Whats your opinion on Julian Assange?

md23040

md23040 wrote: »

Julian Assange espouses to be all about the importance of the free values and libertarianism of the Internet, but when the spotlight turns on him he runs as quickly as he can to the courts, seeking gagging orders for unfair intrusion.

...except when he is the accused. In that instance, he runs away from the Courts and legal systems...

Cienciano

Richard Hillman wrote: »

When he entered the Ecuadorian embassy he was a hero in the media classes. Ever since he went against Hillary Clinton he is now reported on as a villain.

You're right. But not because everyone loves Hillary. Because it was in the run up to the US election that it was fairly obvious what he was up to. Maximum damage to the Clinton campaign. When he was releasing documents people didn't mind him. When he was releasing them to do as much political damage to whoever Russia didn't like, that was the tipping point for most people.

Billy86

He's become a villain because he's now happy to sit on information and refuse to release it if it doesn't suit his agenda, spends his time spreading conspiracy theories, and has become an out and out liar (see: Chelsea Manning). He has basically got no credibility left at this point.

Your Face

Dunno, never met him.

hatrickpatrick

Cienciano wrote: »

You're right. But not because everyone loves Hillary. Because it was in the run up to the US election that it was fairly obvious what he was up to. Maximum damage to the Clinton campaign. When he was releasing documents people didn't mind him. When he was releasing them to do as much political damage to whoever Russia didn't like, that was the tipping point for most people.

I don't believe that for a second. If he's been attacking Trump in favour of Clinton, there is absolutely no possibility we would be having this conversation at all.

People take issue with Assange now for the same reason people suddenly take issue with Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc and those who astroturf them - where they never gave a bollocks before. The "wrong" candidate according to polite society and the establishment, got elected. It's the very fact that all of this hysteria wouldn't be happening if the exact same tactics had helped to get Clinton over the line instead of Trump which personally leads me to discount a lot of it. These things have only become a problem because people with power didn't get what they wanted.

I f*cking despise Trump but this is the one small silver lining of his victory, IMO. Entitled assholes who believe that there's a script to be followed, a right and wrong answer the public can give during an election, have been metaphorically punched in the face. But now they're trying to essentially slip their beliefs into the mainstream, calling for censorship of the internet and so on so that only the establishment message can get out there... Eh, no thanks.

Skylinehead

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't believe that for a second. If he's been attacking Trump in favour of Clinton, there is absolutely no possibility we would be having this conversation at all.

People take issue with Assange now for the same reason people suddenly take issue with Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc and those who astroturf them - where they never gave a bollocks before. The "wrong" candidate according to polite society and the establishment, got elected. It's the very fact that all of this hysteria wouldn't be happening if the exact same tactics had helped to get Clinton over the line instead of Trump which personally leads me to discount a lot of it. These things have only become a problem because people with power didn't get what they wanted.

I f*cking despise Trump but this is the one small silver lining of his victory, IMO. Entitled assholes who believe that there's a script to be followed, a right and wrong answer the public can give during an election, have been metaphorically punched in the face. But now they're trying to essentially slip their beliefs into the mainstream, calling for censorship of the internet and so on so that only the establishment message can get out there... Eh, no thanks.

Is this about Trump though? For me, it's more about the relationship between Assange, Clinton and Russia, Trump just happened to be the opposition here.

hatrickpatrick

Skylinehead wrote: »

Is this about Trump though? For me, it's more about the relationship between Assange, Clinton and Russia, Trump just happened to be the opposition here.

IMO you've got that connection backwards, TBH. The entire "Russian propaganda" story only appeared out of nowhere when Wikileaks published the DNC email cache. So I'd say that this is far more about Clinton, Trump, and Assange, with Russia just happening to be a convenient scapegoat.

