Biography. From the embassy to jail: Julian Assange risks losing asylum Assange biography

Julian Assange is a cult and controversial figure of our time, arousing interest among the world community. Characteristics of the Australian’s activities are given in different ways: for some, Assange is a truth-seeking journalist, for others, he is a terrorist, and still others call Julian a cyber-hero. For the Internet resource WikiLeaks, whose specialization is based on the publication of “top-secret information,” Julian Assange is considered one of the most influential people in the international media.

Childhood and youth

Julian Paul Assange was born on July 3, 1971 in the north-eastern Australian city of Towsville. The boy's parents were political activist John Shipton and makeup artist Christine Ann Hawkins, who separated before the birth of their son. The child's maternal ancestors were Scottish and Irish by nationality. After Julian's birth, his mother married the owner of a traveling theater, Richard Brett Assange, who gave his adopted son his surname.

Journalist, programmer, founder of WikiLeaks Julian Paul Assange was born on July 3, 1971 in Townsville, Queensland, Australia.

When he was one year old, his mother married the director of a traveling theater. The family led a nomadic lifestyle. When Julian Assange was eight years old, his mother separated from her husband and began dating a musician. They had a son, but it turned out that the new husband was a member of the “Family” sect, in which newborns were taken from their mothers. Therefore, before Julian turned 16, he, along with his mother and half-brother, were constantly moving. He was unable to obtain a systematic secondary education. Julian Assange studied at 37 schools and several universities, including the University of Melbourne and the Australian National University in Canberra, but did not graduate from a single higher education institution.

Assange was interested in programming from an early age. At the age of 16, he received his first computer and began working on pre-Internet networks. Soon, Julian became what was later called hackers, he opened the websites of organizations, publishing information that was not intended for the general public. Together with his comrades, Assange created the hacker organization Worms Against Nuclear Killers. In their work, they were guided by a kind of code of hackers around the world: do not damage systems, but share information.

In 1991, Assange and his friends infiltrated the computer system of the telecommunications corporation Nortel, were identified and brought to trial. The investigation into the case lasted several years and ended with a fine.

After that, Julian Assange changed several professions related to information technology, was the author of a number of programs related to network security and routing, and even for some time was a computer security consultant.

In 1997, he co-authored the book Underground: Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier with Australian journalist Soulette Dreyfus.

In 1996, Assange first mentioned the Leaks project in public correspondence; he later acquired the leaks.org domain, but subsequently wrote that he did not find any use for it.

During those same years, he and his mother were activists and founders of the organization Parent Inquiry Into Child Protection, which worked to expose corruption in Australia's health and social care organizations.

In 2000, he called himself president of the Australian Institute for Collaborative Research.

Loud scandal around WikiLeaks. The documents posted on WikiLeaks on November 29, 2010, contained, in particular, very unflattering statements about world leaders. As noted on the site, more than 250 thousand published files are the largest collection of confidential documents ever made publicly available in history.

In August 2010, Assange arrived in Sweden when the American authorities became interested in him. Here he is. That same month, an investigation into Assange began in Sweden following statements from two women who told police they were Assange. He was questioned and pleaded not guilty. The preliminary investigation was stopped, but soon resumed. In November 2010, a court in Stockholm issued an arrest warrant for Assange. On November 20 he... On December 7, Assange was arrested by London police after voluntarily reporting to a police station. December 16 London High Court from prison on bail of 240 thousand pounds while Sweden's extradition request is considered.

On June 19, 2012, it became known that Assange came to the Ecuadorian embassy in London and applied to the Ecuadorian authorities to grant him political asylum due to fears of his extradition by the Swedish authorities to the United States in connection with his activities in WikiLeaks. Since the filing of Assange's application. On August 16 of the same year, the head of the Foreign Ministry of Ecuador announced that his country. In December 2017 he.

In August 2015, the Swedish prosecutor's office reported that three of the four charges against Assange were beyond the statute of limitations. Until August 17, 2020, Assange will be suspected of only one count, which relates to rape with less aggravating circumstances.

