Julian Assange Moves Forward Plans To Run For Senate And Start A Wikileaks Political Party

from the governing-from-afar dept

It's been a while since we checked in on Julian Assange. Last we heard, the United States had just classified Wikileaks as an “enemy of the United States,” but that was all the way back in September. This, of course, was after Assange had been granted asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK. With what has to seem like the entire world crumbling down around him, I'd have to guess that Assange is keeping a low, mum's the word profile.

Mr Assange said plans to register an Australian WikiLeaks party were ''significantly advanced''. He indicated he would be a Senate candidate, and added that “a number of very worthy people admired by the Australian public” have indicated their availability to stand for election on a party ticket.

Yes, Julian Assange, currently confined to Ecuador's embassy, is going to start his own political party. While many have focused on the news that he’s running for Senate, that’s not actually new — having been previously reported back in March. In case you thought you had somehow slept through news that the US had dropped its investigation of Wikileaks or that Sweden no longer wanted to extradite him, you haven’t: both issues are existing issues that might, possibly, get in the way of Assange actually serving as an elected official. However, as a wider party, what would the Wikileaks party stand for?

He said a WikiLeaks party would advance WikiLeaks' objectives of promoting openness in government and politics, and it would combat growing intrusions on individual privacy.

A laudable goal, and one that might find natural allies with The Pirate Party. Still, while (as with many things Assange-related) this has the feel of a publicity stunt, there’s a chance that the more interesting idea is what will happen if the Wikileaks Party can really find others to be members and run for office:

If Mr Assange were elected but he was unable to return to Australia to take up his position, a nominee would occupy a Senate seat.

So, perhaps the real goal is to have someone high profile, like Assange, spearhead the effort of building out a party focused on these issues, even if there’s little chance he can actually serve. Well, that or this is another example of Assange being a genuine pain in the ass.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Julian Assange Moves Forward Plans To Run For Senate And Start A Wikileaks Political Party”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Wally (profile) says:

Finally, someone who agrees that Assange is not the conquering hero we should all hail to. Tim, you are correct. I’ve psychoanalyzed him from the interviews he’s done vs. his actions. He’s generally psychotic and likely used a lot of drugs.

He is arrogant as he is a danger to the general populace. We are talking a nightmare to work with…he’s been known to fire staff for constructive criticism and for ideas that would improve Wikileaks in some way. He’s a nightmare boss with a very short temper…to which people were afraid to leave unless they got fired.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I’ve psychoanalyzed him from the interviews he’s done vs. his actions. He’s generally psychotic and likely used a lot of drugs.


Ethical much?

Sorry Wally but you have no clue, and Psychological analysis based on interviews, writings, and other third-party (or more) is in no way science, in fact it holds less weight than other quasi-sciences.

As for your last paragraph, that is YOUR opinion, which as I state above isn’t even a professionally ethical opinion, but one based on your personal bias, parochialism and hearsay.

I am not stating that Julian isn’t difficult in some way, nor am I stating he doesn’t have some underlying issues that are mostly based on how he was treated by the US authorities as a teenager. But I know far more people who are exactly the same as Julian in their ideologies, ethical behaviour, and consistent frustration with how the world treats others.

What I am stating is that the way you are denigrating, and most likely defaming him is just adding to the reasons why most Australians, and the rest of the world, are getting pissed off with the ‘holier than thou’ attitude of Americans. You’re better than that, or I thought you were.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’m not mad at you for saying this. But I know for a fact he is generally psychotic and short-tempered. According to his former employees, if anyone showed the slightest discomfort in what he published or disagreed with his views, he would immediate fire them. This was from an interview from his former financial advisor who got fired for simply saying he shouldn’t pocket most of the money and put that towards the operating costs of Wikileaks. He subsequently set up that paywall/donation video that forced you to donate to the website after that.

As for my slightly brash American biased attitude, I will apologize for that. I still think he is trying for an Australian seat in Parliament for personal gain though.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No I have a doctorate in Psychology, not an MD in Psychiatry. My type are counselors, priests, researchers, and categorize disorders into the DSM. Psychology is the broad study of how we think, perceive, and learn about the world. I am in no way a person who tries to treat people with medication, but if I deem my clients need them, I recommend they go see a psychiatrist to get medication.

Now, the reason I will never get an MD is because I have a severe phobia of giving injections. I found this out in studying to be a radiological technician. I try to treat people as humanly as possible and lately on here I’ve been slipping because of trolls. My clientele use up most of my patient attitude and it’s been like that since the US Thanks Giving Holiday and the double whammy for the elections.

I have a huge amount of respect for anyone who rebuttals on non-insulting basis as G. Thompson has shown above. That respect also for how he called me out on my attitude as of late. I trust him and a few other insiders implicitly because of that.

My analysis of Assange is quite valid, but I did have a bias…I never liked him as arrogance tends to bother me. He’s had a troubled background and has not sought treatment or help for his condition, which is why I dislike him so much. He knows he is a danger and does not care one way or the other about others.

Anonymous Coward says:

Sounds all well and good that Assange wants to be a politician. But I suggest there is method to his madness.

As a politician representing his country it would be likely he would have some sort of diplomatic immunity, getting him out of his current pickle. I tend to think this is more the reason why he seeks office.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Not really pertinent: Sweden has an arrest order on him through interpol and USA want him extradited. You cannot run from those things through a political immunity in Australia and I think it is unlikely that a US senate seat would absolve him of the courtorder.

I think this is a long term plan. He has admitted that he is trapped and he wants his legacy to prevail.
That theory has the advantage of being in line with Wallys analysis of him!

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Actually you are wrong, Reciprocity agreements and diplomatic treaties are actually very specific on elected political figures within Australia.

If he becomes a Senator (and I for one would vote for a ‘Wikipedia’ party in our federal Senate elections – and ‘Pirate party’ in lower house – think US Congress) the UK have to allow him unrestricted access out of the UK, cannot be held nor cannot be stopped from attending the Australian parliament and must be able to fly to Australia unmolested.

In fact the UK would have to provide security. See the Australian Constitution is in actual fact The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) which is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

So being an actual Act of the UK they have to uphold it (and no the UK parliament cannot remove, append, or otherwise it). See the problem for the UK and Sweden and the USA yet? Oh and because he has not been found guilty of an indictable offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment he has absolutely every right under law to become a senator no matter what some foreign power want or don’t want.

Now once he is back on Australian soil, being a senator he cannot be extradited by any foreign power whatsoever whilst serving his term as senator (6 years).

Good times!

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

G. Thompson, the information you provided about your country’s laws has proven he’s using Australia in his catch me if you can game with the authorities.

In short he’s only looking for an out G. Thompson. He’s seriously that selfish. He will do nothing for your country but bring strife.

This is coming from a psychologist, not some hellbent patriotic US citizen. He has no basis in the reality of his surroundings, and has an antisocial personality disorder which means he doesn’t care for anyone but himself.

Seeing how you gave a lot of information about Australian law just now I thank you for informing us of how much of an issue he really is now. There is an old US saying that basically says that if someone is truly innocent, they won’t run away from their accuser. I think Assange has been running long enough.

You’re awesome ๐Ÿ™‚

Any Mouse (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Funny, having grown up in Ohio I know that saying isn’t used around here. Mostly because people who are aware of how the police work know that being innocent doesn’t mean squat unless you can prove it. All the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is empty wash if you’re lower income in the US. They WILL find a way to convict you.

Back to your statement that his running for senate is proof of blah blah blah? Remember, he started all this BEFORE the US tried extradicting him. Doesn’t that put the lie to your assumption?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

He has no basis in the reality of his surroundings

See, that sounds like most politicians anyway. And quite a few US people who called for him to be killed because of Wikileaks, which included Senators.

Moreover, when Assange offered to go to Sweden, provided that Sweden would guarantee that eh would stay in Sweden, and the Swedish Government refused to do that, that would kind of give the same idea to them that you proposed: they have nothing to fear fi they have nothing to hide.

Whilst I think Assange is a horrible douche and quite possibly the worst advocate for openness we could ever have, the problem is that he has been hounded and bullied by people who basically threw a massive histrionic because their data implicating them in illegal warfare conduct got out. (And please note: I said, “implicated,” not “proven.”)

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Quite right. His middleman, Bradley Manning, has already taken the fall for that.

The one thing that was sort of proven a couple of months ago is that he had absolute control over the content displayed on WikiLeaks. He had absolute control over the organization, and fired anyone who suggested he not publish certain things that actually needed to be classified. His financial advisor/book keeper got things thrown at her when he was told that Wikileaks was loosing money.

I’m all for transparency in government, just not the type that can get people killed.

Any Mouse (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

No, we wouldn’t. A small contingent of what I sometimes consider ‘mouth frothers’ would. I don’t see as he’s done anything illegal in printing the leaked documents. He isn’t a US national, he is/was in control of a media outlet (Wikileaks, like it or not), and he didn’t get the information first. A US publication did (was that the Times?), and yet they aren’t under the gun for anything. Odd, isn’t it?

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Any Mouse, would you agree that Assange publishing classified documents would, at best, be a completely grey area for some, but not for others? I ask this because he had direct control over what was put onto the website.

Now as for the New York Times, they were hiding the embarrassment. That exposure of embarrassing moments I can condone because Bush Jr. never cared how people saw him in those moments. However, at the same time, I cannot condone the arrival times of delicates and dignitaries being exposed because in certain regions it is a very real danger.

At best, Assange is legally grey, but is still inharently dangerous due to his short tempor and attitude (he had a rough childhood and I would only feel better if he sought treatment, otherwise he’s fairly likeable).

acementhead (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Wally says

“There is an old US saying that basically says that if someone is truly innocent, they won’t run away from their accuser.”

Wally that would have been applicable before the US started abducting, torturing and murdering people, without charge let alone trial and conviction. There are many examples, of totally innocent people who have been tread this way,which can easilly be found.

Educate yourself Wally, your alma mater obviously failed.

Anonymous Coward says:

why not tell us how the Ecuadorian embassy is sick of Assange and wants him out, and have stated they are no longer willing to support him. !!!!!

He’s welcome to try to run with a party here in Australia but he will get no where. He will be in the news for another 15 mins of fame, he will get next to no support here in Australia. Most Australians think he’s a moron.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The average Aussie, ie: MYSELF seem to disagree with you:




Senator Nick Xenophon even agrees he has a good chance, especially since he really needs only approx 1.5% of vote dependant on preferencing. And if he runs on the “whistleblower” platform even the Greens might want to parlay with him.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I apologise I spelt in incorrectly. Though it’s easily confused with it’s gambling spelling of parlay. Instead what I meant is parley.

And it is NOT a pirate term, no matter what the idiot writers of Pirates of the Carribean series want you to think. Instead it is a very old English word emaning to discuss or converse with ones enemies over the terms of a truce or other matters of mutual benefit.

It’s also used extensively when talking about legal matters with opposing sides, but hey, what ever floats your boat (or is that pirate ship)

acementhead (profile) says:

Re: Anonymous coward

If the Ecuadorians want to kick Assange out of the embassy there is nothing preventing them from doing exactly that. They haven’t and therefore they don’t Your pathtic Zionst wishes are of no avail in this matter.

If the average Aussie thinks Assange is a “moron”(which I seriously doubt, citation please) then the people of that belief are clearly in fact the morons. Average IQ in Australia is 100, which compared with Assange’s of at least three standard deviations higher is truly moronic.

Anonymous Coward says:


“I’ve also been dealing with AC trolls this month and I personally apologize to you G. Thompson for any attitude towards you of “Holier Than Thou” I may have unintentionally conveyed. I’m personally grateful that you put a bit of my humble back into my pie :-)”

And we know already how tentative your grip on not slipping into insanity is. What with your random cry for attention recently. GUYS GUYS! I’ve been banned from Ars. WAH! Oh and the weather changed! Oh woe is me!

I knew you were a psych person from the minute I read some of the stuff you wrote. And I knew even then your “expertise” was deemed higher than it actually was. Thanks for the proof. I too can watch interviews and give “professional” opinions. Doesn’t make them fact or even remotely true.

Poor Wally. Let’s all take it easy on him guys. If you don’t completely agree with what he says about Apple then obviously you’re a troll and not just a person with a differing opinion. For someone whose allegedly studied psychology and has a degree in the field you sure don’t act like it, much less give even a sense of it. Although I’ll grant you that you do act like a 26 year old who’s full of himself, relatively (mostly) immature and a plethora of other things. I’m basing my diagnosis on the comments you leave, see I too have a degree in psychology. So this isn’t just opinion, it’s PROFESSIONAL opinion. I know all these things about you for a fact.

See, I can make shit up too.

Wally (profile) says:


Everyone see what I mean?? It’s amazing to think that the trolls even have a brain. I’m surprised this one could even write whole sentences in an attempt to derail a well-written apology.

Just give up the ghost man. Really, you see why this place is better than Ars Technica??? Nobody here has a trolling mob mentality. You need to secure your shit, suck it up, and relax.

I’m sorry you’re not getting much positive attention in you and your little friends’ attempted flame war.

I now actually encourage any Techdirt user here to report the slag that the AC here.

For the record asshole, I suffered a head injury at 11 months old…I do slip into insanity, but only towards trolling and blatant attacks. The weather does effect my brain into migraines and I am medicated for it. This in no way degrades my thought process, but it does with my inherent insanity. I don’t use it as a crutch and because of you seeing that post I had made on Ars about my inherent disability.

Mike Mansick and crew…you now have certified proof where the AC trolls come from. I didn’t use my disability as a crutch, I used it as a phishing mechanism.

As for you dude. You seriously need to chill.

acementhead (profile) says:

Wally and the worthlessness of "psychoanalysis".

Wally the whole world apart, from the United States of Scam, knows that psychoanalysis is unscientific and worthless. Anyone who pretends to treat people with psychoanalysis is a charlatan and a fraud.

Your “analysis” of Assange is utterly worthless and in any event Assange’s personal characteritics are irrelevant. The USA is murdering its way around the world and Wikileaks is exposing them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: The worthlessness of Psychoanalysis

Ummm, that sight is full of non-scientific theory and method. It is questioning the many aspects of not only Sigmund Frued, but Charles Darwin. This tells me you are one of three things and one or two things about your agenda…all of which can be mixed.

First off, an “opposing view” as this sight shows, is not based in scientific theory. If there had been any relevance to your rebuttal to Wally, you blew it by citing a website made by Bible Pushers.

Second, you’re likely trolling by giving Wally “what he wants” and at the same time, trying to (rather unsuccessfully) derail his open thoughts.

Third…to become a minister or priest in the Catholic Church, you must MINOR in psychology….going to confession is counseling.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense because you don’t speak the English language well enough to understand that the website you don’t understand context and comprehension of the words in front of you.

acementhead (profile) says:

Re: Re: The worthlessness of Psychoanalysis

Anonomous coward I admit that I read only a small amount of the SITE(not “sight” as you render it several times). The part that I read pertained to the relevant subject which is psychoanalysis not religion. As far as religion is concerned I am an extreme athiest compared with whom Richard Dawkins is a bible basher. I am an athiest because I am an extreme materialist and hold that not only is Darwin correct on everything but that there is no such thing as “free will”(an invention of religionists so that they could have “just punishment”

I’m out of time now but psychoanalysis is unscientific rubbish, no better than Astrology or Homeopathy.

Anonymous Coward says:

The worthlessness of Psychoanalysis

You are dead wrong. Psychoanalysis is not rubbish one bit…Ever hear of ADD??? ADHD???? Any other disorder??!! Psychoanalysis is used to determine if a patient has a disorder wherein a pattern of thinking or thought process is abnormal in a pervasive manor. It’s also used in marriage counseling, studying how people think and/or percieve the environment around them.

To say it is absolute rubbish is an ignorant joke. It’s sad to think that you or anyone in general think mental disorders do not validly exist because of what some crackpot says on a website that basically questions any basic scientific knowledge (germs may be in the website by the way).

Anonymous Coward says:


I think it’s a bit like Wally said. Assange’s cas has a lot of grey areas legally. The current adminstration in the US covered embarrassment (unlike Bush Jr.), but there were a lot of documents that involved dignitary visits, where lives were at risk, that needed to be kept back and were posted on Wikileaks. Witch hunt or not, he’s a wanted man and probably would have stood a better chance by not running.

Some of the misconceptions about how the FBI handles arrests can be blown out when you consider the story of how well they treated Anonymous’ Comander X. He ran after taking down a federal building with a DDoS attack. No gunpoint was brought when the opportunity was given for arrest. They offered to wait for a while until he calmed down (he still bolted).

In short, Assange has nothing to worry about. They don’t send espionage charges to Guantanamo Bay, and he can easily just prove himself innocent somehow.

Anonymous Coward says:


He is arrogant as he is a danger to the general populace. We are talking a nightmare to work with…he’s been known to fire staff for constructive criticism and for ideas that would improve Wikileaks in some way. He’s a nightmare boss with a very short temper…to which people were afraid to leave unless they got fired.

So you’re saying he’s like may of the leaders of large corporations that seem to be admired by many.

Audrieau says:

Re:yes well, hmmmm

Julian would be the first one to refute Murdoch’s right to manipulate the Press. As a member of the Wikileaks Party in Aus I would like to say that a lot of Australians share his ideology even if not enough to cast their vote in that direction. Wikileaks Party is the only party committed to opening up to truth and transparency in government, informing to voters what is really going on in our country. And yours.

Wikileaks has already created much needed and significant governmental dialogue to the Trans Pacific Trade deal, which was hiding secret clauses protecting and widening the grip of the pharmaceutical industry.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...