”Free Assange” is on the thread title. Demands to ”free Assange” appeared after he was wanted for questioning by Swedish prosecution on the allegations of two Swedish women, both working as volunteers for Wikileaks at the time of the alleged assaults.

”Free Assange”, but free him from what? From the allegations, of course. Mr Assange told the media that he was innocent, and it was all just dirty smear from the Pentagon and the CIA. He was all over the media telling how innocent he is and everyone is lying.

He got rid of the Wikileaks volunteers who didn't believe his innocence on the matter or who suggested that he should face the allegations. Then he hired staff with the money that was coming from everywhere to support him. He hired an army of lawyers to represent himself against the two Swedish women and the state of Sweden.

Then he fled from Sweden, wanted to find refuge in Switzerland and ended up in the UK where he had rich friends and supporters who believed his every word – that's just what the supporters are for, right? Well, that, and donations. ”Wikileaks needs you – Donate!” But just don't ask where all the money is going, because you will end up on their list of enemies.

But the state of Sweden just couldn't forget the matter despite the cries and demands coming from millions of Assange supporters. Sweden wanted to question him, because that's how criminal investigation works in that country, no matter how much one Australian man is against all that. Mr Assange is too busy to be bothered with questions coming from some female prosecutor in Sweden, after all he's the world hero and there are two wars he needs to end. Busy busy busy, he said.

For more than a year Assange has been avoiding Swedish prosecution, with the help of supporters and donations. There are good people on this planet who want to believe in Assange. People give him money, they want to volunteer, they want to support a good cause, and they want to fight the enemies. I find it pretty interesting who and what the enemies of Assange are these days.

There's no criticism allowed amongst Assange support groups or ”Wikileaks support groups”. The world hero mustn't be criticized. That's what ”free speech” is then, these days, eh? I remember when it used to be different. Mr Assange, his lawyers, and his fanatic fanciers repeat each other's words. If you repeat them too, you're fine and welcomed. That's what they call ”the truth” these days.

Oh yeah, and that thing about ”transparency”, remember that high ideal that used to surround Wikileaks. Turns out it's not a Wikileaks issue at all. We mustn't demand any transparency from the organization of Wikileaks, because we need to trust Assange. He's telling the truth. We can't criticise. We need to believe and not ask too many questions. Remember to donate.

Didn't anybody notice how suddenly the Wikileaks site was only interested in donations and money? Didn't anyone notice how Wikileaks site changed from a site, where it was possible to leak information into, into a site, where the most important thing seemed to be Assange's face, all dressed up to please his fans, providing them with all the merchandise and all the ways to make money transfers to either Wikileaks or Julian Assange Defense Fund. Ways to Donate Monay are so important these days.

Free Assange! Let him escape justice. After all, what are high ideals for, if not to break. I remember the old days, when I used to think how important Wikileaks was with values of truth, transparency, freedom of information, free speech and justice.

That's what ”free speech” is then, these days,

No, free speech is what you've just done--aired your opinion.
Opinions can be informed or uninformed, and as we all know, everyone has got one.

Free thought is what I am doing right now, deciding if it is worth my effort to explain to you the difference between an emotionally charged rant and a careful look at the facts that have so far been established.

On balance, I think you are just trawling for a bite, so I won't bother until you come up with some specifics that indicate some reading and thought on your part, thanks.

uh, all ways of funding Wikileaks were blocked by government pressure.
Paypal, and all credit card donations were blocked.
So wikileaks was not able to raise funds to operate.

Its going to be up to a court to determine what happened in those sexual encounters. Read the links above for more details on that.


But Wikileaks and other sites like Wikileaks, need to go on to publish banned and censored documents, from cults and also from governments, and corporations.

WikiLeaks Postpones Relaunch
[securitywatch.pcmag.com]

Quote
The Anticult
uh, all ways of funding Wikileaks were blocked by government pressure.

Not true. It's been possible to donate to Wikileaks all the time via Wau Holland Foundation. People have also sent Assange money to the mansion where he resides and some people have given him money on the street.

According to the Wikileaks site you can donate by credit card, paypal, cheque, bank transfer, mobile (SMS), bitcoin and moneygram. What else does a supporter need to vote with his wallet, as Assange says? Well, there are 256 products in the Wikileaks shop. The site recommends: ”The best way to use Spreadshirt to donate to WikiLeaks is to buy an 'I Support WikiLeaks' sticker for 75 Euro (available to most European countries and the U.S)”.

What about "meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement"? Where's that?

Donations are required because now it is just a battle of who has the longest pockets or the greatest patience, like all casino games--- and Wikileaks/Assange--which is about freedom of information-- is relatively potless, so the underdog here:

Going to law is about winning, not about ideals, truth or justice.
Not all battles are won or lost on the same, level, field of endeavour.
And all idealists eventually get pretty jaded about their once vaunted ideals-- funny, that.