At the end of 2015, a bilateral agreement on legal assistance came into force between Sweden and Ecuador, which sheltered the founder of WikiLeaks on the territory of the embassy.

On May 19, 2017, it became known that the Swedish prosecutor's office had discontinued the investigation into the case of Assange, suspected of rape in 2010. London police issued a statement warning that if Assange left the embassy, he would be arrested again. The reason for the arrest in London will be a still valid warrant issued by Westminster Magistrates' Court after the founder of the scandalous website on June 29, 2012.

In February 2018, a judge at the London Borough of Westminster Magistrates' Court.

At the end of March 2018, the government of Ecuador. According to the Ecuadorian authorities, Assange's behavior and messages on social networks threaten the country's good relations with the UK, EU countries and other countries of the world.

During the years spent within the walls of the embassy, Assange never went outside, with the exception of several speeches on the balcony. For all the time he .

Lawyers and supporters of the political refugee express concern for his health, which has deteriorated greatly due to a lack of fresh air, walks and sunlight.

Julian Assange was awarded by Amnesty International (2009) for publishing materials about corruption in leadership circles in Kenya. In 2010, readers of the American Time magazine chose Assange as Person of the Year in an online vote. In 2011, the Sydney Peace Foundation awarded WikiLeaks the Walkley Award for its “outstanding contribution to journalism” for its “exceptional courage in defending human rights.”

In 2013, John Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, presented Julian Assange in absentia with the Courage in the Arts Prize, which has been awarded since 2009 to creative people who have maintained their independence despite government persecution.

In 2014, he became a laureate of the Union of Journalists of Kazakhstan award in the “investigative journalism” category.

The material was prepared based on information from RIA Novosti and open sources

"Julian and I were once best friends or something - today I'm not sure there is
Is there such a category in his thinking? Now I'm not at all sure about anything that concerns him. Sometimes I hate
him so much that I’m even afraid to attack him with my fists if he suddenly catches my eye. And then
I suddenly think that he needs my help. Absurd, after everything that happened. I've never met one like this
a harsh and controversial person, like Julian Assange. So free spirited. So energetic.
So brilliant. So paranoid. So bossy. Obsessed with delusions of grandeur.
“In my opinion, I have the right to say that together we lived the best years of our lives.”

Daniel Domscheit-Berg (“Inside WikiLeaks”)

The film “The Fifth Estate”, based on real events, will be released very soon. It will tell the story of notorious online journalist and whistleblower Julian Assange, show his relationship with Daniel Domscheit-Berg and the creation of “the world’s most dangerous website” WikiLeaks. As far as I understand, not everyone knows what Assange is famous for, and who he is) In this post, I will briefly talk about him and his relationship with Domscheit-Berg, based on whose book the film was based, which means it will be useful to familiarize yourself with the way he sees Julian.

Assange was born in Australia, the story of his childhood is so fascinating and unusual that it would be worth making a separate film on it. There were constant moves (he changed 37 schools), and adventures, and eternal escapes from his sectarian stepfather, who persecuted his mother... Already at the age of 9, Julian fully experienced responsibility, caring for his sick mother and baby brother. He had to endure his stepfather beating his mother. At the age of 16, Assange felt ready to fight back and was able to get rid of this dangerous and cruel man with great connections. Among the interesting moments of his childhood, one can also note that he raised bees and during these constant moves and escapes he took care of them and always took them with him. Thanks to such an unusual childhood, Julian grew up unlike ordinary people. To many “civilized” Europeans he seemed strange and wild. Real Crocodile Dundee)) Thank you tjorn for comparison)

As a teenager, he became interested in computers, began writing programs and became a hacker. Assange took the nickname Mendax (following Horace's splendide mendax - “noble liar” or “magnificent deceiver”). No matter how brilliant a hacker he was (the pinnacle of his art was the hacking of the Network Information Center of the US Department of Defense), in the end he was still tracked down and arrested. The film “Underground: The Julian Assange Story” was made about these events. (Yes, I said that one film about his life would clearly not be enough)).

