Author Topic: WikiLeaks Supporters and the Importance of being "Endorsed" by Julian Assange  (Read 30418 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Howard Bourne

  • Guest
Something strange has happened during the past few months. Its a new phenomenon called "being endorsed by WikiLeaks" .

Being "endorsed by WikiLeaks means Julian Assange likes the site and agrees with the sites content, in other words, it suits his cause. Does this mean the Website has to close when Julian Assange suddenly revokes his endorsement ?.

Does the withdrawal of one mans personal opinion render a Website totally worthless?

For what it's worth, the WikiLeaks Supporters Forum was endorsed by WikiLeaks for 18 months before one man decided it was no longer worthy of his "endorsement"

Here is what it feels like to be "endorsed" by WikiLeaks ( Julian Assange ) ( screenshot from 23.09.2012 )

and here is what it looks like when NOT "endorsed" by WikiLeaks ( Julian Assange )

** Please note: The IRC is dead, so is and the WikiLeaks Facebook page ISN'T run by "supporters" but by Wikileaks.

The Forum was official announced by Julian Assange himself on 24th May 2011.

The site was created by one person and with the full knowledge and " endorsement " from Julian Assange.
After the Forum was created, the only 2 People from Wikileaks who we had contact with was Sigurdur Thordarson and Kristinn Hrafnsson.

As far as the forum is concerned, it was Sigurdur who helped with the Forums development and launch. His surprise Statement announcing his departure from WikiLeaks was made at the beginning of September 2011. I asked him why he was leaving and received just a simple reply that his departure was his own decision and not due to any rows he had with Julian.When I asked him if he was in danger he said "yes" but all would be okay. All this Information can be backed up with chat logs I had with him then.

Shortly after his departure, Kristinn Hrafnsson approached us and asked me if I needed any help with the Forum and WikiLeaks Facebook page. I asked him to look for someone to help me admin the WikiLeaks Facebook page and 2 weeks later a 3rd name was added to the list of admins.

Even 2 years later, I still wonder why Sigurdur was not taken off the list of Facebook admins in September when he left WikiLeaks. Kristinn was also admin and could have taken him off the list with 2 mouse clicks.

It wasn't untill November that he sent me an " SOS " message to come on jabber ( secure instant message Chat ). The matter was " urgent ". Here is an except from the original Chat log from 09.11.2011: ( jabber names have been edited )

(12:59:10 AM) Unverified conversation with [email protected] started.

(12:59:11 AM) [email protected]: [resent] ping
(12:59:12 AM) [email protected]: serious
(12:59:19 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: hi
(12:59:40 AM) [email protected]: we have a situation with Singi
(1:00:19 AM) [email protected]: found out that money from sales of merchandise have stopped over on his personal account and are not being delivered
(1:00:56 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: damn...who is singi ?
(1:01:01 AM) [email protected]: Q
(1:01:04 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: siggi
(1:01:05 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: shit
(1:01:22 AM) [email protected]: and an admin on fb
(1:01:29 AM) [email protected]: you must remove him now
(1:01:35 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: he has to be taken off
(1:01:41 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: immediately
(1:01:46 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: doing now
(1:01:49 AM) [email protected]: he is sitting on 60K
(1:01:58 AM) [email protected]: (or has spent it)
(1:02:31 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: is this the reason maybe why he stopped ?
(1:02:38 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: I ve removed him alreadey
(1:02:39 AM) [email protected]: he declared two months ago that he had left but we know now he has been in daily contact
(1:02:58 AM) [email protected]: and barred us from getting to volunters and supporters

(1:05:52 AM) [email protected]: we need to deal with him effecktivly but without any big noice
(1:06:05 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: this must not get into thge open
(1:06:45 AM) [email protected]: trust you spread the word in an effective manner
(1:07:15 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: is there a way to get the money back ?
(1:07:25 AM) [email protected]: best if we refrain from this being a big story - we dont need that now
(1:07:38 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: more negative headlines
(1:07:45 AM) [email protected]: I will be in his territory in a day and I will deal with this personally
(1:07:56 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: he in iceland ?
(1:07:58 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUMn: or london
(1:08:02 AM) [email protected]: is
(1:08:05 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: ok
(1:08:24 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: im in UK at the moment...will be in london on thursday
(1:08:30 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: has the shop been informed ?
(1:09:48 AM) [email protected]: yes
(1:10:06 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: why were they paying the money to him ?
(1:10:19 AM) WIKILEAKS FORUM: he must have changed the accounts at some time
(1:10:23 AM) [email protected]: still to be found out

After that, all we knew was that a part of the Money had been recovered.

