Caitlin Johnstone

medium.com/@caityjohnstone · Personal blog · on HN since 2017

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian writer who posts political commentary on WikiLeaks, Assange, Syria and media coverage of U.S. foreign policy.

What HN saysHN links it in debates over Assange, Syria and censorship. Commenters question the credibility of its claims even while reading the text.
26HN people shared it
10linked it in comments
21stories submitted
213story points
6 years agolast shared
2017people per year2026

Most-shared posts

  1. 1
    Someone Just Edited Seth Rich’s Reddit Posts
    2 people · 17 points · first shared 2017 · 4 comments on HN
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
    DNC Shatters the Illusion of American Democracy
    1 people · 12 points · first shared 2017 · discussion on HN
  9. 9
  10. 10
    Top Assange Defense Account Deleted by Twitter
    1 people · 5 points · first shared 2019 · discussion on HN
  11. 11
    UBI, Automation, and Plutocracy = Dystopia
    1 people · 5 points · first shared 2019 · 1 comments on HN
  12. 12
    American Privilege
    1 people · 4 points · first shared 2019 · discussion on HN
  13. 13
  14. 14
    How to Get Rid of Paranoid Conspiracy Theorists
    1 people · 4 points · first shared 2019 · 1 comments on HN
  15. 15

What HN people wrote when they linked it

k1m · 2020-09-25
> He was, at best, and I think this strains intellectual credulity, an unwitting Russian asset. In reality, he was likely a willing Russian asset based on the evidence. Based on what evidence? Assange stated that "our source is not the Russian government or any state party." So I'm curious what evidence you've seen to say it was. > ...his behavior and the timing of the leaks was morally bankrupt and actively trying to influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party. I assume by this you mean he was trying to help Trump. Again, I don't see any evidence for this. See for example this article by Caitlin Johnstone which outlines why this isn't plausible: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-smear-18-he-was-a-trump-sup… She writes: > In July 2016 Assange compared the choice between Clinton and Trump to a choice between cholera and gonorrhea, saying, “Personally, I would prefer neither.” When a Twitter user suggested to Assange in 2017 that he start sucking up to Trump in order to secure a pardon, Assange replied, “I’d rather eat my own intestines.” Not to mention of course that it's now the Trump administration that's pursuing him and trying to send him to a US prison.
xster · 2017-11-21
Maybe another way I'd frame the issue is that there are 2 orthogonal themes. 1, whether the structural incentives of the institution is altogether aligned with the interests of the common working people (http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie… or with the financial elites (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/cia-funded-washington-post-lets-tom… and 2, whether the publication follows scientific rigor to produce in-depth factual investigations (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-atlantic-commits-malpractice-se… It sounds like you're mainly addressing the second theme (i.e. they're less prone to just making things up). Though I'd argue they're not 'serious' institutions on both fronts. On the one hand, they're less likely to even attempt to enter into discussion about whether to think about starting to investigate the types of stories that are detrimental to the elite consensus (When's the last time WaPo wrote about the 99% or DAPL or TiSa or had an opinion about this last $700 billion pentagon budget?). The same way how political bribes work. We think politicians get bribed to vote a certain way. It's way way too late by that point. Politicians get bribed to stop items from entering into the agenda for select committees so it'll never reach any assemblies for votes. On the other hand, though large…
throwawaysea · 2020-05-04
Why You Should Oppose The Censorship Of David Icke (Hint: It’s Got Nothing To Do With Icke) https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/why-you-should-oppose-the-censorshi… > A truly free being does not need an alliance of plutocrats and government agencies to protect their mind from David Icke. A truly free being does not want an alliance of plutocrats and government agencies to exert any control whatsoever over what ideas they are permitted to share and what thoughts they are permitted to think. A truly free being opposes with all their might any attempt to lock in a paradigm where human communication (and thereby thought) is controlled by vast unaccountable power structures which benefit from the absence of dissent. > Be a truly free being. Oppose this intrusion into your mental sovereignty.
fit2rule · 2020-03-01
"Lets move on from whether this is fact or not ..." https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/confirmed-chemical-weapons-assessme…
zaroth · 2019-05-26
For those who don’t want to watch this on YouTube, whether this source is at all credible I have no idea, but at least it’s text; https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/confirmed-chemical-weapons-assessme… Something from a more “mainstream” site; https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/douma-syria-opcw-chemical-weapons…
jadedhacker · 2018-05-08
Unfortunately, there are voices in the foreign policy establishment that are openly advocating for a "ministry of truth" https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/atlantic-council-explains-why-we-ne…
paulrd · 2017-11-21
Actually that quote is incorrect. It has been widely misquoted by the main stream media for their own propagandistic reasons. https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-atlantic-commits-malpractice-se… https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/930237935680618496
CapricornNoble · 2019-12-26
>>>Russia backed Assad in Syria, who attacked his own citizens with chemical weapons That position is suspect given the growing number of whistleblowers coming out from the OPCW stating that evidence pointing to the rebels behind the worst attacks was suppressed while compiling their reports.[1][2] >>>Their main strategy was to target the moderate anti government factions The main strategy was to secure the major population centers of Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo, and secure the highway that links them and runs North-South through the whole country. These areas were largely held by a mix of moderates as well as al-Qaeda-adjacent jihadists (Jabat Al-Nusra, HTS, etc.). The least-moderate factions were largely near the Turkish border in Idlib (no surprise, this is how foreign hardline fighters were flooding into the country), or deep in the eastern desert (ISIS spilled over from Iraq). The Syrian Army was in no position to bypass its biggest cities, extend its supply routes (given the Army's non-existent logistical capability), and expose its flanks to attack the "REALLY bad guys" first instead of the "just kinda-bad guys". [1]https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/opcw-losing-credibility-as-even-mor… [2]https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/new-opcw-leak-further-vindicate…

Keyboard shortcuts

/Search
j kNext / previous blog
EnterOpen selected blog
vVisit the blog site
fFollow / unfollow
lSwitch grid / list view
dSwitch dark mode
g hHome
g pTop posts
g tTopics
g fFollowing
g lLiked
g yHistory
g qFAQ
EscBack / close