Julian got off fairly easily - just bail and a fine. The most interesting thing in this story is that Sergeant Ken Day, who obsessively pursued him, and eventually caught him (well, just a personal Javert...), will then begin to ardently support WikiLeaks in the Australian press. Life is a funny thing)

Around the same time, Julian’s wife left him, and during the trial for custody of his son, he acquired his famous gray hair.

After several years of traveling around the world (he also visited Russia) and studying mathematics, physics and cryptography, Assange came up with the idea for his infamous website WikiLeaks. (Oddly enough, quantum mechanics gave him the impetus for new ideas. But Julian talks about this so fascinatingly and in detail that I refer everyone who is interested to his autobiography).

In 2006, he started his project and was looking for assistants, traveling a lot around the world, publishing revealing materials about situations in Somalia, Kenya, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay prison.

In 2007, at the World Hacker Congress in Berlin, Julian met Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who became his assistant and friend. Daniel was friendly, patient and efficient. Julian is brilliant, strange, opinionated and restless. (Reminds me of anyone?)) Daniel admired Assange and believed that he gave him real meaning in life. Benedict captured his emotions very well in his statement:“There is an element of seduction, intimacy and then rejection. They're almost like lovers.".

Who was he to Julian? A best friend who ended up betraying him, or just a convenient and useful person who carried his things and patiently did everything he was told, as Daniel suspects? We will never know for sure. Unless we see how their relationship is shown in the film...

Together with Domscheit-Berg, Assange exposes the tax fraud of banks and the dirty deeds of the Scientology sect. But fame came to him with the help of Bradley/Chelsea Manning, a US Army analyst who was recently sentenced to 35 years, who leaked information about US war crimes in Iraq, the truth about Guantanamo Bay prison and more than 250 thousand diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks. In the process of preparing documents for publication, a rift develops between Assange and Domscheit-Berg, which after some time leads to Daniel’s expulsion from WikiLeaks. Domscheit-Berg in his book calls Assange an inadequate paranoid with delusions of grandeur and justifies his actions that led to their breakup. Julian considers him a traitor who was going to take over WikiLeaks and remove him. Who is right and who is wrong here, again, we will not know... And there are no clearly right and wrong in such complicated stories.

Around the same time, a new attack befalls Julian - accusations of rape and sexual harassment from two of his Swedish acquaintances. Ironically, it was in Sweden that Assange hoped to find a safe harbor for himself and his project, but there the trap slammed shut.

Julian writes:

“Immediately after arriving, one of our sources in one of the Western intelligence agencies told me news that confirmed what the Pentagon press service had already hinted at. From him I learned that the US government had privately acknowledged that it would be difficult to prosecute me, but was already discussing the possibility of “dealing with you illegally,” as my source put it. He went on to explain what this means: they will collect evidence about the information we have; by any means necessary to unearth any connection between Private Manning and WikiLeaks; and if nothing comes of this, they may plant drugs, find child pornography on my computers, or, finally, involve me in a case of immoral behavior.”(1). He is warned about the possibility of a trap and reminded of how MOSSAD captured Vanuna (an Israeli nuclear scientist who revealed information about Israel's nuclear program to the world, he was kidnapped in Rome with the help of an agent (Cicciolina?) and transported to Israel for arrest). Assange is amazingly careless, despite all the warnings, and easily starts two affairs at the same time. By the way, this is another of its features. Despite all his paranoia (which, most likely, really exists, otherwise he would not have lived to this day), he is often trusting and naive, easily trusting semi-familiar people.

The story with the Swedes is quite grotesque and absurd and is based only on unusual Swedish laws - after all, both women do not even accuse him of violence and declare voluntary sex. As far as I understand, Assange has not yet been charged, only an arrest warrant has been issued because the Swedes want to interrogate him. Moreover, they refuse to interrogate him via video link or at the embassy. And Assange’s fears that Sweden wants to extradite him to the United States are quite understandable and logical. As a result, Julian was in a London prison (another interesting fact - his lawyer said that Assange was sitting in the very cell where Oscar Wilde was imprisoned; it is unknown whether this is true), then he was released on bail and was under recognizance not to leave. After the court rejected his appeal against extradition to Sweden, Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has remained for more than a year. At the moment the situation is stalemate.

The United States, no matter how hard it tries, cannot bring formal charges against him, and for three years they have not been able to get Manning to accuse Assange of inciting the disclosure of classified information. The UK is not going to withdraw police from the embassy, where Assange sits like a princess in a tower, guarded by a dragon (they have already spent $4.5 million on this). Sweden does not agree to any concessions in terms of interrogation and stubbornly demands extradition. And Ecuador can no longer help him... At the moment, it is unclear how much longer this situation can continue.

But Julian, despite everything, still remains a man influencing world events. Currently, he is actively involved in the fate of Edward Snowden, and also plans to be elected to the Australian Senate in September.

Hmm... And I wanted to tell you about his biography in a nutshell... I apologize to those who have known all this for a long time, but his story is so fascinating and interesting that it’s impossible to stop)

Assange is a very enigmatic and mysterious figure. Book release "Julian Assange: The Unauthorized Autobiography" made it a little easier to try to figure out his personality, but it’s worth considering that he forbade its publication almost before its release (since he had already spent the entire advance for it, the publishing house released it anyway). The official reasons for the ban: “at the last moment the author wished to terminate the publishing contract, considering it too personal and frank” and “any memoir is prostitution” (1). Julian is well known for such sudden, contradictory actions (he himself dictated these memoirs)) and categorical, choppy statements) So, although I quote this book as if on his behalf, it is worth considering that this is still a work of fiction, not quotes from Julian himself, who refused to publish it.

Second book - "WikiLeaks from the Inside"- has an even more scandalous history. Its author, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, was expelled from WikiLeaks in 2010 under rather strange circumstances. Assange and his followers call Daniel a traitor and an inadequate person. He himself also accuses Assange of inadequacy, paranoia and delusions of grandeur. In his book, Domscheit-Berg pedantically, in a truly German manner, tallies up all of Assange’s sins against him, ranging from lies and paranoia to eating cocoa powder and driving a cat into psychosis. Most likely, as is usually the case, both are right about something and are keeping something else silent. I just urge everyone not to judge Assange based on this book alone. The memoirs of an offended person, once passionate, and then wounded by indifference, by definition cannot be completely objective.

Well, the third book "The most dangerous man in the world: Julian Assange and the secrets of WikiLeaks" Australian journalist Andrew Fowler is perhaps the most objective and complete of them. True, I’m a little embarrassed by the overly pretentious title, but probably it was necessary for sales)

Of course, there are other books, but I only managed to read these)

With the biography everything is more or less clear, let’s move on to the psychological portrait.

Julian evokes very strong emotions in people. Assange is usually either admired or hated. Few of those interested in him and his history are completely indifferent to him.

Some, for example, want him dead. American politicians usually say this, but quite recently a journalist spoke about this, which caused a small scandal)

Assange is indeed a very strange and conflicted person with contradictory and eccentric actions (even more so, tarnished by accusations of sexual crimes), but still there is no denying that he is a genius whose courage, resilience and devotion to his idealistic principles is difficult not to respect. He is a passionary, not afraid of risk, boldly entering into conflict with the most powerful country in the world and going alone against everyone.

Here's what Julian himself says about it:

“In the eyes of our critics - constant and re-emerging - we looked primitive. On the contrary, it seemed to me that we lacked rudeness. You need to step over the need for complacency and neglect the comfort zone, where everything is so familiar, and most importantly, it is clear what you are doing and what others are doing. Without this renunciation, no innovation is possible. We certainly made mistakes, but we made them honestly, resisting the temptation to run away from danger. Many people who pursue liberal goals seem to me not just timid, but almost colluding. They want change to happen in the most decent and unburdensome way, but it doesn’t happen that way. They want our life to become worthy, and so that no one gets hurt, but that doesn’t happen either. And most importantly, they are ready to give the enemies of open government the presumption of innocence, but I am not. This is not just a difference in approach, it is a complete split in a seemingly common philosophy. It is absolutely impossible to strive for complete openness while hoping that your work will not ruin anyone’s mood.” (1).