The following year a request was made to WikiLeaks to help finance the Forum which, until then was privately financed.
WikiLeaks said " Find a good EU Hoster and we can help you " followed by " We can sort that sort of Money if there is a good Long term Investment "
Screenshot of Chat session --->

All this time, the Forum was still " endorsed " by WikiLeaks ( Julian Assange ).

Now the Forum ISN'T endorsed by WikiLeaks, ( Julian Assange ) and to be honest, who cares ? The Forum will not cease to operate simply because of a decision made by ONE PERSON. A Forum is a place for discussion and a platform to voice ones opinions. It's a 2-way ticket. One can read and one can write.

The only reason the Forum has been " un-endorsed " is simple. WikiLeaks critics can post too. Can you imagine "This Day in WikiLeaks" or "WikiLeaks Press" allowing statements or discussions that criticize Julians Actions ? Both those sites are Blogs, in other way conversation. The author Posts, and we all get to read it. No criticism allowed, no room for comments. Ever asked yourself what would happen if one of these blogs decided to allow criticism of Assange or WikiLeaks ? Make no bones about it, they will be uprooted and " un-endorsed ".

Even better still. Can you imagine a WikiLeaks Forum RUN by Julian Assange ? How would he cope with criticism ? Ever wonder why Assange didnt create his own discussion Forum?

Oh by the way, just in case you think the Forum isn't alone when it comes to being " un-endorsed ". Check the following tweet by Julian aimed at akaWACA

A full account of of this issue can be found at:

So this is what happens when Assange feels criticized or as so many hardcore supporters put it " ATTACKED " You are made redundant, you get " un-endorsed "

2 weeks ago, some of our Forum members received a fake e mail "warning" them about the Forum and how unsafe it was etc etc. The content of the mail was posted by a current user on the Forum and although the mail is abusive and malicious, we didn't make any attempt to censor or remove it.

So who or what is a " WikiLeaks Supporter " ?

I would expect a true WIkiLeaks supporter is someone who doesn't need to be told what to think or what to say. A Wikileaks supporter is someone who doesn't require "endorsement" in order to express his/her own opinion without being subjected to abuse.

When the Forum was created, I expected genuine WikiLeaks enemies to be the only obstacle. I thought WikiLeaks enemies were the bad guys; the corrupt, oppressive governments lying behind our backs and committing unthinkable crimes. I expected government paid trolls to use the Forum for anti-WikiLeaks Propaganda or as a base to smear Julian Assange with new conspiracy theories.

Sadly, it turns out that the only enemies we have are so called " WikiLeaks Supporters " who will stop at nothing to prevent the Forum from upholding free speech and freedom of expression. The very thought of a WikiLeaks Forum allowing criticism of Assange is an issue that throws these people into an advanced state of frenzy.

A Long time WikiLeaks/Julian Assange supporter who uses the Twitter name Jaraparilla, was called an "aspie git " by another supporter who refers to himself as "WikiLeaks Lover" for comments surrounding the failure of the WikiLeaks Party . The term " aspie git " refers to Jaraparillas own problems with Aspergers syndrome

It goes to say that IF WikiLeaks ever ceases to operate, then it wont be because of the FBI, CIA or a WikiLeaks Grand Jury but through the self destruction of so called "Supporters" from within the WikiLeaks community.

It doesn't really matter if your Website has the personal blessing of Julian Assange or not ( Blessing = endorsement ), if you have an idea, then stick to your guns.

So will the WikiLeaks Forum continue to support WikiLeaks ?

I'm sorry folks, but the answer is yes.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2013, 00:57:40 AM by Z »

Offline richardcrowden

  • Basic Member
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • Gender: Male
    • Blog
I endorse this post.


  • Guest
lol "endorse"

it's funny that there is a "SUPPORTERS" site too.

i've seem some people on twitter that really like to be endorsed. that love that site and tweet it every day.


