Gee, I'm surprised
The ghost writer hired to help Julian Assange with an autobiography deal that ultimately fell apart has described the WikiLeaker as "thin-skinned, conspiratorial, untruthful and narcissistic". Andrew O' Hagan, who started working with Assange while he was on bail over the allegations of sexual assault in Sweden three years ago …
Bear shits in woods, film at eleven.
After going through all he's been through (yes, much of it his own doing), though, most folks would pro'ly be a little twitchy.
"After going through all he's been through (yes, much of it his own doing), though, most folks would pro'ly be a little twitchy."
He likes it. Nothing is better for the ego than a good persecution complex and paranoia. Paranoia can be a highly narcissistic personality trait: It infers that the individual is important enough to be singled out as an enemy to the conspiracy: that they are 'special' and deserve special consideration. Ploys such as heightened security awareness and the type of frankly pointless security procedures he insisted on even before the cable release heightened the perceived and self-importance of an individual. Half the people who need bodyguards don't need them: They just want to have the feeling that they are important enough to be targeted, want to be seen to be important enough to merit such security, and like the idea of someone being ready and willing to take a bullet for them.
Yes...but is the Pope Catholic? Hmmm?
And that's just the sort of hard question we're willing to ask! More following the break!
The guys that are full of themselves, paranoid and so on are the ideal type to create something like Wikileaks. Yes, they are unpleasant. Yes, they don't play well with others. But society reaps such benefit from what they do (Snowden, IMHO, is a hero) that I give them a break. As long as I don't have to hang out with them, I am glad someone with weirdnesses can actually create something for the greater good. Lots of 'normal' and nice people remain part of the boot-licking problem.
"As long as I don't have to hang out with them, I am glad someone with weirdnesses can actually create something for the greater good. "
I too was good with that, until he used his money, status, connections and perceived 'enemy of the state' status to sh!t all over the legal systems of two nations and avoid trail for being a creepy sexual predator.
Now I believe he's a shit.
Hope he's still Googling himself...
Is it entirely fair to put Snowden and Assange in the same bucket anymore?
Snowden took his own risks and is dealing with the comsequences of them. Assange seems to have taken far less risks and can't even deal with the consequences of his own personal life let alone take any responsibility for what his organisation has done.
it takes balls to go against everything your homeland has taught you and to knowingly accept you will never go home. What's ballsy and manly bout avoiding a sex charge, and flushing bail money that people gave you down the toilet.
Snowden (and Manning) heroes.
Assange gutless coward. (Nuke him)
> Assange gutless coward. (Nuke him)
No give him a fair trial for breach of bail conditions and apply proper legal process (probably already done) between UK and Sweden and send him back to the Swedish justice system to process as appropriate. Even dickheads get fair trials.
@Gordon 10: a fair point and a good one. Wikileaks has had some important successes, but it is not a one-man effort, and Assange is truly repulsive, in my opinion. Snowden, on the other hand, is a principled person -- as is Manning, who has suffering physical and mental torture because he (as he was then) would not be silent in the face of wrong-doing.
"No give him a fair trial for breach of bail conditions and apply proper legal process (probably already done) between UK and Sweden and send him back to the Swedish justice system to process as appropriate. Even dickheads get fair trials."
No trial in the UK.
He's caught... he goes to jail then cuffed as he's carted off to Sweden where he then goes in for his formal questioning, faces charges, then off to jail to await trial. (Ya think they'd be dumb enough to give him bail? That's never going to happen.)
After the shit in Sweden is done, then maybe... he might come back to the UK to face the bail jumping charges. Then back on a play to Australia... after that.. who knows. Maybe he could then apply for asylum in Ecuador, get a Ecuadorian passport and leave Australia before someone else wants to extradite him.
Unlike Snowden, Assange has been documented to be a royal prick to deal with. We have a couple editors from real journalistic newspapers that can confirm this.
One thing for sure, when this is all said and done... Julian will never be allowed back in to the UK or Sweden....
Agreed with Joseph let justice take its course.
Besides arent cockroaches expected to survive a nuclear war?
"One thing for sure, when this is all said and done... Julian will never be allowed back in to the UK or Sweden...."
I suspect you can add Ecuador to the list of countries that might not be keen to have him.
"After the shit in Sweden is done, then maybe... he might come back to the UK to face the bail jumping charges."
I imagine that if he gets his collar felt, then the UK charges will take precedence, given his flight-risk and possession being nine tenths of the law.
> guys that are full of themselves, paranoid and so on are the ideal type to create something like Wikileaks
No, Assange is horrible for Wikileaks. His personality disorders, leading to decisions such as to dishonestly edit the "collateral murder" video and break cooperation with all major newspapers, have totally destroyed the creibility of Wikileaks. Assange is an unmitigated disaster.
