Tuesday, September 7, 2010


I am keeping up with this Assange matter since it seems clear to me that we are seeing a clear example of the widely-emplaced SO Mania Regime now being deployed as a cover to ‘go after’ people whom a government (and the US government in this case) finds somehow ‘inconvenient’.

It should not be surprising.

In my view of the Regime, it was always about ‘convenience/convenience’: a powerful political demographic element on the Left found ‘men’ inconvenient, mixing themselves with another large swath of folks found it psychologically convenient to demonstrate that they really were pro-family and pro-children, while on the opposite side of the spectrum a whole bunch of folks just feel better when standing up for law-‘n-order any time the opportunity is presented, and a bunch of other folks just don’t like weirdos, different people, and – in classic sociological terms – ‘Others’.

Needless to say, all of the above find the Constitution, for all practical purposes, to be inconvenient.

(None of the foregoing is to be construed as my desire to ‘approve’ the infliction of unwanted sexual experience on any human being by any other human being. And I write with the clear awareness that the vast number of SOs are not slavering incorrigible monsters.)

Now the accused (although he hasn’t been charged with anything, which at this point is ominously interesting all on its own), Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks (which still has those 15,000 documents about military frakkey in AfPak that it’s preparing to release), is being urged by to step down as the operational head of Wikileaks.

The suggestion is being made by an “organizer” of Wikileaks, a woman who is a former resident of Sweden but is now “an Icelandic parliamentarian”.

Once again, her headline-grabbing public comment actually turns out to say much less than the quick reader would be led to believe.

He should just “give up his management” (which would include managing the release of the next 15,000 documents), but only while “he fights the charges filed by two Swedish women”.

But as we know, those two didn’t actually file charges (shrewdly, for the sake of their future legal vulnerability if this thing doesn’t work).

But this is one of those ‘suggestions’ and ‘invitations’ that is delivered with an alluring and – given the dynamics of these things – seductive sadness. The sad one says that “I am not angry with Julian, but this is a situation that has clearly gotten out of hand”. Nothing about the fact that the situation was made to get out of hand by the too-shrewd activities of the original allegators and a couple of Swedish prosecutors who are keeping the thing going – yet without bringing any charges.

And, of course, there’s absolutely no reason for Assange to step down in order to ‘deal with’ these charges. It’s not like he’s writing a major piece of work and needs all his concentration to keep focus on his writing. All that remains is to press the Send button on that cache of 15,000 documents that reveals a lot or a little that is new about American military badness in AfPak. He could do it from his PalmPilot while sitting in a courtroom … although there is no court in sight at this point, despite all the brouhaha.

Listen to her justification: “These personal matters have nothing to do with Wikileaks. I have strongly urged him to focus on the legalities that he’s dealing with and let some other people carry the torch”.

But if – as she rightly says – these matters have nothing to do with Wikileaks, and if all he has to do is press a Send button, then why does she think he needs to quit his job? The documents will speak for themselves, so it’s not even as if it’s bad for company business if its Founder is embroiled in a made-for-media sex-offense dust-up.

And I can easily imagine that if some Wikileaks subordinates are getting nervous about whether they’ll be next on some hit-list, then Assange’s stepping-down may well result in the 15,000 documents not being published.

But Birgitta Jonsdottir, the Icelandic parliamentarian and somehow connected to Wikileaks, also goes to great lengths to cover all of her bases, shrewdly enough. She’s not mad at him, but she “doesn’t support his claim that the allegations were part of a plot designed to damage Wikileaks”. If that’s true, then she shouldn’t be allowed to operate heavy machinery – which would include a microphone. While I am not going to make any bloggery sensational claims, I am going to say here and now that there is more than enough possibility that – regardless of the sex-offense ‘reports’ (which at this point is all they are and have been since Day One) – the heavy thumb of politics and ‘reasons of state’, especially with the US lurking in the background with a whole lotta motive, is impossible to discount on its face.

Ms. Jonsdottir, by the by, is now serving in the Parliament of a nation that is publicly pretty close to sovereign bankruptcy, and therefore in no position to annoy international monetary organizations – rather largely influenced, as it happens, by the US government.

Nor can I say with any seriousness that ‘feminism’ – even ‘international feminism ‘ – has the chops to roam this far afield for ‘support’ while simultaneously holding the theoretically well-grounded charges from being filed.

With even more careful – painfully careful – wording, Jonsdottir then undercuts herself by suggesting that maybe this is all just a “cultural misunderstanding” between himself and the two women.

But then, immediately, “And he’s a classic Aussie in the sense that he’s a bit of a male chauvinist”. Aha. So the old feministical stuff is trotted out; and when did we ever hear of a ‘man’ being just “a bit of a male chauvinist”?

She covers all the bases, balancing her ‘support’ with a shopping-list of all the classic male-hostile tropes of the feministical panoply. It’s a remarkable performance, but – as they would have said in the pre-electrical age of the world – ‘smells much of the lamp’. Meaning that somebody stayed up really really late last night putting this thing together verrrry verrrrry carefully.

And frankly, it reminds me of the dying Vito Corleone’s advice to his son and successor, Michael: whoever comes to you and offers to set up a meeting … he is the one who will assassinate you. And sure enough, loyal old sub-boss Tessio soon shows up, smiling and gentle, and purrs a proposal to set up a meeting between Michael and the drug-mob that wants to use the Corleone connections to bring in drugs. Old Vito had been saying No; but he’s behind the times and it’s a new era and there are new possibilities and … you saw the movie.

And I think we’re seeing a script here, and for all its weaknesses the US government is still capable of putting out a 'movie'.

Assange has said that he is “losing confidence in the Swedish justice system”. Nobody in the American SO community can be too surprised at such an observation.

That justice system, by the by, has now gone a week and hasn’t filed its charges. Which doesn’t prove that there are no charges that might be justifiably filed (especially given the frakkeries of SO Mania Regime jurisprudence), but it does suggest strongly to me that this is all about intimidating him to not-publish the documents. If he caves, then the Senior senior prosecutor might simply say that it was all a “cultural misunderstanding” and Nevvvvvvvvvvverrrrrrrrrrrrr Minnnnnnnnnnnnnd (as the late great Roseanne Rosannadanna character would have said on Saturday Night Live).

And the Swedish and Icelandic governments will get the Great Thumb off their necks.

Assange – in the article linked-to in the link in this Post – says that he doesn’t know if this is just a couple of people pursuing the matter for personal or ideological reasons, or whether this whole thing is driven by “geopolitical reasons”. I would suggest that it is both, given that the SO Mania Regime and its demographic support groups are both deeply enmeshed with the US government and have been for quite some time.

And let’s not forget that there’s an election coming up in these parts very soon; those 15,000 documents, possibly even more than the previous 72,000 or so, might not make certain parties to the election look very good.

Nor can I credit either the wits or the integrity or both of Ms. Jonsdottir when she says in that same linked-article that she reviewed all the documents in the case (you can do that in Swedish law?) and “quickly determined that this was not part of any western conspiracy against Wikileaks”. Which only makes me wonder that if the Icelandic folk had elected more insightful legislators their government might not have gone bust. In fact, since no actual 'case' has been formally brought, then what court 'documents' can she have seen? Or has she simply reviewed the written-up allegations of the two females?

But I think you can see just how the insidious SO Mania Regime can now be deployed for purposes far beyond – or beneath – its original and publicly-stated justifications.

But of course, the SO Mania Regime has always been vigorously and lethally alive, crawling beneath its surfaces with all manner of ulterior and far more lethal motivations and purposes than were originally stated.

And that will come as no surprise to the SO community at all.

No comments:

Post a Comment