Reviewing the Ironies and Impact of Wikileaks After the Election

powell_ben_ali-1Prior to the 2016 Presidential Election, discussion of Fourth Amendment Rights and Wikileaks was hardly the media’s favorite topic. When Tunisia’s Authoritarian Ruler, Ben Ali, was deposed, people hardly cared why. In fact, most Americans asked little questions regarding Ben Ali’s fall from power. He was a dictator and it was only natural that a dictator be overthrown from power. This consensus was extraordinarily reductive. Without Wikileaks, Ben Ali would likely still be in power. The publication of Julian Assange’s Wikileaks “helped fuel the anger on the streets that culminated Friday with Mr. Ben Ali’s flight”.  The Wikileaks publication and Ben Ali’s deposition in 2010 led to a catastrophic series of  regime changes in the Arab region.

By D-Ray a contributing author to SHTFBlog & Survival Cache

At the time, commentators naively referred to the Wikileaks inspired revolution as ‘The Arab Spring‘. They speculated a new generation of secular, progressive Arabs would bring meaningful change to the MiddleEast. This calculation proved to be horribly wrong. Had these commentators exercised more sagacity, they would have seen that such widespread change would lead to chaos and unmitigated fundamentalism. Unsurprisingly, the State Department, led by Hillary Clinton, failed to accurately assess the implications of such a revolution.

Clinton’s failure to manage the Wikileaks inspired revolution led to her most notable scandal as Secretary of State: the 2012 Benghazi Attack.  Following the outrage of the carnage, the House Select Committee on Benghazi investigated Hillary Clinton. In 2014, the Committee discovered Clinton had used a private email server in her communications as Secretary of State. Two years later, at the height of the 2016 Presidential Election, Wikileaks released the contents of Hillary’s server.

The Nixon Irony

Despite the best efforts of the media, the public became aware of Hillary’s misconduct as Secretary of State. Among other things, the Wikileaks evidence suggested Clinton mishandled classified information, colluded with members of the media, and fostered questionable relationships with foreign governments and private corporations. While Hillary was never formally indicted, it became clear, even to the most liberal commentators, that she flirted dangerously close with a criminal line.

julian_assangeAlthough the media has an annoying tendency to add the suffix ‘gate’ to anything  remotely scandalous, the comparisons between Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon are incredibly germane.  In a similar manner, the comparisons between Nixon’s thorn, Daniel Ellsberg, and Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, are appropriate. To be sure, some distinctions must be made. Julian Assange’s leaks, especially those regarding National Security, represent a massive amount of raw, unprocessed data while Ellsberg’s leak was a summarized account of failures in Vietnam. Furthermore, the manner in which Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, through the New York Times, provided a medium in which sensitive data was withheld. In this manner, the Pentagon Papers constituted a far more benign leak.

Some have condemned Assange’s leaks on US Military operations as treasonous and irresponsible. Many of these same critics point to Ellsberg and claim Assange should have released his data through a reputable news source. In this manner, data sensitive to matters of National Security would be withheld. Prior to Hillary’s Email Scandal, this argument was tenable. Hillary’s scandal proved something incredibly disturbing: most ‘reputable’ outlets were colluding with Clinton’s campaign in a manner totally antithetical to journalistic ethics. Assange realized something most Americans would have refused to believe prior to the Fall of 2016, the media is wholly corrupt. At some point, ostensibly objective news organizations assumed the function of Super PACs. Had Assange followed in the footsteps of Ellsberg and trusted the New York Times to publish, the editors at the Times would have deleted any damning information regarding Hillary Clinton.

Moving Forward

There is no doubt that Wikileaks endeavors have compromised the security objectives of the United States. While some have condemned Wikileaks, the organization’s actions are, in my opinion, justifiable. In an era where the government has no respect for the privacy of citizens, it is refreshing to see Wikileaks invade the privacy of officials. On a less petty level, Wikileaks has done what the media fails to do: report in a complete, objective, and unbiased manner.

trump_electionWhen Time Magazine named Donald Trump the Time Person of the Year, Drudge Report quipped, “make media great again?”. I’m not so sure what to make of this. While traditional media outlets displayed an unprecedented amount of bias during this election cycle, voters were able to gather news from a great variety of sources. Wikileaks showed voters more about any one candidate than we have ever seen before. This is the paradox of the information age: the media has never been this bad but we have never had so much transparency.

