I wasn’t aware that Sweden had turned into a fascist state. My memory of it was always as a society of equality and freedom. I suspect Julian Assange had thought the same.

How wrong we both were.

There’s a very close relationship between feminism and fascism and of its current manifestation in Sweden you can read more here:

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1291722640.html

It’s quite telling that these feminists who run Sweden have turned it from the most famous equal and free society in the world to a fascist backwater.

Be warned.

Democracy and due process are essentially male values, I’m afraid.

The unfortunately named Judge Riddle, in gaoling Assange, claimed that one factor guiding his decision was that Assange would be safer in gaol from those who would do him harm.

To which one can only say- pull the other one (The case of Billy Wright in Long Kesh springs to mind).

And the other argument that, as a foreigner, he is more likely to abscond, is disregarded in criminal cases every day in the London courts.

You wonder are these American criminals living on the same planet as the rest of us.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates

5.30pm: With perfect timing an email arrives from Philip Crowley at the state department:

The United States is pleased to announce that it will host Unesco’s World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from 1-3 May in Washington, DC.

Ironic? Read the next paragraph from the press release:

The theme for next year’s commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and

innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.

Shameless. You really could not make it up.

Read the post you linked to about the STWC and it’s contempt for HOPI. I support the STWC in general and i’m a member but some of them do seem to be a bit naive about the Iranian government and e.g take it’s news channel Press TV as being a “balancer” against the bias in the BBC, Fox News etc. Unfortunately it’s no kind of balancer, because it just churns out propaganda from the Iranian government, just as Fox does for the right in the US. George Galloway, who i respect on most things, is making a big mistake by working for Press TV. It gives his enemies ammunition and makes him look as if he’s supporting the Iranian government, which, while it’s not quite so bad as the Saudis or Mubarak in Egypt, is pretty damn bad and a long way from a democracy.

A lot of the STWC also seem to be extremely touchy about any debate of their viewpoints and policies. If you give your own point of view and it doesn’t perfectly accord to theirs they can get unreasonably tetchy about it sometimes.

It’s a big organisation and the people in it vary of course – overall i’m grateful to them for organising it and think they generally do a good job, though they could do even better if they’d listen slightly more.

One of the absurdities of modern liberalism is the way radical feminism, which is deeply authoritarian, is conflated with women’s liberation.

You only need to consider the contradictions between feminists’ support for women’s right to choose what to do with their own bodies in abortion, and their patrician attitude to strip clubs, porn and prostitution to see the philosophical vacuity underlying the whole business.

Radical feminism made mainstream is a danger to liberal democracy. Ironically, its success in going unchallenged is largely down to male chivalry.

Interesting about Sweden, Craig, I didn’t know about that aspect. As I understand it, the original prosecutor had dropped all charges, but some other prosecutor in a different city (this is astounding) decided to raise them again, or some others, or some such hocus-pocus.

Of course, as you suggest, they will use anything and if they have nothing, they will invent something out of thin air, something that is difficult to refute, difficult to disprove.

I like it – ‘Judge Riddle’ – sounds like the title of a Prince Buster ska song! So where, one wonders, is Judge Dread? On that logic (of imprisoning someone for their own safety, as in a Deep South beneficent sheriff/lynch-mob drama starring Gregory Peck and Sidney Poitier), perhaps they should consider permanently imprisoning most world leaders! Let’s start with Tony Blair, shall we? Someone ought to write a quick ska song!

Yes, absolutely, it’s Kompromat. It’s shameful. It’s obvious. They are pathetic and the world sees that they are pathetic. Idiots. Good.

Now, where are the demonstrations?

Didnt we let Pinochet off

Wasnt there that high faluting Russian (Rich) girl who got bail and absconded after mowing down a killing a cyclist?

Haven’t we just let Blair of war-crimes

Didn’t we let god knows who of for aiding and abetting persons for Torture

Will we arrest Mrs Clinton when she arrives in Britain for spying on the UN against the UN Convention?

Just as longs as were being consistently inconsistent!

Of course it’s Kompromat. The timing is just too obvious. What is particularly disturbing is not just that supposedly democratic governments are trying to set Mr. Assange up, but that all too often the media is supporting them.

Of course it’s Assange’s disclosure of information from the US government that tells people facts that, as Suhayl Saadi said, they have “systematically been lied to about” – that is his real crime. Let’s take a couple of examples of lies from the Canadian and UK governments that are now blown, thanks to wikileaks.

Take the reported allegations, by Canada’s former Intelligence Chief, that CSIS (***Canadian Security Intelligence Service***) does practice a form of **no-touch torture in Canada**. Disclosing this sort of information is a huge public service that all Canadians should have the right to know. Though their victims (and the establishment’s censored press) have been well aware of this for years, up till now, the Canadian Government has consistently lied to hide the truth. Click on my signature to view details.

Then take the now blown myth that a special relationship exists between the UK and USA that allows UK Diplomats to punch above their weight in diplomatic terms. We now hear that the US not only regards this self serving “special relationship” myth, that the FCO has been spreading for years, as a bit of a joke, but furthermore a joke that could (perhaps has ?” Iraq??) be used to manipulate British foreign policy. Wikileaks and the US diplomats who drafted the leaked cables have done democracy a huge favour; though one that the media should have been doing all along.

a quick repost ..

For those interested in evidence, Counterpunch has a number of very interesting articles . Alexander Cockburn, Paul Craig Roberts, and this one on the IRANIAN MISSILE THREAT by Ray McGovern – extracts : —-

“To its credit, on Dec. 1, the Washington Post decided it had to be a tad more honest

.

“Experts cast doubt on Iran missile cache” was the headline of a surprisingly contrite article placed above the fold on page one, no less! Post writers John Pomfret and Walter Pincus laid out so many problems with the U.S. side of the case that attentive readers are likely to have reacted with the same incredulity as that displayed by the Russians regarding the missile claims

.

“There is no indication that the Musudan [the "missile" paraded by the North Koreans on Oct. 10] is operational or that it has ever been tested,” the Post article noted. “Iran has never publicly displayed the missiles, according to experts and a senior U.S. intelligence official, some of whom doubt the missiles were ever transferred to Iran. Experts who analyzed Oct. 10 photographs of the Musudan said it appeared to be a mock-up.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern12032010.html

There is an article by Gareth Porter, Dec 1, giving more detail .

The NYT is a serious offender :—

If you’re a Times editor who knows it’s smart to go with the flow, don’t forget to post the missile-parade photo in color on the Times’ Web page, making the menacing missiles seem even more dangerous, dripping with bright red blood-color paint on the payload tips. Yes, and give it a scary title, say, “Iran Fortifies Its Arsenal With the Aid of North Korea.”

NYTimes: Case Study in Creative Writing

“Consider this: The Times had several weeks to get the “long-range missiles from North Korea” story right, or at least to include the doubts from missile experts. But authors William J. Broad, James Glanz and David E. Sanger decided to cherry-pick the evidence within one WikiLeaks-released cable to highlight one version ?” the version U.S. officials were pushing with their Russian counterparts who, the same cable makes clear, didn’t believe them.”

Paul Craig Roberts is particularly interesting on the Hilary Clinton ‘Identity Theft’ possibilities by obtaining all possible personal info on UN and other agency officials.

Many thanks to Julian Assange!

——————————

This particular case could be an example of SAVING LIVES…

He’s not against war…

He hates the 9/11 truth movement…

He has no info about the Bush or Obama White House…or the Federal Reserve Bank…or Goldman Sachs (but he is helping take down Bank of America)…

His “leaks” paint Pakistan as a threat and foreign politicians the CIA doesn’t like as jerks…

He believes Osama is alive…and probably in Pakistan…

Everything else he “leaks” is stuff we all already knew…

The mainstream media loves him…

The right wingers love to hate him and are using him as a justification to censor the Net…

Yes, its the second coming of Christ.

“This is kompromat – the use of sexual allegations to denigrate a person perceived as a threat to the state.”

Thereby proving he’s absolutely genuine. LOL.

Wikileaks leads in the creation of a new alternative medium: run by Cass Sunstein.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein

Hopefully this will not be prophetic:

“ASSANGE TO ESCAPE FROM POLICE AT THE TOP OF SOME STAIRS”

preview.tinyurl.com/39khy6j

The squeeze is certainly on Assange. As Glenn Greenwold put it:

—start quote

“Whatever you think of WikiLeaks, they’ve never been charged with a crime, let alone indicted or convicted… They’ve been essentially removed from the internet… Their funds have been frozen… Leading politicians and media figures have called for their assassination, their murder, to be labeled a terrorist organization,” attorney Glenn Greenwald told Democracy Now on Tuesday.

“What’s really going on here is a war over control of the internet and whether or not the internet can actually serve what a lot of people hoped its ultimate purpose was, which was to allow citizens to band together and democratize the checks on the world’s most powerful factions.”

—end quote

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/mastercard-shuts-donations-wikileaks-calling-site-illegal/

I’ve cancelled my mastercard, Paypal and Amazon accounts. I suggest anyone with such accounts will – at the very least – call these organisations and tell them they’re going to be losing business.

