By saying this he implies that..

When interviewed by the press most people offer statements alluding to the other person primarily being at fault.  At that point the interviewer has an 'open gate' to ask more questions, such as how so?, who did what?, who do you think that?, designed to put the interviewee on the defensive. To justify their beliefs, unresolved issues, actions and reactions. Once this process of condemning and justifying begins, the person interviewed is open to all sorts of allegations from lying to slander and making false statements. 

Often the open statements isolate the interviewee as the trust factors associated with having friends and associates close by is irrevocably damaged.  People do not like being associated with what appears to be the 'blame game' - other wise known as guilt by association - or 'being seen as having a social conscience'.

In an interview with the ABC [radio (aired 22nd December 2010)] Julian Assage states that "I am a Gentleman... Gentlemen do not tell..."  Later the statement continues " ...I learned from my father."  These seeming passive statements are innocuous in what they actually do say. Hearing one thing and actually consciously listening to what is said requires selected thinking capacities.  people become immune to think past what is actually said.  However their subconscious hears and records.  The subconscious does not recognise negatives.  Therefore by stating positive, about himself, people hear this and therefore begin to believe and think these positives - in this case Julian Assage is a gentleman who learned from his father how to behave.

 In a time where there is a) great religious unrest while b) Different religions holy days [third week of December] the sentence has religious meaning to a great number of people from many cultures. 


Generally people know the Internet as being ten years old. By aligning himself with the Internet Julian Assage is associated with a youthful facade. From a young 'home grown Queensland Aussie grown kid' Julian Assage has become the international figure head who took his finger out of the proverbial 'dyke' - letting information flood out in a fashion that the public has claimed that information as being their own. The public feel that they place the people in power. Therefore they, the public, own the information. 

Equally, group safety takes precedence over individual privacy. In this case has Julian Assage realised these documents 'for the greater good of all'? The question arises when people associate the nature of their every day activities with their immediate comfort and safety needs being met. When people are rattled they look for the cause.  An individual seemingly alone is fair game to tear apart until the status qua is reestablished.  As 'dyke' wall let first a trickle of water come through, the blame game was used.  Mud was slug from one minister to another.  The press had a field day.  President Obama appeared to stand by his belief in the 'freedom of the press.' Initially being laughed and geared at.

However, the water has not receded as more information jets brake through hidden dyke structures.  More information keeps being released. Ministers, governments, business all over the world are having to bring in damage control.

Meanwhile while the people concentrate on meeting their daily needs those we are lead to believe are in power [Government] get embarrassed and have to begin to sort the mess out. 

 The thing is where are the morals and ethics in all this.  Have the morals and ethics of each society changed? Is everyone up to date with the 'look the other way/do nothing yet' inoculations. Do we finger point and say "they made the mess let them clean it up?"   Let the 'someone else' do it again.  with our were busy celebrating, so it will all blow over or we'll complain in a few months, when and if the whole incident is still prominent. Which is possibly why there are allegations of a sexual nature laid. After all, SEX SELLS! People may not remember the reasons why behind the 'fuss' but they will remember the name and the implied 'where there is smoke their may be flames - that is an implied guilty til proven innocent way that mistrust of a fellow human being occurs. Since we mistrust that person and isolate them then as humans we believe we are safe to go on with our daily lives. Things won't have changed that much... will they?  Yes they will have.  And the dance of life goes on.


The statements openly portray a closed mouth policy - innocently implicating no one.  However think about them.  By saying 'He is a gentleman - what are the ladies concerned alluded as? If one is good the other is___!  Especially since the allegations the interviewee is up against are supposedly of a sexual nature. 

The further implication is of a darker sexual nature.  If this is so then subconsciously our brains ask 'what are these ladies normal life like?'  One side saying that what occurred was a "gift from the women concerned" while the other side seems like a colluding fabrication of two people who have tried to tell a bigger and better story.  Repeated often enough and the story tellers begin to believe that the initial incident is now a 'whale of a tale' that needs to be told. 

The reference to 'learning from his father' initially begs the question" well what else is learned from father to son. many people are fathers out there who want to believe that what they install in their children at an early age will be with that child all their life, guiding the child as a man.

Since people do not like to remember the often harsh and disciplinary times of growing up, our brains automatically start to block what in our own lives are ugly realities.  Why revisit and open the door to our own pain triggers- just accept them and ask minimal questions.  What is happening here is there is a further subliminal reference to the 'old boy's network'.  Elder acceptance that causes a bonding together from fear of exposure.  Not speaking out and defending yourself makes you one of 'them' the socially accepted. Publicly portrayed as one party appearing to hold true to the established morals and ethics - the other party disgraced itself thus minimising their importance.

The 'in' crowd isolates the whistle blowers - quietly associates a "Judas factor ' with them. Their identities known and reputation in shreds the question that begs to be asked is 'have the tables been turned'?  The initial wiki leaks release of documents from the world over focused the worlds attention on the 'bad naughty boy... fancy telling a secret [ or a few thousand of them backed up with proof!!  The situation now has two women in the lime light. These women have a 'friend' informing the other side as to what may [I say may have as I was not there] have happened, what was said and who said what as to the development of the 'facts' reported in the same interview on ABC 22nd December 2010.  Where one parties friends are supporting them the other parties friend is telling on them.  This in it self requires us all to look deeper and to further ask more questions.

At this point the greater wiki leaks issue begins to dissipate.  The scenario now looks like one Government fighting another.  History points to a 'Tax on Tea war' association.  Something a Tea Party would greatly enjoy benefiting from! 

Using an old saying " the cat is amongst the pidgin's now" and the "fur is flying" is appropriate.  Will we ever really know the truth?  Does knowing the truth, the whole truth matter?  Has time softened our shock and will it lessen our interest, numb the pain and heighten the 'what is normal' thresholds that we collectively have on life?  Are the history books now being rewritten. Will our children see life as we knew it? Do we really care? Let someone else deal with it .

What started out as shock wave therapy for the betterment of all peoples has become a blame game.  Something that generally no one really wants to be apart of. By this stage each person will have formed their own opinions.  Newsflash... As we wait for the next installment does a little thing like truth really matter?  The whole  situations entertainment value is immediate.