Thank you so much. Our enemies are our allies, over here. Nonapproval is an indicator of efficiency in finding the shared fight.
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 1:20 PM Zenaan Harkness <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:36:54PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 03:53:01PM -0400, John Young wrote: > > > Assange will be sacrificed and discarded by journalists once no longer > useful. > > > This is a long-standing practice to assure official protection and > privilege. > > > Assange once advocated this warning but was eventully coopted by > journalists > > > who joined his team and pushed the outreach to duplicitous journalism. > > > > > > Braying about threat to journalism by Assange's prosecution is a > deception op > > > conducted in cooperation with authorities. Snowden's promoters have > admitted > > > consulting with USG on what to publish, what to redact, what to > withhold. > > > Barton Gellman describes his following this CYA standard procedure in > Dark > > > Mirror. > > > > > > WikiLeaks burned sources with loose security, incoherent management, > Julian's > > > vanity and opportunism, thinking he could use cohorts for his purpose > without > > > penalty. The indictment outlines the parties he enlisted, quite a few > likely > > > to have decided to cooperate, like Sabu, the "Teenager," maybe > Appelbaum, > > > others pseudonymed. > > > > > > Those he has manipulated will turn against him under pressure from > prosecutors > > > against them, their families and friends. Same happened to Manning, > Swartz, > > > kirakou, Hammond, long list of others. > > > > > > Snowden will eventually be handed over to USG by those he came to > trust the > > > most. Trust wears thin over time and goosed by planted suspicions and > doubts, > > > ambition, need for income. And fans are notoriously fickle, don't give > a shit > > > after the excitement wanes, smears are spread, bots and media > countermesures > > > are unleashed, rewards are offered like Greenwald's "irresistables" > > > undergirding The Intercept. > > > > > > And there is always the AP option for terminating JA. Treachery of > supporters > > > is too. > > > > > > Much true here. > > > > True men of principle do not suffer greatly for vainglorious ends. > Though some may get caught up in the superficial, we should feel sorry for > them on that count, whilst at the same time upholding principles worthy. > > > > Manning may have procured her relief from her "double jeopardy" with a > (temp) non-disclosure, yet she remains vigilant to a tee in not "being a > dog and knifing Assange" for her own physical freedom - the loyalty of a > champion, and for the right foundation of righteous principle, so a huge > and gracious -thank you- to Manning! > > > > Assange had things to learn on his journey it appears - are any of us > exempt from such? Let's not shoot the messenger. Let's take a leaf from > Manning's book of grace and loyalty - if we asked her, would she hesitate > to say "punch up, not down" ? > > > > Assange was part of a team, and as incoherent and flawed as it may have > been, that team achieved massive wins - never forget that the results, from > a broader perspective have shaken the foundations of empire, with its > relentless revenge mission against Assange still in full swing to this day > after so many years. > > > > If as you say, Assange 'has manipulated' people on his Wikileaks > journey, just how many more years would -you- keep him locked up in Maxi, > how many more years from now (of Assange in jail), depriving his children > of their father, do you personally say that Assange ought be kept in the > slammer in order to mete out sufficient "justic" in your mind? > > > > This is a serious and real question to you John (no matter that we are > not the judiciary prosecuting him) - what be your position on the actual > pennance Assange, as you imply, ought pay? > > > > Yes there are always many options - perhaps we can help to spread the > word of caution, of loyalty, remind folks that ultimate dignity is that in > our own mirrored eyes, before our maker and with none between ... > > > John perhaps the following will resonate. > > This battle some of us have been in is not "merely against empire," it is > a battle for justice, truth, transparency, agency, righteousness, and in > too many cases, for life itself (the evils of Barack "Drone-Bama" come to > mind for example). "We fight not against men ..." > > In present times, when a supporter of such actually worthy goals goes in > to bat, to support, he may well be surprised to find that "a little genuine > support for a good cause" ends up locating him in a battle royale - in fact > battle after battle after night of the living dead battle! Some of us have > experienced this in wrenching, Soul purifying (hopefully) clarity. > > And when we appear to battle against "bleedingly obvious" stupidity and > uncoordination, incoherency and so many flaws it rips tears from our hearts > and eyes, literally, we are too often left desperatery wondering, should we > plead to the Gods? Are we doing something wrong in helping? Why do every > 5 steps forward seem to result in 4, 5 or 6 steps backwards? Am I able to > continue with even tiny steps forward in the face of this madness? And > many more similar ... > > Keep heart John and stay true to you. You might have noticed - we are in > extraordinarily testing times. > > When the Soul with a penchant for doing good in the face of evil, begins > to solidly stand, and act in pursuance of that which his conscience pricks > him with an awareness of, the human in training is tested. > > Sometimes severely tested. Gut wrenchingly, repeatedly, relentlessly > tested. > > Did I mention that sometimes we get tested? > > We may forget at times, but we choose our path - not the evil that we > fight, we did not choose that, but we make the choice to act, and we choose > how to act, what to do at each step. We can even choose to stop our good > work, but that way great sorrow, self loathing and pity, depression and > other ills do lie in wait and pounce on us as a hungry wolf ... > > > It's ok to fail. Pick self up, may be try again. > > > It is never other men we ought seek dignity before - in fact, we have a > sacred duty to let no man come between us and our maker, however you may > conceive of this. > > How can a man ever hope to have dignity when he seeks the approval of > another? > > Approval is an acceptable response to our actions (from those who for odd > reasons feel compelled to "approve" of other men), but success, and > failure, are imposters to the spirit - we know this of course but it is > good to remind ourselves occasionally. > > (And not that it matters in the Wikileaks saga, since intention of some at > least was fundamentally good and success and failure are imposters and all, > but in the WL saga, great strides were made - a paradigm was busted οpen, > and in the not too distant future, we will witness a cadre of Gen-Z'ers > follow in these "transparency or die" footsteps (which reminds me that in > principle at least, the USPS and public ledger systems may provide the kind > of radical transparency which some wish to see imposed on any power > hierarchy we are under).) > > > If you pray, then pray. If you meditate or contemplate, do that. > > Always remember if you do slip and find yourself seeking the approval of > men, that the things that matter, matter to those who matter, and no one > else matters much at all.. > There is proof inside many peoples' electronics. Proof that a marketing group would contract development of a frightening virus. A virus that responds to peoples' keystrokes and browsing habits, and changes what people see on their devices. A virus that alters political behavior en masse, for profit.
