> Am 15.04.2019 um 14:04 schrieb podinski :
>
> I was hoping more women might weigh in here... ( with all the possible
> anger flying from the personal life scandal loops ... and there is one
> potent feminist angle that seems more unavoidable than others ... That
> if the US extradition now
20:05 -0700
> From: Molly Hankwitz
> To: tbyfield
> Cc: Morlock Elloi , a moderated mailing list
> for net criticism
> Subject: Re: Guardian Live on Assange's arrest
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear ted, M
I agree Assange's impact has been immense, but that kind of heroic model
is a counterproductive way of thinking about Assange and his
contributions. If anything, the distinctive (maybe even decisive)
feature of the last decade was its lack of heroes and the growing sense
that we're enmeshed in
On 11 Apr 2019, at 14:18, Morlock Elloi wrote:
OK, let's look at it from another angle: who did, in the last 10
years, change public discourse in the desirable (to me at least) way
more than Wikileaks and its staff? Suntanned POTUS? Pope? Habermas?
Mother Theresa? Dalai Lama? Zizek? Beyonce?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D351_3qWwAEkMXt.jpg
Now watch the sad show of British and their judicial system as they bend
# distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the
The bluring of the Swedish allegations and request for extradition and the US
request for
allegations have proved a useful smoke screen for the authorities.
This deliberate bluring makes it particularly important that we don’t add to
the fog by eliding
all the allegations into one
The principal sin is that Wikileaks undermined (by explicitly exposing
crimes) the wide spread belief among subjects of modern states: "it is
OK for my state/party to behave criminally, because I benefit from it,
as long as they keep it quiet". This is the unpardonable offense.
If documenting
On 11.04.19 20:18, Morlock Elloi wrote:
>
> 1. Wikileaks servers could not be suppressed neither by rubberhosing
> service providers, registrars, nor telecoms. They did try, for a
> long time. If they could, none of this would happen.
>
> 2. Wikileaks sources were far better protected than
Assange masterfully seduced the press, in that way presaged Trump's
bountiful curative to a dying paper-profession unable to overcome
online challenges, WikiLeaks was little noticed from October 2006
founding until Collateral Murder was staged in April 2010 (at the
National Press Club, where
not the most urgen question, but still: does anybody understand or saw a
proper explanation of why RT's proxy agency was the only crew filming? (RT's
explanation, that they are the last professionals left I've seen) # distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated
Ecuador changed government.
Old government's networks of cream skimming were focused on China.
New government wants to establish its own flows of cash corruption, so
they return to the old sugar daddy, USA.
Getting back in to favourable trade relations costs some thing.
Assange is a thing.
*Semi*-voluntary is just a statement of fact, not an evaluation: he had
more choices than someone entirely in custody. None of those choices
were good, and, like I said, I don't think any of them could have
changed this outcome — that, sooner or later, he'd be physically
removed from the
There is no such thing as "Swedish request for extradition" - this is
fact that is easily checked. He was never charged. The case was dropped.
It was manufactured attempt by US to snatch him.
It's really depressing how effective the propaganda is.
Now repeat:
There is no such thing as
Given the nature of the allegations agree to Swedish request for extradition.
But refuse extradition to US for allegations related to publishing activities.
On 11 Apr 2019, at 18:02, Morlock Elloi wrote:
> What was the voluntary part? Lifelong imprisonment in the US or execution are
>
On 2019-04-11 19:01, newme...@aol.com wrote:
It is "Five Eyes" who are now trying to crack down on the Internet --
as reflected in the communiques coming from their last meeting in
Australia. "Regulation" of Facebook is also likely to be based on
their plans -- as reflected in recent sweeping
Ted :
> A better line of questions might involve what's changed since he > first
>entered the embassy.
A better line of questions involves what's changed in the last few weeks . . .
!!
What is now in motion is the investigate-the-investigators phase of the "soft
coup" against Trump. At the
So far, coverage has understandably focused on the event of Assange's
arrest. Lots of voices are arguing that it's 'chilling' — as if
keeping someone jailed other names for six+ years in a forlorn and
ambiguous situation weren't chilling. If anything, the indefinite
uncertainty of his
Democracy Now is doing interviews on this, which you can access via
their twitter feed.
https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/1116320933977841664/video/1
and there, Glenn Greenwald makes the point that Assange is neither US
citizen, nor is Wikileaks a US-based news organization, thus "the idea
On 2019-04-11 13:16, John Young wrote:
New TV link of Assange arrest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stTMt1tLT4g
There are already 3 pages of minute-by-minute reporting on the arrest,
pbly m few more to come:
19 matches
Mail list logo
