I gave a speech at the Sydney Politics in the Pub event “Whistle-blowing, Wikileaks & the Future of Democracy”. Here it is if you’d like to watch (video quality isn’t great, but the audio’s fine):
Thanks for watching! My material is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish.
Andrew Beddoes / September 7, 2019
Wonderful commentary. Caitlin reminds me of that other formidable speaker and writer, Germaine Greer. I am always impressed by articulate, progressive women.
Michael Murry / August 21, 2019
Star Chamber, Incorporated
Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning
Jailed as twin examples for the proles:
“Look what happens if you publish secrets:
More totalitarian controls.”
In Chinese: “Kill the Chicken scare the Monkey.”
Rat-out your colleagues. Do not Power tempt.
Or otherwise the judges and grand juries
Will hold you in what lawyers call “contempt.”
A strange word-choice, indeed, by Power’s minions
Who spend careers perfecting rank abuse.
For them I’d have to feel respect much greater
Before that is the word that I would use.
I’ve nothing good to say for prosecutors.
Some say I wish to “damn them with faint praise.”
But I reply: “You praise with faint damnation.
So which of us has coined the the better phrase?”
Despicable, the treatment of these heroes.
The US and UK have sunk so low.
Still, Julian and Chelsea have together
More balls than these two governments can grow.
No matter, they have passed into the ages.
Already they have earned a fair renown.
Each day they live defiant, undefeated,
They rise as jailers try to put them down.
As JFK once said of his elite class:
“The ship of state leaks mainly from the top.”
But if some lowly, powerless, poor person
Tries that, they’ll feel the lash. No truth. Now stop!
To scare a monkey, kill another monkey.
If not, the monkeys learn impunity.
While eating KFC they ask, obtusely:
“What has a chicken got to do with me?”
And so the Corporation-State must silence
Reports of its incompetence and crime.
If citizens knew what it did they’d order
Its dissolution. Now. And just in time.
Historically, they called it the Star Chamber
A secret court designed to thwart the king.
But power then perverted it to serve him.
Grand juries in the US, same damn thing.
They now indict ham sandwiches routinely
With no protection for the innocents.
Presumed as guilty, evidence not needed.
Conviction guaranteed. No court repents.
A judge may do whatever he determines
He can. So levy fines. Coerce. Demand
On penalty of prison, testimony
Against oneself, alone upon the stand.
“Democracy” is just a euphemism
If citizens allow this to proceed.
Orwellian: first Hate then Fear of Goldstein.
Two Minutes, daily. Really, all you need.
Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright © 2019
Michael Murry / August 21, 2019
Sorry that the stanza format didn’t survive posting. After the title, each stanza should consist of four lines with a space delineating them. Anyway, good work, Caitlin. As Alfred Korzybski said in Scienc and Sanity (1933): “We are a symbol using class of life, and those who rule the symbols rule us.” Ditto for narratives, really just complicated sequences of “noises” and “spell-marks.” Caveat Lector.
BG / July 4, 2019
I had the idea that for supporting Assange that masks like the one of V for Vendetta used by Anonymous should be made with the face of Julian to be distributed worldwide but mainly in England to start the same logical march as in V for Vendetta. I believe it is the only way to make huge pressure on UK and all over the world. As long as we aren’t labelled, we aren’t visible.
EWM / June 24, 2019
“Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.” ~ Michael Rivero
Mike / June 2, 2019
How is the best way to communicate with you a topical idea for you possible research and writing? I ask this question in case there is a privacy method that you would prefer for us to use.
I’ve been following your writings for several months. I may have some things to contribute.
Bruce George / June 1, 2019
Great talk. Thank you Caitlin. I also love your article in New Dawn that I picked up in town yesterday.. Fascinating how the outrage at Wikileaks publication of Hilary Clinton’s emails completely diverted media attention from the content of the emails and what they showed about her unfitness for a position of public responsibility.
I love your words about bringing Assange home to Australia, rather than “home” to the USA as some have written. Perhaps we could make him head of state in place of the current illegitimate head of state who claims to be the monarch of two apparently independent sovereign nations.. Failing that perhaps we could honour the original people of this land by giving them the power to appoint a group of elders to carry out the function of head of state.
