what do you think about accusations against him of sexual harassment and rape? isn’t that a reflection of our times?The charges against Assange aren’t even bullshit. They’re bullshit squared. They’re as grounded in reality as the existence of unicorns and green cheese on the moon. Interpol starting a manhunt for him on the basis of these charges is evidence that they are little more than instruments of the government-corporate complex.
in the 14th century he would have been accused of blasphemy.
Want proof? Via Crime & Federalism, here’s Wikipedia’s summary of the rape and “sexual harassment” charges against him:
On 20 August 2010, an investigation was opened against Assange in Sweden in connection with an allegation that he had raped a woman in Enköping on the weekend of 14 August after a seminar, and two days later had sexually harassed a second woman he had been staying with in Stockholm. Shortly after the investigation opened, however, chief prosecutor Eva Finné overruled the prosecutor on call the night the report was filed, withdrawing the warrant to arrest Assange and saying “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape.”Washington’s Blog has even more details on this baloney rape charge. According to Newsweek, the basis of the rape charge was not actual rape, but Assange’s violation of a Swedish law that forbids condomless sex:
Borgstrom said that specific details about the the allegations had not yet appeared in Swedish media. But he acknowledged that the principal concern the women had about Assange’s behavior—which they reported to police in person—related to his lack of interest in using condoms and his refusal to undergo testing, at the women’s request, for sexually transmitted disease. A detailed, chronological account of the women’s alleged encounters with Assange—which in both cases began with consensual sexual contact but later included what the women claimed was nonconsensual sex, in which Assange didn’t use a condom—was published on Tuesday by The Guardian; a Declassified item included a more explicit reference than The Guardian to Assange’s declining to submit to medical tests.Assange’s refusal to sack his dick when he has sex with strange girls makes him a moron. It doesn’t make him a rapist, except in the fevered imaginations of the most insane, man-hating Dworkinite feminists.
And finally, from a Daily Mail article, we get a look at Assange’s encounters with the women who falsely accused him. First, Woman A:
Woman A, who works for the Christian branch of the [Social Democratic P]arty, was the main organiser but they had never met before.“Hardworking and fun-loving” is code for slut. And in a feminist dystopia like Sweden, she’s no doubt one of the biggest sluts of them all. Also, is it a sign of how inured I’ve become to our sick world that I don’t even bat an eyelash at the fact that a woman who works for a Christian organization is having extramarital sex?
The attractive twentysomething, described by friends as hardworking and fun-loving, offered to let him stay in her one-bedroom flat in Sodermalm, Stockholm.
She planned to visit her family on the other side of the country and would be away until the Saturday seminar.
But she returned on the Friday, anxious about the amount of work still to do for the seminar.
According to a police source: ‘They had a discussion and decided it would be OK to share the living space, then went out together for dinner.
‘When they got back they had sexual relations, but there was a problem with the condom – it had split.
‘She seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he insisted that it was an accident.’
And how does Woman B fare? Even worse, if you can imagine it:
Whatever her views about the incident, she appeared relaxed and untroubled at the seminar the next day where Assange met Woman B, another pretty blonde, also in her 20s, but younger than Woman A.
In her police statement, Woman B described how, in the wake of the Afghanistan leaks, she saw Assange being interviewed on television and became instantly fascinated – some might even say obsessed.
She said she thought him ‘interesting, brave and admirable’.
Over the following two weeks she read everything she could find about him on the internet and followed news reports about his activities.
She discovered that he would be visiting Sweden to give a seminar, so she emailed the organisers to offer her help.
She registered to attend and booked the Saturday off work.
She appears to have dressed to catch his eye, in a shocking-pink cashmere jumper. But, she says, among the grey-suited journalists who filled the room, she felt uncomfortably out of place.
The woman admitted trying to engage her hero in conversation.
Assange seemed pleased to have such an ardent admirer fawning over him and, she said, would look at her ‘now and then’. Eventually he took a closer interest.
He spent most of the 45-minute journey surfing the internet on his laptop, reading stories about himself and twittering or texting on his mobile phone.
