Thursday, September 2, 2010


The SO community will not be as surprised as the ‘civilian’ world to find out that on Wednesday, Sept. 1st, an even more senior Swedish prosecutor not only reversed the overturn of the warrant against Julian Assange, but totally and utterly set the entire matter up as a sex-offense (rape) case all over again – just as it had been set-up when the two self-proclaimed victims went to the police station (perhaps after consultation with a lawyer) and “asked for advice” (which gambit nicely prevents them from ever being liable for a charge of filing a false report with police).

As best I can make out, the rape occurred when Mr. Assange refused to stop after a condom broke, in one victim’s case, and after the condom had been removed, in the other. Mr. Assange must have been in remarkably good shape that evening (although it is well-known that among their other demonic super-powers, SOs are capable of amazing performance at sustained high levels).

The Senior senior prosecutor claims that on the basis of “new evidence” that materialized Tuesday she has concluded that a crime was committed, and that the crime was rape. Although no fresh warrant or charges have been brought against Assange by prosecutors.

Such remarkable reversals “are not entirely uncommon in Swedish law”, she said, “especially allegations in sex crimes”. Well, the SO community is no doubt well ahead of the ‘civilian’ population in regard to this phenomenon. Given the elasticity of definitions as to what constitutes the elements of a sex-crime, and the elasticity of evidentiary-proof rules, and the wide divergence in how this or that prosecutor or court can be expected to interpret all the fuzziness, but given the tantalizing possibility that an allegator and her counsel might score a trifecta and get a ‘friendly’ cop and prosecutor and judge … well, you can see where things might go.

Nor, in matters sex-offensual, do you need the trifecta to get your money’s worth out of a day at the legal track. The media may well make up for any reservations one or another official might have about getting into harness for a spin around the track. And ‘friendly’ government officials might also compensate very nicely for any principled qualms.

In this case, as I have been saying in earlier Posts, it is easy to see the current level of shenanigans as attributable to either standard sex-offense regime dynamics or to ‘reasons of state’ by foreign governments pressuring the Swedish government. Or both – which may well be what’s going on here.

From the sex-offense regime material, I can envision a passel of ‘justifications’ (they can’t be dignified as genuine Principles) such as: a) it sends a good message to see important men held accountable for their sexual activity; b) it is a good ‘symbol’ of the needs and power of ‘women’ that this sort of case can be brought; c) ‘facts don’t matter’ anyway since men are what they are (rapists by nature) and so you can presume that even if they don’t mean to, they ‘rape’ as naturally as they munch Ring-Dings;* and therefore d) you can do whatever it takes whenever you have a chance to drag a male’s eternally violent sexuality into the Klieg lights.

Perhaps it is clear that such a set of presumptions are hell-and-gone from the principles of the jurisprudence envisioned by the Constitution of 1787 (but of course that problem is solved by declaring the said document “quaint” and “insufficient”).

From the government point-of-view (which, wickedly, is now itself tainted by decades of Feminist, Victimist, and SO Regime ‘thinking’): a) this guy refuses to not-publish materials the US government would rather not have come to light; b) this makes him an enemy and therefore – since America is God’s Deputy – Evil; c) he will also ‘victimize’ everyone involved in the dark-doings by exposing them to publicity; d) since he is both Evil and an enemy of the US and a potential victimizer, then it is not only OK but absolutely required morally to do whatever it takes to stop him.

And you can also see where both the Feminists and the Government would see an opportunity here where both of them can ‘win’. Assange can be discredited as a ‘sex offender’.

I’m not sure, though, what use his ‘sex offender-hood’ (assuming he is tried and convicted – and most SO cases don’t do well in the bright light of day, much like most Government dirty-tricks cases) would do to discredit the material (15,000 more documents ready to go out) he is putting forth to the world. He’s not publishing his own ideas (and in a better world, an idea would be judged on its own merits, not on the ‘purity’ or ‘Correctness’ of its proponent)**; he’s publishing reports made by US officials at all levels, including the lower, boots-on-the-ground levels were ‘stuff gets done’ and ‘stuff happens’.

So I don’t think that from the Government’s point of view, the full SO treatment (all the way to trial and conviction) is going to do any good. The key would be to intimidate Assange so as to induce him to not-publish the reports; clearly, especially in light of the Senior senior prosecutor’s stunningly vague comments, they want to give him a little time to think about caving in to them. Then perhaps the charges will simply disappear.

But whether that will suit the other Party to this theoretical scheme – the Feminists – I don’t know. They may want to go for the full SO scenario: accusations and (possibly) trial and conviction … but again, unless you can really guarantee all the Players, a genuinely adversarial and honest trial process is an iffy things and most people with an agenda don’t prefer to subject their hopes to it. They try to ‘fix’ the outcome, much as has happened in American venues, but not so much perhaps in Swedish venues.

