This short Assange video could be used for marketing

@AlKafir

If I remember correctly in Frazer’s Golden Bough the power of culture is described. It was influential for Freud as was Bulfinch’s Mythology- its bits of psychology and anthropology. If someone touches something that belongs to the fabled tribal King/Chieften without permission they may die within a day based on the taboo, such is the power of the king. But the king goes kicking and screaming to the appointment of his post of absolute power because culture prescribes that he be ritually tossed off the cliff two years hence and his reign is short. Freud apparently derived defense mechanisms like transference from this. In his Moses and Monotheism Freud deconstructs Christianity suggesting that that the brood wants to screw their mother but is afraid of castration by their powerful father and so they gang up to murder the father when his back is turned and then they consume him under primitive magical thinking in the hopes of acquiring his potency and ability to take their mother sexually. Its the unconscious Oedipal triangle stuff. Freud applies this model to Christianity in the book.

Granted, a new picture of primitives has emerged which doesn’t support these characterizations, it seems we did pretty good in the hunter gather period in some ways.

I am completely fine with Assange referencing the bible as a play book in order to bootstrap in some inevitability and align this with the “nothing new under the sun theme,” if he can align this in a way that breaks the sin/guilt/fear/unworthiness/shame type cycle with some social psychology revision of cannon I am all for it. Maybe Republican Moral Majority types will be able to get behind their own freedom. He is breaking it down into the inbred primitive language. He is appealing to the primal-mythic-magical-rational-realist side, as the mondern/enlightenment probably get it and most of the post modern and post post modern or integral already get it.

Absolutely nothing, what a bizarre question.

Name one that isn’t and I’ll respond. Makes me laugh how people on here rail against authority and surveillance in various ways, yet are totally sold on the idea of an ultimate, all seeing authority, without a shred of evidence or any rational reason to do so. Authority figures such as priests, imams etc are given a completely unwarranted amount of trust without a second thought. Seriously, look at this quote - if you don’t recognise the glaring hypocrisy, then you must be blind.

Warren - I have no idea what you are talking about but I also believe Freud talked a load of crap…

How about Atheism?

Religion doesn’t have to mean following someone else’s rules or have anything to do with an all seeing authority. If you have your own rules you’ve got your very own made up religion, just like the rest of us. All religion is made up of stories, if the story is that all the other stories are wrong, that’s another story and another religion. I challenge you, from which authority do you get your definition of religion? Hating all religion is throwing the baby out with the bath water and is a religion of hate. You or I could make up a new religion right now, which rule says it has to be bad? That’s like hating stories, hating fiction. If you realize your own story is fiction too, then it’s all good. I make a brand new religion for myself every day, every moment if I feel like it, which means constant destruction, change and evolution and peace.

In fact this paragraph is now an excerpt from my new religion, invented today, called ‘spread the peace’. The password to join is laughter. Wanna join my religion?
:smile:

Atheism is neither a religion nor a belief system - the “A” denotes a lack of, therefore a lack of a “Theistic” belief system. Jeeeez…

The friggin’ dictionary…

I like stories and fiction - the issue is portraying it as reality and all the attendant issues that causes.
Can we up the level of “challenge” and argument do you think?
So, out of the at least 5000 religions in existence, you are unable to propose a good one, in fact you choose something as far from religion as its possible to get…lol
Anyway. I’ve made my point clear, if it is thought by the majority on here that it seems a good idea to use Julian Assange spouting the Bible and displaying gross hypocrisy on a grossly discriminatory Establishment programme that censors and prohibits any non-religious point of view…. then go for it. Just forget that it completely goes against everything I thought Maidsafe was about.
If anybody wants to continue this ridiculous conversation,about religion then please take it off topic, where I will be happy to respond.

Religion is irrelevant, here. Assange simply translated the message into popular vernacular. It is the same message and the furthest thing from hypocrisy. It means he’s trying to reach a larger audience with crucial and timely transparency concepts. Its not televangelism

Who the hell said it was televangelism? We’ll have to agree to disagree about whether it is hypocrisy, I think it is self-evident from the quote and reasoning I gave though.
The guy is railing against accepting established authority, surveillance and censorship etc at the same time as advocating a belief in an ultimate authority, all-seeing, omnipotent, omnipresent deity whilst sat on a discriminatory, censoring, Establishment programme. WTF do you call it? And….please don’t retort that he is not advocating it, because he’s quoting the bloody bible.

The state system has martyred this guy. Let him act the part.