‘He paid more attention to the computer than to me,’ she said bitterly.
It was dark by the time they arrived in her suburb and the atmosphere between them had cooled.
‘The passion and attraction seemed to have disappeared,’ she said.
Most of what then followed has been blacked out in her statement, except for: ‘It felt boring and like an everyday thing.’
One source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one.
This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.
Her only concern was about leaving him alone in her flat. ‘I didn’t feel I knew him very well,’ she explained.
The drama took a bizarre and ultimately sensational turn after she called the office of Woman A, whom she had briefly met at the seminar.Re-read those excerpts, and the entire story, and let them sink in. The women who accused Julian Assange of rape are a slut who was mad that she got played by a player and a worthless, jilted groupie who got all butthurt because the object of her obsession wasn’t who she thought he was. And let’s not forget that the charge stems from Assange’s unwillingness to use condoms in CONSENSUAL sexual encounters that didn’t become “rape” until both girls fell out of love with him. Assange’s only sin here was that he couldn’t keep his girlfriends’ ginas tingling.
The two women talked and realised to their horror and anger that they had both been victims of his charm.
The issue of unprotected sex left a fear of disease. It is believed that they both asked him to take a test for STDs and he refused.
Woman B was especially anxious about the possibility of HIV and pregnancy.
And it was in this febrile state that the women, who barely knew each other, walked into a police station and began to tell their stories.
And Interpol seriously thinks this crap is worth hunting down a man across national borders for?
Not even bullshit. Bullshit squared.
I’m issuing a call to men’s rights activists, manosphere denizens, and other anti-feminists – we MUST support Julian Assange. He is as much a victim of feminism as he is a victim of governmental and corporate conspiracies to hide the truth about their scams. His case is a textbook example of how misandry and female supremacy in the West have gone too far. If enough people speak up on the blatantly obvious relationship between Assange’s persecution and radical feminism, the worldwide anti-feminist movement will gain invaluable exposure. Regardless of how you feel about him and his motives, he is more than worthy of your support.
And even if you don’t count yourself as part of the aforementioned groups, Julian Assange’s efforts against government and corporate corruption are invaluable. A couple days ago, Advocatus Diaboli sent me a link to a blog post outlining Assange’s true goals for Wikileaks. It’s truly a fascinating read:
In this sense, most of the media commentary on the latest round of leaks has totally missed the point. After all, why are diplomatic cables being leaked? These leaks are not specifically about the war(s) at all, and most seem to simply be a broad swath of the everyday normal secrets that a security state keeps from all but its most trusted hundreds of thousands of people who have the right clearance. Which is the point: Assange is completely right that our government has conspiratorial functions. What else would you call the fact that a small percentage of our governing class governs and acts in our name according to information which is freely shared amongst them but which cannot be shared amongst their constituency? And we all probably knew that this was more or less the case; anyone who was surprised that our embassies are doing dirty, secretive, and disingenuous political work as a matter of course is naïve. But Assange is not trying to produce a journalistic scandal which will then provoke red-faced government reforms or something, precisely because no one is all that scandalized by such things any more. Instead, he is trying to strangle the links that make the conspiracy possible, to expose the necessary porousness of the American state’s conspiratorial network in hopes that the security state will then try to shrink its computational network in response, thereby making itself dumber and slower and smaller.In other words, the point of posting leaked diplomatic cables on the Internet is not to embarrass the government, but to impede their communications and thus make them less capable of committing harm. Wikileaks is pouring sugar into the gas tank of the government-corporate complex.
Also of interest, Bryan Caplan posted a link to an interview of Assange in which he describes his politics. Everyone who accused him of being a leftist is way off the mark, as he’s actually somewhat of a libertarian:
Would you call yourself a free market proponent?
Absolutely. I have mixed attitudes towards capitalism, but I love markets. Having lived and worked in many countries, I can see the tremendous vibrancy in, say, the Malaysian telecom sector compared to U.S. sector. In the U.S. everything is vertically integrated and sewn up, so you don’t have a free market. In Malaysia, you have a broad spectrum of players, and you can see the benefits for all as a result.How do your leaks fit into that?
To put it simply, in order for there to be a market, there has to be information. A perfect market requires perfect information.
There’s the famous lemon example in the used car market. It’s hard for buyers to tell lemons from good cars, and sellers can’t get a good price, even when they have a good car.Julian Assange is less CounterPunch, more LewRockwell.com. Neither are my bag, but whatever.
By making it easier to see where the problems are inside of companies, we identify the lemons. That means there’s a better market for good companies. For a market to be free, people have to know who they’re dealing with.
Yesterday, after I posted my rhetorical question about the PATRIOT Act and Wikileaks, Paul Elam commented on Facebook that six hours had passed and no one had answered me. Truth be told, I wasn’t expecting an answer, but making a broader point.
A month after I began blogging, I wrote a post in which I explained why I named my blog In Mala Fide:
We all know that society is sick and civilization is waning, but how is an individual supposed to react to this? Once you’ve learned that following the rules is a sure way to get screwed over, you can’t go back to being Boobus Americanus (to borrow from Mencken). Western civilization, in its politically correct, feminized state, demands that you bend over and grab your ankles in order to be a good citizen, and breaking the rules will earn you the contempt of society at large – and yet, breaking the rules is the only way to survive. There’s no proper ethical code in existence that requires people to submit to tyrants who seek to bind them in chains. Much like how the Christians of the Roman Empire refused to worship the emperor, sane Westerners are refusing to worship the various false idols that comprise our dying culture…
…The moral configuration of Western society, as chronicled on this blog and others, requires its best citizens to rebel, to go against the grain, to behave in mala fide in order to secure their own fortunes.
The reason you need to behave in bad faith towards society and government is because society and government are behaving in bad faith towards you, in the form of feminism, socialism, neoliberalism, multiculturalism and other similar ideologies. That is the underlying theme of everything I write about, be it sexuality or politics or race relations.
The point I was trying to make with my question is that if a government repeatedly and continuously behaves in bad faith towards its citizens, its citizens will start behaving in bad faith towards it. It’s physics. It’s inevitable. If a government begins spying on and prying into the lives of private citizens, they will feel no remorse about reciprocating the favor. Whether you think its justified is irrelevant. Would Assange have been so quick to publish the cables had the U.S. government not acquired such a nasty reputation thanks in part to idiocy like the PATRIOT Act? Would Wikileaks even exist if Western governments and corporations weren’t colluding to screw people over to enrich themselves? I doubt it.
This is something that neocons and other police state fetishists don’t understand, as evidenced by their hysterical reaction to Newton’s Third Law of Physics. Everyone from the incoming House Homeland Security Chairman to everyone’s favorite retarded Alaskan hick is screaming for Julian Assange’s head, and one particularly deluded neocon twerp is outright calling for his assassination:
Neocon cowardice, girls who cry rape, and why we must stand behind Julian Assange
Nestorius writes, on the subject of Wikileaks’ Julian Assange:what do you think about accusations against him of sexual harassment and rape? isn’t that a reflection of our times?The charges against Assange aren’t even bullshit. They’re bullshit squared. They’re as grounded in reality as the existence of unicorns and green cheese on the moon. Interpol starting a manhunt for him on the basis of these charges is evidence that they are little more than instruments of the government-corporate complex.
in the 14th century he would have been accused of blasphemy.