Absolutely no evidence has been published - whatsoever - to conclusively link the Russian government to any of the data breaches which might have led to Wikileaks acquiring the information they leaked about the Democrats. Nothing whatsoever. Just "the intelligence community is in agreement" - you know, the same f*ckers who told us that Saddam had WMDs, that "The United States does not torture", and that "we are not spying on anybody without a warrant". The American intelligence community has zero credibility when it comes to telling the truth, so I'm sorry but I need more than the word of a fundamentally dishonest sector of government. I want to see the hard evidence, otherwise it remains an allegation and nothing more than an allegation.

I find it fairly disturbing how accepted this whole narrative is by the mainstream media, with nobody questioning whether there's even a possibility that it's a smokescreen.

bnt

I don't think I'd like the guy in person - he seems a bit self-aggrandizing - but that shouldn't be relevant at all. I'm more concerned about the agenda he has set for Wikileaks. While some criminal secrets should come to light, Wikileaks has been used in the service of specific national and party political agendas, and so I can't trust it to be impartial.

biko

He could be a massive douchebag for all I know
Hell, he could even be guilty of those rapes the Swedes are accusing him off.

That doesn't change the fact that the work Wikileaks are doing is good and important.

mcmoustache

Noel82 wrote: »

Got a source for that?

Sure

“We do have some information about the Republican campaign,” he said Friday, according to The Washington Post.

“I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day," Assange said.
"I mean, that’s a very strange reality for most of the media to be in."

hatrickpatrick

biko wrote: »

He could be a massive douchebag for all I know
Hell, he could even be guilty of those rapes the Swedes are accusing him off.

That doesn't change the fact that the work Wikileaks are doing is good and important.

It's kinda similar in a way to the debate over whether we should watch and enjoy classic films starring actors who have recently been exposed as sexual predators, I guess. I have always been and always will be a believer in separating the body of work from the worker, but I can totally respect that others don't see things that way. The only people in that debate who really get my goat are those on either side of that particular fence who look down on those on the other side of it - it's a complex issue, anyone claiming that either side is 100% right or wrong is a gobsh!te.

mcmoustache

biko wrote: »

He could be a massive douchebag for all I know
Hell, he could even be guilty of those rapes the Swedes are accusing him off.

That doesn't change the fact that the work Wikileaks are doing is good and important.

The kind of service that they provide is quite vital for a functioning democracy. I think that whistle-blowers need a secure location to drop files anonymously so that they can highlight wrong-doing without the fear of reprisal. This was particularly important during the Obama administration with record prosecutions of journalists under the espionage act.

Unfortunately Assange is not fit to lead it. Whether he's compromised or whether he's just really pissed off at last year's Dem presidential candidate, the leaks have become rather selective. As an example, he has refused to leak a cache of dirt on Russian oligarchs. I can understand his aversion to polonium but an organisation such as his should release everything and not be seen to be selective or partisan about it.

hatrickpatrick

mcmoustache wrote: »

The kind of service that they provide is quite vital for a functioning democracy. I think that whistle-blowers need a secure location to drop files anonymously so that they can highlight wrong-doing without the fear of reprisal. This was particularly important during the Obama administration with record prosecutions of journalists under the espionage act.

Unfortunately Assange is not fit to lead it. Whether he's compromised or whether he's just really pissed off at last year's Dem presidential candidate, the leaks have become rather selective. As an example, he has refused to leak a cache of dirt on Russian oligarchs. I can understand his aversion to polonium but an organisation such as his should release everything and not be seen to be selective or partisan about it.

This 100%. I think it also has to be considered that living inside a small embassy building not getting proper outdoor exercise or socialising is almost certainly going to f*ck someone up psychologically - it could easily be that part of the reason for his transition from champion of transparency to bitter anti-Clinton crusader could be fuelled by the madness which accompanies cabin fever.

He should have long ago handed editorial control over the organisation to somebody else - still being involved, still managing its operations etc, but giving the final say over publication to somebody who was not psychologically or emotionally compromised in this manner.

I still entirely scoff at the whole "Russian operative" bullsh!t, but there's no question that Assange is not an impartial editor, and that this has done serious, serious damage to the Wikileaks brand.