THAT'S lame ;)


Offline CathyVoganSPK

  • New Member Group
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Gender: Female
  • Transparency, Accountability, Justice
I'd say M.A.D., except that it has been good in one way for WACA. It certainly provoked a lot of Australians to rally to their support and communicate with each other. And it obviously didn't kill the Wikileaks Supporters Forum, despite the toxicity of the venom that was injected here.

What is bad is the personal grief one feels; being shunned, discredited and retrospectively unappreciated, as soon as the first eyebrow is raised - more often than not, it would seem, in relation to democratic process... 

Disendorsement has only really worked when it's been targeted at individuals - and even then, not always. It didn't destroy Birgitta, given her profile, integrity, diligence and good nature. I'd say in the case of WACA, it most dramatically back-fired...


  • Guest
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Cathy.

Unendorsment means one doesn't represent WL main point of view.
Being unendorsed actually is emotionally heavy at the beginning because one feels not recognized.
Specially for those who actually did nothing strange except from saying what they were thinking at the moment for motivated reasons.

But at the end it sets us free of doing somethingelse, indipeendently. :)

Offline Signhilde

  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 887
  • Gender: Female
So will the WikiLeaks Forum continue to support WikiLeaks ?
I'm sorry folks, but the answer is yes.

Yes really! I even keep a small corner of my heart for Wikileaks founder.
I was reading Wikipedia Swedish and som English. At least the Swedish Wikipedia was not updated. I have tried show the leaks from 2012 and 2013. And Wikileaks Forum is not named, so there is work to do.

Offline Riney

  • Support Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
The act of pulling the endorsement of a support group of any kind, whether it be this discussion forum about WikiLeaks or WACA because Julian Assange does not agree with the type of support they provide or their occasional criticism of him, is counter productive. 

     WikiLeaks was built on an idea of transparency and truth telling. The actual function of it was to hold corruption accountable by making the flow of information about corrupt behaviors easier. Everyone that was drawn towards WikiLeaks wanted that basic function to occur, that was their motivation for supporting WikiLeaks- they were supporting the idea behind it. 

     At some point Julian Assange turned the supporting of WikiLeaks into supporting him, unquestionably and without critic. On this point I fully disagree with him. The idea of transparency was not born with WikiLeaks and it will not die if WikiLeaks falls. 

    In fact not all transparency advocates fully endorse WikiLeaks. The vigilante style of WikiLeaks means of transparency did not sit well with transparency advocates in Washington that had been trying for years to change the laws concerning transparency slowly but surely. When the leaks by WikiLeaks occurred the anti-transparency sector of Washington politics suddenly had a full blown excuse to further their agenda and some transparency laws were then tightened as a result of the now rampant paranoia.       

     There has been a question put forth as to why this forum and WACA even still contain the "WikiLeaks" word in their titles because of the allowance of some criticism by both entities of Julian Assange. For some of Julian Assange's most ardent supporters, criticism of Julian Assange is sacrilege. For the people that support the idea of transparency that WikiLeaks was built on, criticism of Julian Assange is allowed, that is my personal stance as well.  

     Therefore, in my opinion it remains completely appropriate for this forum and WACA (if they are so inclined) to keep the word "WikiLeaks" in their titles. This does not sit well with some people, but that is just the way it is.
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage" Anais Nin .. and yet we must arm ourselves with fear

Offline Riney

  • Support Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
By the way Signhilde, this was a very sweet thing to say: "I even keep a small corner of my heart for Wikileaks founder."

   I want you to know that on this forum, no matter what I say in criticism of Julian Assange is not meant to disrespect  anyone's personal opinion and support of him. We are all different people here and therefore all hold our different personal feelings and thoughts about Julian Assange. 

   There has been some accusations by people that this forum does not allow people to speak in favor of Julian Assange, that is simply not true. No doubt the criticism of Julian Assange on this forum can be uncomfortable for some supporters of Assange to read, depending on their personal feelings about him. None the less, support of him is certainly allowed.
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage" Anais Nin .. and yet we must arm ourselves with fear


  • Guest
People just learning. I guess it´s not a easy way away from following a leader to make up your own mind.

They will learn to deal with that,


They have no other choice ;-)

Sometimes Life is a *mömpmöp*

Offline kimono

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
it's strange, because I always thought Julian Assange criticized the forum to joke and to provoke the supporters

wikileaks has always loved creating controversy : just think that Assange is closed is an embassy, he is so bored of seeing the same walls that he invents ways to create new controversies among supporters and maybe the result is that people believe in what he is saying

it's difficult to evaluate Wikileaks tweets, because Assange never said these things against the forum in a video or in front of a journalist, so why is he only tweeting these things?
the truth is: if he would say this in front of a journalist or in a video, maybe he wouldn't be able to say this seriously, because maybe it's just a joke -

I don't understand why people believe all his tweets - do you really think he's saying this seriously?

