Twitter must die – or stop this filthy secret-sanitisation business

The recently exposed Twitter Shadow-banning fiasco is one of the most recent and obvious manifestations of Twitter’s slump towards irrelevance. The blatant and obviously political, refusal to verify the account of Julian Assange has been another blatant example.

Exactly who is making those farcical decisions at Twitter?  Is it Jack Dorsey?  Has he hired some spineless advisors who are controlling the staff making these ill-conceived, random decisions to ban, limit and censor tweeps?  Is it possible that he’s so scared to death of being hassled by the U.S. government and others, that he is bending over at the first sign of pressure?  What kind of pressure is this?  Is it coming from the government or his wealthy peer group?  Is it some misguided attempt to broaden his user base by appearing family-friendly?  Has someone with serious bucks threatened him with legal action?  Why, in Dog’s name, would he think that banning free-speakers would lead to more users or advertisers?  Newsflash, Jack, without users, you don’t get advertisers.  If you betray your raison d’etre, the very thing that made your platform special, you lose your users.

I suggest that Jack gets this situation under control while he’s still got a business left.  I see a lot of people moving on, in the near future – and not merely those of us who have been so charmingly described, by your bizarrely-out-of-touch staff member, as ‘shitty people’.

I am 100% certain my account is being censored.  It has become apparent that my account is being kept below 1,100 followers.  For at least the last year and a half, my follower count drops to just under the 1,100 mark rapidly, as soon as it reaches around 1,110.  This has happened with monotonous regularity, for at least a year and a half, after a steady climb to that follower count.  I believe that this is evidence that some shameful algorithm kicks in to stop my account developing and my views being heard.  I am certain I am not the only one being subjected to this kind of mechanical muzzling.  I’m not paranoid enough to think I’m that note-worthy so there would be millions of other people having the same hand-brake applied to their public personas.

I am proudly outspoken in relation to Syria and the abuses of the Palestinian people by the apartheid state of Israel and I expose sock-puppet accounts which are being run solely to propagandise.  I believe that this is the reason my account is being censored.

I think it is quite possible that staff at Twitter are actively furthering the apartheid, Hasbara aims of the Israeli government and are actively assisting them in silencing the #BDS movement along with a lot of other view-points the US government considers troublesome.  I have had temporary limitations placed on my principal account and my back-up account, on at least two occasions, as a result of challenging extremely obvious Israeli sock-puppet accounts, the kind that tweet all day and all night, in a manner that suggests that they are either being run by multiple persons, that they’re bots, or that the person controlling them has a serious Adderall addiction.  Obviously the latter is the least likely option, though it would explain some of the quality of the intellectual content.

Screen Shot 2018-01-14 at 07.00.20

Do yourself a favour, Jack. Kick this one to the kerb. (Image courtesy of RT)

It’s disgusting that the public are being defrauded in this way.  We came to Twitter, trusting the platform and believing that our views would be treated equally.  Instead the Thought Police in the Twitter office consign our views down the ‘memory hole’ into oblivion as if they’re worthless.  This filthy business of secret-sanitisation is not only a gross insult to Twitter’s clients, i.e. us.  It’s a major infringement against anyone’s idea of what constitutes free speech.

It’s time for people to vote with their feet and demonstrate to @Jack that Twitter is not as indispensable as he likes to think it is.  Those of us who actually have something meaningful to say came to Twitter for all the reasons it was NOT like Facebook, i.e. because it was a place where one could have a boots-and-all discussion, without feeling like we were in a nanny-state dominated by kitty-pics at a teetotaler’s convention.  It was a place where you could deal with the serious issues and get honest responses to honest statements, whether you wanted to read them or not.  What a great thing that was while it lasted.  Those who wanted to travel in the slow-lane stayed on Facebook.

In Jack’s desperation to protect his investment he has lost sight of the reason for Twitter’s popularity. Without credibility as a free speech platform, Twitter is nought but advertising bots and pictures of Kim Kardashian’s bum.

Wake up, Twitter!  Wake up, Jack. Sack those half-wits you’ve invested with censoring-powers they have clearly demonstrated they are ill-equipped to handle, for reasons of ignorance (political and moral), immaturity or ego.