Skylinehead

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

IMO you've got that connection backwards, TBH. The entire "Russian propaganda" story only appeared out of nowhere when Wikileaks published the DNC email cache. So I'd say that this is far more about Clinton, Trump, and Assange, with Russia just happening to be a convenient scapegoat.

Absolutely no evidence has been published - whatsoever - to conclusively link the Russian government to any of the data breaches which might have led to Wikileaks acquiring the information they leaked about the Democrats. Nothing whatsoever. Just "the intelligence community is in agreement" - you know, the same f*ckers who told us that Saddam had WMDs, that "The United States does not torture", and that "we are not spying on anybody without a warrant". The American intelligence community has zero credibility when it comes to telling the truth, so I'm sorry but I need more than the word of a fundamentally dishonest sector of government. I want to see the hard evidence, otherwise it remains an allegation and nothing more than an allegation.

I find it fairly disturbing how accepted this whole narrative is by the mainstream media, with nobody questioning whether there's even a possibility that it's a smokescreen.

I never said that the Russians provided the DNC emails, but you can't deny there's something up there with them and Assange. He had his own RT show, he refuses to release Russian leaked data...it's clear he's compromised in some sense now. That or he doesn't really believe in open democracy, if he won't expose Russia of all places.

hatrickpatrick

Skylinehead wrote: »

I never said that the Russians provided the DNC emails, but you can't deny there's something up there with them and Assange. He had his own RT show, he refuses to release Russian leaked data...it's clear he's compromised in some sense now. That or he doesn't really believe in open democracy, if he won't expose Russia of all places.

I honestly feel that the latter is more likely - that since the establishment Democrats in the US decided to open this "Cold War 2.0" angle to distract from their own bullsh!t, Assange decided to take the Russian side in it not because he likes Russia but because he despises the Democratic establishment with that much intensity. I just think the idea that he's actually worked for them directly or been in cahoots with somebody in the Russian government utterly moronic, especially when there's been absolutely no evidence presented for that.

The reason I brought up the whole DNC thing is because the Russia thing has become the go-to put-down from status quo supporting centre-right Democrats against left wing populist Democrats (in the 2016 context, from Clinton supporters to Sanders supporters, in the current context, from "support any democrat against any republican" supporters to "get rid of the centre-right dems first and then support their replacements against any Republican" supporters. And it's getting really, really, really old. In other words, it's literally becoming the norm for people to say "if you oppose the establishment side of the Democratic Party, you must be being manipulated by Russian propaganda" - as if opposing a left wing party's slide to the right just because you don't ideologically agree with it is simply impossible.

daveyeh

The guy who fisted Norman Lamont? Funny man. Never afraid to stir a bit of s**t.

pawdee

I wonder if the Ecuadorian Embassy has a large back garden? Is he allowed to go there for fresh air? Is he taking vitamin D supplements? What's his diet like? Does he get takeaways? What's his daily routine? Does he have access to Vegemite?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

TAFKAlawhec

TAFKAlawhec wrote: »

Is Assange guilty of what he's accused of? I don't know (the Swedes have dropped the rape allegations against him) but it seems the tolerance of the Ecuadorian diplomats are being tested by him to the point that if there doesn't be a third party mediator that the Ecuadorians are asking for then I reckon sooner or later they'll kick Assange to the pavement outside the front door and will phone the London Met police a few minutes before doing so, Assange's reputation already having been shot by this stage.

Hmm, this puts a little twist on things.

The Ecuadorean government has confirmed that Julian Assange was granted Ecuadorean citizenship on 12 December.


Ecuador subsequently asked the UK to recognise Mr Assange as a diplomatic agent - a move that could have given him immunity.


The UK has refused, saying Mr Assange - who has been at the embassy since 2012 - should now leave and "face justice".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42648171

Jamsiek

biko wrote: »

I can easily say you and I hold opposing views on this matter.
It's the people that scheme in the dark that cause the problems we see today, not the people bringing things up into the light.