Good article on Salon.com on the lies the media has told about Assange and Wikileaks here

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/07/wikileaks/index.html?source=rss

Lobster magazine is out: Issue 60, Winter 2010. It includes an analysis of the SIS chief’s speech, among much else. Free to download/print.

http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/issue60.php

Yeah, these bloody women with their breasts and nice long hair leading us crusaders for freedom astray. The sluts.

Yeah, these bloody women with their breasts and nice long hair leading us crusaders for freedom astray. The sluts.

Yeah, these bloody women with their breasts and nice long hair leading us crusaders for freedom astray. The sluts.

Yeah, these bloody women with their breasts and nice long hair leading us crusaders for freedom astray. The sluts.

Yeah, these bloody women with their breasts and nice long hair leading us crusaders for freedom astray. The sluts.

sorry about that. the repetition not the comment.

“where are the demonstrators?”. No one cares outside of the blogosphere and N1.

Assange’s luck:

http://www.slate.com/id/2277096/

He didn’t criticise all women though alan – just some especially extreme feminists – i wouldn’t have used the term ‘radical feminists’ as there are plenty of feminists who are radical and have a valid point without hating men or demanding that all leadership positions should be held by women (which is just swapping misogyny for misandry)

You’re also wrong that no-one cares about the witch hunt against Assange – people all over the world care. It’s blatantly obvious that they couldn’t get him for leaking, so they used trumped up sex charges to try and get their hands on him and to damage his reputation if they can’t.

Hey dummies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

The true provenance of WikiLeaks is the Silent Weapon for Quiet Wars elite mind control strategy.

It’s another Weapon of Mass Distraction. SWQW works with diversion of the public attention as a key strategy. The simplest means of securing a silent weapon is to keep the public undisciplined and ignorant of the basic system principles on the one hand, while keeping them confused, disorganized and distracted with matters of no real importance on the other.

Like the pied piper our gatekeeper host uses the WikiLeaks silent weapon to lead the gullible and intellectually impaired sheeple down the road to mental slavery.

We gaze awestruck at the fortitude of self-designated “whistleblowers” like Murray, Ritter and-most improbable of all-Julian Assange! We marvel at their martyrdom on our behalf and the sordid depths to which the establishment will go to discredit them.

Silent weapons like WikiLeaks will win if we allow ourselves to be distracted and infantilized by following the pied pipers.

Wake up before it’s too late,saps!

http://www.syti.net/GB/SilentWeaponsGB.html

Suddenly there was a flash! We couldn’t agree what kind of thing made it, except that it was called WikiLeaks. Suddenly, forces that had seemed independent or even opposed were converging on the source of the flash, with weapons; it was clear that they didn’t want any more flashes.

If you just consider that Assange’s arrest is just a government fix up, then I believe you are completely wrong. I’ve said many times smearing a person, setting them up on false charges and even imprisoning them is a frequent occurence in the UK for people posing a threat to the government. Equally I know of cases where government agents/participating informants have been jailed to hide their roles.

There have been calls for something to be done about Assange and the outcry may become much stronger if the next lot of revelations does actually cause damage possibly financial damage. In this case people would expect Assange to be arrested and charged and a trial to follow. But if Assange is an intelligence operative this might reveal too much.

So if he’s being actively engaged on another unrelated charge, then the WikiLeaks’ accusations would have to wait.

As Suhayl pointed out there’s something odd about the dropping of the charges and the raising of them again.

Murray,Ritter,Assange-whistleblowers?

My Arse!

Watch Richard Grove. He’s a whistle-blower who will help you find the research tools to see through the disinformation that’s out there:

http://www.archive.org/details/BrokenTrustWallStreetsDeadEndAnInterviewWithWhistleblowerRichard

Watch 7/7 Ripple Effect by the guy who’s just been quietly extradited to Britain from Eire:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8756795263359807776&hl=en#

These guys ARE whistle-blowers. The others are sayanim.

Wake up you dumb-arse saps!

Duncan McFarlane,

I completely disagree that Iran is ‘a long way from democracy’ and ‘Press TV is ‘no kind of balancer.’

Iran is a democracy in a strict sense because people participate in the government. I also believe that equality, freedom and justice exists in Iran’s society on a scale compared to ours. In order to gauge a point on that scale, consider the illegal genocide in Iraq by Britain and America, consider the apartheid in Israel and the treatment of Gazans, consider the torture and rendition of innocent terrorist suspects and as a complement, consider the treatment of the British Naval personnel who entered Iranian waters; consider the treatment of whistle-blowers as clearly described here by Craig and consider the pervasive ‘gynocracy’ witnessed recently in Sweden.

When I was allowed a chance to express my views on torture to George Galloway on PressTV (they phoned me back and I timed out) I felt a sense of deep admiration for such journalistic freedom. Such freedom was plainly apparent after Hassan Ghani of PressTV submitted his report on the Gaza flotilla carnage after being detained by Israel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydAGnTo4KJo

I apologise for such pointed remarks Duncan and I hope you reach a position where you can reassess your judgements that seem to centre on propaganda and a view that suggests a somewhat gullible and naive anti-war movement.

Ah, Sweden. The girls from Abba, Liv Ullman, Monika Zetterlund, Robyn, Anita Ekberg, Britt Eklund, Anne Margret Olsen… I could go on.

Sweden is a country of contrasts. Apparently very liberal, but deeply puritanical at the same time, in parallel, rather confusing – especially for the foreigner.

Swedish sexual etiquette is a minefield, but recent changes in Swedish law to criminalize certain types of sexual behaviour and acts are so complex and subtle that only lawyers understand the details and the full consequences.

Sweden has also enacted, arguably the most draconian and illiberal laws regarding prostitution in Europe. For example it’s no not only illegal to be a prostitute, but a criminal offence for a man to buy sex from a prostitute. These laws, unsuprisingly haven’t eradicated prostitution, but have driven it underground and criminalized the entire business beyond reason.

Sweden has also seen the rise recently of the far-right, Swedish People’s Party, which is an openly racist and anti-Muslim party, basically Nazis in suits. This party now holds the balance of power in Sweden. Sweden’s new government is determined to wipe out the old image of Sweden, Olaf Palme’s Sweden, and position the country firmly in the sphere of the American Empire, with all that implies.

SAPO the Swedish security service has had links with botht the UK security services and the CIA for years, even when such cooperation was banned under Swedish law. Sweden has changed subtley. Once Sweden was proud of its neutrality, now it only proclaims that it is non-aligned. In reality Sweden has turned into a client-state like the UK.

The case against Assange is very, very, odd. For example he hasn’t actually been charge with anything, no crime. The Swedish authorities only wish to question him about alligations and possible crimes, and this is without telling him in English, verbally or in writing, what these specific alligations are!

Also it is highly unusual under Swedish law for the authorities to contact Interpol and get them involved in an affair that isn’t even a case, as there are no real charges, only unsubstantiated rumours and alligations. It’s like the cliche that the police would like a person to help them with their inquiries, but it’s almost unheard of to seek someone’s extradition in such a high-profile case merely to talk about alligations, without reference to specific charges, without providing any evidence, only statements from the women envolved.

And how does one prove “rape” witout any evidence, only the accusations of the two women involved? One is talking about sex here a private act between two people, with two possible versions of events, or perhaps one. Surely this is the word of the man, the man’s version of events, contra the woman’s word and version of events? Your word against mine. There were no independent witnesses in the two bedrooms and no sign of physical violence, or other physical evidence of forced sex, which is surely the definition of rape? So, unless Assange is stupid enough, or has totally incompetent legal advice that he should admit to the charge that he’s guilty of sex-crimes, proving his guilt would seem to be impossible.

This is why the original prosecutor refused to have anything to do with the case. There was really no crime involved, and if there was, it would be virtually impossible to prove it in a court of law, so the case was dropped.

Then the Americans got involved and the Swedish government. Both could see mutual advantage in the affair. Sweden could show its fealty to their imperial master, and the Americans saw a golden opportunity to smear Assange, assassinate his character and by extention – Wikileaks, and get him to a country like Swenden which might be willing to hand him over to the Americans without asking too many questions.

Hell hath no fury like a groupie scorned.

But one shouldn’t underestimate the real danger Assange is in. The open threats from the Americans are totally outrageous and unacceptable from a civilized nation.

But then we are moving rapidly towards barbarism and are cherished bourgeois freedoms and rights are being trashed and eroded before our eyes.

Wikileaks represents the kind of scrutiny our masters do not appriciate. The vengence and venom directed at Assange is designed to make an example of him as a warning to others not to use their democratic rights, or take them too seriously.

Our leaders hate democracy and have contempt for the people. They rightly see democracy as a real threat to elite rule and oligarchy, and therefore in the age of perpetual, neo-imperialist warfare, with the aim of securing access to and control of vital raw materials, democracy has to go, pensioned off for the duration, and probably for good. Oh, well, it was nice while it lasted.

This is a headline from a parallel universe, where The Sun is a newspaper.

Blood-soaked Butchers in the White House claim Wikileaks is endangering lives!

Prostrate

I shouldn’t bother providing them with links,mate.

These guys read The Guardian (LOL) and think it’s all they need. That’s how they get to believe Assange’s a genuine whistle-blower.