And then there is the question of what Assange actually did that night. Since the two females approached him and things went on from there, and since – at least as far as I can make out from the various reports – everything started off consensually for the actual encounter with each of the allegators – then if this turns out to be ‘rape’, it’s one of those ‘coded’ cases of rape where what really happened doesn’t fit any average person’s understanding of the word and concept (much like, say, most reasonable citizens would not say that by remaining silent in a long-distance phone call you were ‘battering’ your partner). Or perhaps he did nothing at all and all this has been created without any basis in fact or act at all.

I also think that it’s a relevant coincidence that he is applying for Permanancy status in Sweden (he is an Australian citizen) where the master servers of Wikileaks are located. Perhaps as a ‘sex offender’ – either convicted or merely accused – he is automatically ineligible for such status.

OR perhaps – as either a convicted or accused ‘sex offender’ – he either won’t be able to return to Australia or, having returned, won’t be able to leave again, at least not without all sorts of official procedural requirements that will both complicate his life AND let the US government know just when and where he is going.

Such is the Net and Web into which the SO Mania Regime – now gone international – can throw somebody

Verrrrrrry shroooooood indeed.

Allons, enfants de la patrie!


*And once again, this to me indicates the lethal infection introduced through the misappropriation by the feminists of the civil-rights paradigm.

Martin Luther King was presented with a thorny problem when Bull Connor – the in-your-face Jim Crow ogre police chief of Birmingham, whose philosophy was beat’em down early and often – began to take a page from Chief Laurie Pritchett of Albany, Georgia, whose philosophy was ‘don’t confront, don’t be violent, always be polite, and be patient’.

As King relates in his book ‘Why We Can’t Wait’, this created a significant problem on several levels. If the police were being decent enough on any given day, then the demonstrators were deprived of the Ogre and the Violence – freely applied to them as they proceeded nonviolently – that gave them, with almost no effort at all, the High Ground in the campaign.

It became clear to King and his staff that THEY NEEDED THE POLICE TO BE VIOLENT.

But wouldn’t that be immoral and dishonest? To GOAD the police into violence?

The solution, carefully reasoned out, was something like this: the police are thoroughly steeped in the Jim Crow system; the Jim Crow system is a vicious and violent system that has been in place for so long (80 years in the 1950s) that its rawness is now thoroughly ‘civilized’; but the heart of the system is dark and repressive violence; and so the cops – whether they know it or not – are ultimately in the service of that dark and repressive violence IN THEIR VERY HEARTS; and so it’s not dishonest or ‘violent’ to create a situation where that violence would be drawn forth for all to see.

King’s assessment here strikes me as a good one (although fraught with unhappy possibilities in the matter of consequences). BUT I say that precisely because he was actually and genuinely facing the unspinnably noxious and violent reality of the Jim Crow regime, which over the course of generations had come to genuinely and profoundly taint the Southron culture and traditions and all the persons raised according to that culture and those traditions.

HOWEVER, when radical-feminism tried to run the same play and game-plan, they had to literally create what King had merely had to confront: an incorrigibly and profoundly violent and oppressive ‘enemy’ that sought eternal repression and oppression.

Thus ‘Patriarchy’ was to be the Jim Crow of the radical-feminist gameplan; ‘men’ were to be the Southern cops and officials; and on the basis of those assigned roles, the radical-feminists could then proceed to ‘do whatever it takes’ to get their agendas imposed, since they dwelt in the sure and certain knowledge that they were Good and Men were Evil (the they-are-Evil gambit Bush would try to run against the Arabs and Islamics after 9-11, although it was shrewdly combined with the Churchill-vs-the Axis Menace gambit as well).

I think you can see where, in due course, the ‘Sex Offender’ was simply an intensification of the image of the ‘Male’ as uncontrollable oppressor and rapist. And while I have no doubt that nowadays most feminists would try to defend it all by saying that all that is in the past and was just a lot of hyper-excited talk back in the early days, YET I will answer that it was precisely all that hyper-agitated stuff that became the motivational force for all the frakkulent beliefs and Findings that fueled the SO Mania Regime. And still do.

**I can’t help but notice the same dynamic here that is so often seen in the Catholic Church abuse cases: by destroying – at least for public purposes – the credibility of one or a few priests, you hope to weaken the credibility of all priests and – more importantly – of the Ideas or Beliefs that they stand for.

In that regard, I recall an episode of the TV show “House, M.D.” where the usually professional and sane and upright friend and colleague, Wilson, is discovered by House to have been sleeping with a female patient consensually. At the end of the episode, Wilson says to House: a principle is still good and still worthwhile and and still real even if you can’t always live up to it.

Which strikes me as very relevant to everything under discussion here.


You can check the stories I looked at here, here, here, and here.


The BBC has also put up a report, available here. This BBC report has the Director of Public Prosecutions (who overruled the Stockholm prosecutor who overruled the weekend duty-prosecutor in Stockholm) saying merely that “more investigations are necessary before a final decision can be made”.

No comments:

Post a Comment