Today, Wikileaks founder Assange lost his extradition fight in London in the first round. Details to this dubious case can be found on Sweden Vs. Assange. Let's return to what the man stands for. Two remarks really touching a nerve made by Julian Assange in an RT-Interview, published on May 2nd, 2011.
 |
| WikiLeaks Logo |
Mr. Assange makes clear what he thinks of mass media infotainment production and their involvement and participation in war preparations. His bad experiences with the so-called fourth estate are clearly first hand, after the disappointing collaboration with mass-media proponents like The Guardian, The Independent, The New York Times and German Spiegel. Challenging the powerful has brought him and Wikileaks a witch-hunt orchestrated by the US and the blockade of WikiLeaks bank accounts by Visa, Mastercard and Paypal:*
"Our No. 1 enemy is ignorance. And I believe that is the No. 1 enemy for everyone – it’s not understanding what actually is going on in the world. It's only when you start to understand that you can make effective decisions and effective plans. Now, the question is, who is promoting ignorance? Well, those organizations that try to keep things secret, and those organizations which distort true information to make it false or misrepresentative. In this latter category, it is bad media.
It really is my opinion that media in general are so bad that we have to question whether the world wouldn't be better off without them altogether. They are so distortive to how the world actually is that the result is… we see wars, and we see corrupt governments continue on.
One of the hopeful things that I’ve discovered is that nearly every war that has started in the past 50 years has been a result of media lies. The media could've stopped it if they had searched deep enough; if they hadn't reprinted government propaganda they could've stopped it. But what does that mean? Well, that means that basically populations don't like wars, and populations have to be fooled into wars. Populations don't willingly, with open eyes, go into a war. So if we have a good media environment, then we also have a peaceful environment."
These are really questions worth to be considered. Of what use for the public are the mass-media, given the fact that selling information is done under the maximizing profit strategy of international corporations whose linkages to governments and other interest groups are highly dubious? And what are the alternatives?
The internet is the most interesting stage where you can compare the opinions (and there are almost only opinions) published by the mass media with the opinions of the rest of the world. These two types are extremely diverging. One world of opinion seems to be publishing without investigations what governments, press agencies and others let out, and the other (mostly normal citizens but with common sense) wondering about the inconsistencies and absurdities of these published opinions. Warmongering is always a good example, another would be the half-religious beliefs of economy. The lies you get there are literally unbelievable but nevertheless repeated by the infotainment ad nauseam. On the other side, one should note that the rest of the world does not seem to let that go unchallenged. Most remarkable are some online newspapers having a mostly well-educated and critical readership (e.g. Austrian Der Standard): the articles and authors often being between average and ridiculous are court-martialled and shot by the readers in hundreds of comments in a most entertaining and often enlightening manner. The discrepancies between these two worlds becoming manifest more and more and in such a constant manner that it's really getting spooky.
The second thing Mr. Assange commented quite adequately is the role of the US in regard to international law.
"Obama has given up on closing Guantanamo and has decided to re-open the trial process. And we now have a situation where even the Obama administration says that 48 of those people still in Guantanamo are completely innocent and they should be sent somewhere, and they are not being sent anywhere. So, completely innocent people are incarcerated for years and years and years with no trial and no hope of relief. No country would agree to house them, including the United States. But the United States has made them its problem.
The United States was involved in rounding up these innocent people, setting up a process that was from the very beginning corrupt. There is a reason why they are in Guantanamo and not on the US mainland and not in an allied country. And that reason was to hide them and to keep them outside of the law. Just like you have Caribbean islands engaged in money laundering, the United States is engaged in people laundering."
Did you ever wonder about the US hegemon being called world's policeman? That's clearly a totally inappropriate euphemism: a policeman is supposed to execute law and to act according to law, but the US are trying to circumvent law whenever they can. So Outlaw seems to be fitting well.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment