I probably shouldn’t be surprised, and I’m sure many will say that to me, but…
I’m surprised.
I’ve already covered this, technically, but…
Again, I’m a big fan of whistleblowers. I am actually sick of the secrets of people in power, and if there’s shit to leak, especially from a government, it should be leaked, because we deserve to know… especially when that government is elected by the people of the country it governs.
One would think that whistleblowing would be a bi-partisan affair. I recall whistleblowing under both Bush II and President Obama, and just assumed it would continue under Trump. But even while that may be the case, it obviously won’t be happening with Wikileaks, which has clearly outlived its usefulness…
‘You guys are a f*ckin’ joke’: The internet rips WikiLeaks for whining about leaked report on Russian hacks – Raw Story
So someone in President Obama’s administration (maybe even President Obama himself) leaked some of the report that links the DNC hack to Senior Russian Officials (including Putin himself, BTW) to NBC. Wikileaks is not very happy about that…
(note that all tweets come from the article I link to above)
The Obama admin/CIA is illegally funneling TOP SECRET//COMINT information to NBC for political reasons before PEOTUS even gets to read it.
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) January 6, 2017
WAIT! Suddenly leaking information is bad, Wikileaks? Really?
They get dragged on Twitter, of course…
@wikileaks You can't be serious. You're calling someone out for leaking? Do you see how absurd that is?
— Bill Shapiro (@Bill_Shapiro) January 6, 2017
@wikileaks your entire organization is built on govt leaks. You are called Wikileaks. If you can't take it, don't dish it out
— Don Moynihan (@donmoyn) January 6, 2017
Oh Man, did I mess up @wikileaks was I not suppose to "Leak Early, Leak Often" pic.twitter.com/oOG8kxUw8H
— Dusty (@DustinGiebel) January 6, 2017
And of course @WLTaskForce is trying to say that this doesn’t count as a leak, or some such bullshit, so it’s bad… for some unknown reason…
@nnimrodd Not a leak. It is clearly authorized by the executive and anonymity used to provide political and legal cover.
— WikiLeaks Task Force (@WLTaskForce) January 6, 2017
What I want know is this… why the hell is Wikileaks pro-Trump?
Wait? They aren’t? I’m just making that up? So then why are they attacking President Obama’s administration and defending Trump (see the first Tweet above)? Am I reading too much into that?
See… I don’t think so. I think Wikileaks is betraying itself as an organization that supports Donald Trump. Wikileaks, the organization that was designed to fight corruption and expose secrets we deserve to know, supports the extremely bigoted fascist that was put into office against the wishes of the US voting population (reminder… Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 2.9 million votes).
But maybe it’s a personal crusade against Hillary Clinton? I can understand that to a point; I was never a fan of hers, and do agree that she is corrupt beyond the usual political corruption. Thing is, though, that I really do believe that she could have actually nuked China and still been a better, safer president than Donald Trump. There is literally nothing anyone can say and nothing she could do to change my mind on that. Trump is going to destroy the US, and could very possibly start WWIII just because he’s a fucking pathetic bully. China is already flexing its muscles and sending warnings to Trump, and he hasn’t even been fucking inaugurated, yet! The very fact that Wikileaks is low-key supporting Trump (and yes, that is exactly what I’m reading into all this) is disgusting.
At this point, Wikileaks should just admit that it supports Trump, his administration, and the fascism he represents, and then just disappear or re-make itself as a Trump campaign page… maybe Trump can buy them out, or something…
You know the old saying: One rapist doesn’t hack another rapist’s eyes out…
That is actually a good point, Gilliel…
why the hell is Wikileaks pro-Trump?
I should probably do this as a post over at stderr, but .. the short form is that wikileaks appeared to many to be “on our side” because they were aligned as being anti-bush (which they were) so many embraced them, mistaking them for liberals/free speech advocates/free thinkers. But basically it’s a case of the broken clock syndrome: they’re going to be on your side only on the occasions that you share a common enemy with them.
Wikileaks has always been literally sociopathic: they’re not taking any kind of prinicpled stand, they’re simply interested in hurting whatever it is they want to hurt at a particular time. That’s the same reason that the anonymous collective and 4chan are such a problem: there’s no ideology behind them, and if you wind up doing something that puts you in their crosshairs, they’ll fuck you up for the lulz.
I don’t know if wikileaks is pro-trump; they’re certainly anti-Clinton. They’re probably more anti- than pro- anything. The posting I did a few months back, where I was trying to explain that revolutions can’t be built out of sub-movements that are anti-establishment, because once the establishment is torn down, they immediately turn on eachother because they’re anti-eachother, too..? This is exactly what I was talking about.
A sociopath is never your friend; they may temporarily share your enemy, but “temporary” is unpredictable and doesn’t make for good alliances.
Wikileaks, the organization that was designed to fight corruption and expose secrets we deserve to know
That was just the pose they were adopting at the time they were adopting it, to justify doing what they were going to do anyway. Sociopathic hackers are like that: they’ll always have a reason for their actions, and it’ll usually sound pretty good. But ultimately, they’re going to do whatever it is they want.
Actually, Marcus, I’d would very much read that post if it you did at stderr…
Not to defend WikiLeaks in any other respect, but they do have kind of a point here. Surely you can see there’s a difference between whistleblowers leaking information that is damaging to the state on the one hand, and the state itself “anonymously” feeding information to compliant press organs to prop up its own case on the other hand. It’s the difference between Edward Snowden exposing the extent of NSA spying and the likes of Robert Novak and Judith Miller serving the Bush Administration as mouthpieces.
Can we really say that WikiLeaks is upset about the “leaking” of information here? Clearly, they are upset about “funnelling”, which is completely different. Unless it’s a funnel that leaks like a sieve.
What does it matter where the information came from, it’s out there now and we deserve to know about it!
^Does that excuse still apply? I heard that during the campaign from so very very very many shortsighted and bitter progressives as they spent the time between the primary and election day endlessly broadcasting every single anti-Clinton leak they could despite how blatantly obvious it was they were doing the work of GOP propagandists.