Here's some light relief:

[www.youtube.com]

and this one, which is just lovely:

[www.youtube.com]

You cannot donate directly by those cards, they are blocked.
[en.wikipedia.org]
Everything else are workarounds.


Wikileaks had posted concealed cult information that someone posting in this forum possibly submitted.
Royal Way/Jacumba/Ranch/Michael [forum.culteducation.com]


Too bad there isn't a financial services Wikileaks to expose that corruption, but that is off-topic for this forum.

There needs to be a Wikileaks for cults, otherwise groups like Scientology will control the media landscape.

Most anti cult sites are a version of Wilileaks.

People can post their thoughts and experiences in regards to a religious group that they have an issue with or may be destructive or abusive.

Wiki leaks is more anonymous then many anti cult sites, where a poster is often confronted with a barrage of estalished posters who demand they reveal their identity.

Anti cult you are quite right in your observations. Forums like this need to exist.

However in the case of the Church of Scientology they send in members to infilate the forums and bring them down, they have done it with CAN, so it worries me that the RRI may have hired pro-scientologists also who are waiting for the right moment.

It could explan the lack of criticism I have seen on this forum about that weird cult.

While I dislike Wiki leaks and want to see it gone.

Forums like this one need to remain safe for people to get factual truth out, and curb those who post libelous junk.

Lord Haw Haw:

Your conspiracy theories are ridiculous.

You come across as an "Internet troll" here to subvert threads and waste time.

Post on topic or move on.

And, it should be mentioned that Lord Haw Haw has selected as a handle, the nickname for one of the most despised supporters of Nazi Germany.

With the blessing of the First Amendment one can choose whatever computer handle one likes.

But in terms of good manners, tact, and good faith, some names, though protected by the First Amendment, rightly cause distrust in a community.

One would encounter a chilly reception at best if one were to walk into most pubs in Britain and introduce oneself as Lord Haw Haw.

Many correspondants here are English, Irish, Scots, Welsh or from one of the ANZAC nations (Australia, New Zealand, Canada) and to invoke the name Lord Haw Haw as a handle suggests a severe lack of tact at the very least.

Some historical background on William Joyce who was nicknamed Lord Haw Haw. He was established to be a British subject. He and his voice had become well known prewar, for he had been a dedicated supporter and speaker for Oswald Mosely's British Fascist party and then, because Mosely was not radical enough, left to create his own Nazi affiliated party. Joyce left the UK just before declaration of war, went to Nazi Germany and spent the rest of the war giving radio broadcasts in support of Nazi Germany and to stir up as much emotional pain and despair among the British as possible. His voice made disguise impossible and he was captured in 1945 by British soldiers.

Rebecca West wrote in the 1940s when radio communication was still relatively new. She had been in Britain when it was under attack by the Nazis, at a time when doom was very close.

This is the context in which people experienced Lord Haw Haw and why that name is stained in the memory of many, even today.

"

Quote

Never before have people known the voice of one they had never seen as well as if he had been a husband or a brother or a close friend; and had they forseen such a miracle, they could not have imagined that this familiar unknown would speak to to them only to prophesy their death and ruin.

' A great many people had experienced this hideous novelty, for it was easy to chance on Joyce's (radio) wave length when one was tuning in on the English stations, and there was a rasping and yet rich quality about his voice that made it difficult not to go on listening; and he was nearly convincing in his assurance.

'It seemed as if one had better hearken and take warning when he suggested that the destiny of the people he had left in England was death, and the destiny of his new masters in Germany was life and conquest, and that, therefore, his listerners had better hearken and take warning and submit; and he had the advantage that the news in the papers confirmed what he said.

'He was not only alarming, he was ugly.

''He opened a vista into a mean life.

'He always spoke as though he was better fed and better clothed than we were, and so we now know, he was. (Corboy Rationing in Britain was harsh, unbelievably so and it lasted until the early 1950s. People saved rinse water from pots and pans and used it for broth Corboy. They were told always to keep pots covered so that if a bomb broke a window, glass wouldnt land in the food and require it to be thrown out--for then one would go hungry and wait for the next set of ration points.)

'He went further than the mockery of his own people's plight...When the U-boats (German submarines) were sinking so many of our ships that to open the newspaper was to see the faces of drowned sailors, he (Joyce/Haw Haw) rolled the figures of our lost tonnage on his tongue.

"When we were facing the hazard of D-Day ge rejoiced in the thought of the English dead which would soon lie under the West Wall

"

The New Meaning of Treason, Rebecca West, page 3 Viking, 1964)

So...given the history behind the name Lord Haw Haw, someone desiring to be a long time and helpful contributor to this community, would in support of this community, would in my opinion, have selected a handle untinged by by the stink of treason.

And...Lord Haw Haw was despised, not just as a traitor.

He had, through his talents, his British voice and eloquence, inflicted psychological torment upon the people he deserted and did so when they were in their homes.

And pursued this course not briefly but for years.

He opened a vista into an ugly life.

And his nickname, Lord Haw Haw, is now ugly -- at least in the memories of those who know the history of World War II.