What follows is a little bit of a rant, so bear with me as I clear my head. As Edward Snowden’s prospects for escape dwindle, since country after country has denied him asylum, he is now beginning to cry like a petulant child through WikiLeaks. Using a logic train that is about as convoluted as possible (Waaaa….Obama’s picking on me!), it reminded me of Wikileaks’ own twisted version of what’s just. Like Snowden, it appears to consist only of crimes they commit against others. Someone using anything resembling its own tactics against them is inherently evil.
Honestly, I love it when that little weasel Julian Assange talks to the press. With his sallow white hair and pallid complexion, he rails against perceived injustices in the world, which more and more are injustices that apparently revolve around him and not the world at large. In his mind, he’s the only person who has the right to collect, expose, or “bring justice”. Anyone else doing the same thing to him or his organization is simply part of the malevolent forces from the Empire – and for some reason, a lot of people seem to agree. For them, he can do no wrong. For me, I’d like a little rationality with my protests.
If only Assange had studied a basic course in critical thinking instead of working as a sexual predator, he’d see that a plethora of his statements are logical fallacy 101. In fact, the definition of irony. I thought I’d highlight a few here:
1. I mentioned this particular hypocrisy in an earlier blog, when Assange first fled to the Ecuadorian embassy in Britain. His legal team at the time was worried that the UK would storm the embassy to remove him (just to be clear: so he could be extradited to Sweden for rape. This has nothing to do with WikiLeaks or the US). In an effort to prevent that, the legal team stated: “I hope that the UK authorities are sensible enough not to enter the embassy without permission, which would risk upsetting diplomatic relations all over the world.” Seriously? Wikileaks actually had the cajones to say that action would upset diplomatic relations around the world. With a straight face. If there has been one single event that has upset diplomatic relations around the world in the last thirty years, it’s the actions of Wikileaks, and now they’re worried about diplomatic relations?
2. More recently, Assange appeared on This Week and talked about his man-crush, Edward Snowden, someone who’s finally gotten him back in the news (Assange must have punched a wall when he heard about the Snowden leaks to “mainstream press”, but he immediately went into high gear to insert himself into the situation.) “He is a hero,” Assange said. “He has told the people of the world and the United States that there is mass unlawful interception of their communications.” Huh? Isn’t that exactly what Wikileaks did with Bradley Manning’s data? A “mass unlawful interception of communications” – namely classified correspondence between diplomatic posts? Why does Assange think this is wrong now? I guess it’s only okay to “intercept mass communication” when it’s done under the banner of WikiLeaks. Anything else is heinous. In his mind, our elected representative democracy shouldn’t have the ability or authority to decide what is in the collective best interest for the national security of 300 million people, targeting foreign terrorists and foreign threats, and despite the fact that there was a healthy debate before it was implemented. Never mind the fact that Snowden never even said ANYONE was looking at any communications of US citizens. In Assange’s mind, he, a single vain man who cares more about his own TV appearances and avoiding rape charges—and isn’t an American citizen – should without question have that same ability. Yeah, Assange’s little golden halo is pretty much bullshit.
3. It came out recently that Wikileaks had a mole. A teenager who had been working with the FBI, basically spilling his guts about WikiLeaks’ operations. The revelations have caused a plethora of responses from Wikileaks denouncing the teenager and his operations (which begs the question: Why does WikiLeaks get to operate in secret? If you’re all about transparency, then open up the vaults. Why should the FBI have to find a mole?). In a WikiLeaks statement he was called a, “troubled young man” who “did manage several minor tasks for the organization as one of hundreds of volunteers all over the world.” Wow. Sounds a lot like Bradley Manning. I guess it’s okay for WikiLeaks to court Manning online like a predatory child molester, but heinous for the FBI to accept information from someone inside the organization that was freely given. Someone they’ll now attack as “psychologically tormented”, “off”, and “coerced”, much like every US politician running for office does against the opposition. Funny how quickly the vaunted vanguard of freedom and tolerance resorts to guttersnipe ad hominem attacks like a backwoods segregationist candidate from 1950. If this is the “new world”, I don’t see a lot of difference from the political machine Assange so despises. Just a lot of selfishness.
At the end of the day, Julian Assange, as Ecuador learned, is nothing but a fame hog, who, much like he leveraged Manning before, is now using Snowden to get in the media to buoy his own ego and denounce our way of life. Anything he can do he will do to stay on the radar screen, to include spouting whatever logical fallacy he finds convenient to prove his point. Why on earth I’d care about what this Australian citizen thinks about my country is beyond me, but apparently there are plenty of people who think he’s a hero. Hero of what? Hypocrisy?
Yeah, I’d say he’s a Super Hero in that department.