Since when did whistleblowers:

(a) get saturation coverage on BBC and corporate media

(b) remain upright and breathing after being exposed?

Muad’ Dib the 7/7 Ripple Effect film-maker gave this interview just before he was extradited back to UK:

http://mtrial.org/node/42

Now we’ve got Assange on the front of Time and Jemima Khan ( nee Goldsmith ) speaking on his behalf and most commenters here haven’t smelled singed rat yet?

Let’s re-name this tread:

ASSANGE:LUDICROUS DIVERSION!

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2010/12/assanges-wikileaks-is-fake.html

And finally… sorry. I think Assange was naive, and maybe even an idealist, perhaps arrogantly so, to actually believe that we still live in a liberal democracy, despite its obvious drawbacks, and that Wikileaks could make a valuable difference and make democracy work.

And that liberal values, the law, and basic human rights would function to protect him, like they are supposed to. Only he believed to much and didn’t fully appriciate that we are at war. The war of the rich and powerful against everyone else. And in a global, class war, they don’t give a flying fuck about bourgeois civil rights or fundamental liberties. Fuck that, blow his head off! Democracy is dying in front of our eyes, enjoy it while you still can. It won’t be around for long.

I have setup a page that allows people on facebook to show their support of Julian Assange, its called “Julian Assange for Saint of Scientific Journalism”

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/event.php?eid=123747411023213

I want to show my support for the cause.

I also considered suggesting that he become the Saint of Hacking for the public good, but it didn’t quite have the same ring to it.

: )

PS Please join and share my group

writerman

The only parallel universe you need to worry about is the one you’re in.

Kerb-crawling in Sweden will get you in a lot of trouble. Mind you-seems like you know how to cruise discreetly!

Has it not occurred to you that you’re being taken for a ride round some back-streets away from the main event?

You’re now discussing Julian Assange’s sexual proclivities and their legal implications like they really mattered.

Looks like they got you to take your eye off the ball and you took a sucker punch from a “silent weapon”.

Maybe you could take the time to read around the subject a bit more and then come back and say something worthwhile.

Currently you’re just controlled opposition. Bit like Assange.

http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/

” Democracy is dying in front of our eyes, enjoy it while you still can. It won’t be around for long.” – ‘Writerman’ December 2010

“Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didn’t have any kind of prison. Because of this, we had no delinquents.

Without a prison, there can be no delinquents. We had no locks nor keys and therefore among us there were no thieves. When someone was so poor that he couldn’t afford a horse, a tent or a blanket, he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift. We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property.

We didn’t know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being

was not determined by his wealth.

We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another.

We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don’t know

how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things

that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.”

John (Fire) Lame Deer

Sioux Lakota – 1903-1976

As the intelligence services have control over most of the media when necessary why haven’t they restricted WikiLeaks’ revelatons?

“I’d just like to say to all those beautiful people out there… There are more of us ugly motherfuckers than you.”

Yeah, I bet this is all just a clever way in which he can be debriefed by his NWO overlords!

Does anyone apart from Alfred and the Apostate/Steelback people still believe that?

…

But seriously, I seem to remember that when this story first broke way back in August it was opined here that the charges had no basis whatsoever, as what on Earth would Assange be doing putting himself at risk like that just at the very moment he was releasing the war diaries?

Now, does anyone here still believe there was NO basis to the allegations?

Does anyone still take the modified position that the women involved were CIA/Mossad honey traps?

Does anyone think that this is a plot by the radical feminist-”gynocratic” mafia?

And finally, didn’t Assange himself arrange for the arrest, i.e didn’t he turn himself in to face the charges?

From my understanding the Swedish police often do not investigate some types of sex crimes because of the circumstances writerman outlines. They know that some women will use the law to enact revenge on ex-boyfriends and others they dislike and it is often not worth their time and effort to investigate what is mostly ill conceived feminist laws. The consequence of this is that some genuine cases do not get investigated. If this was a normal case (JA) it would have been dismissed early on and the complainant would receive a letter of no further action. To issue an international arrest warrant would be totally unheard of.

As for prostitution being driven underground, it just leads to further exploitation of women, many of whom are foreigners who have run away from countries where they had been persecuted. From the frying pan to the fire.

angry: Of course he turned himself in to face the charges. Otherwise, he’d have been a fugitive on the run, which itself could be considered a punishable crime for which he’d be facing charges. As it is, he’s still in the position of not being guilty of any crime for which he is charged.

I think he wanted to be in the UK, because this is one of the very few countries in which it is _highly_ unlikely that one is shot while trying to escape from the police. Despite its many faults, the UK has a tiny problem with gun crime. Catching a stray bullet is more rare here than possibly anywhere else. Despite their lackings, the police are about the best too. If you don’t want to unexpectedly wind up dead, poor Dr. Mitty notwithstanding, you’re probably wise to sit it out here.

If there was more to the allegation than has been revealed so far, Sweden is surely withholding it because it wishes to be ridiculed further. (In other words, no – there doesn’t appear to be more to the story.) However, it seems probably that Sweden wants to get hold of Assange so that they can hand him over to the Yanks at the first excuse. And as we know, the Yanks don’t need to bother with niceties like charges and due process, because the US is not a civilised country.

Mark – I’m just as critical as you of what British and US governments have done in Iraq – the invasion (purely for oil, profits and power) , the systematic torture and the death squads trained and run by US military handlers from El Salvador to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan (though calling it ‘genocide’ is an exaggeration – it’s a war of aggression along with various war crimes. They don’t give a shit how many Iraqis die or are killed, but they’re not out to wipe them out as a race or religion, ethnic group or nationality). I also condemn Israel’s the Israeli government’s blockades and killings in the West Bank and Gaza – and the support of other governments for it.

However Iran is not a real democracy and if you read Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch reports you’ll find they torture and kill dissidents and critics of their regime – and their government is as or more corrupt as the US or British governments.

There are some elected officials and they have some say, but when the ‘Leader’ (Khamenei) has the final say, when half of most of the ruling councils are appointed, with the other half only indirectly elected, calling them as democratic as the US or UK is simply untrue – especially when candidates are vetoed by the hundred by religious councils at every election – and when opposition campaigners and journalists are tortured and murdered by the country’s secret police and hired thugs.

Every election in Iran has also been rigged on an even greater scale than the 2000 US Presidential election was.

The US and British governments do all this in their foreign policy – which is completely wrong and i condemn it – but they allow 99.9% of their people far greater political freedoms and civil rights and freedom of speech at home. The Iranian government does not.

You say you were grateful for Press TV letting you criticise torture and on the shameful attack on the Gaza flotilla.

Of course Press TV lets you criticise the enemies of the Iranian government – the Israeli, British and US militaries and governments. It does not let Iranians criticise torture, murders, oppression and corruption by it’s own government though – and even tortures dissidents into televised “confessions” shown on Press TV which are as bad as the “Terrorists in the hands of justice” one Ayad Allawi ran as a US puppet in Iraq.

So i’m afraid you’re just swapping one propaganda outlet censored by it’s government for another. Press TV doesn’t even have the amount of freedom to criticise it’s own government’s actions that the BBC has – and the BBC since the purging over Kelly and Gilligan has little.

Freeborn wrote

“We gaze awestruck at the fortitude of self-designated “whistleblowers” like Murray, Ritter and-most improbable of all-Julian Assange! We marvel at their martyrdom on our behalf and the sordid depths to which the establishment will go to discredit them.”

When you imply Craig Murray is not a genuine whistleblower, i stop listening to you, because i know for a fact that you’re wrong on that.

The Swedes have stated that there is no chance Assange will be passed on to America unless the British and Swedish governments agree.

Claude Cockburn used to say “Never believe a rumour until it is officially denied”.

This guy is in serious peril.

The Aussie PM seems to have thrown him under the bus:

“Julia Gillard has also stated that Mr Assange acted illegally in publishing the cables.

Mr Assange’s British solicitor, Mark Stephens, told The Australian that his legal team were examining the Prime Minister’s comments and considering a defamation action against her.

Ms Gillard yesterday refused to specify what laws Mr Assange might have broken. “The foundation stone of it is an illegal act,” Ms Gillard said.”

While there is a possibility that she is part of the gynocratic conspiracy, the WikiLeaks themselves are clearly not illegal.

Glenn: “If there was more to the allegation than has been revealed so far, Sweden is surely withholding it because it wishes to be ridiculed further. (In other words, no – there doesn’t appear to be more to the story.)”

According to this Davros-Thatcher-lookalike-owned-newspaper report, the allegations are this:

“Mr Assange faces two counts of sexual molestation, one count of unlawful coercion and one count of rape involving two women in Sweden in August.

In the most details yet released about the allegations, Ms Lindfield said that in the cases of both women the allegations related to him refusing to wear a condom during sex. He was also accused of having sex with one of the women by exploiting the fact that she was asleep, and another count said that he had held a woman’s arms and forced open her legs so he could have sex with her.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/assange-arrested-in-london/story-fn775xjq-1225967260554

(Gemma Lindfield, representing the Swedish prosecution service)

Glenn: “However, it seems probably that Sweden wants to get hold of Assange so that they can hand him over to the Yanks at the first excuse. And as we know, the Yanks don’t need to bother with niceties like charges and due process, because the US is not a civilised country.”

