REFUSED to ask him anything. They EXPLICITLY PERMITED HIM LEAVING THE SWEDEN. Finally, after one interview with the Swedish prosecutor was made, suddenly, they wanted his testimony AGAIN & so much, badly, Swedish prosecutor asked the British lock Assange in jail though for the alleged offence, even if Assange would be convicted in Sweden, he’d remain free. (& British obliged)
Swedish prosecutor refused to state what it was about.
Swedish prosecutor refused to be cross-examined about the case.
Those ladies never accused Assange of rape in the first place.
ETC.
+++++++++++++
In every interview journalists & propagandists make with Assange, he could drag us for hours through Swedish justice mud & fog Naomi Wolf so fittingly described. Instead, Assange, after he & his attorney said what there is to be said about the matter, decides commendably, not to get personal, but brings to our attention a perspective much broader than his case, and speaks about justice, politics of EU.... etc. Important stuff. That’s not evasion. But he would not play the game nailed to a place smear campaigners assigned for him. And that is not evasion. He simply refuses to swim in the spit of corporate media & politicians aimed ad hominem = Assange, and tries to keep our attention to the important matters, matters that corporate media & politicians eternally EVADE, IGNORE, MANIPULATE & LIE ABOUT.

Once again, please, read how it works: first ad hominem attack of corporate journalist and then how Assange responded, riveting us to the stuff that matters.

++++++++++++++
CBS: Do you want me to give you my characterization of what, I think, people think? ... Mysterious, little weird, cult like figure, ah, little paranoid.

ASSANGE: You're repeating all the ad hominem attacks by our critics.
My role when I do something like speak about that we have discovered the deaths of 109 000 individual people in Iraq, 15000 civilian casualties never before reported anywhere, that's a very serious role, that is not a role where I can engage in humor, so I'm not used to performing under the spotlight.
+++++++++++++++++++++

AND THAT’S NOT EGOISM. AU CONTRAIRE.

In principle, we should never accept Clinton Levinsky garbage corporate media/politicians force upon our brains, ever, let alone in the time of genocidal sanctions Clinton’s imperial machine forced on the people of Iraq, in the time of Rwanda... etc. And it's only fitting Assange is aware of this principle.

you are right i shouldnt have said charges, rather accusations. and i agree that he is being harrassed by americans and has worries about extradition, and as such should be concerned.

but i still feel the same way about the guy, over time he has developed an aura that he can do know wrong, and is too valuable to the world and thus should be above justice (while the people really getting the info out to wikileaks in the first place end up rotting in jail...without any help from Assange).

regarding his egoism, i was speaking about the way he tells the story of staying with miss egypt, told in a manner that REAKED of egoism. but that is hardly the only example, how about when he takes dictatorial control of wikileaks despite being one of a decently sized group of people that were behind it's creation- going as far as claiming "i am wikileaks" taking credit for nearly every element of it (giving no credit to anyone else)...i bet most of the world thinks wikileaks is one man.

i agree noone should have clinton/lewinksy bullshit forced on em....though i didnt hear ANYONE bitching when Jon Stewart/Colbert did the equivalent to Weiner (and he didnt even get any action, only sent pictures....). but i guess it's hard to criticize people you agree with eh?

i agree with almost all of Assange's politics, i do not agree with all his actions in regards to releasing docs (i think he needs to release shit he is sitting on), and i think hes a fucking egomaniac...he is not perfect, nor is he entirely honest...he's part of "The Great Game", and he's playing along willingly.

why is he holding back documents about Bank of America? he claims wikileaks is being blackmailed, what does that mean? if he is wikileaks, does that mean he is being PERSONALLY blackmailed, in a way that may affect his credibility? or are they blackmailing wikileaks as an organization? considering the way Assange has been acting as of late, im inclined to believe the former is at least possible. you are entitled to believe whatever you want.

i think wikileaks is BIGGER and more important than Assange, but he does not realize that. He's willing to hold important information back to protect his own ass from going to jail. Is he "protecting sources" by not admitting things while the very people he is apparently protecting are rotting in jail? he certainly thinks so- while remaining relatively free- but does that mean the people in jail feel the same way?

I didnt think Assange's egomania was debatable, Zizek sure seems to think so, cracking that joke about being a dictator when Assange yells for more volume in the balcony.....

i dont care what Amy Goodman says to stroke Assange's ego, but he IS NOT a Journalist...he is a middle man for source material other people have accumulated. He is an important part of journalism, i agree, but not a journalist. He is a middle man acting as a GATEKEEPER, and that is all.

i also dont understand his logic for criticizing bloggers in general. there are some amazing bloggers and there are some shills, but the same goes for the mainstream journalistic world...just look at his experience at the NY Times for fuck sakes. Some blogger somewhere must have really hurt his feelings lol. but i found that statement to be quite ignorant.

you do realize that Assange works very closely with your much hated corporate media, you also realize he criticizes citizen-based media,instead favouring the very corporate media that smears his name. why did he go from publically dumping the docs, to leaking them to mainstream media outlets (he chooses, ie the ones that he feels will give him good PR, and discuss the stories at hand fairly, but more important they give him good PR). Well he favours them until they smear him at least haha. Like the NY Times, for example.

