Ghostwriter Reveals the Secret Life of WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange 359
An anonymous reader writes "From the Telegraph, 'He is vain, secretive, paranoid and jealous, prone to leering at young women and making frequent sexist jokes – and that's not the view of one of his many enemies, but of a friend ... A damning picture of Julian Assange ... has emerged in a detailed account by his ghostwriter. Assange behaves ... like an egotistical tyrant interested more in his own self-publicity than in changing the world. Worse still, he turns on his friends with increasing regularity ... Assange describes the Ecuadorean ambassador offering him diplomatic asylum as 'mad', 'fat' and 'ludicrous'. Even Assange's girlfriend, WikiLeaks researcher Sarah Harrison, grew increasingly frustrated at his behaviour. 'He openly chats girls up and has his hands on their a**e and goes nuts if I even talk to another guy,' she says. O'Hagan, who had hoped to find an anti-authoritarian rebel figure worthy of admiration, says he comes to regard Assange as someone who sacrificed the moral high-ground by attempting to evade trial over the rape charges.' — The Scotsman adds, 'Canongate director Jamie Byng yesterday hailed O'Hagan's account of the "impossibility of trying to ghost Assange's memoirs". He tweeted: "Andy O'Hagan's compelling, ring side account of Being (& being around) Julian Assange is smart, accurate and fair."'"
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
You shouldn't suspect anything. The fact is we have no idea what he is really like, except that it almost certainly isn't what the media have portrayed.
The fact that Slashdot posts this shit is a sad sign of the slow decline. You wouldn't get this over at SoylentNews.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Additionally, the man is effectively in captivity under a lot of stress. That can present a very different person than that individual might be if not for being locked in the fucking embassy, for example.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Assange's history of treating other people like dirt, including allies, friends, and Wikileaks volunteers, goes back long before he chose to jump bail and become a fugitive from justice. It hasn't exactly been much of a secret either.
Re: (Score:3)
...goes back long before he chose to jump bail and become a fugitive from justice.
He may be a fugitive from something, but it strains credulity to call it "justice".
Re: (Score:3)
No. he is not accused of rape. He has been accused of nothing.
And the stories about his womanizing? Almost every guy posting at Slashdot. Perception management is everything.
Re: (Score:3)
And the stories about his womanizing? Almost every guy posting at Slashdot.
Womanizing isn't really the same thing as fantasizing.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
So if I accuse you of rape, you should be dragged to my country for a crime you haven't even been charged with and then deported to a third country to face execution for breaking their laws?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You shouldn't suspect anything. The fact is we have no idea what he is really like, except that it almost certainly isn't what the media have portrayed.
The fact that Slashdot posts this shit is a sad sign of the slow decline. You wouldn't get this over at SoylentNews.
How do you know that that he isn't the prick that the media has made him out to be? Here we are talking about a guy who was willing to sacrifice confidential informants & journalists just to reveal the truth of how bad the US is. Anyone willing to push their agenda at the costs of innocents is not someone to be admired.
If SoylentNews is going to filter out news it finds distasteful, then I'll stick with Slashdot. I don't need a nerdy version of FoxNews/MSNBC.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Innocents? They provided him the information. In most countries just doing that is enough to get convicted for treason. If they didn't want the information to be published why did they give it to Wikileaks to begin with?
Do you think there is anyone with a flawless personality? I still admire him for what he did exposing all that information. But it doesn't mean I need to appreciate his entire way of life.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
People forget this part. They see Assange as a saintly figure who cares deeply about all his human worshippers. There were Afghanis who worked secretly with the US had their names revealed, putting their lives in danger. Now if Assange had admitted he didn't know about these names being released then I could see his fans forgivin this lapse in judgement. However Assange said that he did not care if those people died because they had been cooperating with the US, and his fans don't seem to notice or care.
Assange is not just a messenger here.
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
There were Afghanis who worked secretly with the US had their names revealed
Were there now?
You'd think the Pentagon would have known about them: [wikipedia.org]
On 11 August 2010, a spokesman for the Pentagon told the Washington Post that "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents",[55] although the spokesman asserted "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." On 17 August, the Associated Press reported that "so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."[56]
In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."[57] Both Wikileaks and Greenwald pointed to this report as clear evidence that the danger caused by the leak had been vastly overstated.[58][59]
Re: (Score:3)
Ah yes, everyone forgets those poor innocent informants that Julian Assange sacrificed. Except, it's not really a "sacrifice" as they're alive and well. They don't even need protection. At least according to the Pentagon.