This is a bit of an odd idea. Why do you think it more likely that Sweden would hand Assange over to the US than the UK?

If the US could form a case against Assange to say that he has committed a crime and wants him extradited then surely it would be just as easy to do that through the UK. What is necessary to your theory about having him first extradited to Sweden?

Another possibility is that Wikileaks is genuine, but was set up with these leaks from the off. They could get out all their false propaganda, take a few hits as collateral damage, take down Assange with the site and push for more internet restrictions. Anyone think that’s a feasible scenario?

“Anyone think that’s a feasible scenario?”

No.

From that article, if I WERE a conspiracy theorist I would find this troubling:

“Ms Lindfield, for the Swedish government, argued that because of the notoriety generated by WikiLeaks publishing thousands of secret US military and diplomatic cables Mr Assange risked being attacked “by an unstable person” if he was granted bail and allowed to stay at large in London.”

“An unstable person”? Isn’t that a bit like something bad cops say on Hollywood movies, “We wouldn’t want you to have an *accident* now would we? We wouldn’t want *some crazy person* to attack you, would we?”

Sorry, I meant to ask if anyone ‘sane’ thought that was a feasible scenario. Unfortunately, that excludes the resident forum crazy known as St. Louis Soba. Hard lines my son.

Here’s Stef on Assange. Seems more reasonable than anything said here so far.

http://stefzucconi.blogspot.com/2010/12/conspiraloon-round-up-december-2010-pt1.html

Jaded said:

“Sorry, I meant to ask if anyone ‘sane’ thought that was a feasible scenario.”

Ha! well now thats a different question altogether.

But being sane, relatively, I’d say, yes, your scenario is perfectly feasible. However, it seems a little simple minded. Most likely Wikileaks is a serious project in cognitive infiltration aimed at creating a whole new alternative medium — run by bastards who brought you the war on terror.

That was one of the give-aways when you were impersonating me by the way Jaded.

Angry said “if I WERE a conspiracy theorist”

Christ, Angry, if you were a conspiracy theorist, I’d apply to join the CIA.

Hey Angry… It appears Australia hasn’t completely abandoned Assange after all:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/australia-vows-assange/

That a woman subjected to violent treatment by Assange as you suggest she was here, would then ‘tweet’ about her ‘conquest’ not long afterwards seems pretty hard to believe. But you’d know that. It does not appear that you’re putting forward a case in which you actually believe, yet again. I know lawyers are sometimes required to do that, and it can be a profitable exercise on occasion to argue for something you positively _do not_ agree with. While I’m not clear of your personal reasons for doing it, it’s very clear that is precisely what you are doing.

*

It’s clear that Sweden is necessary for Assange’s kompromating. Once he’s in custody for that, in a country that has proved compliant enough to provide this service, he’ll be ready for whatever excuse the US brings up. The American public should be sufficiently disinterested by that point, left only with a memory that this ‘traitor’ was a sexual predator or somesuch. He needs to be pinned down on a salacious charge in a compliant country – that’s the important thing.

*

Jaded – I don’t think so, the US administration appears genuinely wounded by these ongoing revelations. Some very powerful players (the Clintons in particular) have been savaged, and the whole method of operation of the US diplomatic service called into serious question and disrepute. We’re seeing a genuine major battle being played out here. Assange is only alive because he’s got very serious secrets, but Powers That Be are getting rather anxious, because these secrets are going to be told sooner or later in any case. Assange’s real insurance is that the PTB _think_ he’s got their own personal secrets ready to be revealed, but might be held off for a while. He’s only buying himself a relatively small amount of time.

Have been busy in court, but did take a little time to check on what they say Julian had done. A little randy by ‘alf – or double that – he had two bites of the cherry. But nothing to imprison a man about. The establishment is running its game – let’s see how it plays out.

I do not know and did not study Swedish law, having been qualified in England and in the Caribbean, but let’s use reasonable sense:-

” He who lays hands on or by means of shooting from a firearm, throwing of stones, noise or in any other way harasses another person will be sentenced for harassment to fines or imprisonment for up to one year.”

Well I assume that Swedish criminal law also has an equivalent of mens rea ( the guilty mind) in relation to the actus reus ( he did the act(s) – she wanted sex – he gave it to her – another wanted sex – he also gave it to her). Well the actus reus without the mens rea won’t make the charge stick, but – as I said – I never studied Swedish law.

@ Craig,

” Yet, even to this day, the FCO has refused to acknowledge in public that I was in fact cleared of all charges. This is even true of the new government.”

So what? I was arrested, charged for contempt of court and to this day remain quite pleased that they convicted me – because my points stand and the system had no answers. So be it – you do not need the establishment’s approval when you live by your own standards and are honest.

“Hey Angry… It appears Australia hasn’t completely abandoned Assange after all”

Hey Glenn! It appears I never said that:

“The Aussie PM seems to have thrown him under the bus:”

The Aussie _PM_! Kevin Rudd is no longer the Aussie PM and all he is actually saying is that Assange will receive consular support in the same way any Aussie citizen would. Hardly an overwhelming vote of confidence seeing as the same applies to drug smugglers in South East Asia.

“That a woman subjected to violent treatment by Assange as you suggest she was here, would then ‘tweet’ about her ‘conquest’ not long afterwards seems pretty hard to believe.”

I didn’t suggest anyone was subject to violent treatment. I merely quoted what was in the paper after you said:

“If there was more to the allegation than has been revealed so far, Sweden is surely withholding it because it wishes to be ridiculed further. (In other words, no – there doesn’t appear to be more to the story.)”

Now I don’t know what you had known was “revealed so far” and how you know that Sweden “wishes to be ridiculed further”.

Angrysoba – ‘:-)

That was one of the give-aways when you were impersonating me by the way Jaded.’

Oh angry, has it really come to this? Trying to defend the last remaining vestiges of your sanity by clinging desperately to a few keystrokes? I am very sorry to say this, but it seems you have almost evolved into a complete caricature of yourself. They say that can be very dangerous and damaging you know. I would suggest a lengthy vacation from Craig’s blog as the necessary remedy. Also, please take notice of the other advice I have discreetly furnished you with.

Glenn: “It does not appear that you’re putting forward a case in which you actually believe, yet again. I know lawyers are sometimes required to do that, and it can be a profitable exercise on occasion to argue for something you positively _do not_ agree with. While I’m not clear of your personal reasons for doing it, it’s very clear that is precisely what you are doing.”

For what it’s worth, Glenn. I don’t think the charges are serious enough to merit action by Interpol and think it very likely that the charges have been exaggerated possibly under political pressure in the same way that Al Capone got done for tax evasion when no other charges could be made to stick.

BUT, the point made before was that the charges had been completely concocted which they actually hadn’t been.

I think Craig Murray is right about one thing and that is that two completely separate issues have been inextricably entwined when really they should be seen as separate.

The loonier stuff about Assange being Mossad or CIA or this whole thing being a scheme to shut down the Internet is just that, loony stuff.

But, may I ask you again, “If the US could form a case against Assange to say that he has committed a crime and wants him extradited then surely it would be just as easy to do that through the UK. What is necessary to your theory about having him first extradited to Sweden?”

I do not know and did not study Swedish law, having been qualified in England and in the Caribbean, but let’s use reasonable sense:-

The Swedish law reads: ” He who lays hands on or by means of shooting from a firearm, throwing of stones, noise or in any other way harasses another person will be sentenced for harassment to fines or imprisonment for up to one year.”

Q. Mr. Assange – you are accused of harassment ?” what do you have to say in response to the charge?

A. I had no weapon and did not harass anyone.

Q. I put it to you that you are being less than frank with this honourable court.

A. I reject your suggestion Sir.

Q. You did have a dangerous weapon in use at the material time Mr. Assange.

A. No Sir!

Q. But there is no dispute that you had sex with these two women ?” how could you in all honesty deny that there was an attack. Mr. Assange I urge you at this point to take responsibility for the misuse of your harassing rod ?” what do you say to that?

A. It was not a harassing one Sir ?” it was very friendly and fully accommodated one by both ladies Sir ?” and that is the truth! Actually, by reference to the law ?” I laid a hand on it, they both did too ?” I worked them both over without any harassment ?” and all in all relative to the charge ?” I did shoot my “firearm” at the end in the most pleasurable way Sir. BUT, IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES – NOT GUITY AS CHARGED!

THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE TOLD TO GO FUCK ITSELF ON THIS ONE!

CB http://www.globaljusticeonline.com

Lucretius:

Do you have any more evidence of Mossad’s involvement in Wikileaks than you do in their involvement in shark attacks off Sharm-el-Sheikh?

“Israel has dismissed Egyptian claims that a series of shark attacks in the Red Sea could have been the result of a plot carried out by its foreign intelligence agency, Mossad. ”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11937285

Angry said,

“Lucretius: Do you have any more evidence of Mossad’s involvement in Wikileaks ?”

Who said anything about Mossad and Wikileaks? Certainly not I.

“But come to think of it, here’s ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: [are WikiLeaks] being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed.

“And I wonder whether, in fact, there aren’t some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments.

