Assange Exposes The Truth About Corporate Media: “You Are Reading Weaponized Text”

By Claire Bernish

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange called “very, very, very inaccurate” corporate presstitutes “opportunistic snipers” in an interview over the weekend, accusing newspapers of printing “weaponized text.”

And the outspoken publisher isn’t at all dissatisfied with the current propaganda of “fake news” — because, as Assange explained to Australian comedian Chas Licciardello, according to CNET,

WikiLeaks is very happy that there is a narrative about fake news out there because we have a perfect record of having never got it wrong in terms of authentications.

While the corporate press continues misrepresenting information, quoting unnamed and thus unverifiable sources, and even printing flagrant fabrications, WikiLeaks indeed maintains an unparalleled streak of publishing authentic and undoctored data — despite excoriation from the establishment — thus eliminating all bias or unintended insertion of opinion.

“When the narrative of fake news came out and was then taken off effectively by the neo-liberal press and pushed around,” Assange elaborated. “I could see exactly where that was going. I was rather happy about it.”

But the outspoken publisher’s opinion on so-called fake news emphasizes the disastrous failings of a mainstream media hell bent on propping up its own establishment agenda — regardless of which political affiliation a given outlet claims.

“What is special about WikiLeaks is that it’s not just another damn story,” noted Assange, “it’s not just another damn journalist putting their damn byline, advertising themselves and their position on another damn story.”

Further, he said, discussing WikiLeaks’ searchable database, “You’re not reading pre-weaponised knowledge. When you read a newspaper article, you are reading weaponised text that is designed to affect a person just like you.”

Assange’s description of weaponized text characterizes the corporate press’ penchant for propaganda — a political establishment-friendly slant that has once-illustrious media institutions like the Washington Post and New York Times frivolously abandoning journalistic integrity whenever it’s deemed necessary.

In fact, after the Post published a slew of articles without any basis in fact, The Free Thought Project noted in January,

This latest astounding deviation from the facts, however, makes indisputably clear the weaponization of news. Journalists and media outlets make mistakes from time to time, but a pattern and practice of publishing unfounded, unverified, and fraudulent articles cannot be characterized simply as irresponsible.

We are in the midst of an information war of epic proportions — led haplessly astray of the truth with the Post leading the way — and it’s a dangerous and frightening portent of things to come, not the least of which will be propagandized truth and heavy-handed censorship.

That assessment has proven true, as what appears to be recklessness in corporate journalism generally gains editorial approval if the article appeals to emotion and will manipulate readers into a specific thought pattern — like both anti-Russia and anti-Iran reports so frequently topping mainstream headlines.

Of course, no coincidence exists in the corporate press’ continued stark criticism of WikiLeaks as a politically-motivated organization — an allegation oft-repeated during the last presidential election cycle.

How to Disappear Off the Grid Completely (Ad)

Such accusations only act to divert attention to the corrupt ugliness displayed by politicians and insiders who never imagined their words behind curtains would be unveiled to public scrutiny.

Outlets loyal to the Democratic establishment thus accused WikiLeaks and its founder of publishing damning documents from the DNC, John Podesta, and candidate Hillary Clinton as part of a political vendetta — particularly due to the lack of documents the outlet received on rival Donald Trump.

We had lots of critics in the Democratic Party, liars in the Democratic Party … saying that what we published was not accurate — trying to imitate it, sometimes saying it directly. And of course, we could mathematically prove that they were liars. And it’s not every day that you can mathematically prove that your critics are full of it.

Assange has emphatically repeated that WikiLeaks cannot publish what it doesn’t have in its possession — and no whistleblower or leaker has yet come forward with a cache of information on Trump or the RNC.

Beyond content, WikiLeaks came under fire for the timing of document dumps during election season — a matter of such concern to the former Obama administration, U.S. officials attempted to dam the flood of documents by persuading the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, which Assange has called home since 2011, to cut his connection to the Internet.