A man who puts a blonde wig to parody a song during australian elections would be able to say serious things?... :)
"Les hommes qui ont vécu dans les laboratoires n'imaginent guère que les partis extrêmes" -
"Men who lived in the laboratories can hardly imagine anything else than extreme parties" (Louis Aragon, 1897-1982)


  • Guest
Is retweeting that we spread malware a joke?

Is this a joke?

Journalists read the tweets.

In this exact moment a serie of person has invented the worst smears against this forum, flamed by similar "jokes".

WACA is thanks god in a beetter situation as their situation is so public that nobody can attack them without damaging him/herself.

With the Forum... the things have been done hidden way, by retweeting accounts of ex forum staffers that turnred against us, giving them "power".

WikiLeaks attacked us in public on twitter months later a group of hardcore extremist supporters had started to try to erode the trust in this forum by distorted information on ourselves.

WikiLeaks has defended those who sent a defamatory emails via fowl.

Wikileaks = Julian Assange using the account @wikileaks on twitter has defended those who were attacking us.

Assange can't go to the media telling this forum is anti-WikiLeaks because this is Not the truth.
Doing a similar thing would mean showing his true face of person who is tremendously scared by the difference.

I apreciate what JA has done with the leaks a lot. I admire Assange's work.
At the same time I must say that one person that is chief of a pro-transparency organization has been defending all those hiddenly lying because they were angry with this forum.
Assange is responsible of having given energy to these people by agreeing with their lies.
When WACA asked for transparency about things happened inside the WLparty and exposed John Shipton's attempts to hiddenly kick off uncomfortable people from the party, Assange instead of saying "bravo, expose the truth!" attacked WACA on twitter.

One person who represents transparency to the eyes of the world can't act so dirty.
It doesn't make him look credible.
He looks like a manipulator.
Like the governments himself is fighting.

Z in his post said that indeed the main problems don't come from "government paied trolls" but from people inside the "wikileaks supporters community" that can't deal with different interpretations of the WL principals.

This is true here, outside and on twitter.

My personal experience on twitter, being an Assange supporter (before Assange attacked this Forum I was a hard core supporter too), I discussed with some that had been called "govt paied trolls" [PGPboard, objectiviser, SandraE. etc. ].
I discovered that I had absolutely No problem having a civil, polite interesting discussion with them, even if we were representing different points of view. In the worst case we "agreed to disagree" and we didn't follow each other. None of these people ever censored or blocked me or reported me on twitter; none of them ever missed respect for my hardcore pro-Assange thoughts.
As I realized Assange and Co. did errors and I criticized these errors (we are not perfect: we are wrong, we are sometimes misunderstanding the others) ... As I dared to criticize Assange -all of this while Daily^^ posting Pro-Assange here in the Forum and on SJA (Support Julian Assange site)- some guys rised up by telling I was anti-Assange, that I was not accepting "his human side" ... O_O not accepting his human side?! Sorry I was accepting it so much that I saw it while supporting him! ... Anyway ok with these people, some ex-forum collegues, they arrived at the point of spreading around that I'm "influenced" by anti-Assange person's thoughts! So I'm basically a stupid: according to them I can't think alone. These people arrived at the point of spreading lies on this Forum with the only aim of discrediting it.

Another thing: the main part of the persons angry with this Forum say this forum is "anti-Assange".

Absolutely False.

I'm personally critic toward Assange's last behaviours with us, WACA and others.

But if one members desires to post here Support-Assange information, if one wants to defend him, his rights (let's not forget his situation isn't good at all in this moment): please post this information!
Is there a pro-Assange rally? ---> post it!
Do you think Assange is politically prosecuted: post post!

The main thing is one doesn't pretend that others who have been heavily hurt by his own, or his father's, or his supporters', behaviours stay silent when they are attacked and damaged.

WikiLeaks was a team... yes?

When has WikiLeaks stopped being a team of persons and has become one man's unity?

If WikiLeaks is supposed to be an idea, one man's decision will mean that That Man disagrees/agrees endorses/unendorses but Not that what the others are doing is necessary wrong, or without value or sorta.

Unendorsment mean: we aren't recognized by Assange and some other WikiLeaks staffers.
Official persons = 3 persons at the moment: Julian, Kristinn, Sarah Harrison; all the others are volunteers like us.
The day one of these endorsed volunteers does an action disliked by the official guys, this person is Off.
You have to take name and logo off according to them.

Is this democratic?
Is this nice?

Anyway, as WikiLeaks hasn't been shaped by 3 people only, but also thanks to the hard support of hundreds of people all around the world, yes we'll keep suporting WikiLeaks as a wider thing, we will support Assange too thee best way we can.
If he doesn't like the way we support when we have been spiting our soul doing this, I'm sorry but being unendorsed won't touch the value of the efforts spread.

Offline Ginny

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Gender: Female
    • Virginia Hoge Blog
I have come to understand Julian Assange as a keyboard commando, and what he commands, is Wikileaks. It is very much a personalized organization, lots of venting, and his craving for adulation and the lime-light is daily fed, on Twitter. Nothing is more important to the man, than to be a "somebody".

OK, but what he forgets is that true whistleblowers - which it is an open question if Assange ever was a whistleblower - have humility. You cannot be a whistleblower, and be arrogant! You have to have the character that puts the needs of others before yourself, you have to have courage and a strong will to follow your conscience.

It is very clear to anyone with an understanding of human nature, that what Assange does with Wikileaks is not whistleblowing, but a very self-directed agenda, based on his anarchism and desire for "importance". All of the marketing done, of Snowden and Manning, always with Assange's name attached to it, for instance.

He is not an American, yet a big part of his goal, is to tear down the U.S. I know more than most, how many problems we have. I have faced the very worst of the Secret State, I have had their teeth in my back and all their hi-tech weapons pointed in my direction.

I know deep in my heart, that what needs to happen is that solutions are found to the problem of surveillance - both by the government and by Tech - to restore Reason to a Mad situation. To save the Internet. To restore privacy. To restore our Rights.
The content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you do is who you become. Your integrity is your destiny - it is the light that guides your way.
- Heraclitus

Offline Riney

  • Support Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
     OK, but what he forgets is that true whistleblowers - which it is an open question if Assange ever was a whistleblower - have humility. You cannot be a whistleblower, and be arrogant! You have to have the character that puts the needs of others before yourself, you have to have courage and a strong will to follow your conscience.

   I totally agree. Having been a member of this forum for some time now, I started with an opinion of Assange quiet different than what you have stated above, but then as time wore on and with his behaviors towards people with differing opinions bordering on stark narcissism, my outlook changed drastically. 

   When I look around at whistle blowers in the world today, of course each of them vary in their degree to also allow people to look inside their own secrets and/or information about themselves as a part of showing humility. What sets Assange apart from all of them is that he does not vary at all on this, he guards the exposure and ultimately the critic of any information about himself in a most arrogant and self serving way. 

   Probably to most people that look at Assange today from a distance, I might seem extreme in my view of this. The thing is I do not look at Assange from a distance like they do. Because I have been a member of this forum for so long, and Assange has treated this forum and its staff so horribly for not suiting his personal needs of glorification, I have had a more up close experience of his wrath to dissenters of him.
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage" Anais Nin .. and yet we must arm ourselves with fear

Offline Ginny

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Gender: Female
    • Virginia Hoge Blog
You cannot be arrogant, and be a true whistleblower. Assange's arrogance, his clear need for self-glorification, they are antithetical to the character needed to put the lives of others, the needs of others, before the Self, as one must to blow the whistle on powerful, dangerous forces.

Its not safe to be a whistleblower, and Assange has many times played the victim card. He seeks a lot of sympathy, again, if someone is truly courageous, they don't ask for pity, they don't have pity-parties. They accept the danger of what they have taken on. They man-up and woman-up.

His lashing out, is a sign of his insecurity and need for control of his Image. The trolling, the claiming the Wikileaks Forum did what Wikileaks did, all of that never should have happened, but it did. This forum houses whistleblowers, very important news is coming from here, its a tribute to the Wikileaks core ideal, a tribute to what's good in the World.
The content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you do is who you become. Your integrity is your destiny - it is the light that guides your way.
- Heraclitus