A hateful little man

Julian Assange is a nasty, hateful, little man. Nick Cohen in the Observer notes the inherent evilness of Julian Assange:

“A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. “Well, they’re informants,” Assange replied. “So, if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it.” A silence fell on the table as the reporters realised that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths.”

I said at the time if Wikileaks that people would die as a result. Julian Assange probably has blood on his hands.

In Ethiopia, however, Assange has already claimed his first scalp. Argaw Ashine fled the country last week after WikiLeaks revealed that the reporter had spoken to an official from the American embassy in Addis Ababa about the regime’s plans to intimidate the independent press. WikiLeaks also revealed that a government official told Arshine about the planned assault on opposition journalists. Thus Assange and his colleagues not only endangered the journalist. They tipped off the cops that he had a source in the state apparatus.

Wikileaks tipped off Police! Not only that but the police of a corrupt dictatorship.

Once we have repeated Orwell’s line that “so much of leftwing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot”, there is work to do. First, there needs to be relentless pressure on the socialist socialites and haggard soixante-huitards who cheered Assange on. Bianca Jagger, Jemima Khan, John Pilger, Ken Loach and their like are fond of the egotistical slogan “not in my name.” They are well-heeled and well-padded men and women who know no fear in their lives. Yet they are happy to let their names be used by Assange as he brings fear into the lives of others.

I’ll start the cause here in New Zealand by naming one Martyn Bradbury as one of those who cheered on Julian Assange, and Malcolm Harbrow. While we are compiling names at in too Keith Locke and John Minto. Liberty Scott comments on these guys and Martyn Bradbury in particular.

Some are empty heads, others are typical left wing no thinkers.  However, it’s hard to beat Bomber for the utterings of hyperbolic vacuity:

“Assange and wikileaks will be seen as a threat that needs utter annihilation because he disrupts the balance of power in a way no person ever has“.

Bomber’s an idiot, but Assange is a vile evil little prick who revels in his celebrity status, whose kiddi-socialism has gained him lots of sycophantic followers with similar levels of adolescent simplicity in their beliefs.   The types that attack the West, while living in it, because they like to be rebels, they want to believe that politicians don’t tell you everything, that there are grand conspiracies between business, government and media to make sure you don’t know the truth.  They ignore real dictatorships because that’s not counter-establishment enough, after all the US, Europe and other Western countries already oppose Syria, Belarus, North Korea and the Taliban.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.


    “Julian Assange is a nasty, hate­ful, lit­tle man..”

    Well, he is a rapist also.

    Definite Labour party material….

    • diabolos

      Well mate not only labour have nasty hateful little men and women – nor do they have a corner on alleged rapists.

      Cheap shots are just that … cheap shots.

  • Mr Blobby

    You might be right.
    But, If we had transparency and openness then there would be nothing to leak.
    I can guarantee you that the general population is well and truly kept in the dark about a whole range of things, because somebody somewhere feels that they don’t need to know about it.
    The vast majority of Americans don’t have passports and have never left there country. The only information they have to base there decision making process on, is the absolute dribble that is American news. I would say propaganda but it would give propaganda a bad name. When I watch news reports from around the world from sources not freely available in New Zealand, we get the regurgitated American news here locally, I wonder if they are reporting on the same story.
    America the land of the Free I don’t think so.

    • “The only infor­ma­tion they have to base there deci­sion mak­ing process on, is the absolute drib­ble that is Amer­i­can news. I would say pro­pa­ganda but it would give pro­pa­ganda a bad name.”

      What rot. The vast majority of NZers get most of their news from TVNZ, TV3 and commercial radio news. It’s very shallow and sensationalism focused and is no better than US television news.

      Spent any time watching CCTV and understood its subtle way of ignoring certain stories? That’s propaganda. Tuned into “Voice of Korea” or “Radio Havana Cuba”? That’s propaganda.

      Americans have very high levels of unlimited internet access, a diverse range of excellent newspapers, a world leading range of radio stations and yes even some TV news that isn’t syndicated globally (as it isn’t CBS,ABC,NBC,CNN or Fox). Anyone in the US can set up a paper, radio station, TV channel (or get on public access TV) and say what they wish. About time you actually spent some decent time there and then visit some authoritarian states, and learn.

      • Mr Blobby

        Thanks for that
        Next time, I have a few hours spare and I want to feel like a criminal. Be fingerprinted, photographed and body searched (preferably cavity) I will race right on over to prison America.
        Land of the Free at what price.
        Try Russia Today and Press TV.

  • diabolos

    I think everyone and anyone who trades in – or has access to – or gets Leaked, any information about others – of a personal nature or of a nature that should normally be regarded as private – should take note of the responsibilities inherent in same. Particularly the morality of what is done with that information.

    I dont know that Assange is any more evil than anyone else in this new social-media’ed tipline loving and leak-loving world we now unfortunately live in. Kids get internet bullied via the viral spread of information – lies and truth both, possible with technology – lives get ruined – people get put at risk. Its like going through peoples rubbish bags to look to connect dots.

