ASSANGE CONTINUES

This will be a short Post. I simply want to add this recent article that outlines in more detail the antics and devious doings of the Swedish allegants and the Swedish law enforcement types in regard to the case from the very beginning.

The SO community won’t be surprised by all this hugely dubious maneuvering between allegants, their attorneys, police and prosecutors, and even the media. But it’s interesting to see an example of how this whole frakkulent scheme plays out, especially under the pressure of (multiple instances of) political and electoral maneuvering.

I do, however, want to point out just one quotation in the article. Marianne Ny, the sorta prosecutor of gender-crimes who issued the arrest-warrant says that “it is a good idea to have the man detained, because it is not until he is arrested that the woman has time to think of her life in peace and realize how she has been treated”. [italics mine]

THIS is a prime example of the presumptions – not widely publicized, although I imagine cheeribly received among klatsches of the cadres and true believers and advocates – that underlie the SO Mania Regime. And, by the way, clearly reflect what they are teaching now in law-schools all over the Western world.

Why, especially in a case like this, is it so necessary to have ‘the man’ (i.e. the accused alleged perpetrator) not only arrested (bad enough) but also ‘detained’ (which in Sweden means held incommunicado with no possibility of bail)?

The reason put forth is that somehow the allegant (the woman) won’t be able to think things through until he is locked away. Why would that be? How could it be? The presumption seems to be that in any ‘sex’ matter the female is so fragile in her ability to process thought that she is unable to concentrate or think things through. This is a key and classic trope of victimist thought, but a) I can’t see how it works psychologically; and b) it seems to paint females as rather fragile and emotional creatures who can’t concentrate in a challenging situation; and c) the most relevant immediate challenge in this type of situation is NOT that the female be comfortably situated to undertake a major life-and-self review and analysis, but rather that the female as formal legal allegant be able to come up with the relevant (and theoretically necessary) statements of fact necessary to justify police and criminal-law action against the male whom she has now formally accused and embroiled in the sovereign toils of the Law.

(I won’t even get into the conceptual incoherence that this presumption creates in a comprehensive cultural agenda that more generally insists upon the complete reliability of the female to participate in authoritative positions (executive, professional, political) of great responsibility, requiring clear-headedness and the ability to focus no matter what personal distractions might also press upon her. And of course, if I may, this goes even more so for such positions as military duties, especially in any sort of command position.)

And even if one wishes to point out that in genuine rape cases this just might be applicable, such is not the case here. Although, in its eagerness and calculations to ‘keep up the numbers’ by casting the widest possible net and creating ‘trip-wire’ law enforcement responses, the SO initiative crosses the line into a Mania Regime.

I wonder too just how much such an arrest (with its inevitable detention) simply feeds on revenge of some sort.

And on a more tactical level, as I have pointed out in prior Posts on this subject, how much this gambit pretty much ensures that the now-detained male’s side of the story is greatly and effectively stamped out. Leaving, by amazing coincidence, the public-relations field to the advocates so-called and to the allegant, and their friends and useful idiots or outright collaborators in the media.

Looking back on things over the past few decades, it seems to me that there has been a step-by-step progression.

First there was a certainly legitimate effort to ‘raise public awareness’ about an issue. This is what I call the first level of ‘advocacy’ and it’s a perfectly acceptable one: bring a new point of view to a previously established consensus (or just a habit within the culture that had formed long before and hadn’t been looked at recently). In this vision, the public would now be provided with another point-of-view when it came to forming an opinion about how this type of incident (sexual assaults) should be looked at when they arose. This would then filter along in due course to affect how the tried-and-true public machinery of legislation and law-enforcement and government action would handle such matters.

But this apparently wasn’t enough for the advocates. It was too slow, perhaps, and too unpredictable (public opinion might not widely accept the new point-of-view, at least to the liking of the advocates).