The quote of me shows that you have not understood the point Assange makes (in his reference to Catholics, which I earlier quoted to illustrate this). His and my point (which you quoted) are not as you say hypocritical. Instead, I’m pointing out that he is both appealing to those who listen to a religious viewpoint, and telling them to beware submitting to an authority.

@al_kafir I would appreciate it if you would leave me out of this debate so I don’t have to keep coming back and correcting your statements about what I have posted here. I’m no longer interested in debating this with you. Please respect that.

leave yourself out of it…lol…I thought you’d already flounced off once
In order to leave yourself out of the debate, you have to stop talking to me- that’s the trick…can he do it?

@al_kafir:

In order to leave yourself out of the debate, you have to stop taling to me- that’s the trick…can he do it?

That would would be a lot easier if you would not continue to quote me and call me a hypocrite. If you can restrain yourself from doing that, I would appreciate it.

still here?..
I obviously cannot respond to your claims, because that would entail me defending myself, then you would retort……then before we know it….we’re debating – something you don’t want to be part of – hence my terse response. Bit of a catch 22 really……
It would appear that what you are basically asking for is to be left out of the debate – it would follow, given the unfortunate catch 22 situation that the best way forward would be to just ignore what I am typing, stop reading it, don’t click on the “Assange debate” topic again and don’t post on it.
Edit:
I think it is obvious who I have been accusing of hypocrisy throughout this thread and I don’t know what you’re on about. I can’t be arsed trawling back through the thread to see what has been misconstrued, I’m just assuming it’s another specious accusation, such as the “putting words in your mouth” claim – again I can’t be arsed quoting from the thread because it is a recurrent issue. What exactly is the problem? I’m sure I’ve probably accused you of hypocrisy in the past (got to have done I’m sure) and probably many other things – they would have been evidenced with something though. Are you admonishing me for something I at least did not intend (in this instance), whilst ignoring your own false accusation that I put words in your mouth – and somehow its worth bringing up AFTER having plenty of time to reflect and check the thread to see whether I did actually put words in your mouth or not.
Actually, I DO accuse you of hypocrisy for the above action (I thought it must be there somewhere….lol)
You repeatedly engage me in these things until I ask you your opinion on something highly pertinent to the conversation and you then go back to a fall back position of stating you don’t have one, then refuse to form an opinion based on any evidence I present – you then usually walk off having “had enough” until such a point as you think you have spotted something, then you jump back in.
This is not very good conservational etiquette in my opinion and you should either address the questions and points raised earlier, form the opinions requested and defend your position or concede the points or just stop engaging me in conversation.
And yes…I am hypocritically lecturing you on conversational etiquette…lol, just playin with you…

How about Assange using Maidsafe?

1 Like

Well, WikiLeaks started following me on twitter, so I’m hopeful that’s Julian taking an interest in MaidSafe.

3 Likes

The main issues people should be considering here I think are:

  1. Are we going to be guided by any kind of basic principles/ethics when considering what organisations/platforms/media to use in our marketing campaign or not? (eg, equality, inclusivity, non-elitist, non discriminatory etc).
  2. If we are, the next thing to consider is whether “thought for the day” is appropriate and meets our criteria. If we aren’t, then I make no further points.

I would suggest that unless it has already been decided that a marketing campaign should include discriminatory organisations, or that it’s a good idea –(Happy Beings position *), then I think we should first ascertain whether it should or not, as 1. – then do 2.

  • It is a deduction from the refusal to answer whether “Thought for the day" was discriminatory or not, this demonstrates it was not considered an issue, therefore:
    a) It is thought that Discriminatory organisations are OK to include in a marketing campaign
    b) OR you do not have enough information at your disposal to form an educated opinion on the matter.
    x) It is not that you consider “thought for the day” non- discriminatory

I’m just saying the pertinent issues seem to be being missed. Happy Being does also state in defense of his position (I’m para-phrasing the argument- please correct if needed) that it would generate our message to a wider audience, so this should also be a consideration.
Is reaching a wider audience a primary concern in the marketing campaign, over and above any ethical considerations? - I recognise there are arguments, but would personally say No.
I think we were getting bogged down in whether Assange was displaying hypocrisy or not, though I do think this is a further consideration to make. I just can’t help thinking there are better ideas than this - Just quoting Assange in a different setting would improve things immeasurably from my perspective.
On the Ecuadorian Embassy balcony with the “Better Safe than Sorry” banner or at least something hard hitting where he can’t at least (howevever esoterically, insanely or boringly argued) be accused of Hypocrisy.

That sounds massive. Its inter-forum stuff.

2 Likes