    Bloggers have also talked (and seemingly exulted) about the unstoppable nature of the new wave of new media – so its not just assange. Any one can say anything about anyone – start a whispering campaign online with just enough seeming verification – and bobs your uncle – no one knows the difference. There is a very good doco about the informant files of the Gestapo in Germany – people were encouraged to inform on each other – people were reported just because they looked – or acted – different.

    People also cheered on G W Bush Jr as well – and as a result a lot of people have died and we have an endless civil war. Bush was no different to Assange. The French and Nato will have to live with the box of tricks they’ve now opened in Libya as well – same old cycle unfolding.

    In a rabid search for “truth” – can we in fact simply perpetuate a great lie as well?

    Your points are very valid Cam.

  • orange

    “Julian Assange is a nasty, hate­ful, tall man..”

    I thought he was about 6 foot 2? (1.88m)

  • diabolos

    And just so its clear – after my usual longwinded boring monologue above – yes Assange is a publicity seeking ass for allowing such dangerous material into the public arena. Dont criticise intel agencies if you are going to do something just as bad yourself – if not worse.

    Just like the dumbass security guard who self righteously decided to steal CCTV footage – hope he got paid by the Sun for it in the end – although i doubt it.

  • It’ seems pretty ludicrous to describe Assange as having “blood on his hands” — what? In comparison to Bush, Blair and Cheney, you mean Cameron? Or the pilots/gunmen on the US chopper whose cockpit video & audio revealed such callous disregard for life?  

    As for belittling Assange’s  ‘moral fibre’, well, it doesn’t take much in the way of guts to climb on the ‘Bash Julian Assange’ bandwagon, from this distance, really, does it?

    If you fancy yourself as a maverick new wave media maven why would you so thoroughly, credulously buy such obvious character assassination of this ‘rogue’ by those who are complicit, craven and (IMO) jealous in mainstream media? 

    I enjoy some of Nick Cohen’s writing — his piece ‘Hatred is turning me into a Jew’ is very good  — but I don’t agree with his characterisation of Assange … nor your parroting of the hatchet job. 

    There will be others who seek to destroy his reputation. ‘Decapitation attacks’ is what the ‘intelligence community’ calls this sort of thing. Same with the ‘rapist’ smear. Par for the course. 


    • Nice rogue this is. He thought that informants on the Taliban “got what was coming to them” if it was published. How willfully blind can one be to think that someone who thinks in terms of moral equivalency between the Taliban and the forces fighting them.

      Nothing quite so delightfully casual as treating stone age murdering misogynists as the same as Western power soldiers.

      Of course he isn’t a rapist. Can’t possible have your pinup face criminal charges. Leftist “rebels” don’t rape do they? Only rightwing men rape. No point even going to court because “we all know” the justice system in the West is corrupt, just as bad as Afghanistan and Russia, and all those other places his supporters wouldn’t think twice about living in.

  • Robert

    You appear to have no background on the events that led to this.

    The Guardian (which had a copy of the unredacted cables) published a tell-all publicity-catching book in February. This book included passwords that gave access to unredacted cable archives that were encrypted.

    A former Wikileaks employee who was pushed out of the organisation (and started his own competing leaks site, OpenLeaks) published the unredacted cable archive. Eventually people put two and two together and used the published cable archive and the password published in the book to gain access to the entire unredacted cable archive.

    This having happened, it was determined by a public vote of interested parties (unanimously) that Wikileaks should publish the full archive to allow those who were potentially compromised to know that they were in peril. Every tinpot dictator worth their salt already had a copy of the unredacted cables by the time Wikileaks made a decision to release the cables.

    Also, you appear to be buying into the ‘cult of Assange’ that many have attempted to construct as a sort of strawman to attack. Wikileaks is *not* just Assange. He is the most visible spokesperson, but he does not act alone, and there is a considerably larger group of people for whom he speaks.

  • The demonisation of Julian Assange continues, but here’s a view from Crikey magazine’s 
    Guy Rundle of the Nick Cohen hatchet job: 

    Last Sunday’s Observer (The Guardian’s Sunday paper) featured a spittingly vituperative column from Nick Cohen, damning WikiLeaks for everything and nothing, but rehashing an old story about the organisation giving cables to a controversial Swedish-based journalist Israel Shamir. There was nothing new in Cohen’s piece, and the fact that The Economist had recently put the blame for “passwordgate” on The Guardian, rather than WikiLeaks.


    Julian Assange is a target. Without trying to sound sinister about it, it’s pretty clear there are forces out to neutralise if not destroy him. 

    He’s seen as a dangerous man and sadly, really dangerous nutters are being whipped up/encouraged to see him as a traitor … or worse.

    I salute his courage. As I have said before: Just like Daniel Ellsberg,  History will judge WikiLeaks. And they’ll be seen as right.

    – Peter