Want proof? Via Crime & Federalism, here’s Wikipedia’s summary of the rape and “sexual harassment” charges against him:
On 20 August 2010, an investigation was opened against Assange in Sweden in connection with an allegation that he had raped a woman in Enköping on the weekend of 14 August after a seminar, and two days later had sexually harassed a second woman he had been staying with in Stockholm. Shortly after the investigation opened, however, chief prosecutor Eva Finné overruled the prosecutor on call the night the report was filed, withdrawing the warrant to arrest Assange and saying “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape.”Washington’s Blog has even more details on this baloney rape charge. According to Newsweek, the basis of the rape charge was not actual rape, but Assange’s violation of a Swedish law that forbids condomless sex:
Borgstrom said that specific details about the the allegations had not yet appeared in Swedish media. But he acknowledged that the principal concern the women had about Assange’s behavior—which they reported to police in person—related to his lack of interest in using condoms and his refusal to undergo testing, at the women’s request, for sexually transmitted disease. A detailed, chronological account of the women’s alleged encounters with Assange—which in both cases began with consensual sexual contact but later included what the women claimed was nonconsensual sex, in which Assange didn’t use a condom—was published on Tuesday by The Guardian; a Declassified item included a more explicit reference than The Guardian to Assange’s declining to submit to medical tests.Assange’s refusal to sack his dick when he has sex with strange girls makes him a moron. It doesn’t make him a rapist, except in the fevered imaginations of the most insane, man-hating Dworkinite feminists.
And finally, from a Daily Mail article, we get a look at Assange’s encounters with the women who falsely accused him. First, Woman A:
Woman A, who works for the Christian branch of the [Social Democratic P]arty, was the main organiser but they had never met before.“Hardworking and fun-loving” is code for slut. And in a feminist dystopia like Sweden, she’s no doubt one of the biggest sluts of them all. Also, is it a sign of how inured I’ve become to our sick world that I don’t even bat an eyelash at the fact that a woman who works for a Christian organization is having extramarital sex?
The attractive twentysomething, described by friends as hardworking and fun-loving, offered to let him stay in her one-bedroom flat in Sodermalm, Stockholm.
She planned to visit her family on the other side of the country and would be away until the Saturday seminar.
But she returned on the Friday, anxious about the amount of work still to do for the seminar.
According to a police source: ‘They had a discussion and decided it would be OK to share the living space, then went out together for dinner.
‘When they got back they had sexual relations, but there was a problem with the condom – it had split.
‘She seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he insisted that it was an accident.’
And how does Woman B fare? Even worse, if you can imagine it:
Whatever her views about the incident, she appeared relaxed and untroubled at the seminar the next day where Assange met Woman B, another pretty blonde, also in her 20s, but younger than Woman A.
In her police statement, Woman B described how, in the wake of the Afghanistan leaks, she saw Assange being interviewed on television and became instantly fascinated – some might even say obsessed.
She said she thought him ‘interesting, brave and admirable’.
Over the following two weeks she read everything she could find about him on the internet and followed news reports about his activities.
She discovered that he would be visiting Sweden to give a seminar, so she emailed the organisers to offer her help.
She registered to attend and booked the Saturday off work.
She appears to have dressed to catch his eye, in a shocking-pink cashmere jumper. But, she says, among the grey-suited journalists who filled the room, she felt uncomfortably out of place.
The woman admitted trying to engage her hero in conversation.
Assange seemed pleased to have such an ardent admirer fawning over him and, she said, would look at her ‘now and then’. Eventually he took a closer interest.
He spent most of the 45-minute journey surfing the internet on his laptop, reading stories about himself and twittering or texting on his mobile phone.
‘He paid more attention to the computer than to me,’ she said bitterly.
It was dark by the time they arrived in her suburb and the atmosphere between them had cooled.
‘The passion and attraction seemed to have disappeared,’ she said.
Most of what then followed has been blacked out in her statement, except for: ‘It felt boring and like an everyday thing.’
One source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one.
This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.
Her only concern was about leaving him alone in her flat. ‘I didn’t feel I knew him very well,’ she explained.
The drama took a bizarre and ultimately sensational turn after she called the office of Woman A, whom she had briefly met at the seminar.Re-read those excerpts, and the entire story, and let them sink in. The women who accused Julian Assange of rape are a slut who was mad that she got played by a player and a worthless, jilted groupie who got all butthurt because the object of her obsession wasn’t who she thought he was. And let’s not forget that the charge stems from Assange’s unwillingness to use condoms in CONSENSUAL sexual encounters that didn’t become “rape” until both girls fell out of love with him. Assange’s only sin here was that he couldn’t keep his girlfriends’ ginas tingling.