“For example, leaving aside the personal gossip about Sarkozy or Berlusconi or Putin, the business about the Turks is clearly calculated in terms of its potential impact on disrupting the American-Turkish relationship.

Now who would want to complicate US relations with Turkey?

Between:

-the fact that his leaks all serve a precise Neocon agenda

-his otherwise impossible well-funded jet-setting lifestyle

-his perfectly spooky Anne Hamilton-Byrne MKULTRA background

-the flagrant pilfering of the plot of The Spy Who Came In From The Cold

-the perfectly crummy and easily dismissable nature of the charges against him

-the fact that the media is all over him in precisely the same way there weren’t all over Scott Ritter when he declared there no WMDs in Iraq

-and the simple fact that he’s utterly superfluous and those leaking could achieve the same results with myriad other sites perfectly happy to host leaked material with the only drawback being that the media utterly ignores them

Given all those things, Assange is bullshit. All you people impressed with him, remember the WMDs? Remember how big and impressive that effort was? You fell for that then – but fool you twice – why are you falling for it again now?

Wikileaks

About 517,000,000 results !!! (Google)

Did anyone hear this slimeball this morning? You could hear the cogs in his brain? creaking lest he dropped a few bricks. ‘Nothing to do with me Guv’

0733

The latest Wikileaks release reveals that Libya threatened Britain with “dire repercussions” if the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing died in jail. Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw explains whether we have learned anything new from the latest release.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9267000/9267058.stm

All very odd, Craig:

“I am not a fan of radical feminists. They are hate filled individuals whose very souls are ugly.”

Who do you mean? Dworkin was clearly a very abused and troubled person, but Greer, Walters, Orbach, Steinem – all very radical and feminist, hardly hate filled.And ‘ugly souls’? Don’t think so: have you read them?

You’re saying these claims are manifestly false, and part of a deliberate smear operation. OK. But if so, and these women who claim to be raped are paid stooges of the CIA/Swedish government, then they are not ‘radical feminists’ at all, since radical feminists tend to stand against a war-mongering patriarchy which, as Suhayl points out, now largely kills women and children. They are paid stooges of the CIA/Swedish government.

Btw why did Assange come to the UK? He must have wanted to be arrested, presumably. He would have been safe in lots of countries, Venezuela, for example.

Finally: “They succeeded in alienating me from the Stop the War movement”. It’s not hard to feel alienated from a movement called Stop the War which hasn’t, or from its Trotsky-esque bureaucracy, but to let a few people, clearly without any humour, sideline you from such a popular cause is rather sad. You should have gone on to tell the one about feminists and moustaches, that would have shown them.

ps angrysoba, why teach the spambots?

News just in, Hackers have taken down the websites of the Master card and viva plastic empires.

They can’t hang that on Julian!

hey craig, wanna read something funny?

check out this badboy

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm

Maybe a lawyer could explain if the extraditiion hearing is a done deal or does the judge have any discretion in determining the outcome. Can he or she consider the charges and evidence presented and say it is insufficient to grant the request ? Could the Swedish police question him within the UK ?

“the fact that his leaks all serve a precise Neocon agenda”

Nobody, I thought people had largely stopped repeating this one. Revealing the extent of government duplicity does not serve the neo-con agenda at all. Meanwhile the US spiked an Iranian for a UN environmental position, the Americans were assured that their interests would be looked after in the Chilcot enquiry, and the governor of the Bank of England turns out to be (economically speaking) very right-wing indeed. These do not serve the economic system very well at all.

Ritter was just ignored, which is often the best way to edge progressive/unpopular views out. The MSM failed there, for sure, but they are failing less well with Wikileaks because it is too big to ignore. And it provides plenty of material for them to fill their papers, so paradoxically they have a commercial opportunity for good journalism at the moment. Doesn’t happen very often, mind!

What is the MKULTRA connection? I’ve seen that mentioned once before, and I thought someone was just being nuts. Have you got a link?

The alleged rape case against Assange, if it ever gets to court, will be behind closed doors. This will deprive the world of the most hysterically funny rape cross examination ever.

Here a sneak preview, however.

The charges:

Used his body weight to hold down Miss A in a sexual manner.

Had unprotected sex with Miss A when she had insisted on him using a condom.

Molested Miss A “in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity”.

Had unprotected sex with Miss W while she was asleep.

Charge 1 “Used his body weight to hold down Miss A in a sexual manner”

Name? Ms A Age?: 29 3/4 Marital status? Spinster Profession?: Militant feminist

Would you describe yourself as a virgin? Yes Are you in fact a virgin? No

There are various ways of having sexual intercourse. Do you know what is meant by the missionary position? No

It involves the man lying on top of the woman. Oh!

What position would you yourself normally use? Swinging on a trapeze.

The accused is 75 kg and you are 55 kg. What do you think the effect might be if he were to adopt the missionary position? It would weigh me down and restrict my movement.

No further questions.

Charge 2 “Had unprotected sex with Miss A when she had insisted on him using a condom”.

When you initially had intercourse with the accused was he wearing a condom? Yes

Who supplied the condom? I did

What kind of condom was it? Giant Super Snug with raspberry flavour

Is that the condom you normally use? Yes, but sometimes with a strawberry flavour

It is alleged that the condom burst at a late stage of the proceedings and that the accused refused to put on a new one? Yes

He maintains that you were screaming “Yes , Yes, Yes” at the time and that he thought you wanted him to continue. Not at all, I meant Yes, he should change contraceptive immediately.

No further questions.

Charge 3 “Molested Miss A “in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity”.”

Ms A, could you please explain what this charge actually means? That he attempted to put his sexual organ in my mouth and not where it should go.

Are you aware that this behaviour is fairly common, that it has a latin name and that it is not normally regarded as a criminal offense when two consenting adults get together? Well, it seems disgusting to me and the prosecutor was desperate to find something to accuse him of.

No further questions

Charge 4 Had unprotected sex with Miss W while she was asleep

Name? Ms W Age?: 27 Marital status? Spinster Profession?: Groupie, Stalker

Could you describe the circumstances leading up to the charge? I saw he was in town, went to a lecture he held, took photos of him from the front row wearing my nice tight pink sweater, got invited to a party and ended up in bed with him.

And yet you fell asleep with him beside you? Well, it takes it out of you when you

Duncan – thank-you for your reply – As expected I disagree with your analysis of the Iran political system which seems to be based on Western propaganda rather than first hand accounts. However we can agree to disagree Duncan because let’s be honest we are both in the same camp.

So just a couple of points I deem to be important. I use the word ‘genocide’ because a generation of children were slaughtered during and after the ‘Iraq aggression’ according to DoctorsforIraq.

Interestingly the Politics of Iran is not so dissimilar to our own system where the Monarch is head and the Privy Council have ‘enormous’ power with a structure protected by the security services against subversion. Those against this system in a way considered portentous are ‘disappeared’ or vitiated in a ‘subtle’ way. Members of the Privy Council declare allegiance under an oath that until 1998 was treasonous to disclose.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is one of the highest courts in Britain and judicial committee judgements although not legally binding carry great weight and their report is considered ‘de facto’ by elected governments. The Justices of the Committee are all Lords except one, who is a Knight. Nobody gets to head-up a powerful position such as Head of the Armed Forces without a nod or approval from this great power.

Interestingly I believe in 2009 cases relating to the Scotland Act 1998 were transferred to the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

The so called Royal Prerogative has powers over civil servants and the Royal Navy. Such powers have resulted in the banning of trade union membership at GCHQ under Mrs Thatcher, the Blair government’s decision to allow its advisers to issue direct instructions to civil servants, and the eviction of the Chagos islanders from their homeland in the late 1960s.

Many will find all this rather boring but a word of warning, do not regard this peculiar system as a harmless relic of our constitution or a throwback to a bygone age, the British Cabinet are but a mere slave(executive committee) of the Privy Council.

Craig: I am uncomfortable with an attack on radical feminists generally, though I see what you mean. But technicolour is right: radical feminists are usually against wars, conceived with masculinity, in which women are most at risk of being killed. It follows therefore that the people to which these tags are applied may be radical, but they’re not feminists.

Hello Duncan, by the way. Not seen you for ages, good to see you posting. Trust you’re well

‘nobody’: I didn’t believe that there were WMDs, nor did many others here (apart from the stooges, who doubtless still believe in them).

Angry: Why refute that Kevin Rudd is the Aussie PM, when no-one claimed he was? Why quote discussions about violence, sex concerning Assange, then claim these are not views you’re trying to promote? I do like the way you repeatedly raise issues only to scuttle away from them.

The nutters are in charge. Whistleblowing is a waste of time, it gets you sacked and made unemployable. I know. Which is why I applaude the hackers who brought down MasterCard and Swiss Bank websites. This realistically seems the only way to fight back. Targeted attacks on certain infrastructure. I liked the four secret Nato Brigades story. Won’t the Russians just wait until debt consumes Europe if it wanted an easy life.

Be careful which louche, dodgy, twisted men you give your support to. He sounds a lot like Dr Dylan Evans, who had a mad “I am innocent and the feminists are out to get me” article in the Sunday Times at the weekend. Dr Dylan Evans was found guilty of sexually harassing a woman in his university, and can’t accept it.

http://www.dylan.org.uk/fruitbat_freedom.html

Hi Jon – thanks. I was wasting a lot of time on computer game addictions. Doing fine. Joined the Greens here. How are you?