So... He put their lives in danger. At least, people were worried that they'd be in danger.
Well, sort of. I mean, let's just say it like it is: The shills and apologists damn well hoped a few of them would wind up dead so they'd have something to throw at Assange.
But yeah, the guy certainly
Re: (Score:3)
In free countries the press is supposed to fill the function of wikileaks. Of course, today's 'journalists' are too busy 'making a difference' to do their damn jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is we have no idea what he is really like
So he is what the overwhelming majority of the human population will ever be to any of us? Didn't expect that!
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. While the description of Assange is obviously untrustworthy, and most likely an attempt at character assasination, it's quite newsworthy that such attempts continue. It paints a frightening picture of not Assange, but the state of our Western democracies.
Also, Slashdot's discussion system means everyone gets to see both the reactions such a story generates, and even more importantly the moderations they receive. It is quite relevant to all of us and the future of our civilization if such sustained effort to destroy the credibility of resistance actually produces results.
None of us knows anything about Assange from credible sources, so everyone is free to believe what they will. Thus what they choose to believe reflects their pre-existing bias, not unlike in the Zimmerman-Martin affair (where people apparently used their crystal balls to come up with ludicrously detailed blow-by-blow descriptions of what obviously must have happened). It matters little if Assange is a scoundrel, a Cape [tvtropes.org], or a mere human; but it matters a lot whether people are willing to simply take the government's word of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Or Assange's word. And this story isn't from "the government," but from someone he chose to work with.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you can vilify someone, you no longer have to refute their message.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people don't understand that the CIA realized that character assassination is MUCH more effective (and less messy) than physical assassination a long time ago. It's also a great way to deal with an IMF head who suddenly decides to start challenging the dollar [guardian.co.uk].
This sounds like the latest salvo in a concerted effort to assassinate Assange's character (since Ecuador and the UK would probably frown on anything more direct). Not sure how they got to his ghostwriter (or if he was perhaps a plant all alon
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
We should be more interested in WikiLeaks and their info/message, not the blonde guy at the top.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's pretty much the point. Why does anyone care about his autobiography? I care about one of his projects.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the apple tree must stand tall to give you apples. But do you care about how the tree became the tree it is now from the sapling it once was? No, you want the tree to stand there because you want the apples!
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we either have to love both Assange and Wikileaks, or hate both Assange and Wikileaks?
You can love Wikileaks and hate Assange, or love Assange and hate Wikileaks. To even bring in finer shades of grey, you can believe that Assange is probably not that nice of a person, and the Swedish investigation is legitimate, but still appreciate the effort put towards Wikileaks, and you can appreciate some of what Wikileaks has done but dislike other acts of Wikileaks.
Re: (Score:2)
We stopped using ReiserFS because its performance really wasn't very good compared to its modern competition.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? No numbers I've ever seen have ever tested file systems in the one case the ReiserFS targeted but no one else seems to have: large numbers of small files.
But then, I haven't stopped using ReiserFS either. (And yes, it is being maintained, last I looked the Debian team was still doing bug fixes to Reiser 3.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like much we already knew or suspected. I'm more interested in why some people keep trying to show us what an awful character Assange is, instead of focussing on what he has done. Love him and Wikileaks or hate them; the latter seems a lot more relevant.
Probably because like here, the people who support him make a ton of noise about how he is just a saint who has been vilified by a vengeful US government and those who say "Hmm... maybe he's not a good guy after all" tend to get drowned out. Bradley Manning might have an interesting take on whether his friendship with Assange was worth it in the end. And as to a certain extent he's arguably a criminal avoiding justice, it does tend to cast a negative light over everything he does. My biggest questions
Re: (Score:2)
The information he released did not only implicate people in the US. It just happened most information he got came from the US so that's what he published that is all.
I don't expect Julian to be flawless. I never do. No one is flawless.
Re: (Score:3)
This. And
Re: (Score:3)
"Probably because like here, the people who support him make a ton of noise about how he is just a saint who has been vilified by a vengeful US government..."
Straw man. No one is a saint. No one said he is a saint. And he has been vilified, tracked, and set up by an
EXTREMELY vengeful US intelligence community - which is much different - and separate from - the US government. Governments come and go, but our real masters live behind the scenes and pull perception management stunts like this.