Unfortunately, his good qualities often turn into a negative side. For example, his uncompromising, courageous and harsh judgment, which allowed him to go against powerful enemies, also alienated many of his friends who took a more compromising position. And for Assange, the position “either you are with me or against me” is close. He managed to turn a huge number of people against himself, including those who had previously been sincerely on his side, admired him and respected him.

Domscheit-Berg, his former friend and assistant, accuses Julian of adopting methods from those he fought against. He believes that Assange, who fought the Scientology sect, the secret services and dishonest banks, began to remake WikiLeaks in their image and likeness. Daniel thinks Juliana gradually corrupted the authorities and the conspiratorial spirit - just like those they opposed. And he is afraid that he has turned WikiLeaks into a religious cult with an infallible leader at its head, following the example of the Scientology organization? With a leader whose criticism is not allowed, and all his failures have only external reasons.

It seems illogical to Daniel to reveal the secrets of the whole world, but at the same time hide his own (by the way, this idea is beautifully played out on the poster for the film). And Assange did not like to let anyone in on his plans. We can say that Daniel is simply jealous and denigrates him, but judging by the fact that Julian’s other supporters are slowly turning away from him, there is definitely something in his words... Just the other day, several of the main candidates from his party left Assange at once - practically just before the elections.

Either Assange is fatally unlucky with friends and allies, or he really is such a complex and conflicted person. I encourage everyone to draw their own conclusions)

Another serious complaint against Assange is that his revelations could be dangerous to people.
I quote Assange's opinion on this matter:
“Some people who do not understand and do not want to understand our work jump to the conclusion that our publications could endanger people's lives. It’s not like that: the main motivating force of our activities is precisely the saving of human lives. By satisfying the public interest, by doing our part to end wars, by giving journalists the means to check abuses of power, we seek to limit the desire for murder, clashes and invasions, and to undermine the effectiveness of the lies that support them. Our work highlighted the actual practices of banks and had a significant impact on the way they understand their accountability to society. It was exactly the same with the actions of the army, be it in Kenya or the Pentagon. Secrecy is vital to the military and its brutal operations, and we fight tirelessly to expose lies to stop conspiracies, preserve human rights and save lives.”
“When pressed to tell the truth, Secretary of Defense Gates informed lawmakers in a letter to the Senate two weeks later, on August 16, 2010, that “at this time, analysis has shown that no intelligence sources were harmed by this disclosure and no intelligence operations were affected.” "The connection that was supposed between me and the expression 'blood on my hands' turned out to be false - as admitted by the authors of these statements themselves."(1).

I will give a few quotes from Domscheit-Berg. As far as I know, his book has not yet been digitized (which really surprises me), which means it is more difficult to find and read.This is how he sees Julian (and how he will most likely be shown in the film):

“He moved very energetically and naturally, with long strides.<...>He loved, for example, to run, jump and then slide in his worn-out Camels along the newly polished floor.”

“He was always putting on layers of clothing.”

“His entire luggage consisted of one backpack.”

“Julian sometimes behaved as if he had been raised not by people, but by wolves” (about food).

“He occupied most of the dance floor and seemed to be performing a ritual dance: he spread his arms wide and measured the room with huge steps. It didn’t look particularly beautiful, it didn’t look very skillful and didn’t indicate the presence of a sense of rhythm, but for some reason it was impressive to him. it didn’t matter what they thought of him.” It was this internal independence from other people’s views and from society in general that made Assange the ideal destroyer of one of the main pillars of any social organization - the ideal destroyer of secrecy.”

“Julian was indifferent to money as such. He usually didn’t have any, and others always paid for him.”. Mostly women.

