don't i know it

[click image]

.

Julian Assange, it turns out, has pissed-off most of Greater Blogistan by saying this. He is being 100% accurate, in a spectacularly beautiful-to-me way here. You may have noticed that I have slowed up with my determination to bring you the raw materials over what people have to say about them, dancing all around them, because it became very clear to me that no one was interested in the raw data. People are barely interested in the digested data. People are barely interested in the dancing around the data. People will only slow their tube luge when they find bits that agree with what they already think. Content providers with an eye to awakening their visitors to serious matters are, in relative terms, internet flops.

The gadflies are hissing about Assange's bluntness on this score.

This is the second time I have felt a hard kick in my gut to put myself at his service, maybe help him summarize the material, or just go out and mow down all his opposition... preferring of course the former, but maybe being better-suited to the latter... who can tell? Probably you.

The snippet at the image link can be found in its entirety here.

.

I want to add that people like this guy, who are disparaging Assange on bases like these:

DEBKAfile, in an article in its subscription-only version, is contending that Britain leaked the military reports published in Wikileaks.

Their arguments are that only US reports were leaked, indicating that the US was specifically being targeted. The (British) Guardian played the lead role in coordinating publication of a prefabricated storyline leveling several damaging accusations against the US and casting Julian Assange as a persecuted victim. The Guardian, New York Times, and Der Speigel all agreed to run the story as proposed and accepted the July 25 publication deadline without having actually read more than 2% of the documents.

DEBKA notes that all the leak documents cover six-year period ending in December 2009, their interval terminating at the point at which President Obama announced his new Afghanistan War strategy. DEBKA contends that the end point is deliberate, sparing Obama specific association with accusations arising from the leaked documents, but also implicitly warning that the next batch could be aimed his way.

The British motivation, according to DEBKAfile, would be Barack Obama’s systematic downgrading of the British-American special relationship on the basis of personal and ideological anti-colonialist resentments, specifically exacerbated by the administration’s vilifying BP over an unfortunate accident followed by accusations in the US Congress that BP played a role in securing the Lockerbie bomber’s release. Retired senior official from MI5 and MI6 are rumored to hold positions on BP’s board of directors.

don't seem to take into account that Assange himself might well be, probably is, completely innocent of any complicity in the duplicity possibly being perpetrated upon him to discredit him... which is what they do before they literally assassinate people like Julian Assange.

It has been my theory for some weeks that this Manning kid has agreed to play the leaker of this information in exchange for a sex change and a brand new identity. The basis for this is starting to hit the mainstream, but I noted somewhere in my wanderings quite a while back. So maybe you want to consider this. Unbelievable as you might find it that anyone could come out as brazenly manly as Assange has without it being a setup, it is not without historical precedent and, again, even if it IS faked, it is STILL good for putting the right ideas in people's heads.

.