Libs Still Being POSs

In most lib circles (LGM etc) Assange is some evil person. Now, I know the right thinks of him as such, but mainly because they're fascists at heart. But that the libs have fallen for propaganda about the man. And they have not even stopped to think about it because, without evidence, they think he helped Trump win. Riiiight. 
To that end read this interview (original here) that exposes the crimes of the UK, US, & Sweden. The propaganda was clear and present [1] from the start and I called it a long time ago. Something seemed fishy. But of course, libs immediately saw our all too trustworthy (and maybe saw the Swedish stamp and thought those socialists are good right?) CIA etc and decided to believe them:

And Assange becomes the focus of attention instead, and we start talking about whether Assange is skateboarding in the embassy or whether he is feeding his cat correctly. Suddenly, we all know that he is a rapist, a hacker, a spy and a narcissist. But the abuses and war crimes he uncovered fade into the darkness. I also lost my focus, despite my professional experience, which should have led me to be more vigilant.

Remember those rape allegations? Probably picked so that the libs would crumble with their "believe all of them" mantra:

Why would a person be subject to nine years of a preliminary investigation for rape without charges ever having been filed?

Is that unusual?
I have never seen a comparable case. Anyone can trigger a preliminary investigation against anyone else by simply going to the police and accusing the other person of a crime. The Swedish authorities, though, were never interested in testimony from Assange. They intentionally left him in limbo. Just imagine being accused of rape for nine-and-a-half years by an entire state apparatus and by the media without ever being given the chance to defend yourself because no charges had ever been filed.

Which is commendable until you're talking about state actors ffs. So no charges were filed and anyone on the internet who said this was shouted down and even called a rape apologist. 
Not that it was even a charge of rape, that actually came later. But do you expect our journalists to do the work?

Allow me to start at the beginning. I speak fluent Swedish and was thus able to read all of the original documents. I could hardly believe my eyes: According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never even taken place at all. And not only that: The woman’s testimony was later changed by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.

The case is truly nuts. 

«The woman’s testimony was later changed by the police» – how exactly?
On Aug. 20, 2010, a woman named S. W. entered a Stockholm police station together with a second woman named A. A. The first woman, S. W. said she had had consensual sex with Julian Assange, but he had not been wearing a condom. She said she was now concerned that she could be infected with HIV and wanted to know if she could force Assange to take an HIV test. She said she was really worried. The police wrote down her statement and immediately informed public prosecutors. Even before questioning could be completed, S. W. was informed that Assange would be arrested on suspicion of rape. S. W. was shocked and refused to continue with questioning. While still in the police station, she wrote a text message to a friend saying that she didn’t want to incriminate Assange, that she just wanted him to take an HIV test, but the police were apparently interested in «getting their hands on him.»

What does that mean?
S.W. never accused Julian Assange of rape. She declined to participate in further questioning and went home. Nevertheless, two hours later, a headline appeared on the front page of Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian Assange was suspected of having committed two rapes.

Two rapes?
Yes, because there was the second woman, A. A. She didn’t want to press charges either; she had merely accompanied S. W. to the police station. She wasn’t even questioned that day. She later said that Assange had sexually harassed her. I can’t say, of course, whether that is true or not. I can only point to the order of events: A woman walks into a police station. She doesn’t want to file a complaint but wants to demand an HIV test. The police then decide that this could be a case of rape and a matter for public prosecutors. The woman refuses to go along with that version of events and then goes home and writes a friend that it wasn’t her intention, but the police want to «get their hands on» Assange. Two hours later, the case is in the newspaper. As we know today, public prosecutors leaked it to the press – and they did so without even inviting Assange to make a statement. And the second woman, who had allegedly been raped according to the Aug. 20 headline, was only questioned on Aug. 21.

What did the second woman say when she was questioned?
She said that she had made her apartment available to Assange, who was in Sweden for a conference. A small, one-room apartment. When Assange was in the apartment, she came home earlier than planned, but told him it was no problem and that the two of them could sleep in the same bed. That night, they had consensual sex, with a condom. But she said that during sex, Assange had intentionally broken the condom. If that is true, then it is, of course, a sexual offense – so-called «stealthing». But the woman also said that she only later noticed that the condom was broken. That is a contradiction that should absolutely have been clarified. If I don’t notice it, then I cannot know if the other intentionally broke it. Not a single trace of DNA from Assange or A. A. could be detected in the condom that was submitted as evidence.

How did the two women know each other?
They didn’t really know each other. A. A., who was hosting Assange and was serving as his press secretary, had met S. W. at an event where S. W. was wearing a pink cashmere sweater. She apparently knew from Assange that he was interested in a sexual encounter with S. W., because one evening, she received a text message from an acquaintance saying that he knew Assange was staying with her and that he, the acquaintance, would like to contact Assange. A. A. answered: Assange is apparently sleeping at the moment with the “cashmere girl.” The next morning, S. W. spoke with A. A. on the phone and said that she, too, had slept with Assange and was now concerned about having become infected with HIV. This concern was apparently a real one, because S.W. even went to a clinic for consultation. A. A. then suggested: Let’s go to the police – they can force Assange to get an HIV test. The two women, though, didn’t go to the closest police station, but to one quite far away where a friend of A. A.’s works as a policewoman – who then questioned S. W., initially in the presence of A. A., which isn’t proper practice. Up to this point, though, the only problem was at most a lack of professionalism. The willful malevolence of the authorities only became apparent when they immediately disseminated the suspicion of rape via the tabloid press, and did so without questioning A. A. and in contradiction to the statement given by S. W. It also violated a clear ban in Swedish law against releasing the names of alleged victims or perpetrators in sexual offense cases. The case now came to the attention of the chief public prosecutor in the capital city and she suspended the rape investigation some days later with the assessment that while the statements from S. W. were credible, there was no evidence that a crime had been committed.

Basically Sweden played games the entire time with Assange, just to play into the international propaganda that this guy was a crazy nutter etc etc etc. And indeed, this matters. Assange, as a journalist, will be the only one who gets jail time out of all of this. And given that we're still headed towards Neo-feudalism, this does not bode well for any of us:

 People who obtain sensitive information from their governments or companies transfer that information to Wikileaks, but the whistleblower remains anonymous. The reaction shows how great the threat is perceived to be: Four democratic countries joined forces – the U.S., Ecuador, Sweden and the UK – to leverage their power to portray one man as a monster so that he could later be burned at the stake without any outcry. The case is a huge scandal and represents the failure of Western rule of law. If Julian Assange is convicted, it will be a death sentence for freedom of the press.

Read the whole thing. It's fucking dark, people. 

Speaking of war crimes by the west, the whistleblower of the Aussie crimes will be targeted by the law and has been targeted with a bomb. Well that's just swell. Also, I always say that the people at the bottom can't be blamed as much as those at the top (generals etc and other liars who got us into the war), but something like this makes me think. After all, it's clear that with the bomb attack the war is coming home and those SAS members learned nothing but impunity. Learning from their leaders? Well of course, but what does that mean for the pawns in Au who will now be attacked by them (how racist are they, when compared to our soldiers etc). Not an easy discussion to have, tbf. 
[1] This really makes me doubt Zeynep when it comes to geopolitics now. She seems good on things like covid, but the other stuff shows she, like Elliot Ackerman that veteran writer (hey get paid how you need to, I suppose), is either too embedded with the elites in foreign policy or.. well, like Ackerman, I think you know what I mean. She has a whole bit on attacked WL. Now, I'm sure they make mistakes, but given that she has nothing positive to say, I'm guessing she knows how to rise in the ranks or is so embedded with those people she has been morphed into them (same with most veteran writers I know, unfortunately). Note how she also has little to say about US foreign policy and only points to China [2]. This is a courtier, like many others.

[2] and again, some of it, like China, is not false, it's just interesting what she chooses to focus on. (like this work on when we or China knew about the disease is good).
Enjoyed it? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. paypal.me/nlowhim Throw some change in there & help cover the costs of running this thing. You can use paypal or a credit card.