So now instead of merely informing public opinion, advocates tried to manipulate it – and more specifically to stampede it. With help from the media (which might have already felt through its tingling whiskers that some political weight was behind the gambit) instances are selectively reported, given lurid play, perhaps even inaccurate assertions. Simultaneously, ‘friendly scholars’ (perhaps realizing that grant money was going to start flowing in this new channel) and assorted non-accredited ‘authors’ start putting it out there that there is wide ‘proof’, adducing the bottom-line statistics of this or that ‘study’ or –even worse – ‘survey’ (where you simply ask folks and they can pretty much respond with whatever they’d like to say). The media amplifies it relentlessly.

On the basis of the ‘studies’ and all the ‘new knowledge’ the advocates can then move to the next level, and start arm-twisting the politicians (who may have their doubts, or may be perfectly willing to be given a pretext to claim they are merely being ‘responsive’). By this time the politicians’ whiskers are also tingling as they realize there are votes to be won or lost, perhaps in large numbers, depending on how they roll on this thing.

Law-enforcement and prosecutors – also bewhiskered and perhaps ‘educated’ into the new approach – now start coming up with any evidence they can; like bird-dogs that sorta just know in their depths when master wants them to come back out of the swamp tail-wagging and with a bird-body between the eager jaws.

So now at this third level of advocacy, the actual official organs of government in its Branches are starting to become deformed in the service of the agenda.

And as certainly happened here, the public then winds up being side-stepped rather completely, having been a) stampeded by the deformed information, and b) shocked by the media ‘reports’ and all the ‘studies’, and c) increasingly cowed by the draconian application of the police power which – many realize – is either only going to be aimed at somebody else (the targeted males, in this case) or else may somehow be aimed at them if they stand up and say something (e.g., if you don’t agree with us and what we’re doing then you’re obviously in favor of rape and ‘sex offenders’).

And THEN it proceeds to a point where not only is the application of the laws deformed, but the actual structure of the laws is deformed (“victim-friendly courts” being the most pithy official description of it, including as it does all sorts of dismantling of ancient Western protections against the misapplication of the sovereign police power of the state).

AND in support of that – which is necessary in a still-functioning democracy the way it wasn’t in dictatorships and tyrannies of which Stalin’s and Hitler’s are only the most well-known – philosophical assertions are made that have the necessary and intended effect of undermining the entire foundations upon which the already-deforming laws were originally built. Thus: all Law is merely an opportunity for oppression; there is no objective truth that can be claimed to stand in the way of what we want to do; rights don’t apply to ‘evil’ persons even if they are formally Citizens; ‘all men are rapists and all sex is rape’ anyway, so this is just a ‘reform’ to even the score. And etcetera and etcetera and etcetera.

Worse, that this crime is so egregious and constitutes such an ‘emergency’ and outrage that public deliberation can’t be allowed to interfere, nor public opinion if it is against what we want to do; that to provide Constitutional process is to re-victimize the (as yet unproven) victim; that this crime is so outrageous that it doesn’t deserve to be defended in public discourse and our agenda should never be discussed.*

But then came 1970 and it was all about gender, not so much race, and the whole national discussion was faced with a far more subtle and hardly-clear challenge involving gender.

And eventually, within 15 or 20 years, came the Mania where NO-body dared to ‘speak up’ unless it was to say that the SO Mania was a good idea and – anyway – it wasn’t a Mania, only a little tweaking that was, somehow also, a revolutionary reform (which is almost a contradiction in terms).

So from informing the public, the advocacy mutates into an active force for undermining the very foundations of the national ethos and polity.

Because I would say that you can HAVE they type of government the Mania Regime requires for its agenda to ‘work’, but then you WON’T HAVE a Constitutional, limited democracy such as the Framers envisioned. You will have something else.

Pasternak, in ‘Doctor Zhivago’, described the early revolutionary warlord Strelnikov, bloody and robust dispenser of bullet-ridden revolutionary justice: “Disappointment embittered him; the revolution armed him”. This is a consequence of the American mutation of Victimology that hasn't been sufficiently considered.

Stalin, Pasternak noted, realized that the secret to dispensing revolutionary justice and law was not – as Lenin had imagined – to be predictable (if you oppose us you will surely be shot or sent to Siberia), but rather to be capricious (if you oppose us, no matter how secretly, we may show up on your doorstep any day any night any time and that will be the end of you and maybe your family and your little dog too).

Only a very foolish or courageous citizen would not say: maybe best if I just keep my mouth shut, and even better not to even think about it.

Now, with declining government funds and the public so wrapped up with genuinely monstrous national problems like an economy that is never coming back to pre-2008 levels for most people, the advocacy approach is to hide behind ‘the children’ and what are made out to be little volunteer groups of ‘concerned citizens’ who would like (and are vigorously but surreptitiously angling for) lotsa money and the power to conduct their own law-enforcement, since the official agencies are starting to realize they have more genuinely dangerous threats to deal with in the matter of public order and the commission of crimes.

And politicians who have already gone wayyyyy too far out on the limb to now try to admit it, and anyway figure that they need the support of whatever ‘base’ they can manage to keep happy.

Perhaps the government will quietly walk away – sort of like it did in Vietnam – and declare victory and go home: leaving the wrack and ruin ‘back there’ for ‘them’ to deal with now. To see that happen in the SO Mania might seem at least a better outcome than the still-frakking Mania Regime that’s still in business (with government money).**

But I am worried that the government will back away while leaving the Regime’s enabling legislation still intact. And given the tremendous insult and assault that such legislation presents to Constitutional praxis and ethos, it will remain a submerged or buried mine waiting for another chance to blow a hole in what is left of the America bequeathed to Us in that amazing Moment 235 years ago).

NOTES

*This was Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 assertion, looking back from the vantage point of an American university gig to the Nazi era he had lived through: he reasoned that the ideas Hitler spewed about German race superiority and the evils of weakling democracy and that the foolish limits imposed by constitutions on governments should not be allowed to interfere with what he wanted to do for Germany. Looking back, Marcuse thought that if somehow Hitler had been prevented through government authority from proposing these ideas in public, then Germans might never have supported him and he never would have gotten to power.

Interesting thought. Although how the Weimar government could do that and still remain a constitutionally-limited democratic government is something Marcuse doesn’t care to think about.

Worse, he was wondering if the same type of dynamic wasn’t usefully applicable to the United States of 1965. Suppose, say, that Jim Crow supporters weren’t allowed to spew their noxious race-subjugation or race-separation ideas publicly. And then came the 'culture and gender wars'. Political Correctness as We know it begins here.

**I wonder if it wouldn’t be a sound economic plan, and would also serve to demonstrate just how much public support really exists (or doesn’t), for the assorted Mania-related organizations to rely on private donations? I seem to recall a year or two ago that one of the marquis priest-abuse organizations was thinking of shutting its doors due to lack of funds (after, interestingly enough, the lawsuits had died down).

EXTRADITION

I have mentioned from time to time how certain gambits or approaches can behave geologically: a move or idea starts up in one area of activity and then after a bit pops up in another area of activity. It migrates.

The ‘extradition’ gambit in the Julian Assange Wikileaks case, based on dubious and creakily contrived Swedish sex charges but somehow connected to a US government effort to get its hands on him and shut him up (and make it look like the trouble isn’t the fire but the guy who pulled that noisy fire alarm hook), is one clear though complex example.

And there are layers to it. What started out over here as the basis of the Sex Offense Mania Regime has popped up as a way to go after people whom the government itself (and not simply as an agent for this or that domestic pressure group) wants to get.

You can, by the way, review an extended discussion of the ominous legal complexities of the Assange case here. And you can get a picture of the actual substance, such as it is, of the Swedish sex complaints here.

But today there is now an ‘extradition’ case closer to home. A Colorado man named Phillip Ray Greaves II self-published a book entitled “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover’s Code of Conduct",  wherein he wants to offer guidance on how “child-lovers” might and must remain within bounds when conducting their relationships.

The book created a stir and was pulled from Amazon, leaving him only the option of selling and mailing the books more or less on his own.

Let me say right now that regardless of whatever benefits might accrue to children from such an experience, they are hugely overridden by the potential dangers and damages to the child. Children are not sufficiently developed to have any ability to process overt sexual experience, no matter how delicately and carefully the romantic and relational elements are finessed.

And in so vital an area of development and experience, the Family and the Parents are – there can be no workable alternative – the primary adults responsible for so vital but truly awesome a task.

