FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Julian Asange: Trump won’t be permitted to win

Julian Asange: Trump won’t be permitted to win

(4:59) In an interview with veteran journalist John Pilger, Julian Assange points to an email from early 2014, from Hillary's campaign manager John Podesta, that states the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding ISIS. Full interview

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (376 days ago)

"Trump won't be permitted to win." I guess if Trump loses this will count as "proof." Whiner!

Assange does not come out of this well. By concentrating on attacking Clinton, he is partisan. It's easy to attack either candidate, because neither of them is perfect, but Assange only attacks Clinton. Why is that?

You can't have the perfect candidate, but you have to choose one or the other. Choose the one least likely to blow us all to hell. It's your choice.

ReplyVote up (101)down (52)
Original comment

"Trump won't be permitted to win." I guess if Trump loses this will count as "proof." Whiner!

Assange does not come out of this well. By concentrating on attacking Clinton, he is partisan. It's easy to attack either candidate, because neither of them is perfect, but Assange only attacks Clinton. Why is that?

You can't have the perfect candidate, but you have to choose one or the other. Choose the one least likely to blow us all to hell. It's your choice.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (376 days ago)

Huh? Clinton was Secretary of State during the arab spring. Trump is a reality TV show host and ex (i.e. bankrupt) real estate tycoon.

It amazes me how the internet is full of commenters unable to grasp the gist of stories like this and just focus on one or two minor details.

Goes to show that if a story challenges heavily engrained beliefs only the parts that reinforce those beliefs or can be used to defend against challenges exist to them.

Everything else doesn't exist to them.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

Huh? Clinton was Secretary of State during the arab spring. Trump is a reality TV show host and ex (i.e. bankrupt) real estate tycoon.

It amazes me how the internet is full of commenters unable to grasp the gist of stories like this and just focus on one or two minor details.

Goes to show that if a story challenges heavily engrained beliefs only the parts that reinforce those beliefs or can be used to defend against challenges exist to them.

Everything else doesn't exist to them.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (376 days ago)

Hey - I'm not a US citizen, so I have no vote, and it's not my place to tell anyone who does how they should vote. That doesn't mean I don't have an opinion, but I was not announcing it.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

Hey - I'm not a US citizen, so I have no vote, and it's not my place to tell anyone who does how they should vote. That doesn't mean I don't have an opinion, but I was not announcing it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (376 days ago)

Huh? Where did I say you were American. And how come you can't seem to see what's right in front of your eyes? Hint: it's in my previous comment.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

Huh? Where did I say you were American. And how come you can't seem to see what's right in front of your eyes? Hint: it's in my previous comment.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (376 days ago)

Well, you didn't say that. I was just making my situation clearer. On the internet, no-one knows who you are.

How do you know what I can or can't see? I have not actually said where I stand politically on the Clinton-Trump issue. I chose not to say because It's not my business: I don't pay US taxes, so I don't get a vote. Plenty peple shouting (including you) - no need to add my voice.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

Well, you didn't say that. I was just making my situation clearer. On the internet, no-one knows who you are.

How do you know what I can or can't see? I have not actually said where I stand politically on the Clinton-Trump issue. I chose not to say because It's not my business: I don't pay US taxes, so I don't get a vote. Plenty peple shouting (including you) - no need to add my voice.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (376 days ago)

I wasn't shouting actually, but I did incorrectly read into you're comment that you're American.

Obviously there is no way of knowing on the internet.

You're comment just read like 'perception management' doublethink.

Turning discussions into monolithic hive minds of inverted reality.

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

I wasn't shouting actually, but I did incorrectly read into you're comment that you're American.

Obviously there is no way of knowing on the internet.

You're comment just read like 'perception management' doublethink.

Turning discussions into monolithic hive minds of inverted reality.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (375 days ago)

Well that escalated quickly. Really, I was just commenting on the title of this piece. Which I don't think is a good summary of the video, but there you are.

Not long to go now!

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

Well that escalated quickly. Really, I was just commenting on the title of this piece. Which I don't think is a good summary of the video, but there you are.

Not long to go now!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (375 days ago)

Oops - that was meant to be a reply to " Turning discussions into monolithic hive minds of inverted reality."

ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment

Oops - that was meant to be a reply to " Turning discussions into monolithic hive minds of inverted reality."

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mooman (374 days ago)

Or Will He ?

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

Or Will He ?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Wladimir Rykov (377 days ago)

Interviewed by RT, Putin's propaganda channel.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

Interviewed by RT, Putin's propaganda channel.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (377 days ago)

The term propaganda gets used a lot these days. But how many people understand what it means or how to recognise its use?

The term comes from the Catholic church's mission to "propagate the faith". Faith is another word for belief, and if you choose to believe a source of information you're choosing to trust it. Catholics choose to believe, or rather to trust their scriptures.