How many men, how
Paranoid? (Score:2)
If your ghost writer turns on you, of all people, is it really fair to say one is paranoid? Sounds like his belief that people are out to get him is fairly confirmed.
Re: (Score:3)
...instead of focussing on what he has done.
One of the things he's done is built a cult of followers who insist that he's leaking secrets purely for the good of the world. It's reached the point where anyone criticizing him is dismissed outright as being a brainwashed government shill, especially here on Slashdot where the hivemind reigns supreme.
However, the actual existence of a benevolent intent is what makes all the difference, factually. If Assange's claims of benevolence are honest, then he's a whistleblower who only gave information to enemie
Re: (Score:2)
His intentions might be interesting as tittle-tattle. What's important is whether the leaks have done good. And as they've brought facts about the duplicity and crimes of a number of governments into the public domain, it's undoubtably good - unless you are a politician with something to hide.
Not actual ghostwriter (Score:5, Informative)
more like self appoint, failed and bitter biographer.
"[When Assange would not cooperare with the writier]... Assange's publisher, Cannongate, releases its own version of the autobiography, after Assange allegedly fails to honour the terms of his contract. The book flopped, selling only 700 copies in its first week"
Re: (Score:3)
Bear in mind that "the article" is published by The Telegraph, which is the UKs chief mouthpiece for the right-wing establishment. Kind of like Fox-News, but not quite as bad.
So left's not confuse what it says with actual facts. They might be the facts, they might not. But The Telegraph is not a reliable source, so we don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming this is true, I'm curious about why Sarah Harrison is still involved as closely as she is. I've sometimes wondered if she found Snowden to be more of the kind of person she thought or hoped Assange was.
Re: (Score:2)
What crimes? Sex without a condom?
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
It is only rape if you're fucking her, she says stop and you don't.
If she never said stop...till it was over, it wasn't rape.
You can't retroactively withdraw consent after the act is done and over with....
Consent is allowing penetration, wearing a rubber or not is not part of what constitutes consent.
Re: (Score:2)
"say yes... ... um, yes?
consent, you guys heard it, that was consent"
i'm paraphrasing the league there, poorly, but please, please stop being facetious and obtuse.
conditional statements don't just automatically default to true.
if (a == 1)
b=1;
else
b=1;
is a pretty retarded statement.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you're drugged or drunk before falling asleep, then it's consent?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/15/... [cnn.com]
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no evidence about this farcical plot. If the US wanted Assange they could have had their UK lapdogs turn him over much more easily than devising a mission impossible scheme to get Sweden involved.
"As you recall" I presume is based on the authorized story supplied by the Assange supporters? Scrubbed and polished so that the hero never looks bad in any way and is only a victim. The whole point of this article is to show that maybe his story isn't so clear and clean.
For everyone who says "maybe he's not an angel, but you have to listen to the message", why don't they also say "maybe he is a rapist, but you have to listen to the message"? This is because they know the message won't be listened to if it comes from a rapist, which is the incentive they have to deny that it ever happened, or to claim that Sweden somehow is in bed with the US, that Assange's very life is in danger, that the women were coerced or have financial gain to lie, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Angel? He certainly is no angel. But when I weigh good vs. bad, he's still pretty much on the good side.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Then, why does Assange's "need" outweigh the needs and rights of his alleged victims and the people/government of Sweden to have the allegations against him investigated?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't remember Assange preaching abstinence or fucking with condoms.
The difference is maybe that Assange never claimed to be holier-than-thou.
Re: (Score:2)
See? There it is again. If he agrees with me, then he's automatically good.
I think it's pretty obvious that everyone needs to be against sexism and rape. It's unsaid. If you are, then you're a horrid person who needs to be savaged in the media. It happens all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Assange never made a career out of giving people advice on how to conduct their sex lives or personal lives. He's critical of big governments and their actions (such as engaging in wars). Unlike Falwell, he isn't a hypocrite, because Assange is not a government, nor a member of any government, or anyone with any kind of governmental or military power whatsoever: it's impossible for him to practice (or not) what he preaches.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange Left Wing? Never struck me that way. He seems agnostic on left/right. His politics are libertarian.