The two women talked and realised to their horror and anger that they had both been victims of his charm.
The issue of unprotected sex left a fear of disease. It is believed that they both asked him to take a test for STDs and he refused.
Woman B was especially anxious about the possibility of HIV and pregnancy.
And it was in this febrile state that the women, who barely knew each other, walked into a police station and began to tell their stories.
And Interpol seriously thinks this crap is worth hunting down a man across national borders for?
Not even bullshit. Bullshit squared.
I’m issuing a call to men’s rights activists, manosphere denizens, and other anti-feminists – we MUST support Julian Assange. He is as much a victim of feminism as he is a victim of governmental and corporate conspiracies to hide the truth about their scams. His case is a textbook example of how misandry and female supremacy in the West have gone too far. If enough people speak up on the blatantly obvious relationship between Assange’s persecution and radical feminism, the worldwide anti-feminist movement will gain invaluable exposure. Regardless of how you feel about him and his motives, he is more than worthy of your support.
And even if you don’t count yourself as part of the aforementioned groups, Julian Assange’s efforts against government and corporate corruption are invaluable. A couple days ago, Advocatus Diaboli sent me a link to a blog post outlining Assange’s true goals for Wikileaks. It’s truly a fascinating read:
In this sense, most of the media commentary on the latest round of leaks has totally missed the point. After all, why are diplomatic cables being leaked? These leaks are not specifically about the war(s) at all, and most seem to simply be a broad swath of the everyday normal secrets that a security state keeps from all but its most trusted hundreds of thousands of people who have the right clearance. Which is the point: Assange is completely right that our government has conspiratorial functions. What else would you call the fact that a small percentage of our governing class governs and acts in our name according to information which is freely shared amongst them but which cannot be shared amongst their constituency? And we all probably knew that this was more or less the case; anyone who was surprised that our embassies are doing dirty, secretive, and disingenuous political work as a matter of course is naïve. But Assange is not trying to produce a journalistic scandal which will then provoke red-faced government reforms or something, precisely because no one is all that scandalized by such things any more. Instead, he is trying to strangle the links that make the conspiracy possible, to expose the necessary porousness of the American state’s conspiratorial network in hopes that the security state will then try to shrink its computational network in response, thereby making itself dumber and slower and smaller.In other words, the point of posting leaked diplomatic cables on the Internet is not to embarrass the government, but to impede their communications and thus make them less capable of committing harm. Wikileaks is pouring sugar into the gas tank of the government-corporate complex.
Also of interest, Bryan Caplan posted a link to an interview of Assange in which he describes his politics. Everyone who accused him of being a leftist is way off the mark, as he’s actually somewhat of a libertarian:
Would you call yourself a free market proponent?Julian Assange is less CounterPunch, more LewRockwell.com. Neither are my bag, but whatever.
Absolutely. I have mixed attitudes towards capitalism, but I love markets. Having lived and worked in many countries, I can see the tremendous vibrancy in, say, the Malaysian telecom sector compared to U.S. sector. In the U.S. everything is vertically integrated and sewn up, so you don’t have a free market. In Malaysia, you have a broad spectrum of players, and you can see the benefits for all as a result.
How do your leaks fit into that?
To put it simply, in order for there to be a market, there has to be information. A perfect market requires perfect information.
There’s the famous lemon example in the used car market. It’s hard for buyers to tell lemons from good cars, and sellers can’t get a good price, even when they have a good car.
By making it easier to see where the problems are inside of companies, we identify the lemons. That means there’s a better market for good companies. For a market to be free, people have to know who they’re dealing with.
Yesterday, after I posted my rhetorical question about the PATRIOT Act and Wikileaks, Paul Elam commented on Facebook that six hours had passed and no one had answered me. Truth be told, I wasn’t expecting an answer, but making a broader point.