All over internet dissuasions you see demands for sources and facts because sources and facts determine truth. Or do they?

Science has undoubtedly allowed mankind to shape the world around us so therefore scientific truths are well understood and accepted. The scientific method, whereby hypotheses are proposed, tested, shared and retested, has allowed us to determine truths about our world that we have used to our advantage. So therefore a truth or fact, according to the scientific method, is a hypotheses that cannot be currently disproven but may well be disproven sometime in the future.

The problem here is that this doesn't work well in the human or social world because people don't take kindly to being tested on in laboratories.

Albert László Barabási: "I'm a physicist, which means I'm a natural scientist, which means that I believe that natural phenomena can be understood, described, quantified, predicted and controlled [needed for testing hypotheses], and no one would find anything questionable about this statement...what if we replace natural phenomena with humans...obviously a very scary statement"

So the scientific method works incredibly well in the non-human or physical world but is extremely difficult to apply to the human or social world due to the difficulties in testing hypotheses.

The problem of determining truth in the human or social world has been around since the dawn of civilisations. And every civilisation has evolved systems of determining truth when different parties disagree on what the truth is - courts and juries.

Everything outside this system of courts and juries in the human or social world is therefore based on trust. It is all propaganda.

We trust sources of information such as elders, teachers, leaders and journalists to varying degrees. And how much we trust these sources depends on our own cultural biases, opinions and beliefs.

The Wikileaks John Podesta emails show conspiracy within Hillary Clinton's team to hide evidence from a congressional investigation relating to the conflict in Syria among many other things. The source of the leaks isn't known but the leader of the team that published them, Julian Assange, is hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he fears being apprehended.

That is the truth? Who do you trust? To learn who rules over you, find out who you can't criticise. You decide.

ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment

The term propaganda gets used a lot these days. But how many people understand what it means or how to recognise its use?

The term comes from the Catholic church's mission to "propagate the faith". Faith is another word for belief, and if you choose to believe a source of information you're choosing to trust it. Catholics choose to believe, or rather to trust their scriptures.

All over internet dissuasions you see demands for sources and facts because sources and facts determine truth. Or do they?

Science has undoubtedly allowed mankind to shape the world around us so therefore scientific truths are well understood and accepted. The scientific method, whereby hypotheses are proposed, tested, shared and retested, has allowed us to determine truths about our world that we have used to our advantage. So therefore a truth or fact, according to the scientific method, is a hypotheses that cannot be currently disproven but may well be disproven sometime in the future.

The problem here is that this doesn't work well in the human or social world because people don't take kindly to being tested on in laboratories.

Albert László Barabási: "I'm a physicist, which means I'm a natural scientist, which means that I believe that natural phenomena can be understood, described, quantified, predicted and controlled [needed for testing hypotheses], and no one would find anything questionable about this statement...what if we replace natural phenomena with humans...obviously a very scary statement"

So the scientific method works incredibly well in the non-human or physical world but is extremely difficult to apply to the human or social world due to the difficulties in testing hypotheses.

The problem of determining truth in the human or social world has been around since the dawn of civilisations. And every civilisation has evolved systems of determining truth when different parties disagree on what the truth is - courts and juries.

Everything outside this system of courts and juries in the human or social world is therefore based on trust. It is all propaganda.

We trust sources of information such as elders, teachers, leaders and journalists to varying degrees. And how much we trust these sources depends on our own cultural biases, opinions and beliefs.

The Wikileaks John Podesta emails show conspiracy within Hillary Clinton's team to hide evidence from a congressional investigation relating to the conflict in Syria among many other things. The source of the leaks isn't known but the leader of the team that published them, Julian Assange, is hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he fears being apprehended.

That is the truth? Who do you trust? To learn who rules over you, find out who you can't criticise. You decide.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (377 days ago)

Typos:

All over internet dissuasions - ... internet discussions.

That is the truth? - What is the...

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

Typos:

All over internet dissuasions - ... internet discussions.

That is the truth? - What is the...

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Wladimir Rykov. (372 days ago)
Latest comment:

He won. Putin's happy. Is this the end of American domination of the world agenda? Not sure that Putin's the winner. The next world power is more likely to be China.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
Latest comment:

He won. Putin's happy. Is this the end of American domination of the world agenda? Not sure that Putin's the winner. The next world power is more likely to be China.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Who's doing business with North Korea?
Who's doing business with North Korea?
Interview with Jeremy Corbyn - Brexit and other news
Interview with Jeremy Corbyn - Brexit and other news
ISRO, India's space program
ISRO, India's space program
Kihnu, the island where women rule
Kihnu, the island where women rule
Biomimicry: Good design with the help of nature
Biomimicry: Good design with the help of nature