Keep up the voice of freedom, it is the only way we may save the species from our current course of mass extinction.
Jim Lauder / April 23, 2019
Uncertainty – the spread of doubt and the fear of doubt – is at the very core of the Human Condition. Serial uncertainty has always been created by ideologically driven lies, but the arrival of exponentially multiplied media alongside a revival in unjustified belief has created a species crisis for Homo sapiens. The Slog asks what this means for individual free speech.
TFS / April 12, 2019
History Repeats itself:
James / April 10, 2019
Policies that should be put to voters at the forthcoming Australian Federal elections
In the forthcoming Australian Federal elections to be held on 11, 18 or 25 May, the choice of candidates should include candidates who support policies that would attempt to preserve and, where possible, improve our quality of life. Such a candidate, if elected, would begin trying to rectify the harm that has been done in recent years to global peace and stability, our natural environment, civil rights and our quality of life, by corporations, NGOs and governments – federal, state and local. We believe such a candidate would support the policies listed below. We intend to ask each candidate standing for each House of Representatives seat and for each of the 12 Senate seats for each state, whether he/she supports or is opposed to each of the policies.
Depending on that candidate’s response or lack of response, in comparison to the responses of the other candidates, you can then decide, whether or not to give him/her your first, second or subsequent preference.
Whilst it may be difficult for such candidate to win a seat, particularly in the House of Representatives, against the immense money and resources of the major parties, it should still be possible, through the use of Internet resources, such as this site, candobetter.net, to greatly lift the profiles of the policies listed below and of those candidates who support those policies. Even many voters who will still be voting for the major party candidates will most likely still agree with many of the policies listed below. A high vote for candidates who support these policies should help spur debate amongst the rank-and-file of those parties about these policies.
Please feel encouraged to ask each candidate seeking your vote will he/she try to implement such policies if elected and post any responses below.
53. Julian Assange: Send a contingent of Federal Police to fly to London, go to the Ecuadorian embassy and escort Julian Assange back to Heathrow Airport and thence back to Melbourne Airport. What British government authority would dare obstruct Australian Federal Police who are clearly acting to uphold the law and to end such a cruel denial of basic human rights?;
wardropper / August 26, 2019
The British government might not dare obstruct Australian Federal Police, but Washington certainly would. And if Washington insisted that Assange be transported to Crete or Indonesia while awaiting extradition to the U.S.A. The Australian Federal Police would comply.
Assange wasn’t in the Ecuador embassy because he was afraid of British justice.
He was rightly afraid of U.S. justice – which, as we have just seen, overrules British justice every time.
Timothy Madden / April 9, 2019
This comment is on the central subject matter of the article which is fact versus feelings, or more precisely fact versus opinion. I have included the whole piece (copied below) but most directly relevant is the second half on the original English law system of separate courts of fact and law.
Although quite properly applied specifically to the case of Mr. Assange, the author (Caitlin) has actually hit upon one of the most foundational elements of meaningful social interaction.
On the equitable doctrine of nullification by jury
People are bred to not see the obvious.
There is a point that is both the nexus between the People and government, and the People’s last line of defence against tyranny and other forms of systematized domination. It is called jury nullification, and more properly nullification by jury.
The principle is a simple one. If a jury of twelve properly-qualified but otherwise randomly-selected citizens are competent to decide whether someone lives or dies, then they are competent to decide if and when government has over-stepped its proper function or has written an unclear or manifestly unjust law.
Nullification by jury is founded in equity. It is the legal-system equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath in medicine. First, do no harm. First, do no injustice (Do no offence to equity).
The more general and foundational maxim is: If there is a conflict between law and equity, equity prevails.
That is what nullification by jury is. If a jury determines that there is a conflict between law and equity, then the jury has the power to ensure that equity prevails.
It is also a constructive safeguard to prevent the law from being brought into debasement and disrepute. Every time the enforcement of a law results in an offence to equity, the law itself is damaged or debased and made lesser in the eyes of the public.
It also used to apply in practice to private law or the law of the contract. No matter how successful a party was in creating and obtaining a deceptive (one-sided) agreement or undertaking from another party, that other party always had the option of disregarding the legal-contract and pleading equity. They had to pay the extra costs of an equity audit, but the principle acted as a fundamental barrier to deceit in private contracts. Nominal creditors, especially, could only push it so far.
If I were evil incarnate, with the aim of destroying human society, the first thing I would do is to target and eliminate nullification by jury because it represents the conscious nexus or interface between the law and reality / fact – between law and equity. It is the interface between legal-constructs and living, thinking, beings of conscience or equity.
If we were to go back in time a few centuries to the early days of English law, we would find three essential and material differences:
They recognised the extreme inherent danger and folly of even allowing practicing lawyers to later become judges, while today it is practically mandatory. With respect, having professional language manipulators interpret the law is like having convicted child molesters run day-care centres. It is just plain stupid.
They had separate Courts of Fact (or Equity) and Courts of Law. The Court of Fact would first determine the facts in a given dispute, and then if a sufficient cause of action (prima facie case) were established, then those facts would be given over to a Court of Law for a legal determination. What they recognized here is the inherent structural flaw and danger that arises if and when the same judge determines both the facts and law in a given dispute, and they systemically prevented it.
Alternatively, if the Court of Fact were to discover some significant illegality by either or both parties, then (normally the plaintiff) would be non-suited, or, where appropriate, the matter could be directed to a process of criminal law jurisdiction.
But that all changed beginning in 1873 with the first of the Judicature Acts which purported to merge the Courts of Fact with the Courts of Law, while giving over administration of both to the Courts of Law. Henceforth, the same judge would decide both the facts and the law in a given dispute.
As a kind of soft or background analogy, assume that all documentaries are produced by major motion picture studios, and that the industry adopts a policy that only those who were the most successful producers of blockbuster fantasy / fiction movies can become CEO’s of the subdivisions that make the documentaries. Over a period of generations, and eventually centuries, the documentaries will become ever-increasingly fantasy / fiction-based. That is what has happened to the civil / contract law system.
The Court of Fact function has been effectively eliminated because the Courts / judges obtain virtually all essential and material facts from the documentary evidence of a given transaction prepared and demanded by the plaintiff from the defendant.
It is like concluding that there are clearly no illegal drugs on the plaintiff’s vessel, as claimed as a defence by the defendant, because the shipper’s manifest prepared by the plaintiff does not list any illegal drugs. A modern commercial court virtually never makes material inquiry into the real transaction, and instead relies upon the description of it prepared by the plaintiff / bank’s solicitors. It is just plain stupid.
3. They had nullification by jury to ensure that first and foremost, the law did no harm or injustice.
Change those three things, and you change the world and everything in it.
John2o2o / February 19, 2019
Very good, apart from the inclusion of the smear about the Catholic church. Caitlin, if Julian Assange was a priest I guarantee there would be several ex choir boys “coming out” to say they had been interfered with by Julian.
These attacks on the church are in my opinion lies – smears designed to harm a church which some people (no doubt including yourself) dislike, in just the same way that Julian is smeared by those who dislike him.
I see no difference at all.
Carolyn Zaremba / March 3, 2019
Have you read Caitlin’s article about what the priesthood did to you uncle? I recommend it highly.
Mandrau / February 19, 2019
I really liked this speech. An uplifting part of my day. Funky, honest and sweet all at the same time. I needed to hear what you said at the end – thank you.
Pap-a-lap / February 18, 2019
Sorry – should have included Daniel Ellsberg in that list, as well as Katherine Graham and Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post, who defied a federal restraining order to halt publication of the Pentagon Papers, and were vindicated by a 6-3 judgement of the Supreme Court. Almost 50 years later, the Masters’ Narrative has made real journalism a crime and its practitioners enemies of the state. In these times, it’s rogue journalists like Caitlin Johnstone who carry our water and deserve/need our attention and support.
Pap-a-lap / February 18, 2019
Given the average intelligence and interest level of those who blithely go along with the “masters’ narrative” on Assange, any strategy for breaking down that narrative must be as clear and simple as possible; and must challenge the audience to examine its own cognitive dissonance. No need to preach or lecture, no need for obscure references, just basic questions, such as: “Why is Julian Assange so reviled for doing essentially the same thing the New York Times did by publishing the Pentagon Papers in 1971, for which it was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for meritorious public service in journalism?”
The truth does not depend on who reports it, or why, or what anyone thinks or says about it. If not for imperfect human beings like Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden, who put the truth and the public’s need to hear and see it above their own personal security, we would be no more than fighting cocks trained to cut each other to shreds with razors supplied by our masters, to satisfy their own bestial appetites. We desperately need those people, and they need us to stand up for them, and for ourselves.
Ishkabibble / February 18, 2019
Caitlin, Assange is going to be dead of old age long before enough of the bewildered herd wakes up enough to significantly change “the way things are”, if that ever happens at all.
If people really want to get Assange out of that embassy and to a better place, I suggest the following, which I already described in general in a previous comment. I’ll be more specific now. (Big things of today have almost always had small beginnings in the sometimes distant past, for example, the present, ancient, whatever-you-want-to-call-it system in which a microscopic percentage of the population owns or controls the vast majority of wealth and LARGE-SCALE capital equipment for its own astronomical profit.)
Suggest to Joe Lauria of Consortium News that he, Ray McGovern, Medea Benjamin, the two Alex’s on The Duran, maybe Perter Lavelle, Mark Sloboda, Dimitry Babich, etc. etc. make an appeal to their viewers/readers for a mass march on the Ecuadoran embassy in London. Obviously, the larger the attendance, the better. One hundred thousand people, perhaps all wearing yellow vests and big yellow hard hats and yellow balaclavas, would be perfect. Prior to calling for the march, a Russian such as Babich should contact someone in the Russian government to determine if Assange would be allowed through the door of the Russian embassy in London. If Russia refuses, then other nations might be contacted. If no embassy will accept Assange, it’s game over for the march.
If an embassy will accept Assange, if such march could be arranged, which should be relatively easy in this age of social media, whatsapp and email, smartphone text, etc., the march from some pre-arranged location, or even at the Ecuadoran embassy actually takes place. The crowd’s leader uses a megaphone to tell Assange to come out of the embassy into the crowd, and he will be marched by the crowd, defying the British police or SWAT teams, or military or whatever, to the Russian embassy, form where he will be transported to Russia.
Ecuador has stated that Assange is “free” to leave whenever he wishes, so he can just walk out the door. Members of the crowd will prevent the police from arresting him.
Prior to Assange’s exiting the building, the leader of the march should call upon the individual policemen or soldiers to either not attempt to remove Assange from the crowd, or to make an ineffective, job-saving “attempt” to do so.
I doubt if the police, soldiers, etc. will actually fire on the crowd, but because the UK govt. has got so much at stake on arresting Assange and turning him over to its US master, you won’t know how their armed employees are going to behave until the march actually takes place.
Assange exits the building and is immediately given a yellow vest, hard hat and balaclava, and then moved to the center of the mass of people in the march. The enitre mass then marches to the embassy where Assange enters and is given asylum. Whenever, he is transported by helicopter to the nation willing to give him aylum and refuge and hopefully a nice new home. Maybe Snowden can suggest a place close to him.
So there’s what “someone” has got to do to free Assange. Please feel free to delete this comment in the interest of secrecy.
WillD / February 19, 2019
There’s a big flaw in this. To move Assange out of the country requires him having diplomatic immunity (which should, in theory, guarantee him safe passage from the embassy to an airport), but which in turn requires the UK government actually accepting that the diplomatic immunity is valid – which is highly unlikely.
Vonu / March 23, 2019
All one would have to do is create a realistic looking SWAT team to “arrest” him and smuggle him out of the country.
It has worked to frame and murder multiple Middle Eastern leaders.