Re: (Score:3)
Falwell is a terrible example. Preachers are supposed to lead by example, they're supposed to be above worldly things (and believe it or not, many people both clergy and non-clergy are).
A better example would be Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich. With Clinton, he was a lousy husband but the best President I've seen since I started voting in 1972 (voting age was 21 in 1968). Those who hated him still hated him, everybody else complained about the government paying forty million bucks to prosecute a blow job.
Ging
Re: (Score:2)
LOL...
Remember when loading the dishwasher, meant getting the wife drunk?
And it matters why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't win. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't win: Ad Hominem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
It's relevant if you're writing a book about that person. Like, say, a memoir.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see several connections between Assange's personal character and the Wikileaks issue, just not the simple-minded one that goes like this: Assange is a bad person, therefore Wikileaks is bad.
The issue of character has in a sense already been raised by some of Assange's supporters, many of whom believe the Swedish rape charges are purely political dirty tricks by the security establishment he embarrassed. Assange's personal behavior is clearly relevant to *that* at least.
So let's say for a moment the ra
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Want I don't get is how him being a prick in bed, pun intended, somehow is supposed to render null and void all the work he did at Wikileaks. It doesn't compute.
Re: (Score:3)
That's one of the key tactics that have been used for ages. Can't refute their claim, can't dispel the allegations, can't debunk their claims? Attack them instead of their message.
Works for various three-letter-agencies, works for a certain cult that claims to be a church while being a thinly veiled front for bad SciFi, works all the times. I can't remember many terrible things being said against the woman who filed rape charges against Assange, though. If you could point me to some it would actually be hel
Not a ghostwriter. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as a ghostwriter, this is not how one operates. This guy is just being an asshole.
If you think he is being "an asshole," you apparently haven't looked at Assange's behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
vain, paranoid, sexist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: vain, paranoid, sexist (Score:2, Insightful)
They really are out to get Assange.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... Gandhi?
So what? (Score:2)
psychological warfare = repetition (Score:2)
The second the rape BS comes up it should be a dead give away this is not a legitimate source. Somebody who knows the situation because they have close contact and work with him (at least since he got on the CIA's radar) clearly must know the obvious facts about the Rape BS. But instead decides to act like a CIA operative and push the government's propaganda 110%?? Paid operative before or after is still a paid operative (that doesn't mean spy and who knows what secrets the ghostwriter has, except the N
How many people would stay nice? (Score:2)
How many people would stay "nice" if you found yourself choosing between staying in self-imposed jail or stepping outside and likely finding yourself in real jail?
I have no idea to Assange's personality before all this happened, but a severe case of cabin fever can drive people off the rails.
Re: (Score:2)
"Assange behaves ... like an egotistical tyrant interested more in his own self-publicity than in changing the world."
He's been like that since day 1. None of this started when he locked himself in the embassy.
Love the pro-Assange crowd here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry to post A/C, but there's too much hate for contrarian opinions on Slashdot.
I love how the pro-Assange crowd is already dismissing this. I'm sorry, but it does matter. The "why" someone does something is just as important as the "what". Assange takes a lot of credit for Wikileaks, but the truth is there are a lot of people involved in Wikileaks who are more valuable to the organization whereas Assange's narcissim and poor ethical decisions have not only made him an easy target but have also damaged the brand itself. With what they're trying to do, maintaining the ethical and moral high ground is paramount as the only thing they have to go on for their work to make a difference is their reputation; once that's damaged then the public at large will not trust them and nothing will ever really change. If you truly believe in what you're doing, then you don't put yourself into compromising situations with women etc.
Character assassination (Score:2)
Not that I don't believe it, necessarily. Merely that it can't be trusted. At all.
oh noes (Score:5, Interesting)
He's self centered and likes to flirt with younger women. Oh no! Our faith in the very integrity of wikileaks must be revisited!
Meanwhile an enormous personality cult continues around an asshole who regularly destroyed the lives of people working for him (Steve Jobs).
If I were going to pick someone to have a beer with, I would pick Assange any day. I don't give a fuck if someone has personality flaws. That means he is the same as every other human alive. What I care about is their effect on the world around them. Assange has had such a net positive impact with wikileaks that no amount of aggressive flirting or being-a-dick-sometimes(tm) is going to burn it.
Re:oh noes (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to mention the liver transplant he got. People his age usually get pushed all the way back to the transplant list. Even then, after he got his liver, did he even bother taking his pills to at least ensure he lived a bit longer so the transplant wasn't useless? No. He did a crazy mystical diet where he died shortly afterwards.