But timing is everything for the clients who hand over information to WikiLeaks, and striking the greatest blow with truth isn’t something Assange avoids. As he told Licciardello on the decision of when to publish the Podesta Files,

We try and maximize the value of the information to readers. So that’s publishing it at the moment when they most want to read it, when they most want to know what it contains. And that’s definitely before an election rather than after election.

“Sources don’t give you stuff unless it’s going to have impact,” he explained.

WikiLeaks, unlike a traditional media outlet, publishes and catalogs data for anyone to search — and doesn’t remove documents after maximum impact has been achieved:

The real value in WikiLeaks is it is a wonderful library that you can trust … But the library has to be marketed. And so the scandal-generation business, which we’re also in — I view that as a kind of marketing effort for what is much more substantial, which is our archive […]

I think that is the real beauty of WikiLeaks … it is that sea of information, that treasure, that intellectual treasure, that rebel library of Alexandria you can go into.

Critics from both sides of the political duopoly claim WikiLeaks’ policy of printing everything in a leak — without editing content — presents a danger to government officials acting surreptitiously in the field. But Assange disputes this, and has said WikiLeaks carefully vets every document to ensure no lives would be jeopardized before it publishes.

“Nothing that we’ve published has ever hurt anyone, physically,” Assange asserted. “Information very, very rarely, is dangerous. And not compared to what government does.”

Claire Bernish writes for, where this article first appeared.

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

7 Comments on "Assange Exposes The Truth About Corporate Media: “You Are Reading Weaponized Text”"

    • “Still can’t decide – is he real or is he there to distract ?”

      he says he is annoyed by anyone who questions the official account of 9/11. and you can’t decide if he is real?

      as for chumpsky.. the epitome of a gatekeeper..

      • Did he say that ?
        Then it should be clear…….
        Thank you for the information.

        • President Trump also said that there should be a real investigation into 9/11. But at this time there is only two things that he has not done constitutionally as per his contract since taking office that I know of – sorry, three… But since the CIA/FBI and other alphabet “intelligence” agencies, plus the Military Industrial Complex, add in the Federal Reserve/banking are fighting to remove him I can understand why.

          (I know this is long, but I hope you read this and start to understand our legitimate government, our own duties within it, and that it is the documents themselves that are the governments – state and federal – and the people serving within them carry out written and assigned duties. As long as Trump keeps the contract thta he serves under, he will do fine for us. But there are those domestic enemies and traitors who also serve within our governments, and like Kennedy, will do whatever it takes to stop him, and us, from holding accountable those that serve within OUR governments. I hope you find value in what you read.)

          If you want a lawful President, lawful legislative, lawful judicial first read the US Constitution so that you know exactly what they are allowed to do – and if it is not assigned to them it is forbidden to them; what they may not do as our representatives and as the representatives of the states in dealing with mostly foreign affairs. But understand that the delegated powers are not given to any person, but are instead assigned to the branch of government or to a named office within a branch. The person serving is allowed to use the authority of that branch or office for as long as they keep to the contract, take and keep their Oath.

          THAT is critical, because the three branches of the American government is
          1) We the people, and not just as the fount of all authority,
          2) the state Constitutions
          3) the US Constitution, with it being also the definer of our governments – state and federal; the supreme LAW of our land that requires that ALL legislation be in Pursuance thereof it (follow it).

          It is important to realize that “We the people of the united States” have governmental duties also that we have not done in decades – since about 1928 or so. This may clarify things a bit better for you…

          Per Publius Huldah: “In a nutshell, our Constitution authorizes the federal government to handle the following objects for the Country at Large:
          — Military defense, international commerce & relations;
          — Control immigration & naturalization of new citizens;
          — Domestically, to create a uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
          — With some of the amendments, secure certain civil rights.
          — As stated in the 10th Amendment, all others powers are reserved by the States OR The People….

          What would our Country’s financial condition be if WE THE PEOPLE had enforced the enumerated (listed) powers on Congress? It is the enumerated powers which list the objects on which Congress may appropriate funds:
          — immigration office (Art. I, §8, cl.4)
          — mint (Art. I, §8, cl. 5)
          — Attorney General (Art. I, §8, cl. 6)
          — post offices & post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7)
          — patent & copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8)
          — federal courts (Art. I, §8, cl. 9)
          — military (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16)
          — the civil list (Art. I, §6, cl.1)
          [and other objects listed in various other articles, sections, &clauses]

          … The Constitution itemizes what Congress is permitted to spend money on. See also the two geographical areas over which Congress was delegated “general legislative powers”: Art. I, §8, next to last clause, & Art. IV, §3, cl. 2. (End Publius Huldah quote)

          If it is not in the US Constitution then it is a duty of the states or of the people themselves. Yes, the people did NOT delegate all their authority. So what duties are the peoples per the US Constitution?

          Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, first Senate: “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly
          anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”

          George Washington: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” (“Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington”)

          Constitution of the United States of America, Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

          Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute
          the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.“

          Our duties are to, as the Militia – its constitutionally assigned duties to:
          — Enforce the US Constitution (supreme Law of the land) and each state’s Constitution (highest Law of the state),
          — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
          — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
          — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

          This protected the people from “martial law” and “emergency powers”, from traitors and domestic enemies serving within our governments, and from police states because every able-bodied person is trained as the congress requires the military to be trained and educated in the US Constitution and the Constitution of their state. Cannot enforce them if you do not know them.

          The duties that those that serve within the state and federal governments have to the Militias is found in Clause 16.

          Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the
          Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

          Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1: “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” (caps are mine)

          One must understand that ONLY those that serve within the Congress can call up the military and the Militia. The Military when, and only when, the Congress issues a declaration of war. The Militia is required to be used to enforce the laws of our land – by that requirement those that serve within our governments – state and federal – are forbidden to use any other agency or group, etc for those purposes. This protects the people from those unlawful enforcement groups they have created when they worked so hard to stop the people from doing their own constitutional duty.

          The Grand Jury and Grand Jury Investigations are tools of the people to use to keep those who serve within our governments in check.

          Grand Jury – “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

          “Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior, “Good Behaviour” requirement)

          “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”

          “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”

          “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”

          “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s
          constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”

          “Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s
          evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” (Nor would it be lawful of them to do so.) Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)

          We are required to be INFORMED jurors. What does that mean? We need to know the supreme Law of the land, and the highest Law of our state. How else can we hold accountable the people who serve within our governments? How else can we be sure that the people who are dependent on an informed jury gets a fair trial? How, if we did not know, can we make a decision that the law is a bad one and must not be enforced; or that in this particular case the law must be ignored (some starving steals an apple) though retribution can still be rendered (work for free for a time to pay off the theft of the apple). How can we know if a judge is using the required “good Behaviour” while serving if we do not know the standards for good behavior – do the duties as assigned by the US Constitution/state Constitution, take and KEEP the Oath of Office.

          Thomas Jefferson defending jury nullification, wrote that “if the question relates to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the State, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and
          uniform system.”

          United States v. Moylan, the Supreme Court yet again acknowledged the “undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence.” (1969)

          Michael LeMieux: “The Constitution has very little to do with the American citizen. It was written to establish a Federal Government and to place the boundaries by which that government would operate. The constitution was never designed to provide or enumerate the rights of the citizens but to restrain the federal government from meddling in state and ultimately citizen affairs.”

          • Excellent, well done. I hope people will read it because solutions come from knowledge and wisdom.
            Regrettably knowledge only prepares us for the fight. When those in government do not follow their own rules, much less the ones written to restrain them (Constitutions) it does no good to try to hold them to it when they control the goons with guns. The tyrants must be removed, one way or another, there is no other solution.

  1. Somebody please leak Trump’s tax returns to Wiki….

  2. Go Assange. When the Left despises you, you must be doing something right.

Leave a comment