Is it possible for a blogger to troll his own site ?

dan, that was interesting, thanks for posting. the woman’s reaction sounds crazy, beyond all isms. and all, poor bloke, for a fruitbat. i guess it’s hard to laugh off.

Dan – have to agree with techniclour, defining showing another academic a piece of research about animals’ sexual behaviour as sexual harassment is ludicrous.

You also ignore that fact that the charges against Dr. Evans were quashed by the High Court and he was awarded damages

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1201/breaking66.html

I wonder what motivation you have for trying to blacken his reputation based on no evidence?

sorry – correction – the High Court found the behaviour technically fell under the definition of sexual harassment (which is ludicrous), but said the sanctions imposed were completely disproportionate to the minor nature of the offence and quashed them, also awarding Evans costs for the case, not damages

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1201/breaking66.html

i concluded dan must have been being ironic…

A very good article.

Read the inside story about what took place during Assanges visit to Sweden, and the truth about the “equal” paradise Sweden on my blog.

Hi Joakim – I’m having trouble believing the claim in that blog post link in your name that every woman in Sweden who tries to take her children overseas with her, saying her husband or partner is beating or abusing her and/or her children is a liar motivated by an extreme version of feminism. That seems highly unlikely and frankly like misogyny.

“Angry: Why refute that Kevin Rudd is the Aussie PM, when no-one claimed he was?”

Holy shit, Glenn! Try to keep up with the conversation you’re in. Your goldfish memory makes discussion with you very tedious.

I said, “The Aussie PM has thrown Assange under the bus”

You replied with, “Hey Angry… It appears Australia hasn’t completely abandoned Assange after all”

and linked to an article in which Kevin Rudd was saying XYZ.

So it was relevant of me to point out that Kevin Rudd is not the PM to show that your reply to me was not relevant.

Christ Almighty!

“Why quote discussions about violence, sex concerning Assange, then claim these are not views you’re trying to promote?”

Again… YOU ARE MISSING THE BLOODY POINT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN THE SUBJECT THAT *YOU* RAISED!!!!!

Glenn: “If there was more to the allegation than has been revealed so far, Sweden is surely withholding it because it wishes to be ridiculed further. (In other words, no – there doesn’t appear to be more to the story.)”

According to this Davros-Thatcher-lookalike-owned-newspaper report, the allegations are this:

“Mr Assange faces two counts of sexual molestation, one count of unlawful coercion and one count of rape involving two women in Sweden in August.

In the most details yet released about the allegations, Ms Lindfield said that in the cases of both women the allegations related to him refusing to wear a condom during sex. He was also accused of having sex with one of the women by exploiting the fact that she was asleep, and another count said that he had held a woman’s arms and forced open her legs so he could have sex with her.”

I was quoting the most RECENTLY released allegations given that you seemed to be under the impression that Sweden was witholding the allegations and given that you even, in your leadenly sarcastic wasy, said the motive was to make Sweden look ridiculous.

Now please don’t repeat that:

a) You never said Kevin Rudd was the PM. I KNOW! My point was that your link MISSED THE POINT something you have an unimpeachable skill for.

b) I am putting forward arguments I don’t believe for [swivel-eyes] some reason or another. I was QUOTING the allegations for your benefit not arguing that therefore they MUST be true.

Hi Jon, how incurious you are mate. There’s a singular name sitting right there in plain sight and you want me to spoon feed you a link? Did the thought not occur to you to put “julian assange anne hamilton byrne” into google?

That’s what I did in 2003 with ‘scott ritter iraq wmd’ and with mind boggling results. Then it seemed that in spite of the media’s erstwhile darling having controversial views about the biggest story there was, neither he nor anyone with those views was allowed on the TV. Verboten. This was not the media ‘failing’. Rather it was the media equivalent of gravity falling upwards, a complete impossibility. It was so impossible that only a sentimental fool would believe that the media is anything other than a bloc-media that does as it’s told.

Speaking of Ritter, hey Glenn. Does the fact that you didn’t fall for the not-a-single-dissenting-voice media bullshit about WMD’s mean that you woke up to the media as that aforementioned do-as-they’re-told, brook-no-dissenting-voice monolithic bloc? Okay, so then you’d know there’s no way in hell Assange would be their current superstar if it wasn’t approved.

And why would anyone stop repeating the neocon thing? We’re just quoting Benjamin Netanyahu:

“Israel has not been damaged at all by the WikiLeaks publications. On the contrary, the documents showed support in many quarters for Israel’s assessments, especially on Iran.”

The Butcher of Gaza loves it. And Assange loves him right back:

“We can see the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu coming out with a very interesting statement that leaders should speak in public like they do in private whenever they can. He believes that the result of this publication, which makes the sentiments of many privately held beliefs public, are promising a pretty good [indecipherable] will lead to some kind of increase in the peace process in the Middle East and particularly in relation to Iran.”

Honestly! Benjamin Netanyahu as good guy promoting honesty in public affairs and leading the peace process forward. God spare me. Are you people really falling for this guy? I shake my head.

Nobody, where did your quote from Assange originate?

I looked up Assange’s comments on Netanyahu. They appear in a Time interview here:

Dec 1st 2010 page 2 of the transcript

RS: We talked a little bit about this earlier, your desired outcome from the leaking of this information is presumably, as you said, that world leaders and officials would say the same things in public that they say in private. Um, lots and lots of people would regard that as naive, in part because they in their own lives don’t say the same things in public that they say in private. Is that the outcome that you would like, and how do you respond to the charge that that’s the naive view of the way the world works?

JA: Well, I was quoting Netanyahu, who [is] certainly not a naive man. The, of course …

RS: But the effect, by the way, Mr. Assange, for Netanyahu, is that what he’s been saying publicly ?” i.e., Arab leaders have privately been saying that Iran is the greatest threat, and they want Israel and the U.S. to do something ?” the revelations have been in his interest.

JA: Of course. We’re talking about a sophisticated politician who is of that sentiment he’s on the side of, in this issue. But I suggest it is generally ?” of course, there are exceptions ?” but generally true, across every issue. We are negotiating … We need to be able to negotiate with a clear understanding of what the ground is and what our [inaudible] positions are. Of course, one side has a disproportionate amount of knowledge compared to the other side. There cannot be negotiations or proper understanding of the playing field in which these events are to happen. Now, we would like to see all organizations that are key to their authority … opened up as much as possible. Not entirely, but as much as possible, in order to level out that asymmetric information playing field. Now for the United States, its government actually has more information available to it than any other government. And so it is already in a symmetric position. I think this disclosure of diplomatic information, which is often third-hand, will allow people to understand more clearly these sort of broad activities of the U.S. State Department, which acts not, of course, in the interest of the U.S. people but in the interest of the State Department. It will allow people of other countries to see that. But it will also meet more reasonable negotiations and reveal a lot about the Arab states, and Central Asian republics, to the rest of the world and to their peoples.

time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034040-2,00.html

Anna Ardin moved to Isreal when the heat became too strong. You can follow it on her homepage http://annaardin.wordpress.com/

here she is under protection of Isreal and US. She is also surrounded by senior advisors, among them an American.

On her twitter it is clear she is taking the wrong advice, trying to downplay her role http://twitter.com/#!/annaardin

Game is up now. Best thing she can do is to try to get back to Sweden again. Back in Sweden it is the Judicial branch which will be under scrutiny. The PM said yesterday he does not want anything to do with it, probably realizing the mistake/set up. ON her web you find a Swedish PR bureau which has probabbly played a role in this case too. The case around the second girl is less clear for the moment.

@nobody, I am fairly sure we’ve had cordial discussions before, so the patronising ‘mate’ tag is unnecessary. Let us be civil – it makes the exchange much more pleasant.

Sure, I am well aware of google, and I regularly refer people to it. I’ll do that if you don’t have good links to hand. But you’ll know that finding a reasonable, well-researched story, that isn’t off the chart conspiracy-wise, and isn’t tainted with racist ideology, is much harder.

I am not of the view that the media largely does what it is told, incidentally (D-notices aside, of course). You’ll be aware of the Propaganda Model, and I find several of its components accords with my experience. I am particularly attracted to the idea that some progressive material does enter the mainstream in a very limited way, so that the system can be “proven” to be balanced – when of course it is anything but. If the cable releases can be said to be progressive in themselves – in the way the Pentagon Papers release was – then this is part of the 5% that gets through.

FWIW, I think Assange was naive to put Netanyahu up as a model of transparency. That said, Assange is not stupid, and I wonder if he was holding his nose, metaphorically, when he made these comments. As a conduit, he may take the view that he has a role to be strictly apolitical, so that the cables released by Wikileaks are not generally suspected as being politically selected or tampered with.

On Netanyahu being helpful to the peace process – well I despair of that view just as you do. Assange could again just be playing dumb for a media who’ll be scared off at the first sign of left-wing views. Or, Assange could be a right-wing libertarian; whilst I sense he was against the war in Iraq, he has specifically said he’s not anti-war, and some wars need to be fought. But even if he supports the most odious position vis-a-vis the occupation, that would not in itself invalidate the value of the leaks.