The problem is they are picking and choosing what to bring "up into the light".
They used to be like you said but those days are no more.

Jamsiek

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

The bitterness of Clinton's posse against him and their ludicrous accusations that he is a Russian lackey is reason enough to love the guy

After all the dirt he revealed as to Clinton being an utterly corrupt, dangerous, sleazebag it says a lot that her blind devotees go after him as a Russian troll rather than be disgusted with the truth about Clinton.

Why has he not released anything about the Russians or Trump?
He has his agenda and has run out of credibility.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

BBDBB

Jamsiek wrote: »

The problem is they are picking and choosing what to bring "up into the light".
They used to be like you said but those days are no more.

Thats it exactly

selecting what to bring into the light AND selecting how it is presented to the light. It is entirely possible to portray the same identical story in more than one way depending upon the agenda you are serving

Due to human subjectivity and the influences of it that affect judgement no one is entitled to declare that they own the "truth", which is very frustrating but largely accurate

Odhinn

mcmoustache wrote: »

The kind of service that they provide is quite vital for a functioning democracy. I think that whistle-blowers need a secure location to drop files anonymously so that they can highlight wrong-doing without the fear of reprisal. This was particularly important during the Obama administration with record prosecutions of journalists under the espionage act.

Unfortunately Assange is not fit to lead it. Whether he's compromised or whether he's just really pissed off at last year's Dem presidential candidate, the leaks have become rather selective. As an example, he has refused to leak a cache of dirt on Russian oligarchs. I can understand his aversion to polonium but an organisation such as his should release everything and not be seen to be selective or partisan about it.

I'd take a guess that the seeming partiality to Russia may be to do with the fact that they are about his best bet to stay safe from the Americans, who he believes are after him.

511

According to the geniuses of AH, having an immense dislike of Hillary Clinton make you a puppet for the Russian government.

Trump is far more likely to pardon Assange than Clinton, so I don't blame Assange for sabotaging Clinton's campaign. It's either 4 years of Trump and possible freedom or continue running away from the U.S Government with Clinton hunting for his head to put on her mantelpiece.

Assange was always an anti-establishment guy and Clinton is part of the establishment, so by sabotaging the election for Clinton he didn't deviate too far away from his usual practices.

Vladimir Poontang

Clinton sabotaged herself. Assange just released the truth about her.

scamalert

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

Clinton sabotaged herself. Assange just released the truth about her.

Snowden did the same when he released that US is tapping everyone's phones etc, that earned him basically life in cell if he ever gets kicked out of Russia.Yet he revealed the truth which deems him as criminal by the governments so go figure, since it seems only elite are allowed to fck around with society and tell people how to live yet they can do whatever they want, seems most governments are run like this :cool:

Billy86

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

Clinton sabotaged herself. Assange just released the truth about her.

This is fairly true, what's troubling is why he refuses to release the truth about others and felt the need to push conspiracy theories and lies like with Seth Rich.

Noel82

Guy has a god complex for sure. Put his life on the line releasing documents about the CIA etc, gotta respect that. I think he has a huge hatred for Clinton - When he dumped that Helicopter vid it was Bush in power but the shoe has flipped now and people forget that. Gingrich, Hannity, even Trump called for his head back then.

Stuff like the Seth Rich leanings like above poster said has definitely given ammunition to people suggesting he's a Russian stooge these days, and rightly so. I'm not convinced.

blackwhite

Lux23 wrote: »

That is sarcasm, right?

Google the quote......... baby

TAFKAlawhec

511 wrote: »

Trump is far more likely to pardon Assange than Clinton, so I don't blame Assange for sabotaging Clinton's campaign.

If this is the case, why does he continue to hole himself up in the Ecuadorian embassy when at pretty much at any point in 2017, if Trump was "far more likely to pardon [him] than Clinton" he shouldn't have that much to fear by stepping outside the embassy front door then?

s7ryf3925pivug

I reckon he became an agent for Russia years ago, and his motivation for setting up wikileaks in the first place was just self aggrandisement.