Trump’s election caught many in the media and Washington by surprise. When the dust settled, the left began to ask questions: how did Trump beat out an overwhelmingly biased media narrative to become President-Elect? Put simply, the American Public didn’t buy the narrative of the mainstream media. When major media outlets refused to discuss the details of Wikileaks and Clinton’s emails, people began to question the validity of traditional news. Public faith in the media collapsed and Americans began to consume news from less traditional outlets.

In an attempt to save their mendacious journalism machine, the left has launched a crusade against ‘fake news’. Nobody can define what constitutes ‘fake news’. It is a buzzword and political tool. This is a sad and desperate attempt to limit the free discourse of ideas and speech. Obama’s condemnation of ‘fake news’ isn’t a plea to restore journalistic ethics, it is an Orwellian attempt to shut down ideas seen as troublesome or dangerous.  The left would love to delegitimize anything they disagree with as fake. In our information age, they will have an impossible time controlling information. Wikileaks and those like it will continue to champion free speech while traditional media outlets atrophy.

Photos Courtesy of:

LeStudio 1 2016
Francesc Miguel Estrague

8 comments… add one
  • Pineslayer December 9, 2016, 11:49 am

    I believe the leaks only confirmed what most of us knew.

    When exposing a crime becomes a crime, you know you are ruled by criminals.

    Reply
  • Joel Forge December 9, 2016, 1:12 pm

    Isn’t WikiLeaks fake news? Based on what I am seeing from the MSM (Main Stream Media) – Fake News is only news that they deem to be fake. They love to talk about right leaning sites who have stories that they deem to be fake but never mention all of the fake news they have portrayed on America for decades. The fact that Wikileaks exposed the link between MSM and the Clinton’s disqualifies them from pointing out fake news on other sites in my mind. I still can’t believe more is not made of the fact that questions were passed prior to debates between the Clinton team and the MSM, as well as MSM reporters letting the Clinton team proof their articles before publishing to make sure they were “Accurate” – what a scam. MSM and the DNC made sure that Clinton was the candidate of choice at the expense of the American people who clearly wanted anybody but Clinton and came within an inch of getting Bernie Sanders into the race. The MSM thought they could carry Crooked Hillary all the way to the White House but the American people stepped in and said, not this time.

    Reply
  • Pineslayer December 9, 2016, 2:54 pm

    Here’s a little gem that the MSM doesn’t talk about.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

    Reply
  • Jeremy December 9, 2016, 7:02 pm

    I get so angry with the people who accuse Julian Assange of being a traitor for two very good reasons. HE’S NOT AMERICAN. He’s Australian. He can’t be a traitor to us. He can’t be charged with treason. The next is a much more fundamental reason that hurts the feelings of all you authoritarian sycophants. A government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” cannot keep secrets from the people. Either the government works for us, or it doesn’t. Your employer doesn’t allow you to keep business related secrets from them. They will fire you. Likewise, our government should not be allowed to keep secrets from us. At the very least, our elected Congressional Representatives should have full access to every single little thing the government does, or has ever done. Why it isn’t that way now is justification for revolution. Many of my compatriots in the Army (years gone by) disagree with me, but they’re retards who are used to being kicked into conformity and told to trust their leaders. Wikileaks, and Julian Assange, consistently show us that our leaders are not to be trusted. I think that is what scares people about Assange the most.

    Reply
  • Sirlancelot December 11, 2016, 12:57 am

    I’m grateful for Wikileaks and Assange.

    They have woke the American people to the evil that resides in Washington DC

    Reply
  • irishdutchuncle December 11, 2016, 5:02 am

    I’d feel really bad about it if any American spies get “outed” by Assange. otherwise, we don’t need to have that many secrets…

    Reply
  • DipSh*t December 12, 2016, 6:07 pm

    Great article. Anyone who believes CNN (Clinton News Network) or any of their partners in crime needs to have their head examined. Keep up the good writing!!!! Thank God for WikiLinks. Even if they expose Trump at a later date like they did to Bush during the war, the people deserve the truth….

    Reply

Leave a Comment