MUPLUS+   Join Plus+ and get exclusive shows and extensions! Subscribe Today! LEARN MORE  

 
Close

Advertise here now!

 
 
krocktober-surprise

How Julian Assange and Wikileaks Were Wrong About the U.S. Election

It’s been a contentious several months in the United States, as one of the most bitter and controversial elections in recent memory played out before Americans, and of course, the rest of the world.

The fact that an election occurs in America, or anyplace else, matters little in this modern age of social media and World-Wild-Webbing. Every election, it seems, is one for more than just “the books”, as the saying goes. Today, elections are for anyone to whom they matter, and needless to say, the recent U.S. elections have held a captive audience around the globe.

With that audience has, of course, been the equal assertion of engineering from outside the states; most notably, those allegations of Russian involvement which have allowed the U.S. populace to be unwittingly coopted and steered by Russian intelligence agencies, who have dutifully supplied the spoils of their cyber warfare upon Julian Assange and the Wikileaks Foundation. Their ultimate aim was, apparently, to steer the results of the election in favor of America’s old enemies to the East, with preference falling upon Donald Trump, the “non-establishment pick”, in contrast to Clinton’s deeply-rooted Atlanticism (read: “Globalist Agenda”, as the modern conspiracist mind may prefer to call it).

There are nuances of this current election which will inevitably escape the present discussion; hence, for further detail on all of that, I’ll refer people to this article, which I featured at my personal website today. It outlines the ongoing American effort to “pick up the pieces and move on”, in what has indeed proven to be quite an electoral upset, as far as politics here in the West tends to go.

embassy-1

All that aside, Julian Assange will no doubt be remembered as one of the key players in the 2016 Presidential Election, since his actions certainly played a broader role in influencing (if not the election itself) the public mind as it relates to the Democratic process in America. Whilst America’s Republican Party scrambled about to maintain some semblance of control in midst of Donald Trump’s nomination, the Democratic National Committee was busily scraping the barrel-bottoms in an effort to pull out every stop in the way of clinching Clinton’s deal for her; not that she couldn’t have done it alone, perhaps, if it weren’t for that most troublesome senator from Vermont.

Meanwhile, Assange had his own modus operandi: what seemed, at times, to be a personal vendetta against Clinton herself. All throughout, and despite Assange’s involvement, the Democratic party seemed comfortable with making the frequent assertion that Russian President Vladimir Putin was the secret enemy behind the Wikileaks, and it had been the Russians all along that were trying to corrupt American democracy to their benefit (it is an assertion which, even now, Assange vehemently denies).

And in the midst of the fray, Assange attempted to maintain neutrality, though it seemed hard to believe in the final weeks leading up to the election that there had been any aim or objective apart from utter chaos.

An unusual interview appeared online in the days leading up to the U.S. election, in which Assange spoke on camera with John Pilger of Dartmouth Films. The interview was conducted from one of the two rooms in the Nigerian Embassy building in London where Assange has been “holed up” for years now (as is so frequently regurgitated by talking heads in the media).

Assange, at one point, tells Pilger that Clinton’s financial backers, supporters in the international community, and those within the Democratic electoral system itself, would never allow a Donald Trump victory (the interview may be viewed in its entirety below):

Specifically, Assange noted during the interview that, “Trump would not be permitted to win,” further noting that banks, foreign interests, and the media are “all united” by Hillary Clinton, and thus infinitely capable of controlling the eventual outcome of the U.S. election.

Assange had indeed seemed to present a credible argument, and in truth, very few strategists, commentators, and politicians within the United States believed anything but a Hillary Clinton presidency could be the possible outcome of the November 8th election.

And then, all hell broke loose.

By now, we all know that Donald Trump’s non-existent “silent majority” came out in full force, thrusting the most unlikely candidate in recent history into the position of being next in line for U.S. Commander in Chief. As shockwaves resounded around the globe, the aftermath has been the 8000-strong marches in protest erupting in places like Los Angeles, among other locales.

If ever there was a lesson to be learned here, it’s never to underestimate even the least likely of potentials… lest you’re ready to watch the sky fall in the aftermath.

But the burning question here, as it relates to Assange, is simply this: what became of all his banks, foreign interests, media engineering and establishment control that “would not allow” Donald Trump to reach the White House? How are Americans (or anyone, for that matter) supposed to interpret the idea that an enemy no more formidable than American Democracy itself managed to thwart what Assange (and plenty of others) perceived as an unbeatable, globalist agenda?

Could it be, at the end of the day, that the proverbial puppeteering that the world’s elites engage in may have its flaws after all… weaknesses that were great enough to allow the election of a raucous, offensive, and yet decidedly non-establishment American businessman as the 45th President of the United States?

History waits to tell of the full implications, and perhaps eventual repercussions of the 2016 election. Though for now, in an age where belief in conspiracies has become the norm, perhaps the lessons we’ve learned from this election do point to a political system in America that is less compromised than many would believe.

For any good, or ill, that may directly result from the election, maybe the fairness and balance of American Democracy is really all that can be blamed. And maybe that’s a good thing, in midst of all the anger and frustration we’ve seen these last few days.

As for Julian Assange, perhaps it is even a favorable outcome for him too… though in likelihood, it’s hard to fathom that he would ever have seen anything like this coming.

Addendum: As a final bizarre footnote in this already utterly strange affair, following Donald Trump’s electoral win, calls have been made for the pardon of Julian Assange once Trump takes office. Washington Times reports that, “An internet petition calling on Mr. Trump to pardon the WikiLeaks publisher garnered more than 10,000 digital signatures since being posted to Change.org this week,” further stating that it is the view of many that “Mr. Assange is a ‘hero’ who ‘has been persecuted and harried by the very people he has sought to expose for their lies and deceptions against the people of the world’.”

It will indeed be interesting to see what’s next for Julian Assange, and what role he will continue to play in the realm of international politics, particularly after Trump’s bizarre “upset” victory this month.

 TAGS: , , ,

  • Mr Twank L Bang

    The best bullet point piece of info you listed was that Pamela Anderson and a ham sandwich were some how involved. It fits so well with the times.

  • I’m sorry, but this has the feel quite blatanty opinionated blog-post trying to appear journalism.

    First of all, your facts are in need of re-checking. (Nigerian embassy, really? I mean, that alone is a brow raiser, how can we take anything seriously from a writer, who cannot get one of the most well known facts straight, about the story they report on?)

    Then there is a logical twist: First they are trying to corrupt democracy, by pushing for a Trump victory, then when it happens, democracy wins. The same democracy. Umm, ok…

    Then again, the only obvious stance thr author takes is being anti-Assagne (although not openly, it’s still pretty obvious). Now couple that with not doing their homework (see embassy), disregarding facts (big media was all pro-Clinton, and anti-Trump, WikiLeaks findings were decidedly underreported, if discussed at all, yet Trump did win in the end, which seems quite despite e.g. CNN’s best efforts to smear him (not that he needs much smearing…)), the genuinely simple writing style full if clichés, and the hidden pro-Clinton tones of the article, and all you are left with is a waste of words, trying to smear one person, Assagne himself.

    How about democrats shooting themselves in the leg, with pushing Clinton instead of the candidate more likely to win? How about the actual leaks, the exposed corruption, how about Mrs. Clinton’s blood-trail of failed illegal wars, that had turned much of the public against her? How about Trump’s own populism, preying on the less-educated, saying what people want to hear just to gather momentum?

    No, the world, and in it, this election, is a lot more complicated than this over-simplified opinion piece would like to make it appear. It was a waste of time to read this, really.