On the other hand, if he is a citizen of Ecuador, he could be designated as a diplomat, which would provide plenty of diplomatic immunity, if only for long enough to get him to Ecuador. A diplomat with the knowledge of where the bodies are buried that Assange has might be left alone in the hope that he won’t publish the graveyard plot.
Ishkabibble / February 19, 2019
Funny. Of all the myriad of things that could go wrong in every step of my plan, you assume that all of them are accomplished and point out that it might be difficult for Russia, or whatever nation, to get Assange out of their embassy and back to the home nation.
If my plan to move Assange to another embassy were actually successfully carried out, do you think that the UK is going to once again surround yet another embassy with a cordon of extremely expensive 24/7 surveillance devices, cops, etc.? And all of this once again happening purportedly because Assange jumped bail how many years ago?
I understand that there may be a lot of vacant rooms at the Russian embassy in London ever since Ms. May’s purge of Russian diplomats. I also understand that the Russian embassy might be a very big step up in the “style of life” category from the Ecuadoran “situation”. I have a hunch that the Russians would give Assange internet access and he could be as political as he wanted — the more the merrier, in fact. Assange doesn’t strike me the “great outdoors” kind of guy, so he might be quite happy meeting friends “living life” in the Russian embassy.
Jeff Davis / February 19, 2019
I am comprehensively in agreement with you. For the last two or three years, I have entertained the same idea. So let me now expand on your — and my — suggestion.
First of all, this undertaking should be done completely out in the open. There should be no secrecy involved. It should be a mass, overt, worldwide effort, with invitations to assemble in London for the event sent out to all those who support Assange. There should be no question whatsoever that it is an in-your-face repudiation and challenge to the British “Establishment”/Deep State.
The action would be nothing less than a “Declaration of Independence” issued by the people of the world against the craven and unlawful imprisonment of by the UK of Assange on behalf of United States. The action should be so public, so overt, that the British government will be challenged by what is essentially an open revolt and repudiation of it authority. An open “bitch-slap” of the UK as “America’s bitch”. Make them think long and hard about the political consequences of going full Stormtrooper against a vast mass of people, among them a substantial gathering of international luminaries of conscience.
I would suggest that a people power movement of this sort creates an insurmountable political problem for any government so confronted. This was a sort of people power movement that overthrew Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. So many people gathered in the streets that the police and military could not, and would not, act against them.
When only a small number of people “revolt”, the government is free to use its police forces, with seeming legitimacy, to suppress the “rebellion”. But when the government is confronted buy a critical mass of people, the situation is turned on its head, and government authority is called into question, if not neutralized.
I am not an activist or an organizer, and I post under my real name. That said, I would be delighted to participate ***UNASHAMEDLY OUT IN THE OPEN*** in organizing a movement to extract Assange from imprisonment by the United States Deep State and its UK poodle.
One last comment. A detail. Sweden has dropped any charges against Assange.The only threat of arrest that remains are the secret indictments in the US, the bail-jumping charges in the UK. This means that once Assange exits UK territory/jurisdiction, say by helicopter or boat across the channel, and stands on European soil, he can move about in public a free man once again. In Amsterdam, Paris, Vienna, or Berlin,… or Reykjavik or Moscow he can walk around a free man. And with Ecuadoran passport in hand he can travel wherever he chooses (so long as he avoids flights that connect in the UK or the US.)
Caitlin, I authorized you to provide my email address to anyone willing to move beyond talk and participate in organizing an action to free Assange.
Ishkabibble / February 19, 2019
Jeff, very well said.
My wife and I visited London in 1994 and stayed for a week in a rented flat just a couple of hundred meters from the center of London end of Wandsworth Bridge on Wandsworth Bridge Road. We had a great time. My wife didn’t want me to call Buckingham Palace because she was just a bit concerned that the Queen might pick up the phone, but I took the chance.
The last time I left Canada was 15 years ago to fly to NYC to be with my fatally ill, 93-year-old father. I haven’t flown since. My passport expired a decade ago. I haven’t had the motivation to see other places in the world as the “situation” in the world deteriorates more a more rapidly as time goes on.