So far he's been a prat but not a felon in Ecuador.
Jumping bail and the pending rape charges will get him booted from the UK and Sweden.
It could spread and make him an undesirable in several other countries as well.
We see celebs who have had drug convictions in the past... (US convictions) be turned away from Japan and the UK. So I could imagine he could be banned from a lot of countries when the dust settles.
Based on the author's comments, I would wager the saddest thing for Julian would be to be sent to the boonies in Australia and no one gave a damn. He wants to be the center of attention but his 15 minutes of fame are long gone. If he had been more mature, he could have at least milked it like a Kardashian...
OK, you've had this week's dig at the easy target, Assange. Where's the accompanying exposure of another bit of corporate or government malfeasance as exposed by Wikileaks? Or is that too hard for you?
Its in the same file containing Wikileaks disclosures from the governments of Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Nigeria etc.
Well if you (@ral) think you need more balance you could always lookup the stuff on wikileaks yourself. "Or is that too hard for you?"
IMHO Assange has all the charisma and charm of a sun bleach dog scat and about the same amount of moral backbone.
If you don't like the balance here, you are free to go and obtain the correct balance by reading other news sites as well.
Personally, I feel it's been a while since El Reg has put the boot into Asshatange, and another session is long overdue.
Scathing words indeed there from someone supposedly on "friendly terms." To be honest, checking bushes and pulling the car over probably weren't outside the realms of unwarranted action for him at the time. Like or loathe what he believed in and the actions the organization took, they pissed off a LOT of the wrong (or right?) type of people.
The level of extreme paranoia and narcissism displayed is certainly not a surprise, though.
"checking bushes and pulling the car over probably weren't outside the realms of unwarranted action for him at the time."
Yeah, because nothing stops a team of snipers better than looking in some bushes 50 yards down the street.
Honestly: It's attention seeking of child-like proportions.
You don't live in the real world, do you.
I have to agree that its attention seeking...
The interesting thing from the article is that Assange didn't want to talk about his own personal life, yet wanted a world with no secrets.
I think that what the author wrote makes one want to feel sorry for Assange. There's a reason why he doesn't want to open up about his home life and his childhood. His mum was paranoid and either its an inherited trait, or a learned behavior. (Or Both)
The dude is royal messed in the head. He seems like he comes out of a Dostoyevsky novel.
He justified his alleged 'rape' of women, in fact how he treats women.
There's more, but you get the idea.
If he were smart, he'd go to Sweden. Maybe while in jail he can start to get therapy. Of course he would first have to admit he has a problem... but that won't happen.
"The interesting thing from the article is that Assange didn't want to talk about his own personal life, yet wanted a world with no secrets."
Shitting on other people's lawns and being applauded for it is fun.
Shitting on your own is never going to be great, no matter how much you've moralised about doing it to others.
Ian Michael Gumby: "Assange didn't want to talk about his own personal life, yet wanted a world with no secrets".
"No secrets" - which you just made up or perhaps stretched your tiny fragment of knowledge on the subject out of proportion so immensely that it fits your twisted view on reality. Like most people who read the cliff notes and go online to talk about the book.
Anyway, checking for spies, assassins or abductors after pissing off a nation capable of tracking you down doesn't seem paranoid to me? Unless one just ignores what high ranking people were saying in the US media at the time. Not to mention that there was eventually disclosed that there was a (secret) Grand Jury Investigation running at the time with unknown authority and scope. People with an estimated lesser threat level had been picked up the street in Italy by the CIA only a few years earlier.
But the fact is that we have only a self-promoting ghost-writer’s word what Assange meant when he said "assassins". How serious was this? Was it including other possibilities? Would he really inform his ghost-writer what he was checking for there exactly? Of course these questions require some thought which the subject "Assange" rarely contains these days. All we have left is the rumor mill of disappointed friends and lovers...
"Anyway, checking for spies, assassins or abductors after pissing off a nation capable of tracking you down doesn't seem paranoid to me?"
Sending someone to check for assassins hiding in a bush 50 yards from a police station isn't a security-measure. At best it's a pitiful piece of self-importance. At worse - if he genuinely suspected there was a highly trained killing machine there - it shows a callous disregard for the life of his girlfriend, who he presumably professed to love.
Just run that scenario through your own mind: You assume that a CIA killer is going to gun you down in plain sight of the media and the police, so you send your misses to flush them out.
Those are the actions of either an epic a$$hole, an utter moron or a chronic attention-seeker, plump with self-importance to a degree that has clouded all rationality.
"All we have left is the rumour mill of disappointed friends and rape victims..."
Fixed that for you.
Snowden did what he did to improve his country.
St. Julian does what he does purely for himself.
So did Assange. He left it.