Is this happening because you’ve allowed your building to get infested with Israeli Hasbara or U.S. government moles?  Is it a pay issue?  Are your inmates a bunch of monkeys because you are only willing to pay peanuts?

Twitter has ‘Block’ and ‘Mute’ options.  You also have options to limit ‘sensitive’ content (oh God).  Exactly how ridiculous do you want to get about this?

I contend that you only have a short window of opportunity in which to fix this before Twitter is scraped into the internet garbage-bin.  Technology moves quickly, as we know, so it’s likely there will be no return.  All the nannies and polite, vanilla-thinkers won’t save you from that.

Jack, stop censoring and limiting exactly the type of out-spoken, opinionated people who made Twitter interesting in the first place.


Daniel Domscheit-Berg – The Man who Sold-out WikiLeaks

The rush is currently on to produce films about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.  Dreamworks have one in pre-production with the working title of ‘The Man who Sold the World’.  Cast members of the film, which is to be directed by Bill Condon (Twilight), include British actor Benedict Cumberbatch, star of the BBC’s ‘Sherlock’ mini-series, who is to play the role of WikiLeaks’ Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, Julian Assange.

The film reportedly draws on two sources:  ‘WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War On Secrecy’  by journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding and ‘Inside WikiLeaks: My Time With Julian Assange at the World’s Most Dangerous Website’, by Daniel Domscheit-Berg.

Daniel Domscheit-Berg

Daniel Domscheit-Berg
– Had trouble keeping his stories straight

As a result of his on-going work with WikiLeaks, Assange is currently a prisoner in the Ecuadorean Embassy under threat of extradition to the United States.  He was forced to take refuge there as a result of a European Arrest Warrant pertaining to politically motivated sexual ‘molestation’ allegations.  The warrant was taken out by Sweden, whose part in this corrupt, legal-moral fiasco, has allowed the U.S. to turn their country into a standing joke.

It is a matter of public record that Domscheit-Berg, a previous WikiLeaks spokesperson in Germany, was ejected from WikiLeaks after causing internal dissension.  He used claims about WikiLeaks documents and other internal WikiLeaks communications, to hold WikiLeaks and Assange to ransom.

I was going to suggest that Domscheit-Berg might be a Salieri to Assange’s Mozart but even Salieri produced some works.  Domscheit-Berg’s contribution to the international record, post-WikiLeaks, has been to sit on the side-lines and try to hoover up some reflected glory whilst smearing a person who, despite his situation, continues to change lives.

And he is changing lives.  He should be given a medal for ‘Services to the American public’ for releasing the ‘Collateral Murder’ video alone.  Americans needed to see that.  I, as a citizen of a country who has a military alliance with the United States, needed to see that.

Domscheit-Berg’s achievements, however, are somewhat less illustrious:

Before leaving WikiLeaks, he stole 3,500 unpublished files, leaked to WikiLeaks by sources, including the complete U.S. no-fly list, five gigabytes of Bank of America documents and detailed information about twenty neo-Nazi groups.  Along with these files, Domscheit-Berg also stole the entire WikiLeaks encrypted submission system to use in his rival site ‘Openleaks’.  The bitchy reason he provided for stealing the files and submission system was that “children shouldn’t play with guns”.  This theft resulted in WikiLeaks being unable to receive on-line leaked document submissions for a year, with the site instead being forced to resort to using a Post Office Box in Australia.

WikiLeaks were forced to waste many months trying to negotiate the return of the stolen unpublished leaks and internal communications.  Domscheit-Berg then tried to blackmail WikiLeaks by threatening to make available, to forces that oppose WikiLeaks, these communications, should WikiLeaks move to charge him with sabotage or theft.  Attempts were made, to negotiate the return of the items, but were terminated by a mediator who had “doubts” about Domscheit-Berg’s “integrity”.

Domscheit-Berg then threatened to destroy the files.  In a ‘Der Spiegel’ interview, Domscheit-Berg said he had the files “shredded to ensure that the sources are not compromised”.  He then later lied to ‘Der Freitag’, ‘’I took no documents from WikiLeaks with me’.  It would appear that Domscheit-Berg is not only an immature and vengeful character, but he has trouble keeping his stories straight.

Domscheit-Berg’s actions would be considered criminal offences in most countries.  The encryption system would most likely also be classed as the “intellectual property” of WikiLeaks.  It appears WikiLeaks would be entitled to sue Domscheit-Berg for its theft as well as claim for financial damages.  How much did he get paid for that book deal?

WikiLeaks clearly made the right decision in kicking this guy to the kerb.  A person with such a demonstrated lack of moral integrity and maturity has no place in an organisation where the stakes, for the whistle-blowers, WikiLeaks members and the general public, are so high.

Regardless of who was at fault, in the relationship between Domscheit-Berg and Assange, the only conceivable explanation for Domscheit-Berg’s actions is revenge.  Given Domscheit-Berg’s own acknowledgement of the importance of WikiLeaks’ task and the information involved, these are clearly the actions of a self-serving narcissist.  These acts more accurately demonstrate the personal failings of a film’s petty, twisted villain, rather than a hero.  It’s going to take a lot of poetic license for any film-maker to frame those facts in any other way.

It appears that Daniel Domscheit-Berg’s only contribution to international government transparency and press freedom, since his departure from WikiLeaks, has been to go trolling around Twitter making silly, unsubstantiated accusations about Assange and WikiLeaks supporters reputedly linking to a “neo-Nazi” site.  Supporters, including myself,  were ominously informed that the request had come from “Berlin”.  He must be of the belief that Berlin is still the seat of authority it was in 1940.  When challenged, the allegations were down-graded to an unsubstantiated claim that the site had displayed ‘neo-Nazi attitudes’.

I believe these harassing Tweets emanated from that ‘Star of stage and screen’, Domscheit-Berg, himself.  They were sent from a pseudonymous account, “Wikinews”.  This account displays a drawing on the profile page with an arrow pointing to Domscheit-Berg’s name.  This account responds directly to questions Tweeted by followers to Domscheit-Berg’s @Openleaks account.

It appears that the allegations were in response to Assange supporters, including myself, re-tweeting links to Swedish News organisation, Rixstep News.  The ‘neo-Nazi’ allegations appeared immediately after Rixstep published a mirth-making article providing excerpts of Domscheit-Berg’s book, with amusing asides commenting on the ‘shite’ contained therein.  Obviously Rixstep had touched a raw nerve.

This apparent concern about neo-Nazism is ironic given the fact that Domscheit-Berg apparently destroyed WikiLeaks documents providing details identifying ‘neo-Nazi’ groups.


Julian Assange – Continues work at the Ecuadorian Embassy despite immense external pressures.
Photograph: Graeme Robertson for the Guardian

Whilst our cinematic hero has been engaging in this idiocy, Julian Assange continues his life’s work from a single room, in the Ecuadorian Embassy, whilst under continued intrusive surveillance from police and Intelligence Agencies.  Among other activities, he has been using his prodigious intelligence to alert the world to the real and present threats to our global autonomy and personal freedoms as a result of misuse of our information systems.  In this area he has taken on the role of educator, producing a book on the subject, ‘Cypherpunks – Freedom and the Future of the Internet’.  The information he provides, both through the written and spoken word, is considered threatening to those who would usurp our power, including the United States and his activities have brought him under increasing pressure from politicians and the government and corporate-controlled Main Stream Media.  In short, he continues to make genuine sacrifices for a cause greater than himself.

His situation is one which would send most people, including myself, howling to the nut-house.  But Assange appears to be holding up well, continuing to network and communicate with an ever-growing group of sympathetic individuals, including prominent public figures, in the international community.

I have been keeping an eye on the ‘Openleaks’ website and Twitter account for signs of life – waiting for evidence of the amazing leaks of information which will show the world that Domscheit-Berg is the wronged hero he’s selling himself as.  It’s been well over a year since ‘Openleaks’ opened for business but still nothing…

But then who, in their right mind, would risk their life or future to leak information to a man who has completely and publically sold-out WikiLeaks and Julian Assange – who has confessed to stealing documents from WikiLeaks and destroying them.

Any attempts by Dreamworks to make Domscheit-Berg into the hero of their film are going to fall flat.  There’s just too much information out there and too many high-profile supporters who know the real story.

You don’t have to be a genius media commentator to know that even members of the public who don’t like Julian Asssange for whatever reason, recognise Domscheit-Berg as a jealous, cowering character, who has had little to do with the massively influential focal point for freedom-fighters, which WikiLeaks has become.

This is a man who did not only sell out WikiLeaks and Julian, he sold out all of us, every one of us who believe that Democracy and Freedom of Speech are in trouble.  And, as any thinking person knows, the threat to Democracy, led by the United States Government and its Intelligence services, is palpable, real and upon us.

For all we know, the proposed title, ‘The man who sold the world’, may end up correctly referring to Domscheit-Berg.  One can only hope that the film-makers have the intelligence and perspective not to waste an opportunity to chronicle an important international development, by producing a B-grade, smearing, fluff-piece.

Maybe Steven Spielberg isn’t that silly after all – to pillory himself with a film that will be looked back on as so completely backing the wrong horse.  I mean, would you want history to refer to you as the guy who made a film backing the Ku Klux Klan against Martin Luther King, or the South African Government against Nelson Mandela?  Does he really want to take that risk?

I have no doubt that, regardless of what happens with the U.S. sealed Espionage indictments and/or the Swedish fiasco, the international influence of Julian Assange will continue to grow and become an even more important part of the historical record.

At the end of the day, WikiLeaks was always Assange’s organisation.  Domscheit-Berg was a bit player who had neither the talent nor drive to achieve what Assange has with the organisation.  His own jealousy and failure to recognise this and get behind Assange, proved his undoing.

Julian Assange and his organisation, WikiLeaks, have never released the identity of a WikiLeaks source, indeed have never sold-out anyone.  A lesser man in his position might have tried to do a deal of some kind to bargain himself out of the position he is in.  Domscheit-Berg, in contrast, stole and apparently destroyed information, provided at great risk, by whistle-blowers and tried to destroy WikiLeaks for reasons of sheer vengeance.  He then sold the story of his treachery, with himself re-framed as the victim and hero, for thirty pieces of silver.

So who is the lesser man of the two?  Events, past and present, clearly demonstrate which one of them is the sell-out.  Let’s hope the film-makers can figure it out.  Meanwhile, I watch the cyber-traffic and wait for Daniel Domscheit-Berg to do something for someone other than himself.

Christmas speech

Julian Assange – Christmas Speech from the Ecuadorian Embassy – 2012

The N.R.A. and friends – How low can you go?

In 2012 there were fifteen mass shootings in the U.S.A., culminating in the most tragic, on December 14, 2012.  On this day, the world learned of the tragic murder of twenty-eight people, including teachers and twenty children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newtown Connecticut.  The killer was twenty year old Adam Lanza, who then turned his Bushmaster XM-15 rifle on himself to avoid apprehension.

This incident resulted in an immediate call to panic stations by a large section of the American population.  What still seems bizarre, however, is that this mass panic did not appear to relate to fears of further incidents of mass murder and mayhem.  The reaction related to fears that that the U.S. Government might finally do something about the free ownership of personal arsenals of automatic and semi-automatic firearms and high-volume magazines by the civilian population.

Firearms and high-capacity magazines have been flying off the shelves, like canned food after a natural disaster.  This “panic-buying” indicates that America’s collective ‘Fight or Flight’ mechanism has kicked in.  But what are they scared of?  Film-maker Michael Moore has opined that American gun owners, who are predominantly white males, really retain their guns to shoot “black” and “poor” people.  So much for the original reason for the creation of the cherished Second Amendment.  Mind you, these avid consumers of deadly toys will never admit it, particularly with a black President in office.

On December 12, a four year old child, in Houston Texas, was left in a critical condition after accidentally shooting himself in the face with a hand-gun his father had left loaded in a nightstand.  I would ask, why did this guy have a loaded gun in his night-stand? Such incidents haven’t prevented long-term N.R.A. toady, attorney Dave Kopel, continuing to argue against safe-storage requirements for firearms.  What a guy.

On December 17, three days after the Sandy Hook massacre, a gun-man started shooting in the Mayan theatre, in San Antonio Texas, but was shot and stopped by a female.  Gun ownership advocates, including the N.R.A., immediately seized on the report, promoting the incident as evidence that a lone, armed citizen saved the day, dropping the gun-man with one shot.  They did this to promote their attempt to avoid gun restrictions by arguing that, instead, schools should have armed guards for protection.

The aspect of the case that they de-emphasised, was the fact that the “citizen” was a trained, experienced, off-duty police officer, who was working as a security guard at the time.  In other words, this was not just some random schmuck who discovered the John Wayne who lives inside every one of us and who was luckily armed and ready to prove that every American is a potential hero, ready to save the day from Terminators, Bin Laden, or whatever other evils hide in the American psyche.   The police officer involved in the incident was highly trained and experienced and used to high-pressure situations but had still only managed to wound the gun-man despite firing four shots.

N.R.A. supporters demonstrate daily that they are equally willing to prostitute the truth.  I was amused recently by a website which promotes natural medicine and related therapies and products.  Since the Sandy Hook massacre this site has been pulling out all stops to aggressively promote gun ownership and to attack supporters of new legislative constraints.  The site’s owners do not appear to recognise the inconsistency in these two spheres of interest.

The owner of said website recently expressed his indignation about the fact that his facebook account had been temporarily suspended due to a quote posted on it from, get this, Mahatma Gandhi.  This quote related to Indian people retaining their guns under British Colonial rule.  As if the champion of passive resistance would condone a bunch of selfish white Americans, under no such threat, using the murders of twenty children to hang onto their personal arsenal of lethal toys.  As if, for one second, the guy who runs said natural medicine website, would ever protest against anything other than sales tax on his products or someone taking his guns away.

This is one of thousands of examples of manipulative, farcical Tweets on the topic.  Film-maker Michael Moore is subjected to a daily torrent of abuse, on social media and elsewhere, as a result of his brave and vocal stance in favour of tighter gun laws, including limiting sales to seven round capacity magazines.  He has even gone so far as to Tweet, “I would repeal the Second Amendment”.  I could practically hear the howls of pain and horror, from Down-under then read the responses accusing Moore of being a Marxist, chicken-shit etc.

The usual chestnut constantly thrown at him (and me) is along the lines of “cars kill people, why not ban cars”.  Well kids, based on data compiled by Bloomberg, by 2015 firearm fatalities will probably exceed traffic fatalities for the first time.  And this is despite the vastly greater car ownership numbers.  So much for that argument.

My personal favourite, in the Tweet Hall of Shame, was sent a few days ago by a Texan woman.  Said Tweet was in response to an ‘Anonymous’ account holder’s Tweet sadly informing Followers that the Indian bus gang-rape victim had died.  The Texan woman immediately tweeted “Someone with a gun could have stopped this”, followed by the nurturing comment, “Stay armed…stay safe.”  I guess one woman’s tragedy is another woman’s opportunity.  If I could have reached through my computer and wrung her neck, I would have.  See, violence does beget violence.

This idiocy makes me wonder if America is suffering from a mass, progressive form of mental-illness.  One genius, Republican Kyle Kacal, even stated “ping-pongs are more dangerous than guns”.  What’s more disturbing is that people elected this creature.  What a coincidence – he’s also a Texan.  The inescapable conclusion that one must come to is that Americans do not value the lives of American children as much as they value their gun collections.  That is a frightening indication of the most extreme form of narcissism, maybe even Sociopathic tendencies.

Strangely the level of indignant anger and fear, held by gun-obsessed Americans, appears to be grossly disproportionate to their reaction to the National Defence Authorization Act 2013, which confirms the government’s rights to indefinitely incarcerate American Citizens.  Nor do these same gun-totin’ patriots appear to have much interest in their First Amendment rights.  Clearly Indefinite Detention and Freedom of Speech are vague and uninspiring concepts, compared with the definitive pleasure of cold steel in your hands.

An hillarious example of this dicotomy is the current attempt, by 100,000 guardians of the U.S. Constitution, who have signed a petition calling for the deportation of British journalist and CNN host, Piers Morgan.  Morgan rightly called Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners for America, a ‘dangerous’, ‘unbelievably stupid man’ for advocating more gun ownership to solve America’s mass-murder problem.  The White House petition accuses him of undermining ‘the rights of Americans’ and ‘a hostile attack on the U.S. Constitution’.

These people might start showing an interest in the First Amendment if someone starts interfering with their Christian fundamentalist ‘snake dancing’ or church ‘fag-hating’ activities, but until then it’s a case of, “We don’t care about THAT amendment, we like the other one – the one with guns!”  Mind you, gun-owners don’t mind exercising their free speech rights in response to Morgan.  For example:  “All this multiple assault weapon owner has to say is Get your Brit bitch ass out of OUR Country!”  That Tweeter was also from Texas – remind me never to go there.  I guess the Texan love affair with guns probably goes back to the time when the murder of JFK really put them on the map.

The United States Government takes care to ensure that the public are not made aware of the real effects of gun ownership on the health and longevity of Americans.  Since 1996 Congress has forbidden the CDC from funding studies in relation to these issues. The ban now extends to the entire Department of Health and Human Services. (Source: Huffington Post).  This isn’t surprising when you consider that American firearm and ammunition manufacturers earned nearly $1 billion in profits last year.

Gun ownership advocates are not above hiding information and statistics to protect their interests and it appears the Wall Street Journal are not above printing said falsified information to protect the big end of town.  On December 26, 2012  they carried a story, by Joyce Malcolm, warning readers not to follow the examples of Australia and the U.K. She states, “Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres”.  Newsflash, Joyce, Australia has not had a mass murder since 1996, when semi-automatic weapons were banned.  Further statistics I have sourced from the Australian Institute of Criminology’s (AIC) annual report into crime trends, released on 4 March 2012, indicate that crime rates in Australia have continued to fall across most major categories.  Pertinent to the date of Australia’s 1996 law changes, the report indicates that there has been a 27 per cent drop in the number of homicides between 1996 and 2010, with a drop of 11 per cent between 2009 and 2010.  The study further confirmed that only 13 percent of these homicides were committed with guns, with 39 percent apparently committed with knives.  I would add that, though each death is a tragedy, it’s not easy to kill commit a mass murder with a knife.

Joyce Malcolm further cautions us that, in 2008, there was a twenty percent increase in the number of sexual assaults in Australia.  What point is she making there – that if you take a man’s gun away you make him into a rapist?  Statistics obtained from the Australian Institute of Criminology also indicate that rates of sexual assaults in Australia have actually been decreasing since 2008, by approximately four percent per year.  Not to mention that, in 2010, the number of victims of Robbery was the lowest since 1996, when the gun laws were changed.

Conclusion:  There is no evidence that tighter gun laws have resulted in increases in other  crimes, regardless of what ‘Double-think’ is applied – as if this could EVER be a logical development.  Statistics do, however, suggest that Australia IS a safer place as a result of the changes.

The information presented about Australia was clearly erroneous and misleading or at the very least, outdated and misrepresented.  Ms. Malcolm’s other literary works indicate clearly which side she bats for.  One could be charitable and say that the article is based on old information, though I believe Ms. Malcolm’s personal agenda has affected her findings.  I wonder how, with good conscience, the Wall Street Journal can present an article like this without verifying currency and accuracy .

Gun globe

Cartoon by David Klein

This cartoon, by David Klein, accompanied the Wall Street Journal article.  The meaning is pretty definitive.  Those places to the left and right aren’t countries at all. They’re just places without guns, unlike the good old gun-totin’ USA, which still deserves a flag.  


Meanwhile, back in the real world, the situation is this:  The number of bodies, both in America and as a result of drone-bombing, continues to grow.  Civilian arsenals also continue to grow, whilst levels of mental health decline.

Michael Moore and others valiantly continue to try to raise awareness of the demons living in the American psyche and to convince Americans that there might be another way to live, a way which doesn’t involve murder and paranoia.  Despite what many fear, people like Moore and Morgan are not trying to rob Americans of their ‘man-brand’.  They are trying to stop the United Sates from dissolving into civil war in a moral environment where war is a continuous state of normality, where piles of dead bodies are acceptable, even if they are the bodies of children.

They are trying to snap back to moral reality, countrymen who are numb to these frequent wars and deaths and who are possessed of a paranoid, self-centred view-point, fuelled by government after government who reinforce a belief that ‘might is right’, ‘the ends justify the means’ and ‘the goods guys always win’.  Any chance that the majority of Americans can break out of this Hollywood-Disney mind-set, is stunted by a patriotic, mindless belief in their institutions of power, as influenced by a partisan media, which protects them, all the while, from a nagging suspicion, like a flea biting just behind the left ear that, ‘maybe this time, we’re not the good guys’.

Many Americans don’t feel the need to own personal arsenals but are unwillingly to speak against the Second Amendment.  I would say this to them:  You may look at your gun-owning fellow Americans and ask yourself, “Are these people just a bunch of gun-perves and wanna be ‘he –men’, or are they something more sinister”.  As the communities of Sandy Hook, Connecticut and Columbine, Colorado, have sadly discovered, you’ll never know until it’s too late.

For the first time, I feel relieved about the size of the Pacific Ocean and the fact that we’re on the opposite side of it.  I know there are lots of great and brilliant American people who are fighting for what is right and moral in the world, including gun-control, freedom of speech, the closure of Guantanamo Bay and an end to drone-bombing, but I know they’re pushing it up a hill and I don’t envy them.

The disinterest in the lives of one’s countrymen, women and children, exhibited by the N.R.A. and their supporters, demonstrates the worst excesses of the American “Me” generation, something of which the rest of the Western world are admittedly also guilty.  Perhaps we fellow citizens of the West should look at the American journey as a cautionary tale and take action to limit the same developments in our own countries.  We’re possessed of the same drives and fears as Americans.  John Milius, quoting Lincoln in his script for ‘Apocalyse Now’, a film about the corruption of well-intentioned power, reminds us:  “the better angels of our nature do not always prevail”.  Maybe, with the continued efforts of good people like Michael Moore, the ‘better angels’ of the American psyche may begin to have a fighting chance.  In the mean-time maybe the Pacific Ocean really isn’t big enough.

Welfare Check – Where are the women in the Assange ‘molestation’ case?

Is Sofia Wilen getting the Lewinsky treatment?

There has been much to-ing and fro-ing in the Mainstream and Social Media in the months since Julian Assange’s unsuccessful defence against Swedish extradition, in relation to the allegations of sexual ‘molestation’ and the subsequent granting of political asylum by Ecuadore.

It has been over six months since the fateful decision by the British courts,  a decision which must have elicited whoops and chuckles from various forms of cubical life in the F.B.I. and other ‘Corridors of Power’ in the U.S. Intelligence community.

Blue shirt

Julian Assange
– Speech from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy

And we all know the F.B.I. are gagging to get their hands on Julian Assange.  You don’t have a 42,000 page case file and ‘sealed indictments’ in relation to someone you’re not interested in, despite what Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bob Carr, has been wheeled out and told to say.

So where are the alleged victims of the sexual molestation allegations?  It is highly improbable that both women could simply have dropped off the face of the earth, without the assistance of authorities and without a living-soul being able to verify their whereabouts.

I must mention that I use the names of the alleged victims as they are well known because they were promptly leaked by the Swedish Police at the beginning of the Investigation, something which would never have occured in any country with half-decent legal principles.

As Anna Ardin appears to have been the instigator of the whole situation, one can only assume that she is still “on board” with the Swedish Prosecution, though this has not been verified.  And what of Sofia Wilen, the woman who is generally believed to have been rail-roaded by the Swedish Prosecutors and Police.  Sofia Wilen who commenced back-pedalling even before her initial statement was signed, to the point where she became extremely distressed and refused to sign said statement?  Where is she now?

One hypothesis is that she is being kept incommunicado by the F.B.I., or some other faceless U.S. Government entity, in some ‘gilded-cage’-style safe-house, either in Sweden or somewhere else, possibly even the U.S.A.  Presumably the F.B.I. would be able to keep a better eye on her there and keep her quiet.  She may even be held under some form of legal or physical duress.  That duress may consist of some combination of the ‘carrot and the stick’ approach – possibly legal threats combined with offers of financial or legal assistance or even a promise of employment.

While these concerns may appear fanciful, it is worth remembering that American political figures have form for treating women this way to achieve political ends.  Remember Monica Lewinski, the White House Intern who had a consensual sexual relationship with President Bill Clinton?  Lewinski provided a ghost-written, biographical account of an eight hour interrogation, by Republican Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and his cronies, during which she was kept prisoner, held incommunicado and cross-examined  until she agreed to provide grand jury testimony, against Clinton, in return for immunity in relation to the making of a false statement denying the sexual liaison.  Monica Lewinski’s only involvement in the whole political mess was to have consensual sex with a man to whom she was attracted – a man who was being targetted by political adversaries.  Sound familiar?

Is the same thing, or part thereof, happening to Sofia Wilen?  If it’s not the case, where is she?  Has she been threatened, in the nicest possible way, with charges in relation to the making of a false statement if she speaks out against the Prosecution?  Has she been the subject of promises of a rosey future, possibly in the U.S.A.?   Is she simply being kept away from the media and anyone else, so that she can’t trumpet her unwillingness to take part in this quasi-legal fiasco and bring the whole thing crashing down?


Sofia Wilen
– Felt ‘Rail-roaded’ by Swedish Police

Her complete disappearance is suspicious and telling.  If she’s not still being rail-roaded and has not already stated an unwillingness to testify, where is she?  Cough her up so that her welfare can be verified.  No Assange supporter wants to harass her.  In fact, I believe that she would receive universal support if she stated publicly what we already believe, that she wanted no part in this soap opera.

Show us that she is still a willing participant in this.

This is how events will probably pan out:

The two women will be kept under wraps until Assange is safely in custody in Sweden.  Until that time neither of them will be seen, except possibly from a distance.  This will particularly be the case with Sofia Wilen, who would almost certainly, particularly if offered the proper support, attest to the fact that she wants nothing to do with the Swedish Prosecution and affirm the fact that she was ‘rail-roaded’ into taking part in the investigation from the start.  Her testimony, or the lack thereof, along with the paucity and lack of credibility of other ‘evidence’ will no doubt result in the collapse of any subsequent charges.

That is, of course, if any charges are even laid.  Obviously the Swedish Police know they’ve got no case or this would already have occurred.   No matter to the F.B.I. either way.  For they will be in the happy position of being able to organise Assange’s extradition directly from Sweden, at their convenience.  They will have this luxury regardless of whether or not  charges are laid.  Once Assange is safely in custody in Sweden, they don’t have to give a crap what Sofia Wilen says.  She can shout from the roof-tops that she was a legal pawn who was dragged into this mess against her will and it won’t matter because the real aim will have been accomplished.

No doubt both Ardin and Wilen have been told by Claes Borgstrom, their legal representative, not to say anything.  An incidental issue which needs to be raised and a question which I haven’t heard asked previously is “Why would a witness reporting a crime to police need to immediately lawyer-up, anyway?”  The speed at which this occurred has to be a record for two alleged assault victims.  This is normally the behaviour of white-collar, corporate crime “witnesses” in need of early arse-covering strategies.  I guess this political band-wagon was too tasty for Borgstrom to let pass by.  No doubt this was discussed, early in the piece, by Borgstrom and his old friend, Prosecutor Marianne Ny, when they first commenced hatching their plans to use the investigation as a career-enhancement strategy.

Borg 2

Claes Borgstrom – Politically Motivated

At the end of the day, one of the people who is in a position to verbally expose this cynical legal joke is Sofia Wilen.  No doubt she has been manipulated by the Swedish Prosecutors and Claes Borgstrom to believe that they represent her interests.  Clearly this is not the case or the Swedish Prosecution would have got their butts on a plane to London to interview Assange, to expedite the investigation, regardless of who they say is to blame for the delay.  How long’s the plane trip – an hour and a half with a head-wind?

Prove to the world that Sofia Wilen is not under duress.  Allow her to have a voice.  And if she wants to say, “I don’t want a bar of this”, then that’s her right, too and the Swedish Prosecution have no legal right to do a damn thing to stop her.