Julian and women are a separate big topic) Domscheit-Berg calls him a chauvinist. Although, despite everything, his story also contains details that are flattering for Julian. For example, his interest in them was not rude, but rather romantic.He was very gallant and courteous with women.Assange never spoke obscenely about women (by the way, he explains his silence about those “rapes” precisely by the fact that it is unthinkable for Australian men to talk badly about their exes). Julian loves women very much, especially young ones, their external parameters and beauty did not matter - “It was important for him that the woman did not doubt him and was aware of her feminine role”. He boasted to Daniel that he had become a father in almost every part of the world.

“In assessing people, he often used the concept of “benefit”, whether they bring benefit, and did not always explain what kind of benefit.”

“Julian judged uncompromisingly and willingly expressed his opinion, even when he was not asked. It was clear that he was annoying a lot of people.” “Julian seemed to enjoy being able to cause as much irritation as possible.”

“For Julian, principles came first.”

“Julian had a pretty casual relationship with the truth.”(Daniel cites as an example how Julian explained to him the color of his hair - as if he had built a reactor at home as a child, but mixed up the polarity; maybe Domscheit-Berg simply has no sense of humor?)).

Daniel and others often write that Julian constantly got lost everywhere, forgot what day and time his plane ticket was, and, in general, suffered from topographical cretinism and absent-mindedness.
“He once said that he missed a connecting flight because he was solving an extremely difficult math problem.”

“At the same time, Julian knew how to be incredibly focused, I have never seen such people again. He could sit motionless for days on end, as if he had become one with the computer.” “It was impossible to distract him from his work, he was as if in a trance while he programmed, wrote, read - and I don’t know what he did.”“Julian worked intently for several days in a row, and then suddenly fell asleep” (in the same clothes). “When he woke up, he immediately returned to reality.”

“He could be very nice and polite if he wanted to.”

“On the one hand, Julian was completely insufferable, but on the other hand, he was incredibly sweet and endearing.”

“I had a feeling that some important component in his life had once radically deteriorated. He could have been an amazing person, and I was glad to have such a friend with fire in him. He defended his ideas and principles, he wanted to change the world for the better. He rushed into action and worked, not paying attention to other people's opinions. In some ways I tried to imitate his life attitude. But still, he had another side, and the further he went, the more it took possession of him.” (2).

“When you talk to Assange face to face, it’s easy to understand why people are attracted to him. He is smart, charming, smart and emotional. His intelligence impresses not only women. Jónsdóttir says she has “seen guys who were very skeptical of him” become supporters within minutes of talking. "There's something hypnotic about it," she says, "people experience a sort of love-blindness." But then the obsession passes, and a completely different Assange appears before them, and this is what happened with Domscheit-Berg, when he realized that not a trace remained of their former friendship.” (3).

Now let’s give the floor to the accused Assange:

“My first word was why.” It also became a favorite.”

“From an early age I was interested in how things worked.<…>Here are my very first impressions of the world: it seemed like a place where you could achieve results; show an inquisitive mind; create something new."

“Later, when I became famous, people often began to list my illnesses with pleasure: they say, he has Asperger’s syndrome, and all the signs of autism are evident. I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, but let me just say: I, like all hackers, like most men, in fact, am a little autistic. But as a teenager and young adult, I had a hard time focusing on anything unless that “something” was perceived as a major breakthrough. Homework turned into a struggle with fate, and a banal conversation turned into hard work. But it seemed that all I had to do was press the right button, and the level of local noise immediately decreased, the local weather disappeared somewhere, and I remained on the international frequency.”

“I have never had a mentor around me, and upon reflection, I have come to the conclusion that this has always created a problem for me. I had to design myself and it was a special joy to be a mentor to others. Strange affair. You always have to play the role of a strong person. I always knew that I was different from others, but meeting my father softened this feeling. It’s probably not very easy for people to be with me. I was born argumentative. And there is so much in the world that needs and can be corrected, and so little time for it.”

“Becoming stronger than reality, overcoming it, testing how much it obeys you - this is the temptation of power.”