Just maybe ... (Score:2)
has his hands on their a**e (Score:4, Funny)
Silly question: what does a**e stand for? :)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd assume (no pun intended) it meant "arse". The Commonwealth misspelling (just kidding) of "ass".
But I've never seen it sensored, so I can't be sure. Frankly, I wouldn't be arsed to bleep it out.
Re: (Score:2)
A**e stands for arse, which is slang (similar to "ass") for "butt".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:has his hands on their a**e (Score:4, Funny)
NSA Campaign (Score:5, Informative)
Remember, the NSA's stated M.O. is to publicly smear Julian Assange in order to get people to divert focus away from the crimes commited by the U.S. Federal Government.
Julian's character is an irrelevant distraction, so don't get drawn into a debate over the messenger. Stay on message: The U.S. Federal Government has committed crimes against its people, and will do anything to cover it up.
Curious (Score:2)
Uh, it's perfectly possible to be a sociopath and also do good and important things.
The personality part is interesting because it shows that Assange's personality is both what enabled him to accomplish all he did with WikiLeaks, and what sabotaged his efforts to make WikiLeaks into something even bigger and more powerful. His fallings-out with other WikiLeaks people predates much of the external pressure. Based on many sources, he strikes me as a deeply flawed individual who has accomplished great things.
wtf is a**e? (Score:2)
I know I live in a basement and haven't ever actually talked to a girl, let alone put my hands on her a**e, which is good, because I don't have a fucking clue what her a**e is.
hands on their a**e (Score:2)
I knew a girl in high school that didn't like to be touched on her ankle. Something about her height and being stuff into waste bins or something.
Typical BPD/NPD behavior (Score:3)
This behavior is all in line with those who have Borderline and Narcisistic Personality Disorders. Most highly motivated people with the drive to be leaders have them to some degree. Some worse than others. That's why all of our elected officials are essentially pricks motivated by self gain rather than true public service. Their behavior drives away the decent people who might otherwise want to participate but can't tolerate interacting with such people.
While not the most admirable traits to have, it also isn't a crime to be a backstabbing asshole. It seems like someone is on a character assassination agenda.
Re:shocking (Score:5, Insightful)
can I have 'smear campaign' for 100, please, alex?
we can see thru this character assasination easily enough; but the fact is, if you keep repeating lies enough, people will believe them.
regardless, what the man has done is what matters. personality does not enter into it, not one bit.
Re: (Score:2)
. Yeah yeah save use the "Sweden is different, questioning is the same as charging him" crap you usually retort with about this point.
In short, facts don't matter. You continue to honor your custom.
And yes, technically the charges would come after Assange is next interrogated by the Swedes due to the procedures of their legal system. That is a sequence shared by other EU countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to admit, I don't get "a**e". Is that supposed to mean "arse" or something? If so, why the self-censorship for such a benign word?
Re: a**e (Score:2, Funny)
That's just one of the fancy new features of beta. You're welcome, slashdotters. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh and by coincidence she only decided to put the accusation up AFTER she learned he slept with someone else. Go figure.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean that like many rape victims she was hesitant to complain to the police, but after finding that her attacker had a history of such assaults she found the courage? Hmmm.
Re:Oh man (Score:4, Insightful)
The woman who had the sex with him dropped out the accusation man. She voluntarily let him in her bedroom and had voluntary sex with him before. She just wasn't 'in the mood' one of the times he did sex with her. That is a crime in Sweden? Good thing I don't live there.
Yeah, it's entirely possible for someone to consent to sex one night and then not consent to sex the next morning. See, people have the right to say no, whether it's because they're not "in the mood", because they're sleepy, because they're sick, or any other reason. And forcing yourself on someone who has said no is rape, even if you've previously had consensual sex with them in other circumstances. And that's not only a crime in Sweden, but in most other countries.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's our job. Wikileaks can only inform us that we should do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But it's a secret so don't tell anyone.
You know what the federal government couldn't give less of a shit about? The opinions of the 18 people who still read this site.
Re: (Score:3)
Paul Revere used to butter the milkmaids with his baby-batter.
Philippides, the courier of Marathon used to drink too much, and then screw the serving boys.
However, they are NOT discounted as messengers.