In current American society and culture, then, this is already an at-risk situation, since significant pressure-groups with much Beltway clout are, for reasons of their own, rather seriously bent upon reducing the Family and Parental Authority and Parental Responsibility.

Which has, humans being humans, opened up an avenue for other persons – with their own needs and agendas – to step up to the plate and offer their services, so to speak.

At the very best, I would say, such services are simply not workable. I’d sort of put this type of relationship into the same category as wanting very much to have a relationship with a favorite movie or TV star: it may be something you can imagine in the privacy of your own mind and it will help you get through the day (although in that case I’d advise developing constructive and workable alternatives), but you can’t be going to Hollywood and trying to get into your star’s house or somehow show up in his/her life.

Yes, there was – maybe still is – that band ‘roadie’ bit, where smitten music-lovers can actually entertain a semi-realistic expectation of at least a ‘hook-up’ with a current ‘idol’, but that’s not much of a basis for national policy or building and sustaining a civilization and raising the young. There are boundaries in life, especially when it comes to imposing yourself in the lives of other human beings, and genuine Maturity consists to great extent in learning – disciplining yourself, actually – how to constructively live within certain boundaries created by the rights of others.

All of this stuff about Boundaries, self-discipline, distinguishing fantasy from reality, postponing gratification or actually ruling out certain types or venues of gratification, respecting others, and in general doing the ancient Greek thing about Knowing Yourself so as to Conduct Your Life Well … these haven’t had a lot of good press in the postmodern, Boomery, revolutionary post-Sixties world (and Hugh Hefner probably didn’t do Us any favors with his Playboy-philosophy (and Playgirl, a bit later) back in the 1950s).

It’s always been curious to me – and will be to cultural historians in the not-too-distant future – how a Left pretty much dedicated to Deconstructing ‘maturity’ in the name of ‘total autonomy’ and a Right pretty much dedicated to imposing Law-and-Order could comfortably make common-cause. But they have, to some extent, and the Sex Offense Mania Regime – still very much legally a reality, even if the daily frizz is starting to wear off – is the unholy spawn of such a union, such a ‘deal’. Such a deal, indeed.

Anyhoo now, Mr. Greaves of Colorado has been arrested on a warrant issued by a Sheriff in Florida. The Sheriff was outraged by the afore-mentioned book, had a couple of his undercover deputies buy a book (apparently the undercover bit consisted in writing to him for a copy while posing in writing as a buyer, sending along a money order to cover purchase, postage, and handling, and – so very slyly – asking him to autograph the book, all of which he did).

The Sheriff – wait for it – plans to extradite Mr. Greaves from Colorado to Florida, where he will, if matters pursue their statutory course, stand trial on charges of obscenity and child-endangerment and whatever Sex-Offense Regime charges are applicable.

There are some large questions of law, although the SO community knoweth full well that such nit-picking hardly deserves to be allowed to slow things down.

Initially, it was presumed that Mr. Greaves could make a stand in Colorado and fight the extradition. But as best I can make out, and he was represented by a public defender who had a bunch of other cases that day, Greaves has accepted extradition.

Whether he is in over his head or playing a much larger and deeper game than the authorities in Florida had originally envisioned is still an open question. Custer had envisioned the afternoon going much differently, and the Sioux neatly helped him along in his imaginings by initially running away from him, causing him to gallop after them without sufficient reconnaissance into the Little Big Horn’s valley.

My concern doesn’t stem from any support for the vision and project of his book. But I am alert to the dangers of using ‘extradition’ as the AWA used the Commerce Clause, simply as a pretext to go after people who aren’t really in your jurisdiction and who are expressing opinions that you don’t hold-with.

A law is like a watertight-bulkhead: integrity is essential, and that integrity comes from its seamless strength. To puncture it here and there, figuring that this small hole you’re drilling won’t really do much damage, is actually creating a lethal danger much larger than the measurable circumference of your little drill-hole would appear to suggest.

And if the ship’s officers don’t mind a whole bunch of folks drilling this and that little hole, then before long your watertight integrity – here, the rule of Law – is fatally compromised, even though on a nice calm day no lubber with a nifty drill can imagine the awful consequences of an agitated ocean exerting its awesome pressure against the bulkhead now riddled with small – and maybe even patched - holes.

I recall a 1950s TV episode of Steve Canyon (USAF colonel in the Cold War days) where some kids out for laffs just beyond the perimeter fence of a SAC base take a potshot at a taxiing nuclear bomber with their BB-guns; one of the pellets nicks a porthole in the plane, it takes off, heads toward its patrol area along the edges of Soviet airspace, the huge pressures at its operating altitude widen the crack, the crew freeze into snowmen, the plane is heading straight into the USSR, and poor Canyon has to go up in an armed fighter and shoot the plane down (its crew already frozen to death).

That scenario has remained with me throughout the SO Mania Regime.

And then there is Titanic, whose imbecile lubber of an owner ordered her constructed with lower watertight bulkheads so he could fit in more nice stuff for the first-class passengers; he figured that she was unsinkable anyway so what was not to like? You want to keep your best-performing passengers happy – that’s what you’re in business for.

The American Rule of Law – I think – was also (like the American economy) considered to be unsinkable … and now We know.

I don’t know how things will develop at this point. Surely, any publisher might be liable, now, to warrants from this or that locality if a book is not well-received.

The fact that the folks in that locality don’t buy the book might reasonably be considered to be a corrective that will impress itself upon the publisher. Though in the case of self-publishers, who may simply want to say something and not necessarily maximize profits as corporate publishers do … another interesting element.

Nobody in this affair is completely ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ from a legal standpoint.

Something to keep an eye on as this thing migrates and mutates.

ADDENDUM

The latest on this case is here.

It appears that the Florida warrant is for an obscenity charge, and not a child pornography charge. The obscenity laws are "local" in the sense that a local community can set some standards for itself. But how that can apply in a case of a book that is nationally distributed raises some significant questions.

As you read the article, note the supporter who thinks that the Florida Sheriff and warrant is right "morally" and (he sorta figures) therefore "legally". This is precisely the type of thinking - or rather emoting - that has fueled the Mania Regime from the get-go.

I am NOT saying that morality is merely subjective and personal 'emotion'. The question here is a legal one: can an indidual community not only "ban" a book it finds offensive and without redeeming social value (which a local jury has not yet determined) BUT ALSO arrest and extradite a person who has never been to that community but whose book is available through a non-local distribution?

This is not a 'technicality': the precedent to be set is a huge one and there is a sizable chance that the US Supreme Cout will need to get involved.

ARREST FOR FALSE REPORT

A New York City TV news anchor has been arrested on two counts of filing a false report to police. She claimed that a Hispanic male tried to rape her while she was jogging in Central Park on September 24th, and later stalked-harassed her by phone.

Police investigated but could turn up no witnesses or suspects.

She confessed upon arrest, and attributed it to unspecified personal problems that may spin her gambit as a “plea for sympathy”.

You wouldn’t want to stay up late at night tallying up how many times this has happened during the reign of the SO Mania Regime, especially since making such a ‘report’ is a sure-fire guarantee of attention and concern. This has always been one of the ‘moral hazards’ of the Regime: its guaranteed trip-wire attention and the status of ‘victim’ that goes with it is sure to attract assorted unhappy and not-quite-together persons who, from the depths of their problems see only the chance for a little ‘sunshine’, however artificial.

This is in addition to the moral-hazard we see in the Assange case, where, by the by, the first female, whom I called ‘A’ in my previous Post, has suddenly left Sweden and gone to work with refugees in the Israel-Palestine area, after refusing to cooperate with prosecutors any further. Perhaps, now that Assange is safely embroiled in the international legal system, she decided to get out of town; although if any CIA connection is suspected, it’s only going to heat up now that she has taken a vacation in the land of the Mossad.

There is increasing commentary about Assange’s arrest – you can’t even say on trumped-up ‘charges’ since he hasn’t been charged with anything – being a “witch-hunt”; see for example this article.

I think that the world is beginning to finally realize just what happens when you work up some ‘offense’ into the subject of a Mania Stampede, simultaneously inflaming the public with manipulative misinformation and then removing vital legal protections and procedures in order to ensure successful prosecution. The SO community has been somewhat alone for the past decades, having ‘seen the terrible Eye’ (to use Tolkien’s fine image for it) while everyone else saw not a dark and terrible wizardry but only the eager ministrations of a ‘sensitive’ and ‘responsive’ government police power.

But then, the SO community is still rather alone because although many worthwhile commentators are now seeing the government with its gloves off (and its mask off), there is no talk of the SO Mania or the SO Regime of laws. There is talk of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the legal ins-and-outs of trying to prosecute Assange with that, but nobody has actually discussed the fact that it was the SO Mania Regime that broke so many of the traditional jurisprudential safeguards for accused. And, of course, there was the stunning debasement – debauchery, even – of a national legislative authority that would allow itself to embrace so many inaccurate Findings, and continue to do so even as evidence mounted to the contrary.

This article is actually sub-titled “This Can’t Be Happening” – which is a sentiment with which the SO community can easily identify.

It goes on to actually sketch the gravamen of the sex-offense “charges” (that aren’t ‘charges’ at all at this point) being claimed against Assange. And it’s a thin and fragile tissue of accusations indeed.

It’s interesting that even advocates against rape are now joining the outcry against what is being done to Assange, since it weakens the legitimate claims of those who actually have been victims of rape. I can agree with that, although the SO Mania has so skewed the process that the credibility of any allegations must arouse the caution of reasonable observers. (Which is NOT to say that all allegations of rape are false.)

But while I sympathize with the advocates’ concerns, I have to bear in mind that for decades now the credibility of any allegations whatsoever was not only assumed, but any skepticism about such charges was cartoonishly and lethally presumed to be ‘re-victimizing’ and ‘proof’ that the skeptic was ‘for rape’. And THAT has been a glaring problem with the Mania from Day One.

So I think that this Assange matter, and the hugely fraught and now sooooo obvious machinations of both the US and Swedish governments, is having the effect of exposing some of the most profound problems with the entire Sex-Offense concept. Although, as I have said, no major commentator is ‘noticing’ the connection to Sex-Offense stuff (although the folks who leave quick comments in response to this or that article seem to be making the connection for themselves).

But, getting back to the NYC TV anchor, it strikes me as very significant that she was arrested at all. And that it happened after the past weeks and months of the Assange matter cannot be a coincidence . Police agencies have – as far as I can determine – rarely held false-accusers to account in matters of Sex-Offense.

Perhaps, after two or more very long decades, police agencies are finally mustering the insight – or perhaps the courage – to enforce those lonely and long-neglected laws against false reporting. Ignoring them have made the temptations to make such false reports and accusations that much more attractive: there would be no legal consequences if, improbably, you were discovered doing it.

This can only be a good thing.

I wouldn’t go popping any champagne corks. The chances of any retrospective investigation of false-accusations are almost as slim as the Justice Department ‘looking back’ to the government types who authorized torture and ‘extraordinary renditions’ (a program to which that nice little Swedish government gladly lent its territory and authority).

But then the wheels of Truth, like the wheels of Justice, grind slowly but they just keep grinding on and who knows where they might grind “in the fullness of time”, as Scripture saith.

LATEST ASSANGE

In the on-going SO travails of Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks and somebody with whom the US government is surely not amused, a new twist.

You may have noticed over the past week that while some sort of warrant was issued by a lower Swedish court and sent to Interpol, nobody on the planet seemed to know where he was – which was odd on its very face since any organized country on the planet has passport control.

Turns out that Scotland Yard says he’s in England, has been in England, they have been in constant contact with his defense team over the past month and even have his address and phone number where he’s staying in England.

BUT they are waiting for instructions since – wait for it – there is “some confusion over what authorities should do” if they indeed arrest him on the Swedish ‘warrant’.

In a curious and queasy legal whackery that cannot be unfamiliar to members of the SO community, he hasn’t been charged with anything, so this is a warrant for ‘detention for questioning’ (although as his lawyers have said, Swedish prosecutors have had every opportunity to meet with him in England at his expense and have consistently refused).

Remarkably, the Swedish Supreme Court refused an appeal by Assange’s lawyers to vacate the ‘order to detain’ him, but the Brits point out – rather impressively given how things usually go in SO cases – that it’s “not a properly certified warrant” so they can’t act on it.

Now we have seen a whole bunch of official oddness in this case: the two queasily self-proclaimed victims did not make charges, they simply ‘reported’ their experiences and asked the police for ‘advice’; on a weekend, when the junior prosecutor on duty issues a warrant and released his name to the public; then on the Monday morning following a senior prosecutor quashed the whole thing; then some days later an even more senior prosecutor said she was re-opening the investigation; months passed (and he made his latest huge document dump) during which the Swedish prosecutors refused Assange’s offer to come and interview him to their heart’s content at his expense, and then the relevant lower court issued this ‘order to detain for questioning’ a week or so ago, and now Scotland Yard says the Swedish authorities – although this is a case that has gone as high up as the Swedish Supreme Court – have issued a flawed document authorizing the arrest.

I also note that there hasn’t been much brouhaha from the usual advocacy suspects that you would expect in a high-profile sex-offense case; standard operating procedure is that you always jump right into the surf with your ever-waxed board when your cause is blessed with a high-profile perp so as to make sure the spin goes the way you want it to.

Curiouser and curiouser.

But it’s impressive that the Brits are observing legalities – which in Victimist practice is an obstructionist ‘excuse’ and merely commits a further victimization when the police don’t start breaking down legal firewalls in response to a self-reported victim’s allegations.

I’m still curious as to why the Swedes have to have him physically in the country. I’m thinking that it would be easier to intimidate him (another standard gambit), although he doesn’t seem to be the type of person who’s going to buckle under like the average schmuck caught in the sights of the Mania; and he can afford some serious legal counsel.

I would say that matters shouldn’t be so complicated; law is not THIS complicated. At least, decent and reasonable law is not this complicated. But in the murky and treacherous and jellied swamp-mush that is SO Mania Law there are so many queasy and sleazy dynamics operating under the surface even more than above the surface, then things become quite complicated indeed. If for no other reason, governments are up to some skullduggery in SO matters that they’d rather not admit, and so we always seem to be confronted – sorta like Moses and the burning bush – with the report of a major fire and yet no flames. And in this case, the Brit ‘fire department’ isn’t even sure it can respond to the purported alarm.

The SO Mania, held in and for the County of Through-the-Looking-Glass, the Honorable Red Queen presiding. Oyez, oyez!

Oy.

MORE FRESH ASSANGE

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!

NOTES

*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.

LINKS

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

ADDENDUM


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”.




 

FRESH ASSANGE

Just a bit more as things continue to come out in this Wikileaks ‘sex offense’ brouhaha in Sweden.

Under some pressure (see below) the Swedish police are back to questioning Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks – whose site has published those 92,000 US military reports that indicate how wrong things have been going in Afghanistan.

At this point, the focus is on the charge that he “mistreated a woman”. I notice how much less than ‘rape’ or ‘sexual abuse’ this ‘mistreatment’ is. And from what I’ve seen of the SO Mania dynamics, when this sort of thing happens then you can be sure that if ‘advocates’ could in any conceivable way make their target seem more sensationalistically ‘evil’ they would certainly try to do so.

But they can’t, I think, and yet still want to keep the thing alive.

Apparently, if you read the article linked-to above, it is now said that the two women “befriended” him the night that he gave a seminar in Sweden on the Wikileaks-related stuff. Then, “six days later” the two women “filed their complaints together”.

We already know that they didn’t quite do that: they slyly went down to the police station on a drowsy weekend like a pair of innocent Goody-Two-Shoes and “asked for advice” – which (I can’t imagine that they didn’t know this) under SO Mania regime laws as they exist in Sweden required the police to immediately open a ‘sex offense’ case, which led to a trip-wire warrant by the weekend-duty prosecutor, which was then recalled within hours by a more senior and experienced prosecutor.

But, alas, the Swedes aren’t Americans. When the case was considered as a ‘molestation’ matter (which is not a sex-crime and not a felony in Swedish law) they still couldn’t find much.

The women’s attorney (who in previous bloggers’ Comments was identified as feminist-friendly – and I wonder if the women had visited the attorney BEFORE they dropped by the police station to ‘ask advice’) complains that (in best SO Mania style) that the women were dis-respected by the legal system and still wants both of their complaints re-opened as ‘sex crime’ investigations.

So now “a separate prosecutor’s office is investigating [the attorney’s] complaint”.

Of course, it is perfectly plausible that the US government – foreign affairs division – is behind this as a “smear campaign”. After all, as I’ve said before, if the government has gone to all the trouble and expense of creating the SO Mania Regime, then it sort of has a right to get its money’s worth on the investment: multi-tasking SO charges so that they serve the purposes of foreign-affairs and assorted types of international ‘security’ skullduggery would be a two-fer ever dear to the Beltway calculations.

But as I’ve also said, it’s quite possible that the US government – feminist and/or sex-offense advocacy divisions – could also be in on this. The Mania is self-sustaining (and self-licking, as in ice-cream cone) and once a match is put to any wood, then the fire will feed itself, granted there’s enough surrounding oxygen (meaning: a manipulated and stampeded public opinion and outrage).

And quite possible the SO Mania is operating along its own dynamics, but simultaneously fronting-for and masking the larger governmental purposes of squelching a class targeted by the government: whistleblowers.

After all, the SO Mania was initially designed to strike terror into parents and families so as to mask its original and core ‘feminist’ campaign against males. Then ‘the children’ were raised up as the poster-victims to front-for any ‘feminist’ elements of the thing that might scare off allies on the Law-and-Order Right who wouldn’t want to be seen lending their creds to any merely-feminist agenda.

And after all, the SO Mania was itself constructed as a way of squelching a class (‘men’, re-scripted by advocacy central-casting as monstrous, incorrigible, recidivist committers and perpetrators of ‘sex’) so squelching a selected target is just what the program was designed to do in the first place.

Which also make you wonder if this gambit would ever have been tried if Assange were an … ummm – OTM (other-than-male).

Anyhoo, I want to re-affirm what I said in previous Posts: it must be taken as a vitally significant fact that in all the commentary – official and mainstream and by bloggers and Commenters and Letter-writers to assorted sites – nobody is discussing the Sex-Offense Mania Regime itself. Even though the allegations were for ‘sex offenses’, all the discussion is limited to foreign-affairs angles.

Which leads me to say again to the SO community: it is profoundly strange and significant that the SO Mania, even when it is officially involved in a ‘story’, remains invisible to Americans: it’s as if they had trained themselves not to see what’s right in front of them, AND EVEN clearly labeled as such.

I have always been interested in the history of the First and Second World Wars, and – History being what it is – I have found certain themes and tropes and dynamics that occurred back then to be occurring now (in altered form) nowadays.

I am not trying to go for a ‘Nazi trump’ point here when I observe that all of this reminds me of the German people (NOT all or mostly Nazis, by any stretch) who saw the Jews with their Yellow Stars being paraded in front of them on the streets and yet managed not to ‘notice’.

Which was a self-serving and self-protective and self-forgiving gambit that came back ,eventually, to bite them with verrrry big teeth indeed.

I have two final thoughts then.

First, that the SO Mania Regime is quietly recognized by many Americans as being repugnant and repellent, so much so that they dare not even think about it – let alone comment about it. While in the short-term this serves the interests of its ‘advocates’ and indentured political and judicial official supporters, yet in the long-term this is an ominous harbinger indeed. Because when it finally becomes clear to the American people just what a lethal and corrosive scam has been pulled on them, they are going to be verrrrry displeased (nor will it be able to be dismissed merely as ‘backlash’).

Second, that when public opinion and public discourse are so deformed that they are partially blinded to realities well within the purview of public matters, then the public itself – The People – is profoundly weakened in its competence as governors-of-the-government.

So the SO community’s Resistance against this increasing Occupation of American public discourse by the dark forces of Ignorance and Manipulation must continue.

As the club-goers sang in the face of Major Strasser’s goons that eternal evening at Rick’s Café Americain: “Allons enfants de la Patrie! Le jour de gloire est arrive!”