PVNevin

Demonstartion in Sydney June 17, and vigil in London June 19

John Pilger calls for campaign to free Julian Assange:

Justice and freedom for Julian Assange mean free speech for us all
The Courage Foundation announces an urgent campaign to support Julian Assange and demand his freedom. Keep an eye on our liveblog for updates.

John Pilger
This month, it will be six years since Julian was forced to take refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London. He had been warned; the US Department of Justice was likely to file an application with Britain’s Home Office for his extradition to the United States. The allegations against Julian and WikiLeaks in the US were subsequently declared secret by a US District Court judge, but it has since been confirmed that a grand jury in Virginia has concocted a number of possible ‘charges’ against the WikiLeaks founder.
The most likely of these is ‘espionage,’ which harks back to a long-defunct First World War law designed to punish conscientious objectors.
Julian is not an American; neither has he ‘betrayed’ any state. His ‘crime’ has been free journalism and publishing, which are protected under the US Constitution, a document whose sanctity has apparently been jettisoned.
WikiLeaks has done no more than the New York Times and the Washington Post in their celebrated past—it has revealed the truth about rapacious wars and the machinations of a corrupt elite. In response to this truth-telling, a Cold War fantasy known as ‘Russiagate’ has attempted to paint Julian—and by extension all journalists—as some ‘spies.’
What CNN and the rest of the media do not tell you is that the most senior of US intelligence have admitted under oath that their agencies have found not the slightest evidence to link Assange or WikiLeaks to Russia.
Julian’s status as a political refugee under the 1951 Convention has the backing of the United Nations, whose Working Party on Arbitrary Detentions has demanded an end to his persecution. The Working Party, one of the world’s highest authorities on international law, conducted an investigation in which the British Government took part, and found unanimously in Julian’s favour.
The UN calls on Britain to honour its responsibilities under the Convention and give Julian right of passage out of the embassy.
Although his health is suffering, Julian cannot go to a hospital for an X-ray as almost certainly he will be arrested.
Since Easter, Julian’s isolation has become extreme; according to Human Rights Watch, “His refuge in the embassy looks more and more like solitary confinement.”
He is denied basic communications; he is refused access to the phone and internet and visitors are forbidden. In forging a new, deferential relationship with the United States, President Lenín Moreno and the Ecuadorean government clearly aim to make life so difficult for Julian that he is silenced completely or he is forced to leave the embassy, into the waiting arms of the police.
A US extradition application is likely to follow and Julian will be destined for the kind of penal hell-hole that Chelsea Manning endured. The former president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, whose government granted Julian political asylum, has condemned his treatment as ‘torture.’
We at Courage ask people to support vigils on June 19—at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, 6-8pm, info here, as well as the demonstration in Sydney, Australia on 17 June, at 1pm at Town Hall Square, info here.
https://wiseupaction.info/2018/05/01/vigil-call-out-stand-up-for-wikileaks-julian-assange-19th-of-june-2018-6-embassy-years/
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/29/pilg-m29.html

Jamsiek

PVNevin wrote: »

Sorry but I just can’t bring myself to feel any pity for this guy.
He should just give her myself up and Trump will probably just pardon him anyway. Afterall Assange helped him win the election.
To say he did no more than journalists is insulting to journalists. He had endangered lives and security all for the sake of his ego.
A petition is a waste of time

PVNevin

We live in a world, and have done for quite a few years now, where the bourgeois press and mass media are in effect mouthpieces of their respective governments.
The reason young people and more and more citizens have turned their backs on mainstream journalism is simply because they do not trust or believe it.
The American state has been involved in unbroken wars of aggression since 2003.
Wikileaks has been the most significant breaker of information uncovering the crimes of American state wars around the world.
For this Assange is maligned, slandered and hounded by the cruel state forces of oppression. They muddy the waters with innuendo, lies and sneers. Attempting to undermine his credibility. These are the methods of the liar, the tools of the rich and powerful, who have every reason to hide the truth.
What is especially significant in recent years is that the so-called left-wing parties and 'radical' personalities have fallen into line with the slanders.
Indeed it is an extremely accurate indicator in judging the phoney character or otherwise of claimed leftists by their position and defence, or lack thereof, of Assange
However, in the opinion of many, many people Julian Assange is an exceptionally brave and principled defender of the truth. A journalist that deserves the name.
I would call on all to vigorously support the campaign for his defence. Listed in my post above.

end of the road

Jamsiek wrote: »

PVNevin wrote: »

Sorry but I just can’t bring myself to feel any pity for this guy.
He should just give her myself up and Trump will probably just pardon him anyway. Afterall Assange helped him win the election.
To say he did no more than journalists is insulting to journalists. He had endangered lives and security all for the sake of his ego.
A petition is a waste of time

who's lives and what security did he endanger?

Jamsiek

end of the road wrote: »

Jamsiek wrote: »

who's lives and what security did he endanger?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen

s7ryf3925pivug

Cambridge Analytica director 'met Assange to discuss US election'

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/06/cambridge-analytica-brittany-kaiser-julian-assange-wikileaks?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

News today.

I reckon Russia has some serious leverage with him. I speculate that it is evidence that he did something very bad. This is consistent with his flight from sexual assault charges.

Billy86

The guy is a fraud, complete liar and hypocrite engaging in exactly what he was originally claiming to be against. He had most of us suckered in there for a while, but the real Julian Assange showed himself quite a long time ago.

Dohnjoe

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

He's a class act. He's a rebel. And he stands up to bullies.

Snowden maybe, but not Assange

Assange is clearly a bitter man who has used and abused Wikileaks as a tool to hit establishment figures such as Clinton. From the outlet I strongly supported Wikileaks but over time they have become (or been revealed) as a compromised partisan group operating under a false "objective" veil. Ironically leaks from the group itself have shown as much

Snowden is in this for principles (misguided or not), Assange was in this for himself and his vendettas against the establishment

jimmycrackcorm

PVNevin wrote:

The American state has been involved in unbroken wars of aggression since 2003. Wikileaks has been the most significant breaker of information uncovering the crimes of American state wars around the world. For this Assange is maligned, slandered and hounded by the cruel state forces of oppression.
...
However, in the opinion of many, many people Julian Assange is an exceptionally brave and principled defender of the truth. A journalist that deserves the name. I would call on all to vigorously support the campaign for his defence. Listed in my post above.

Strange how there are no exposed Russian secrets on WikiLeaks.

7aubzxk43m2sni

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Strange how there are no exposed Russian secrets on WikiLeaks.

It it possible that no Russian secrets were given to WikiLeaks?

Billy86

Sage Straight Schwa wrote: »

It it possible that no Russian secrets were given to WikiLeaks?

Nope, they have repeatedly refused to release or removed damaging info on Russia.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/amp/

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/gizmodo.com/wikileaks-may-have-withheld-key-russian-documents-from-1786445992/amp

Maybe it has something to do with their close connections to the Kremlin, who were feeding them much of their info in 2016 during the US election?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/dnc-hacker-guccifer-confirmed-as-russian-agent-after-forgetting-to-conceal-identity-2018-3

hatrickpatrick

He wants to destabilise the Western hegemony; for that alone he gets my support. I personally don't really care whether he's doing it because of his own personal beliefs (which I reckon he is) or because some other government, Russia for instance, has directed him to. Destabilising power is good for the world regardless of the motive. The existence of superpowers which impose their will on sovereign nations by force is bad, end of story, and the fewer of them we have in the world the better.

Billy86

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The existence of superpowers which impose their will on sovereign nations by force is bad, end of story, and the fewer of them we have in the world the better.

Russia, who Assange often acts on behalf of, also get up to a whole lot of that though?

hatrickpatrick

Billy86 wrote: »

Russia, who Assange often acts on behalf of, also get up to a whole lot of that though?

Sure, but Russia as a former superpower isn't opposed to power itself, it just wants to swing more of it back to itself.

I'm just anti-power in general. Anything which destabilises the establishment, IE those who currently hold power in this world, is a good thing in my book. The world is currently structured in such a way that a relatively small cohort of humans have the power to control the lives of a vast cohort, and that simply isn't right as far as I'm concerned. Literally anyone who wants to take the powerful down a peg or two is someone I'll cheer for. The only exception is when they're only doing it in order to take that power for themselves rather than scatter it around, and Putin is definitely in this category.

Personally I just don't believe the Russia thing to be nearly as big a story as it's made out to be. It's a convenient bogeyman for the Western establishment to distract from their own bad behaviour.

Billy86

I do generally agree with you on that end (that a world without 'great powers' could be a lot better), but the fact is Russia has for years been aggressively pushing into other countries lands and has shown very little that they don't want to continue to do so. The US can be a right shower of cnuts to put it mildly, but seeing the kind of regime and culture that this Russian regime prefers, I would stay far, far away from them.

Dohnjoe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sure, but Russia as a former superpower isn't opposed to power itself, it just wants to swing more of it back to itself.

I'm just anti-power in general.

It sounds like Russia gets an "out" from you. A power that in just the last few years has deliberately sparked a war in a neighbouring country, annexed territory, supported an isolated dictator in one of the world's worst conflicts, meddled in democratic elections, engaged in an extensive "hybrid warfare" and it's own "information war"

I'm not disagreeing with your personal world view, but if you're anti-establishment, why be selective about it? surely that mirrors Assange's hypocritical views (selective leaks)

hatrickpatrick

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It sounds like Russia gets an "out" from you. A power that in just the last few years has deliberately sparked a war in a neighbouring country, annexed territory, supported an isolated dictator in one of the world's worst conflicts, meddled in democratic elections, engaged in an extensive "hybrid warfare" and it's own "information war"

I'm not disagreeing with your personal world view, but if you're anti-establishment, why be selective about it? surely that mirrors Assange's hypocritical views (selective leaks)

It doesn't get an "out" from me. I despise Putin and his government. But they don't represent me, and they never did. I'm somewhat angrier at the West, simply because I was raised on the bullsh!t propaganda of "Western power is used for good in the world" and I'm understandably bitter that that was a massive lie. It's similar to why I have such disdain for the Catholic Church despite other religions committing far worse acts of evil in the world - nobody likes realising that they've been misled and lied to. There are plenty of scumbags in Judaism and Islam, but I wasn't raised to believe otherwise and put my faith in those people.

If the West won't live up to the propaganda it instills in its young people, it shouldn't be too surprised when those young people come to despise it.

In other words - Russia doesn't represent me. I was never taught as a kid that Russia is a shining beacon of hope in the world. I was taught that the West is, which turned out to be bullsh!t. My ill-feelings towards Western hegemony come primarily from the fact that I, along with most of my peers, was raised to believe that Western hegemony was used for the good of all mankind and not to feather the nests of a small elite at the cost of millions of innocent lives.

Dohnjoe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If the West won't live up to the propaganda it instills in its young people, it shouldn't be too surprised when those young people come to despise it.

"The West" is a very diverse (subjective) basket of countries. Everything from Italy to Canada. I've never had propaganda about the "greatness" of e.g. Italy instilled in me as a child. "Western" economics or "Western" philosophy or "Western" culture is also deeply diverse and has it's roots going all the way back to Socrates and the medieval world. Trying to give it a personality and suggest it's all a bit nefarious is somewhat bizarre.

Personally I believe it's possible these types of views can be formed from singular events, e. g. particular administrations during the Iraq war, fermented by a sense of hypocrisy and then projected as a general view

I think it should be on a case-by-case (administration by administration) basis rather than an overarching generalised view, but just my opinion