Just a thought this morning. In all of these books of his which I assume are in the same style, where is the editor? Or is the content so abstruse that they say "oh well, I don't get it so it must be good."? If there is that much rubbish printed is there an equal amount somewhere else (more potty mouth etc.) that got edited out?

Now, Imagine you are an alien and have read a fare amount of the English language up til now and then look at the stuff from Herb. Or more locally, imagine you are a high school teacher of English. What sort of grade do you give precocious little Herby?

This goes beyond the interview but so does some of the other discussion. I hope everyone is enjoying it and makes contribs to OBT.

AnarchoSyndi about Assange:

"but i still feel the same way about the guy, over time he has developed an aura that he can do no wrong, and is too valuable to the world and thus should be above justice..."

He developed an aura... that he should be ABOVE JUSTICE???

THAT'S A SERIOUS CLAIM. PROVE IT.

Thank you.

LOL @ ^

how serious bro? lol id say it's more of an an observation based opinion. i thought it made it clear why, but anyways...

ill start off by saying...i agree the things the US have claimed- life in prison for espionage and the death penalty or whatever- are terrifying and prison is at least plausible...just ask leonard peltier and mumia abu jamal. furthermore, i feel Assange is completely innocent of everything, and their threats while real, are completely unfounded and will never justly stand up...and if they are forced it is up to us- the people- to react and stop it from happening by any means necessary.

This wasnt done for Bradley Manning when it should of and he is the real hero, maybe if it will happen for a hacker turned PR whore; get the masses angry enough to actually stick up for the supposed rights and freedoms they are supposed to hold so dear....


the thing is...it seems, to me, Assange is ready and willing to do whatever it takes to ensure HE (and he alone) stays out of jail, and acts as if wikileaks would all of a sudden cease to exist (or be unable to operate) he were to suffer such a fate. I personally think wikileaks is bigger than Assange (who claims that HE is wikileaks, essentially). And as such, i feel he possesses a grandiose sense of self importance that may not be entirely warranted.

evidence?

he claims himself to be a journalist. He is not. He is a middle man that aggregates source documents from various sources/whistblowers. His position is more akin to an Editor (ie. the gatekeeper; the ultimate decider of WHAT documents are released by wikileaks and when..and perhaps more importantly...which are not...). And whereas im sure he reads analyzes and forms his own opinion about what the documents reveal, i havent seen any major articles or anything like that written by him, have you? though perhaps he writes the communique/synopses on the leaks himself, im not sure.

id like to note here that i do believe wikileaks should have the same right as journalists do, to protect their sources.

why am i skeptical of Assange? because i question his decision to hold certain things back, especially as of lately. as the law increasingly cracks down on him public access to new documents has been drastically reduced...diplomatic documents are now being trickled out to mainstream news outlets of Assanges choosing (and while i respect his choices, especially the Guardian, the NY Times showed their real roots as the mouthpiece of an Empire).

on top of this i do not understand why he has such disdain for citizen based journalism all of a sudden. in this interview his accusations/claims about bloggers are ignorant to say the least. can you say elitist much? sure some bloggers merely act as pundits commenting on what mainstream media disseminates, but at the same time many went through the warlogs and cablegate documents and discussed things that were not juicy enough for even the fairest of major media outlets.

if he stops dumping diplomatic documents publically, im not sure what differentiates wikileaks from it's offshoot competitor openleaks (whose mission statement/structure i find to be confusing and almost hypocritical).

also, hat has Assange done to help Manning? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Now im not blaming Manning's arrest on Assange; not his fault Lamo is a ratbitch (and possible fraudster). But Manning is essentially being tortured (by most HR Observers' standards), and it seems this is being done to "lean" on Assange; or to extract information that could be used against him. Same goes for the targetting of kids who (probably mentioned on irc how they) hacked something in solidarity with wikileaks and found themselves being raided and thrown in jail. This situation is in a legal limbo and people (that arent Julian Assange) are suffering because of it, and his refusal to face the US "justice" system.

I honestly think the world would be better off if he challenged the US "justice" system (or should i say the legal system) by facing it....this would do more for "the cause". its better than having to sit on documents that should be released for EVERYONE (ie bank of america docs)...that is what they want.... because either he personally or the organization are being blackmailed.

Assange seems to be more concerned about himself (remember he is the organization in his own mind) and is willing to do whatever it will take to protect himself because his grandiose sense of self importance leads him to believe he is too important (too much of a PR figure lol) to be thrown in prison and fight for his innocence in court, where he can and should win!!!

he seems to have changed since all this legal shit has been happening...a consequence of getting sucked into "the great game", i suppose.