So what if he's a paranoid narcissist? Does that make the data he's facilitated the distribution of any less valid?
The pessimist side of me (okay, the dominant side) expects that this is just prep for taking him out, making sure he doesn't become a martyr in the process.
Manning is a hero. But I'm sure she could have found another way to get it out.
Dumping data en masse and taken out of context doesn't help anything.
Egypt is still a mess and if you had to ask the Egyptian people of they felt that they were better off today than when under Mubarak, what do you think they would say?
Honestly, I don't know the answer to that...
"So what if he's a paranoid narcissist? Does that make the data he's facilitated the distribution of any less valid?"
No it doesn't.
But being a rapey twat who wipes his arse on my nation's legal system means that I'm not going to hold back with my personal opinion of the horrid little reptile.
Never mind Assange. He's not important.
What about the snivelling excuses for government that murdered people and tried to cover it up ?
Yes, that's really the issue. Assange only rose to prominent on a tide more noxious than he.
"What about the snivelling excuses for government that murdered people and tried to cover it up ?"
Uhm which government are you talking about?
There are so many to choose from.
Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Japan, Germany, Russia among others.
I'm sure if we wanted to, we could accuse Great Britain of it as well.
I think that if you were to ask Malfoy... ahem... Assange, he would be quick to tell you that he was unbelievably important. Probably the most important person who ever lived. And then to condemn you vociferously if you didn't immediately agree.
So, deduct the book reviewers, library copies, members of the press, members of the security services, and that probably leaves about fourteen of St Jules' Faithful that can read AND afford to buy a book!
Anything more than a tweet is just too hard...
By extension, this proves Assange is right to be always looking for who would metaphorically stab him in the back, or worse, kill him.
This guy is the archetypical betrayer and traitor.
Also, Headline could describe most sports stars. They only appear "nice" through dozens of hours of media and public appearance training. Winners get to where they are by not being nice people.
If you read the LRB piece (long but fascinating) his method of "looking" is more akin to a spouse destroying a marriage by repeated allegation of betrayal: "Admit it! You don't love me any more! You looked at someone else! Stop lying! ... SEE I WAS RIGHT NOT TO TRUST YOU!"
The thing with friendship is that it's a two-way street, and I don't remember reading any effusive thanks (let alone a functional apology) from Assange when his bail guarantors lost substantial amounts of money due to his hiding in the embassy. Rather, he fell out with at least two of them (Khan and his former host, Vaughan Smith):
Julian’s late-night online campaign had the usual effect of turning a bad patch into a vipers’ nest. He never really apologised to anyone, but got busy turning his publishers into the latest enemy, to go alongside Domscheit-Berg, Mark Stephens, the Guardian, the New York Times, my researcher, his former host at Ellingham Hall, the government of Australia, his activist friends in Iceland, and a host of others who’d dared to have their own views. There would be many more to come: Jemima Khan, the Big Issue, Barack Obama and Assange’s own political party in Australia. I only stayed on good terms with him as long as I did because I kept quiet.
Christ had twelve disciples and remained on good terms with eleven of them right to the end; this Messiah of our day seems bedeviled by Judases yet somehow rather less effectively crucified.
So can I!!
Some are better at this game than others. Sure we "need to know" but sometimes the Sgt. Schultz ideal is better.
I for one would like to know what Mr. Putin's government is up to as well as the thoughts of the Mullahs in Iran. I have doubts that Mr. WikiLeaks could help me out there. Of course, one could ask the question: Why didn't Mr. Assange hide out in the Iran embassy?
It doesn't surprise me that he is a complex individual. If you watch interviews with the guy there is something very strange in the way he talks - it's monotone, robotic, intense. Like he's on a different plain, or more likely suffering some mild personality disorder.
> suffering some mild personality disorder
Mild? Read a description of psychopathy/narcissism, and tick off everything which fits our Julian.
I would have thought that conditions would have been better in jail in Sweden than in the embassy. At least in Sweden he would have a release date.
But then I'm not JA.
> At least in Sweden he would have a release date.
If he'd taken his medicine he'd already be a free man. If he's convicted, which is far from certain, the average sentence for rape is two years in prison, out of which he would serve 18 months, probably in a minimum security prison, most of which with weekend parole, plus damages (which for rape in Sweden rarely if ever exceed £5000).
Yeah, but isn't it great that he's fucked himself more royally than Swedish legal system ever could?
It must be terrible for him: He hasn't been on the front page of a newspaper for months.
"....It must be terrible for him: He hasn't been on the front page of a newspaper for months." LOL, the good bit is when A$$nut finally does implode from lack of adulation, he'll probably do it very publicly! Expect some hilarious accusations along the lines of Miley Cyrus's twerking being a secret NSA code for pre-programmed CIA cyber-ninjas or the like.