As an aside, since there are techies here. Anyone know of Eric Raymond, darling of the free software movement? Turns out he’s a far-right libertarian who championed on his blog the Israeli attacks on Gaza in 2008-2009, and regarded them as not going far enough. All to the cheers of a couple of hundred of post commenters at the time, cheering for blood, and steeped in racism. I had no idea until I read it, and it really took my breath away.

Jon at December 9, 2010 10:52 AM:

“Anyone know of Eric Raymond, darling of the free software movement?”

I do and he’s not their darling. He was opposed to software libre, pushing “open source” which is simply an appeal (cheaper, faster, more secure & stable) to companies’ bottom line to produce higher quality code whilst ignoring the lack of freedom engendered by refusing modification and scrutiny of the code.

This results in restrictive licenses and means the user is at the mercy of the developer, who can change their “open source” licenses at any time.

For example, IBM does a lot of development of GNU/Linux without condemning the idea of intellectual property – it is the largest holder of software patents.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

Interesting, Anonymouse. I’m a programmer, a techie, and a supporter of the Linux/open source movement generally, but perhaps I’m not sufficiently aware of the distinctions between the various kinds of free software. IBM et al make a lot of source code donations because it benefits them to do so, as you say – but that need not necessarily be regarded as a bad thing.

I’m not sure about your point about changing licenses, since if a developer provides code to a project under license X, that developer is entitled to insist that the project or its derivatives remain licensed in the same way (even if more freedom is granted under the new license). Perhaps there are particular kinds of licenses for which this is possible?

Anyway… apologies for the off-topic

Jesuz, Angry! You’ll do yourself a mischief getting so excited all the time. Of course Rudd made the statements in that article, but unless he was speaking entirely in a personal capacity, it’s bleedin’ obvious he had the support of the PM while doing so. Sheesh!

Are you still spluttering away indignantly, demanding to know why Assange would be worse off in Sweden compared to the UK, when it comes to handing him over to the Yanks, or have you decided to drop that one now?

*

‘nobody’ – I’m afraid you’re not quite correct in stating Assange is a universal hero to the media. Murdoch’s rags, for instance, have been well against it (The Times in particular, accuses Wikileaks and its media chums of putting lives at stake). A lot of Amerikan editorials, bloggers etc. have been calling for Assange’s assassination.

“Are you still spluttering away indignantly, demanding to know why Assange would be worse off in Sweden compared to the UK, when it comes to handing him over to the Yanks, or have you decided to drop that one now?”

Good point.

Glenn, how is it easier for Assange to be extradited from Sweden than it is to be extradited from the UK?

It seems that your theory is dependent on a good answer which is still not forthcoming.

Glenn: “Of course Rudd made the statements in that article, but unless he was speaking entirely in a personal capacity, it’s bleedin’ obvious he had the support of the PM while doing so. Sheesh!”

Glenn’s Maxim: There is no known case of a PM and an FM disagreeing.

Angry’s maxim: Foreign ministers etc. only ever speak on the public record strictly in a personal capacity.

Is that sweeping generalisation fatuous enough for you?

If you haven’t figured out why Sweden is a better bet for the Yanks, you clearly need to catch up with the the news a bit. Assange’s own lawyer said so too.

glenn, I’m afraid that angrysoba is correct about Rudd and Gillard. The leaks have been very embarrassing for the Australian Labor Party and for Rudd in particular. Also it was Gillard who deposed Rudd to become the new PM. There is a lot of bad blood between the two, and also a lot of arse covering going on since the leaks. Rudd is happy to sit on the fence regarding the WL issue and take a few pot shots at Gillard to make her look bad. It’s also Rudd’s only way to save any face, if he starts complaining about WL he looks even worse.

Here is a brief list of events/leaks from an Australian perspective.

Gillard condemns leaking as ‘illegal act’ (theage.com.au/world/gillard-condemns-leaking-as-illegal-act-20101207-18oc5.html)

Scathing attacks on Rudd revealed in US diplomatic cables (theage.com.au/world/scathing-attacks-on-rudd-revealed-in-us-diplomatic-cables-20101207-18oc2.html)

The latest batch of WikiLeaks diplomatic cables revealed that Senator Arbib, a kingpin in the NSW Right (Labor), frequently briefed US embassy officials on the state of play in Australian politics. (theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/arbib-goes-quiet-but-many-are-talking-20101209-18rhy.html)

US DIPLOMATS closely followed the rise of Prime Minister Julia Gillard and predicted she would be the next prime minister more than eight months before she deposed Kevin Rudd as federal Labor leader. (theage.com.au/national/us-diplomats-monitored-the-progress-of-gillard-20101208-18ps4.html)

Mr Rudd told a group of visiting US congressmen, says he ”concluded by noting that the national security establishment in Australia was very pessimistic about the long-term prognosis for Afghanistan”.

Mr Rudd also told US politicians that ”he supported the Afghan war ‘from day one’ but confided that ‘Afghanistan scares the hell out of me’.” (theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/rudd-scared-as-hell-20101209-18ri5.html)

Owch…. Poor Rudd.

Reminds me of the story told about LBJ when running for Governor of Texas:

‘I know,’ says his agent, ‘Let’s put it about that the other guy’s a pig fucker.’

‘We can’t do that!’ says LBJ.

~ ‘Yeah, but just let him deny it!’

Is it a bird

Is it a plane

No, it’s my President, LBJ

Country Joe and the Fish

CheebaCow: Fair enough. I do believe Angry’s knee-jerk mission to discredit led him to snicker about his assumption that I’d mistaken Rudd to be the PM of Australia, though. And all the theatrical eye-rolling and so on that would apparently follow such a supposed howler.

All the same, this wide-eyed pretence, and mock eagerness for explanation, for why Sweden would be a better bet for extradition to the Yanks is typical enough. Why would a stooge like Angry spend so much time on the deluded idiot he claims to consider me to be? My word, a post can hardly go by without some snide comments these days. One would swear Angry had no time for such attention, consumed as he is with correspondence from contributors on his own high-volume blog!

Are people still here? Maybe I’ll drop a reply then.

Um, where did that quote come from? It came from a Time Magazine interview with him. Oh look, you found it. What was the question again?

And is ‘mate’ patronising? Not where I come from. Besides which I’d have thought that compared to my tone of voice it was neither here nor there. I vote we not get hung up on it.

And Jon what’s that you say? “I am not of the view that the media largely does what it is told.” I can understand you thinking this since the stories that the media refuses to touch aren’t real stories at all. Rather they’re crazy conspiracy theories and the media is in fact to be commended for never having looked into them or otherwise given them the time of day. Not apart from dismissing them sure enough.

And was I to mention any of them you would quite rightly roll your eyes, scoff, and call me a loony. Except perhaps for the attempted sinking of the USS Liberty.

In that particular chestnut, Israelis attempted to sink the USS Liberty with the loss of all hands (we know this because they deliberately machine-gunned all the lifeboats). The point of the exercise was to blame it on the Eyptians and have the US nuke Cairo. Believe it or not nuke laden skyhawks were launched and then recalled by LBJ and McNamara when they realised that the unimaginable had come true and the hapless Israelis failed to sink the most lightly armed boat in the US Navy. No need to take my word for it. Go to ussliberty.com where the survivors (who were all threatened with death if they spoke of it) are still to this day white hot with fury over their treatment. Or you can go to googlevideo and watch the BBC’s Dead In The Water and watch any number of key personnel describe what they saw.

Bet you never heard of that. I never had. Who knew that such things happened? The very idea: Israelis pretending to be Arabs and attacking the US in the hope they’d retaliate against Israel’s enemies. Wow.

And there we were in 911 bumping into Israelis at every turn we took: the ‘dancing israelis’ celebrating on the New Jersey shore; members of the Israeli company Odigo telling the NYT about warnings to get out of the building; Israeli Zim Shipping moving out of the WTC two weeks before 911 in spite of it costing them tens of thousands in fines; Ariel Sharon openly declaring that 911 would be good for Israel, in spite of all this never ever did the media consider for a minute the possibility that it might have been a false flag attack by a country has a precise history of it.

Since it wasn’t in the media we may safely assume that it was all just the imaginings of crazy conspiracy theorists.

So! Right you are Jon. The media is a square dealer and ipso facto Assange is everything they say he is.

PS I never declared Assange a media ‘hero’. I said he was a ‘superstar’. And he IS a superstar. He is bigger than the Beatles now.

The public won’t stand for Assange being sacrificed, too many of us know what’s going on and through the power of the web we will rebel, just look at the attack by Anonymous!

“CheebaCow: Fair enough. I do believe Angry’s knee-jerk mission to discredit led him to snicker about his assumption that I’d mistaken Rudd to be the PM of Australia, though. And all the theatrical eye-rolling and so on that would apparently follow such a supposed howler.”

Well, then you’d be wrong as it was you who opened the sniping by trying to discredit my opinion that the Aussie PM threw Assange under the bus.

I stated opinion X and you were the one to mock and jeer.

“All the same, this wide-eyed pretence, and mock eagerness for explanation, for why Sweden would be a better bet for extradition to the Yanks is typical enough. Why would a stooge like Angry spend so much time on the deluded idiot he claims to consider me to be?”

I think it is a fair question. Why would it be easier to have Assange extradited from Sweden than from the UK?

I still haven’t been given an answer.

“My word, a post can hardly go by without some snide comments these days.”

Poor Glenn! As if you don’t make plenty of inept attempts to mock or smear me yourself. The difference is I don’t particularly care when you do it. You on the other hand seem to think there’s a conspiracy to discredit you thereby patting yourself on the back by making yourself believe you are some kind of dangerous dissident.

You’re not. Your ideas, such as they are, are ten-a-penny.

” One would swear Angry had no time for such attention, consumed as he is with correspondence from contributors on his own high-volume blog!”

Hey! Almost no one reads my blog. So what?

Shorter nobody: The Jews are really bad!

@nobody and Assange is ‘bigger than the Beatles’,

I have to agree with you, the world needs someone to focus the outrage and peoples feelings over the abuse of human rights and the environment.

Nobody: “Bet you never heard of that. I never had. Who knew that such things happened? The very idea: Israelis pretending to be Arabs and attacking the US in the hope they’d retaliate against Israel’s enemies. Wow.

…Since it wasn’t in the media we may safely assume that it was all just the imaginings of crazy conspiracy theorists.”

And he also says:

“Or you can go to googlevideo and watch the BBC’s Dead In The Water and watch any number of key personnel describe what they saw.”

So the “media” is hiding stuff. I saw it on the BBC!

Assange must be part of a plot because if he wasn’t the media wouldn’t print his leaks!

For example, if someone discovered, say, secret documents showing that the US was in Viet Nam without any hope of achieving its objectives and on a trumped up pretext, the newspapers would never print that, would they?

Just look at Scott Ritter! Nobody’s ever heard of Scott Ritter because he was never allowed on the telly. Apart from those ten or twenty times that he appeared on CNN to say he didn’t believe there were WMDs in Iraq.

Oh yeah, Webster Tarpley and Alex Jones says Julian Assange is a mind-controlled patsy. But everyone seems to write them off as “conspiracy theorists”. To call Alex Jones, a noble truth-teller, a conspiracy theorist is just the kind of way that Jew-run media in the US dismisses its critics. No sensible person could ever call Alex Jones a conspiracy theorist!

If Julian Assange were releasing real secrets and not some kind of made-up secrets then he would be dead by now just like Alex Jones and Webster Tarp…oh…hang on!

Hi nobody,

‘Mate’ is commonplace in the UK, imported from Australia I think, and is generally regarded as a friendly greeting between young men who do not know each other’s names. But, in the same way as using the sobriquet “my friend” when saying something hostile, it becomes patronising. Normally I’d not notice this tone, but you also called me “incurious”, offered to “spoonfeed” me material, and directly implied that I am unintelligent. This approach is not only unnecessary, it’s counterproductive.

But you make a good point about the USS Liberty, and yes, I knew about that attack, although not in the sort of detail you’ve provided. I agree also that the example illustrates how low the Israeli government has sunk in its political machinations.

There are in fact quite a lot of news items that don’t “have legs”; MediaLens drew attention to another one recently, in which it was shown that the Israeli state have been deliberately withholding food from Gaza in order to “put them on a diet”. Just enough so that they don’t die, but not enough so they avoid malnutrition. These were released after their High Court refused to withhold them (from a human rights group) on grounds of national security. Subsequently, no mainstream British newspaper or journal has run a story, except for some tacked-on paragraphs on a BBC article after they were shamed into covering it.

So, the question is, why is our media compliant with the requirements of power?

You say: “I can understand you thinking this [that the media is not instructed what to write] since the stories that the media refuses to touch aren’t real stories at all. Rather they’re crazy conspiracy theories and the media is in fact to be commended for never having looked into them or otherwise given them the time of day.”

You continued: “So! Right you are Jon. The media is a square dealer.”

You have an error of logic here. I said that I didn’t think that the media largely does what it is told, and I stand by that view. That does not mean that I believe the media is a square dealer at all, and I certainly didn’t say that.

The specific logical error is assuming that, if it can be demonstrated that the corporate media act as a propaganda mechanism (which I agree with), they must have been instructed what to cover. In fact, that assumption is the least likely of several possibilities:

* journalists spend a great deal of time in the company of powerful people, and come to psychologically identify with them

* journalists and commentators often have the same political, class or privilege background as politicians or corporate executives, and so are, in the main, more likely to agree with their aims and views than to disagree

* journalists do not want to anger their sources, and so whilst effusive praise is acceptable, disagreement must be muted or euphemistic

* journalists, or their editors, or the owners of a journal, do not want an expensive battle with members of the establishment. For example, if a group of Palestinian militants are referred to as terrorists, it is quite conceivable that some NGOs, progressive groups and their supporters will complain, by writing to the editor, or by cancelling subscriptions. However, if the same paper were to refer to IDF behaviour as terrorist, the powerful Israel lobby would swing into action, thousands of Zionists would start writing letters, and Starbucks might not ever advertise in that paper again. So, a newspaper trying to make money in the first instance is less likely (consciously or otherwise) to take on powerful groups, since it is more expensive to do so.

* journalists’ own bias, from their own economic, nationalist or cultural ideals, gets in the way. For example, even liberal journalists might be a bit sniffy in an article about taxing second home ownership, since journalists operate in a societal strata where second home ownership is both fashionable and desirable. Ditto the thoroughly “even-handed” embedded reporters in Iraq and Afghanistan who occasionally refer to NATO soldiers as “we” or “us”, and the Taliban as “the enemy”, an “infestation”, etc. Ditto the Middle East reporters that refer to the IDF as “soldiers” and “restrained”, whilst calling the Palestinians “terrorist” and “militant”.

I can’t remember from your previous postings whether you’ve read Media Lens or Chomsky and Herman’s “Manufacturing Consent”. If not, they are highly recommended – even if you find yourself in disagreement with them, they suggest a great deal of plausible ways in which error and omission creeps into mainstream discourse.

With all that in mind, how is it that Wikileaks has been feted by the media?

Well, the media is not a singular entity, and arms of it disagrees with the others a lot of the time. Whilst this disagreement is often between members of the ruling classes, sometimes progressive material gets onto the printed page – partly through this process of disagreement, but partly because (believe it or not) there are really reporters out there that believe in good journalism. This irritates the Establishment, to be sure, but on the other hand allows them to reveal the press as ‘free’. Chomsky used to get an occasional op-ed in the NYT, and Pilger used to get a column in the Mirror (now just the New Statesman, with a much reduced readership).

I wonder if the Wikileaks thing would have been reported significantly less if it wasn’t for the US outrage spewed forth from their securitocracy (Craig’s great phrase). With the US establishment providing tacit permission to discuss it, the media were “free” to do so, and significant column inches were then dedicated to calling for Assange’s arrest or assassination, even though no-one asked them to.

I wonder also that, in an atmosphere in which journalists were (nearly) asked not to publish, a sense of rare obstinacy overtook the “left” media, and they went ahead and published anyway. If this is correct (and it is only a guess) then it would cast doubt on the idea that you can pressure newspapers what to write: in the Guardian/NYT’s case, if you apply pressure, they (sometimes) paradoxically do the opposite!

This puts us in an interesting position – given the media are spending a lot of time on the Wikileaks case, a few people are suggestion that Wikileaks must be government propaganda or a disinformation campaign. In fact, for the reasons above, I don’t think that has been shown to the be case at all. As with the Pentagon Papers, the media is now doing a very strange thing indeed: it’s job.

By the way, I had a look into some info tying Assange to the Family cult. All I got was Tarpley and Jones referring to it, without substantiating detail, and Jones was nearly having a heart-attack at the same time as guiding the answers he wanted from Tarpley. They refer to a ‘sex’ cult, when an article from a cult survivor refers to the cult as heavily anti-sex; and the survivor article didn’t mention an MK-ULTRA connection at all. In any case, from Wikipedia it seems that Assange’s mother was married for three years to a cult member, starting from when Julian was eight. It doesn’t seem likely therefore that he was brought up in a cult, nor that he was significantly influenced by it – unless there’s some detail I’ve missed.

I understand that a lot of people have a lot of baggage they bring to the word “feminist” but just try to put that aside for a moment, because it is irrelevant.

It appears the CIA/other insidious forces are slamming Assange with crap charges in order to get people angry, at him. They’re using rape precisely so we’ll back off from defending Assange. That’s the most anti-feminist thing possible! USING a rape charge for this revenge belittles those who have suffered from rape. The very notion of using a b.s. rape charge to further the imperialist, anti-feminist, anti-human agenda of a superpower is appalling. It’s not feminists who are doing this, I assure you.

So from rape to non-sexual something.

Linda, I agree: well-spoken.

Duncan – very well thanks. Apologies for the satellite delay. Trying to get a wikileaks mirror up, though with no success at present… perhaps I am doing something wrong. Clearly not geeky enough!

Started working from home a few months ago, and it keeps me busy!

You harm Assange’s case and your own credibility with the “Silly little girls” line of argument.

A genuine pity.

I hope you can rethink.