A month after I began blogging, I wrote a post in which I explained why I named my blog In Mala Fide:
We all know that society is sick and civilization is waning, but how is an individual supposed to react to this? Once you’ve learned that following the rules is a sure way to get screwed over, you can’t go back to being Boobus Americanus (to borrow from Mencken). Western civilization, in its politically correct, feminized state, demands that you bend over and grab your ankles in order to be a good citizen, and breaking the rules will earn you the contempt of society at large – and yet, breaking the rules is the only way to survive. There’s no proper ethical code in existence that requires people to submit to tyrants who seek to bind them in chains. Much like how the Christians of the Roman Empire refused to worship the emperor, sane Westerners are refusing to worship the various false idols that comprise our dying culture…
…The moral configuration of Western society, as chronicled on this blog and others, requires its best citizens to rebel, to go against the grain, to behave in mala fide in order to secure their own fortunes.
The reason you need to behave in bad faith towards society and government is because society and government are behaving in bad faith towards you, in the form of feminism, socialism, neoliberalism, multiculturalism and other similar ideologies. That is the underlying theme of everything I write about, be it sexuality or politics or race relations.The point I was trying to make with my question is that if a government repeatedly and continuously behaves in bad faith towards its citizens, its citizens will start behaving in bad faith towards it. It’s physics. It’s inevitable. If a government begins spying on and prying into the lives of private citizens, they will feel no remorse about reciprocating the favor. Whether you think its justified is irrelevant. Would Assange have been so quick to publish the cables had the U.S. government not acquired such a nasty reputation thanks in part to idiocy like the PATRIOT Act? Would Wikileaks even exist if Western governments and corporations weren’t colluding to screw people over to enrich themselves? I doubt it.
This is something that neocons and other police state fetishists don’t understand, as evidenced by their hysterical reaction to Newton’s Third Law of Physics. Everyone from the incoming House Homeland Security Chairman to everyone’s favorite retarded Alaskan hick is screaming for Julian Assange’s head, and one particularly deluded neocon twerp is outright calling for his assassination:
I can’t believe this Tom Flanagan guy. After the CBC anchor expressed shock at what he said, he replied “I’m feeling very manly today.” You little chickenshit. Calling for other men to assassinate someone from the safety of your tenured professorial position is the opposite of manly. If you had a pair, you’d pick up a sniper rifle and a Kevlar vest and go shoot Assange yourself. You won’t, because you neocons are all the same – cowardly little worms who talk tough, writing checks your asses will never cash.
Flanagan’s little comment reminds me of Louis-Ferdinand Céline’s observation in Journey to the End of the Night on how loud and proud patriots became scarcer the closer you got to front-line combat:
We marched a long time. There were streets and more streets, and they were all crowded with civilians and their wives, cheering us on, bombarding us with flowers from café terraces, railroad stations, crowded churches. You never saw so many patriots in all your life! And then there were fewer patriots… It started to rain, and then there were still fewer and fewer, and not a single cheer, not one.That’s the neocons, right there. Rah rah rah, God bless America, right up until their necks are on the line. Isn’t war just wunderbar? Especially when it’s other boys who are doing the fighting for you? More war, more war, MORE! Let’s invade Iran! Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran! Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler! Don’t appease, attack! It’s all to keep them from getting nukes they’ll never develop – erm, I mean to oust a tyrannical regime – erm, I mean to spread democracy and FREE-DUMB! Just don’t ask ME to serve, because dying in battle is for the proles!
And these jokers think they’re manly? They view themselves as the last vestiges of masculinity in the West? They’re about as manly and courageous as Eric Cartman:
Yes, Julian Assange is far from perfect. Yes, he’s an attention whore. Yes, his actions may be tainted by anti-Americanism. None of that matters. What matters is this man struck a hard blow against a corrupt institution that is working against all of our interests. He hit the school bully dead center in the face with a dodgeball, leaving him with a bloody nose and a river of tears flowing down his cheeks. Nobody felt sorry for Cartman when he got his comeuppance, and nobody with a sane bone in their body will feel one iota of sympathy for Uncle Sam.
And for that alone, I’m standing behind him one hundred percent.
Source: inmalafide.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment