From: "Ricken Patel - Avaaz.org" <avaaz@avaaz.org>

Date: March 1, 2011 6:34:09 PM GMT-04:00

To: "jwright@surfbvi.com" <jwright@surfbvi.com>

Subject: Stop Rupert Murdoch

Dear friends,

The world's largest and most dangerous media baron wants to buy nearly half of the British mass media, boosting his power to undermine global efforts on everything from peace to the environment. We only have 48 hours to press the UK government to stand up and stop Rupert Murdoch:

In 48 hours, nearly half the British mass media could be bought by one of the world's worst media moguls.

Rupert Murdoch has exploited his vast media empire to push war in Iraq, elect George W Bush, spread resentment of muslims and immigrants, block global action on climate change, and undermine democracy by viciously smearing politicians who refuse his orders.

A lock on British media will massively boost Murdoch's power to undermine global efforts on peace, human rights and the environment. The UK is up in arms over the Murdoch bid, and even the Murdoch-allied government is split down the middle as it makes a decision this week. Global solidarity bolstered Egypt's pro-democracy protesters -- it can help Britain's. Let's build an urgent global outcry to stop Rupert Murdoch. Sign the petition to UK leaders:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_rupert_murdoch_3/?vl

Murdoch undermines democratic government across the world by threatening elected leaders with viciously biased media coverage unless they do his bidding. He has manipulated US, British and Australian democracy for years, but now he wants more complete control. In the US, most of the likely Republican presidential candidates are actually paid employees of Murdoch! When his Fox News Network was shunned by Barack Obama as a mere propaganda mouthpiece, it spawned the far right "tea party" and broadcast constant, often hate-filled attacks against Obama and his healthcare and peace agenda -- resulting in a huge win for Republicans in the 2010 congressional elections.

We can turn the tide on this powerful threat to democracy. Last year, Murdoch had lunch with the Canadian Prime Minister, who sent his chief aide to set up a murdoch-style political propaganda TV network in Canada. A mass outcry from Canadian Avaaz members prevented this network from being funded by taxpayer money, and just last week, another mass campaign from Avaaz prevented the Canadian government from removing the journalistic standards that would prevent this new network from spreading lies to the public. This week the battleground is the UK. The fight against Murdoch has just begun, but already we've begun to win. Click below to keep up the pressure:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_rupert_murdoch_3/?vl

The power of Avaaz and of this moment in our world's history, is the power of unity. Across the Arab world and beyond, people are coming together in common cause across all boundaries. Murdoch's power is the ability to divide. His networks use fear and misinformation to divide left from right, citizens from foreigners, muslim from western, immigrants from non-immigrants, etc. Murdoch knows that democracy must be divided before it can be conquered. This week, let's show him what unity looks like.

With hope,

Ricken, Alex, Emma, Sam, Milena, Alice, Iain, Morgan, Maria Paz and the whole Avaaz team Sources:

Murdoch close to deal with regulators over Sky
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a40fc482-4060-11e0-9140-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1FHWHwqJE

What's at stake with Murdoch's bid for BSkyB
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/27/rupert-murdoch-bskyb-monopolies

Murdoch editors' repeated meetings with police chiefs
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/news-of-world-bosses-dined-with-met-chief-2222814.html

Rupert Murdoch's assault on peace and democracy
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b122948.html

Rupert Murdoch’s growing media empire
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10317856

Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004

Police fail to investigate mass phone hacking http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05hacking-t.html?_r=1

Support the Avaaz community! We're entirely funded by donations and receive no money from governments or corporations. Our dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way -- donate here.

---

Avaaz.org is a 7-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people shape global decision-making. ("Avaaz" means "voice" or "song" in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 13 countries on 4 continents and operates in 14 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz's biggest campaigns here, or follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

This message was sent to jwright@surfbvi.com. To change your email address, language, or other information, contact us via this form -- or simply click here to unsubscribe.

To contact Avaaz, please do not reply to this email. Instead, write to us at www.avaaz.org/en/contact or call us at +1-888-922-8229 (US).

18 February 2011

Wikileaks Stoned Again

18 February 2011

Hello Cryptome / Mr John Young.

I recently posted my research on some aspects of the debate surrounding Wikileaks and the concept of free information flow in general.

In my report I mentioned Cryptome. If you have the time and would like to comment on what I've written, I would appreciate it.

The Casting of Stones at Assange by the Disenchanted

http://humanityinchaos.com/StonesAtAssange.html

Thank you for your attention.

Karl F. Stewart

__________

Dear Mr. Stewart,

Thank you for pointing to your report. My responses which are substantiated by files here:

http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-series.htm

1. My agreed role in Wikileaks was limited to allowing my name to be used as registrant for the domain name (I have done this for several parties who wished to conceal their identity). This request came from an anonymous person.

2. I was subsequently placed on a private mail list without being asked. I offered comments there.

3. An unknown person posted a message on that mail list suggesting a target of up to $5 million dollars to be raised in 6 months. I objected to that stating that such a sum of money could only come that quickly from an organization like Soros or the CIA.

4. I also suggested a slow build-up of credibility before soliciting funds.

5. After contentious debate I was summarily unsubscribed from the mail list after I said I would publish the mail list contents, which I did.

6. There was little contact with Wikileaks for several years except for being sent an archive of its holdings during a period when it was under threat to be shut down.

7. Cryptome does not do what Wikileaks does and it is unfair to both and inaccurate to make that claim. Cryptome is not a leak site and resents being labeled that way for it distorts our purpose to be a library with no desire for publicity. We do not solicit press coverage, send out press releases, hold press conferences, make accusations, brag about our work, plead for funding. We do not attempt to keep our operation secret -- that would be a conflict with our role as a public library. We do not sell information or make deals with the media. We do not claim to be threatened by authorities although we have had visits from them. We do not consider Cryptome to be a journalistic endeavor and do not claim protection as journalists. We call ourselves public scholars, see the Wikipedia entry on Cryptome. We pay for Cryptome out of our pockets.

8. Since Wikileaks has received a lot of publicity with release of the gunship video and afterwards I have been bombarded with inquiries about Wikileaks. My attempts to deflect the inquiries were unsuccessful: most wanted information about Julian Assange and little about the operation of the initiative. Quite a few aimed to foster conflict between Cryptome and Wikileaks citing my early, very brief involvement and the mail list publication.

9. My critique of Wikileaks -- earliest and latest -- is intended to be constructive and to guard against praising a fledging operation due the weakening effect of excessive praise. Instead I believe Wikileaks needs greater, well-thought-out critique to assure it survives excessive glorification and demonization -- which I warned about in the earliest days and which will become more intense in the future. (I have given OpenLeaks the same advice.)

10. Focus on Julian Assange weakens Wikileaks for its purpose is more important that he is. It is a terrible trap to concentrate on him rather than Wikileaks, a trap often set by the media and those opposed to the creation of new forms of information flow. I urge you to learn more about the material published by Wikileaks since 2006, all of it, and avoid vacuous debate about Julian Assange. Julian has said the same, often. He knows that the attention paid to him is damaging Wikileaks and that that is the intention of those who do so, wittingly or unwittingly.

11. As you write, material published by Cryptome and Wikileaks is voluminous and hard to grasp, thank goodness for that burden as an alternative to easy fat food of the media. Most reporters who contact me claim they have not time to read the material, and go on to ask impertinent questions about Julian and me. They are ignorant fools working to attract eyeballs to advertisements. I hope you  are not.

12. You should withdraw your report due to its shallow comprehension of Wikileaks and Cryptome and its inane focus on Julian Assange. It shows a lack of intelligence and research, is too glib, too gossipy, too culled from and derivative of the exploitive headline flaunting media.

13. I suggest you spend six months or a year studying Cryptome and Wikileaks material, avoid trashy media brain deading, do library homework or else you will be just another exploiter and promoter of the public's as a mirror of your own ignorance. Tough comments, but that is what Wikileaks, Cryptome, you, the media and me deserve.

14. I agree the BBC Panoramo show was pure shit. I was interviewed for that and told John Sweeney, the interviewer, that BBC was ill-prepared to report on the topic. I told him BBC should do serious research before doing the show. And beyond that I told him a lot more which I assumed would never be aired the same way most of those who have interviewed me omitted the best material to report what had already decided to say.

15. I know John Sweeney to be a crook and liar. That is no secret. Pathetic that BBC allows him on the property.

This message is not private.

Best regards,

John Young

When it comes to American politics, we all know "the rules":

Rule #1 - The fake choice.  You must chose between one of two political parties, Democrats or Republicans--otherwise, as the big fraud claims, you are simply "throwing your vote away".

Rule #2 - Your assigned beliefs.  Once you choose a party, ALL of your beliefs are decided for you.  Regardless of your personal beliefs on the individual issues, your party politicians will vote on your behalf as follows:

So, if you feel really, extremely, ridiculously strongly about one of these issues (or simply agree with one side slightly more than you do the other) you can vote that way and have all the other issues decided for you.  Or, if you are split pretty evenly, you can flip a coin--what's the difference?  You can either go with the democrats where most decisions revolve around feelings, sensitivities, and the government ensuring fairness, or you can go with the republicans where most decisions revolve around religious beliefs, moralities, and the government knowing what's best.

The problem with a two party system such as ours extends beyond merely having to choose between the better of two evils.  Neither party gives you the opportunity to hold a consistent set of beliefs.  This is because neither party derives its belief structure from a consistent source.  Democrats largely rely on feelings, Republicans generally rely on morality, and both parties claim to rely on the Constitution (when it happens to agree with the democrat's feelings or the republican's morals).  Both parties use a mixture of feeling, philosophy, and agenda to define their policies and both are forced to hold conflicting stances.  You can not adhere to all the beliefs generally held within either party without being a hypocrite.

If you are a democrat, how does it make any sense to be ok with killing unborn babies, but against killing mass murderers?  How can you truly support fairness and equality for all, while you expect one class of people to be completely supported by the work of another?  How can you claim to support free expression, but also support laws against "hate speech"?

If you are a republican, how can you support the rights of people to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol, but fight tooth and nail against marijuana?  How can you frame so many arguments around morality and values, but then fight against health care and bomb poor people in foreign countries into oblivion?  How can you refuse to allow illegals in because they take our jobs, but then be ok with sending our jobs out to them?

Consistency.  It simply cannot exist in a system such as ours.  Enter Libertarianism.  Libertarians try to derive all of their opinions from one source--support for individual liberty.  This happens to be the same source that was relied on when our founding fathers framed our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  The belief structure is simple:  Government should be small and limited, and people should be able to do whatever they want as long as their actions don't hinder anyone else's ability to do the same.  People have the right to decide their own morality, and are responsible for the consequences of their decisions.  This results in far more consistency across the typical issues.  Let's re-examine the list above in a purely Constitutional / small government / individual liberty approach:

*Abortion and the death penalty, are very unlikely to have a unified stance within ANY party--because they rely on personal beliefs about when someone becomes human and when someone can no longer be considered human.  Even these complex issues, where there appears to be no stance, remain completely consistent in their adherence to the Constitution (which clearly says that some issues are better left to individual states).

This is why I always implore people to re-examine their political views, and try to adjust them around a singular unified source--Personal Liberty.  Instead of framing all issues in terms of conservative vs liberal, democrat vs republican, or moral vs immoral--try framing them in terms of individual liberty vs government control.  This exercise is not easy.  Sometimes it's very difficult to do--particularly where personal moral and/or religious beliefs are involved.  You must realize that leaving your own moral and political beliefs out of politics does not mean that you are leaving them out of your life.  You can remain true to your beliefs by choosing to live your own life according to them.  You are simply making a decision not to impose your beliefs or lifestyle on other people, because you wouldn't want them to impose their beliefs or lifestyles on you.  Furthermore, if you must choose between a democrat and a republican, try to remain as true as you can to liberty--pick the candidate who does the most to increase individual liberty (and/or decrease government intervention).

It's all about consistency.  If you support individual liberty you will never be a hypocrite.