“Despite cultural differences, there is a natural, intuitive understanding of fairness. Shooting a child is unfair.".

“I am deprived of the gene that allows a person to help himself. And this deficiency caused me suffering almost all my life. But there is nothing to justify here: I was and will always be concerned not with making my life easier, but rather with the wars going on all over the world.”

"Exposing is not just an action, it is a way of life. It seems to me that there is both a rational and an emotional side to this: you are what you know, and no state has the right to humiliate and limit you in this. Many modern states forget that they were founded on the principles of the Enlightenment, that knowledge is the guarantor of freedom and that no government has the right to administer justice as if it were only a favor on its part. In fact, justice, if administered with dignity, is control over power. And there is only one way to take care of the people - to ensure that politicians cannot completely control the flow of information.

It's just common sense. This is the first and foremost principle of journalism in any country with a free press. The Internet has made censorship easier, making it possible to destroy truth with a single click (Stalin would have loved that) and to track people's personal data in ways that even Satan's servants, the bureaucrats of the Third Reich, would find admirable. Secrecy is too often the only refuge of power, but anyone who says so these days is accused not only of underestimating the time-tested standards of liberalism and denigrating our democracy, but also of being eccentrically rebellious and insistent on "jeopardizing" national security." The principles set forth in the American Constitution, upon careful study, will seem quite radical to many American citizens today. Jefferson would turn out to be an enemy of the state, and Madison would be a left-wing partisan. In the same way, to a modern Chinese, Marx and Engels will seem crazy - these stubborn petty economists who would not at all understand the deep human significance of Gucci handbags and the new iPad.

Information makes us free. It frees us to question the actions of those who would not want us to have the opportunity and right to respond. WikiLeaks, with its modern equipment and software, is a force for freedom that would seem quite traditional and reasonable to an eighteenth-century thinker like John Wilkes. We very often find ourselves under fire for holding to the same principles that the governments that now criticize us were elected to uphold. We are the people's and international bureau of checks and balances, which understands that what officials and diplomats do behind closed doors is entirely our business. If citizens elect them, pay them, trust them, then it means that they are the employers of government officials. And governments that allow themselves to forget this will have to hear the voice of the people in every chat, every blog, every Twitter account and in every square: from Tiananmen to Tahrir, from Trafalgar Square to Times Square, the excitement will eventually spread to every letter of the alphabet. Officials who obstruct the truth are complete losers." (1).

The friendship of these people ended in a very ugly and painful way. Daniel and some other employees criticized Assange’s methods, he believed that they wanted to remove him and were preparing to split the organization. As a result, Domscheit-Berg was removed, which did not stop him from trying to participate in the affairs of the organization for some time after that; he even went to repair the mail server, explaining this by the need to help the project and gain access to personal mail. Nevertheless, this act looks strange and suspicious. Julian may be paranoid, but I wouldn't like that either. Also, when leaving, Daniel took many secret documents, explaining that he would give them to Julian as soon as he could prove the safety of their storage. There are different ways to approach this. It’s clear how Assange reacted.
Domscheit-Berg's entire book smacks of digging through someone else's dirty laundry, especially the description of their breakup. Therefore, I will not touch on this topic in detail. If you're interested, there is a detailed version of events from Daniel's perspective, including logs of his personal correspondence with Assange, including their last conversation. Am I the only one who was hurt by this?)

But Julian’s opinion about Daniel has to be gleaned bit by bit. In his entire autobiography, he mentions him only once, and with noticeable reluctance. Apparently, Assange prefers the fail-safe and deadly method of complete ignorance. (No wonder he doesn't like the idea of the movie so much...)

“Among them was an enthusiastic fan of our work named Daniel Domscheit-Berg, an IT company employee who soon found himself useful in several of our projects. From the very beginning, Daniel Schmitt, as he then called himself, struck me as an interesting character. He didn't know how to program, but he was very efficient, which is important for a growing organization. Back then we had no idea how ambitious and reckless this man was. But when it comes to volunteers, need is blind, and we really needed all the help we could get.” (1).