But the possibility of participating in the aforementioned march excites me tremendously. I have to discuss my participation at length with my wife before I commit to participating, but I wanted to at least thank your for saying what you’ve said.
I hope you realize that the march will be infilitrated by agent provocateurs — agents who will become violent (destroy property along the route, etc.) enough to justify a crackdown by the UK StormTroopers. This is the standard operating procedure in states such as the UK and US that have a tyrannical, desperate Elite.
Jennifer L Brouse / April 20, 2019
I always wondered why he didn’t go to the Russian embassy in the first place. Great plan, I don’t know where the hell everyone was.
cf white / February 18, 2019
One popular phrase over used is, “How will people in the future see us?” This is related to a cliche’, “being on the right side of history.”
Adults conditioned to accept blind ridiculous conformity that censors them, really would never know the difference, because they are waiting to be told by other misguided adults, in authority.
A nod is the same as a wink, to a blind horse.
Why do adults allow themselves to be censored by other adults, adult organizations, adult authoritative entities, such that it prevents them to collectively protect the First Amendment Right of Free Speech, for themselves or for a child?
The PTA, Teacher’s Union, Lawyers Guild, ACLU, judges, politicians, ministers, journalist, union workers, voters and parents are all comprised of adults, who are guilty of this disservice to themselves.
I am sending you this story because I think it directly relates to matters concerning Rights and Dissent. It is also a story of Rights and Responsibilities. Though the story is not as sensational as many topics you present, this particular story is overlooked and misunderstood.
To our peril, collective cognitive blindness has made unbearable injustices acceptable and seemingly normal. Additionally, the examination and analysis are not explored related to the current construction of conditioned ignorance of the significance of unalienable rights endowed to all Humans, within the context of those rights being defended.
The fact that this story is not taught and discussed at any school level is revealing. I personally think this may be why the work you do, falls on so many deaf ears. A nod is the same as a wink to a blind horse.
You Spell Potatoe, I Spell Potato
This is an incident which has been bothering me for awhile. It involves a boy, now a man, named William Fiquererro. It involves Government officials, journalist, teachers, the PTA, and the First Amendment, which are supposed to protect the Human rights of freedom regarding speech, press and assembly. The adults failed in their duty as adults to protect the youngster.
Mr. Fiquerero, Spelling Bee winner was bullied by then VP Dan Quayle, into spelling the word “potato” incorrectly, after he had correctly spelled it. None of the adults in that room protected him.
None of the adults in the room protected the child or their own constitutional rights. They did protect VP Quayle and the system of injustice.
The journalist in the fashion of immature children mocked Quayle, for the better, part of nearly 3 weeks, for incorrectly spelling the word. The adult public went along with it.
Since that time, VP Quayle later became a billionaire and a “darling of Wall Street”.
Mr. Fiquererro lived in challenging impoverished conditions and went through many hardships after the incident. From last I read, he became a model Father and was proud of his children, despite his hardships. It is disappointing that none of the journalist, lawyers, government administrators, or teachers, at that time, saw fit to set up a scholarship fund or internship for what seemed to be a promising student.
The government actually bullied that 11 year old boy, and also bullied a nation of adults and the nation’s constitution. It bullied the adult citizens not to protect a child from abuse!
I do not know of any primary, secondary or post secondary school in the entire nation that has had a discussion regarding the incident, from that time to this. This seems to indicate an irresponsible adult citizenry, as well as a corrupt educational system.
The First Amendment is important for journalist to protect the rights of free speech, press and assembly to exchange thoughts. Speaking and writing are the manifestations or expression of thoughts.
The Right of Free Speech is predicated upon justice of everyone having his perspective observations and opinions heard without reprisal, or bullied into telling a lie by a tyrant!
The Right of Free Speech is especially important when one is indeed RIGHT!
Otherwise 2 + 2 becomes 5, just because no one has the courage to tell the truth that the Emperor has no clothes.
I am interested in ideas to rectify that which happened to Mr. Fiquererro and for this issue to be brought into the public sphere of mature discourse.
