The first civil response to the Assange affair has finally arrived. And when this happens, it always happens that all (or almost) the articles that talk about it contain this sentence: "you can agree with your ideas or not, but …", or "you can love the character or not, but…. “. A bit like saying "I don't have it with blacks, but …" or "I have a lot of black friends, but …"

So let's try to tidy up.

We may or may not love the ass-licking journalists and the whores who publish under the order of the reports, but we have to ask ourselves one question: what do we know about Assange, and especially… how do we know?

Now, I don't know Assange. I have NEVER met him. So I don't know exactly “what his ideas are”. After all, the biography of Assange as a public figure now lasts more than a decade, and I doubt that in this period of time Assange has NEVER changed his mind. So what are your ideas… when?

But the fact remains that if the papers say "we may disagree with your ideas," they must be referring to something that public opinion knows. I mean, if you say this to millions of readers, you expect millions of readers to know what Assange's ideas are.

If I now tell you that, "whether or not you agree with Ivo Balboni's ideas, he remains a great man", without telling you what Ivo Balboni's ideas are, mine would appear as a rambling or at least apodictic phrase. What the hell does Ivo Balboni think?

Consequently, public opinion "has an image of Assange, and thinks they know his ideas." Quite right. But where does this image come from?

Journalists never talked too much about his ideas. In the rare interviews granted to him, he was always a supporter of freedom of the press and investigative journalism, and little more. Difficult NOT to agree with his ideas. But then, what would be the indigestible "parts" of Assange?

• immediately after the mess, he was accused of "rape" by two Swedish women, who slept with him , but they "realized too late" that he was not wearing a condom as agreed in a discussion that neither of them remembers exactly. I don't know how long it takes a Swedish woman to notice this, but it seems like the time is 4 months. But this in Sweden is considered "rape", like practically anything that happens between a man and a woman (in practice, you should only fuck a Swede if you have a lawyer) and therefore the newspapers have given maximum force to an investigation which is was filed because no state where Assange lived wanted to take it into consideration to try him on the spot, first of all England . But ALL the newspapers spoke of "rape".
• one of his former employees, who happens to hate him, writes a book about what it was like in Wikileaks. The book, in itself mediocre and rather openly against Assange, speaks very badly of it. The book is taken from the Guardian, a British newspaper known whore of the British services, which are known whores of the NSA, claims that Assange intended to kill more American soldiers as possible with his revelations. In fact, there are no American soldiers who died as a result of the Wikileaks revelations .
• the Guardian claims to have said the truth because Wikileaks did not sue him. Too bad that at that time Wikileaks was haunted by a series of "bad luck", such as DDOS, loss of bank accounts, prohibition to use credit cards, and was not exactly in the financial position to initiate a (expensive) lawsuit in England. But the trick worked.
• Hollywood comes into play, and makes you a movie . Where Assange turns out to be an egotistical piece of shit who endangers the lives of American soldiers for his own gain. If Hollywood says so, it's true.

My question is simple: how long will it take reporters to understand that Assange has been the subject of a "character assassination"?

So, none of us can "agree with Assange's ideas" for the simple reason that we don't know them . The only thing we know is what was written by a rancorous former collaborator, then revived by a series of films and "documentaries" about him. Of course, there are also apologetic documentaries, but they have never even come close to mass distribution. The film instead ended up on TV, streaming, cinema and mainstream press. Because “so do they all”.

The way in which the figure of Assange is known to the population is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most ferocious work of "character assassination" ever after the character assassination of Monica Lewinsky .

Even outside my own character assassination I think I have read, certainly not everything, but at least a lot. Starting with Olympia of Macedonia, Silla the dictator, Nero, Dracone, Socrates, up to Lucrezia Borgia, passing through Linneus, Giolitti, Gramsci, up to Craxi and Andreotti, but also Berlusconi, history is full of such operations. And people's reputations always come out torn apart. In some cases, character assassination proves to be counterproductive for those who practice it, as in the case of Vlad Tepes: the horrible rumors about him were mostly spread by the Turks hoping for a population uprising, a technique they already had. used ( almost as unnecessarily) against Skanderbeg . It didn't work much in the military sense, but it prevented Skanderbeg from receiving aid from several neighboring Catholic countries.

It doesn't take long, if only by looking at the sources, to understand that everything we know about the Assange person is the result of a character assassination . Nobody can say:

• "Regardless of his ideas", because everything we know about his ideas comes from a character assassination operation
• “Regardless of the character”, because the only character we know comes from Hollywood movies, which started out as a propaganda machine, and remains so. Indeed, it continues to benefit from the same tax benefits.

All we know about Assange are the facts about which there is little to discuss: Assange has built an organization that has exposed war crimes similar to those judged in Nuremberg.

We do not know the rest, unless you yourself know it personally. All the sources you will find on the net come from the US propaganda machine, or are filtered by American search engines.

Which should make you suspicious right away: the excuse the military uses to stop whistleblowers is that "they endanger the lives of American soldiers", and all we know when his biography written by the rancorous former collaborator comes out is that "When I told him he could put the lives of American soldiers at risk, he told me they deserved it."

It seems written by an American general . And if this coincidence is not enough, try to compare Assange's "misdeeds", taken from the biography of his rancorous former collaborator, and you will discover one thing: they all fit together, one by one, with the usual trite accusations of the American military against those who report them the misdeeds, from "communism" to "friend of terrorists", to "collaborator of foreign powers", "pakati dal nemiko", and all the paraphernalia. If they had read about how Lucrezia Borgia's fame was built, at least they would know how to do it professionally: done like this, Assange's character assassination seems even amateurish. Only "eat the children" was missing.

So no, dear journalists, if you really want to be a whore professionally, you could use the “framing” more, instead of talking about hypothetical and unknown “Assange's ideas”, or the equally Hollywood “character”.

Otherwise you become like those whores who don't do the GFE. Stuff from 15 euros per blowjob, and you have to give the change as well.