Domscheit-Berg himself cites the following phrase that was conveyed to him:

“Daniel is a problematic person, to be honest, he has low motivation and is not right in the head. But he can be kept under control if someone tells him what is good and what is bad, what he can do and what he cannot do. If you leave him in his German bubble, he will be in limbo." (2).

Domscheit-Berg's book meticulously and in detail describes literally everything that the author was dissatisfied with about his former best friend. Even the fact that he could eat his portion of food and then wipe his hands on the sofa, and Julian once ate cocoa powder that Domscheit-Berg bought for himself and dreamed about it for a long time on the road) He also constantly makes excuses. He himself writes what he can be accused of, and persistently refutes this in almost every chapter. To be honest, this makes Daniel a little annoying...

Another thing that bothers me about this book is that Domscheit-Berg constantly downplays the danger to Julian. For example, he believes that Assange has absolutely nothing to fear from extradition to Sweden. Interesting naivety. He also describes with slight mockery Julian's efforts to maintain safety during their friendship and does not believe his stories about police harassment. I don’t quite understand this position of his...

Perhaps not everyone who reads this book will agree with me, but it seems to me that, in contrast to him, Assange looks more beautiful in this particular situation, without talking about this conflict and its causes. Daniel releases his book at a time when Assange is under investigation, his reputation already almost destroyed by the “sex scandal.” After all, few people will delve into the details; a “rapist” is by default a villain and a scoundrel. And such a book could finally finish him off in the eyes of society. It seems to me that it was she who contributed to the creation of a negative image of Assange in the minds of many people. Daniel writes very convincingly, interestingly and believably. He gives a bunch of little things and details, publishes logs of their latest conversations. What did Sherlock say? “He knows everything about me. When a big deception is sold, it is wrapped in the truth to make it attractive.”

Just in case, let me clarify that this is only one of the possible versions of what happened. We won't know the full truth. Julian can be truly domineering, a categorical paranoid with delusions of grandeur that have intensified in recent years, creating a cult of his personality in WikiLeaks, hiding his income from donations from everyone, shamelessly lying and manipulating people. Many of these accusations may just as well be deliberate or unconscious exaggeration, deception, or manipulation of facts.

Finally, I’ll say a little about the friendship between Daniel and Julian. All of the following is IMHO and by no means an axiom. But it seems to me that the relationship between Domscheit-Berg and Assange developed according to a pattern as old as the world - Daniel invented a heroic image for himself. A fighter against injustice, a defender of the weak, a knight on a white horse without fear or reproach. But Assange’s shining image was destroyed by contact with reality. The real Julian is only human. And like all people, he is imperfect and can make mistakes. And he is often wrong. Plus Assange is a genius, but how many adequate and easy-to-communicate geniuses do we know? Again these eternal associations of him with Sherlock...))

Unlike John and Sherlock, Julian and Daniel's friendship didn't survive the fact that "heroes don't exist." Domscheit-Berg, as often happens, was offended by Assange because he was disappointed in him and saw his imperfection and wrongness. His resentment, lost illusions and violent emotions sometimes literally overwhelm the reader from the pages of the book. You gave me the meaning of life, how could you disappoint me so much and take it away again?
At the end of the book, Daniel speaks very optimistically about the OpenLeaks project, which he was going to create with employees who left WikiLeaks, but, as far as I know, “things are still there.” Does this mean that the meaning that Julian gave to his life has not yet been found?

I can talk about Julian Assange endlessly, but to understand the film, I think this will be enough) I hope I was able to emphasize how interesting and mysterious a person he is, and how unusual and contradictory his actions and principles are. Due to the fact that there was a lot of material, and I read the books a month ago, I would be glad for possible corrections and clarifications. Also ask questions if anything is unclear)

Quotes taken from books:

2 - “Inside WikiLeaks”, Daniel Domscheit-Berg

3 - "The Most Dangerous Man in the World: Julian Assange and the Secrets of WikiLeaks", Andrew Fowler