Hash Brown / February 18, 2019
Since I am really old, I actually remember who Dan Quayle was. The exchange over how to spell potato (the spelling my spell-check likes) was rather famous and was the equivalent of “going viral” in that pre-social-media age. Dan Quayle was already a laughing stock and the butt of many jokes, but this pushed him over the top into laughing stock immortality. Without this exchange, Quayle would be a hard-to-answer trivia question about obscure American VPs. Definitely small potatoes. 🙂 But to the extend that people are still laughing at him today, its because of potatoes.
LSJohn / February 19, 2019
I believe that GHWB chose Dan Quayle because of his ignorance and ineptness, for reasons related to the choosing of GW and, perhaps even Trump, if there’s anything to the not-to-be-ignored possibility that electronic vote counting was manipulated on BEHALF of Trump.
This is partially derivative of my view that GHWB was essentially in control of US foreign policy from the Hinckley assassination attempt which occurred in only the second month after Reagan’s first inauguration.
albert lucientes / March 21, 2019
You know what else is ‘important’? (more than important, tantamount to legitimacy) For Julian Assange to apologize for his attacks on, and denials of, 911 Truth. Somehow CJ, while spending endless hours criticizing the GWoT / war machine, has never, that I am aware of, written on the incontrovertible fact that the seminal events that birthed the blank check war machine were domestic crimes. That Muslims did not blow-up the Twin Towers, implode Building 7, and all the rest of it. Maybe someone can explain this glaring omission to me.
Bahmi / February 18, 2019
Veterans Today insists, over and over, that Wikileaks/Assange are both tools of the Mossad.Can you comment?
Hash Brown / February 18, 2019
Veterans Today runs a lot of strange pieces that don’t seem to have any relation to reality. I am rather well educated in one area that VT posts articles about regularly, and in that area they sound like complete idiots who appear to be trying to mislead people who don’t know that subject matter. Basically, I wouldn’t trust VT to say the sun was going to rise in the east tomorrow without independent confirmation.
Besides, anybody and anyone who is worth a dang on the internet gets smeared like this. Its almost a badge of honor.
Jim / February 18, 2019
How aboout a counterargument, a disproof, of the article’s claim that,
“There has never been a Wikileaks document about Israel ever released even though endless thousands, even hundreds of thousands of US documents, State Department files and cables/emails have been released.”
“The Strange Case of Julian Assange”
LSJohn / February 19, 2019
I don’t believe VT is to be taken seriously without considerable supporting data elsewhere.
I would consider the possibility stronger if considerably less damaging material had been released, which would leave open the possibility that sensitive info was being used as a stick. As it is, I don’t think the current government of Israel or Israeli Intelligence would find it useful to expose the US government to the US citizenry. The US government’s usefulness is somewhat limited by its ability to act with impunity, and that is limited by its credibility to the US public.
Jim / February 19, 2019
Your beliefs about VT and your vague speculations as to why a government or intelligence agency might or might not do X, Y or Z are irrelevant if you cannot disprove the statement. It’s a categorical statement requiring only one counterexample to prove it false. But no one has yet done so.
Remember the point that CJ made in “How To Tell If Someone Is Controlled Opposition”? Pay attention solely to the message! It doesn’t matter what else VT has published. If that statement is true, then it disrupts the mainstream narrative about Wikileaks. Mission accomplished. On to the next topic.
glider / February 20, 2019
Jim, your point is fairly absurd.
First off try a simple Google and find that documents have been published by Wikileaks that shed negative light on Israel here, see https://bit.ly/2SNK1cv.
Second, take a course in simple logic. If you want to strongly link Mossad to Wikileaks you had better show that of all the nations of the world only Israel has escaped Wikileaks. Otherwise your left concluding that all these other nations are part of the conspiracy you propose.
Third, a better explanation for a dearth of documents on Mossad/Israel is that they are a much smaller organization than the CIA/USA. Being much smaller (as well as transacting everything in Hebrew), greatly lowers the chance of having a few whistle blowers provide a leak in the first place. All this is not to mention that Israel has some the tightest security on the planet.
Fourth, if we follow CJ’s advice we ask ourselves why you are promoting another unproven narrative that smears Julian Assange.