This was originally an update to our discussion thread on Julian Assange’s arrest and “trial”, but as that post was two days old many readers seemed to miss the updated information. In light of that, we decided it was better suited to a separate article.
Some are calling it the “trial of the century” but, to this point, it seems more a piece of badly-staged political theatre. Day 3 of Assange’s trial closes, and so far it’s painting a grim picture of the British legal system.
Anybody interested in a detailed run-down of each day of the Julian Assange’strial, Craig Murray has been attending and writing up reports on a day-by-day basis. They make interesting reading.
Day 1 saw something perverse taking place, an acknowledgement that this is a piece of performance art as much as a trial:
James Lewis QC made the opening statement for the prosecution. It consisted of two parts, both equally extraordinary. The first and longest part was truly remarkable for containing no legal argument, and for being addressed not to the magistrate but to the media. It is not just that it was obvious that is where his remarks were aimed, he actually stated on two occasions during his opening statement that he was addressing the media, once repeating a sentence and saying specifically that he was repeating it again because it was important that the media got it.
Along with examples of the mainstream media totally failing in their public duty…again:
There was a separate media entrance and a media room with live transmission from the courtroom, and there were so many scores of media I thought I could relax and not worry as the basic facts would be widely reported. In fact, I could not have been more wrong. I followed the arguments very clearly every minute of the day, and not a single one of the most important facts and arguments today has been reported anywhere in the mainstream media.
Day 2 saw the defence protesting Assange’s treatment in prison,
Day 2 proceedings had started with a statement from Edward Fitzgerald, Assange’s QC, that shook us rudely into life. He stated that yesterday, on the first day of trial, Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings.
Which lead to a classic example Judicial bias when the defense asked the Magistrate Vanessa Baraitser to intercede with the prison on Assange’s behalf:
Baraitser flat-out denied any knowledge of such a practice, and stated that Fitzgerald should present her with written arguments setting out the case law on jurisdiction over prison conditions. This was too much even for prosecution counsel James Lewis, who stood up to say the prosecution would also want Assange to have a fair hearing, and that he could confirm that what the defence were suggesting was normal practice. Even then, Baraitser still refused to intervene with the prison.
And another addition to the ever-growing pile of evidence that Assange doesn’t stand a chance:
Then, to wrap up proceedings, Baraitser dropped a massive bombshell. She stated that although Article 4.1 of the US/UK Extradition Treaty forbade political extraditions, this was only in the Treaty. That exemption does not appear in the UK Extradition Act. On the face of it therefore political extradition is not illegal in the UK, as the Treaty has no legal force on the Court.
You can’t help but agree when he concludes:
There were moments today when I got drawn into the court process and achieved the suspension of disbelief you might do in theatre, and began thinking “Wow, this case is going well for Assange”. Then an event such as those recounted above kicks in, a coldness grips your heart, and you recall there is no jury here to be convinced. I simply do not believe that anything said or proved in the courtroom can have an impact on the final verdict of this court.
You can read Craig’s full, detailed reports on his blog. He has requested they be shared as widely as possible.
We would also recommend following Kevin Gosztola from Shadow of Proof, he has been live-tweeting updates (here’s his thread summarising Day 3) and Christine Assange, Julian’s mother.
For direct-transfer bank details click here.
I hadn’t looked very closely at Ethan McCord but what he says in the video, WikiLeaks’ Collateral Murder: U.S. Soldier Ethan McCord, where Ethan addresses the United National Peace Conference, July 23-25, 2010 provides another angle supporting the hypothesis that Collateral Murder is a fake.
At 4:26 he says about his platoon’s setting off for door knocking to check for weapons in the early morning:
“You could get caught up in the silence if you weren’t so afraid of being shot in the throat or in the thigh by a sniper. Snipers usually went for these areas because they were unprotected. The throat for obvious reasons and the thigh for your femoral artery. Many of us usually walked with the butts stuck up our M4s close to our neck for an almost futile attempt at protecting ourselves.”
Then at 5:14 he says:
“The hours passed at doing this and we were finding absolutely nothing, getting extremely hot and agitated. Some of us began messing around taking pictures because there was nothing else to do … We started funnelling into an alleyway to leave the area when some locals on rooftops above us started firing their AK47s at us … we could hear other fire coming from another platoon just a few blocks from us as well. On the net we could hear that they were taking small arms as well as RPG fire.”
1. As I say, they always give us the clues, and one type is misspeaking. Of course, misspeaking happens naturally so it is up to the individual to decide whether the misspeaking is natural or deliberate. In the following case I say deliberate but, of course, you may say natural:
When Ethan says “the butts stuck up our M4s close to our neck” he surely means “the butts of our M4s stuck up close to our necks”.
2. The expression of extreme caution in relation to snipers followed by saying that they started messing around taking pictures doesn’t make sense.
3. “… getting extremely hot and agitated”. Why agitated? Were they frustrated at not finding weapons in homes? Perhaps bored but agitated?
4. “… nothing else to do?” If they’d done all the searching they needed to do why would they hang out in an unprotected area?
5. So Ethan’s crew were being fired on from rooftops and another platoon was firing and receiving fire but all of this escaped the Apaches’ attention. They were focused on guys with cameras? And the two ground crews were oblivious to the Apaches?
6. I don’t know what is referred to by “On the net we could hear that they were taking small arms as well as RPG fire”. Ethan seems to say prior to this that they could hear fire FROM another platoon but on the net heard they were TAKING fire from small arms and RPGs (that is, from Iraqis). Wouldn’t Ethan’s crew hear both the fire from the other platoon and the fire they were receiving from small arms and RPGs in real life – why would they only be hearing the fire the other platoon was taking from the net? Perhaps someone can explain.
7. So they’re hearing stuff “on the net” but they’re not in communication with the Apaches?
8. And then there is, of course, the $64 million dollar question. If they were in an allegedly unprotected area where they felt in danger why on earth weren’t they in contact with the Apache helicopters. Could anything make less sense than that?
Apologies, wrong YouTube link. This is it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kelmEZe8whI&list=PLmtCQX-bqrMPUFCOrzqjjEwrIHB9vw9O8
I’m mystified at why it is so difficult for me to get a meme going that Chelsea Manning is an intelligence asset and Collateral Murder is faked.
I know there are a million things wrong with what’s happening to Julian, however, I think that the propagation of the simple truth of Chelsea being an agent and the video being faked would help his case and I know many OffGers would like to help Julian.
What I don’t understand about OffGers attitude towards my claim:
— Hypothetically, do OffGers think it doesn’t make much difference whether or not Chelsea is an agent or whether the video is fake or not? Do OffGers think it doesn’t really matter so not worth discussing? Is this why there is mostly silence on the topic. While there are a a number of people downvoting/showing derision, someone expressing apoplectic rage, and another making an unsupported claim, most OffGers are simply silent. They don’t express opposition to my claim with an argument against my evidence but nor do they chime in with support.
— If OffGers believe that Chelsea isn’t an agent and Collateral Murder isn’t faked then why aren’t you telling me what is wrong with the evidence I present for Chelsea taken from the Wikipedia entry (which references media stories), the interview she has with Juju Chang on Nightline and the feting of her with MSM glamorous photo shoots (such very different treatment from that that Julian’s receiving) and the analysis I present of the video which indicates that the audio track is snippets of genuine audio stitched together over faked footage. Why aren’t you telling me what’s wrong with my claim? And if you think my claim is sound why no chiming in?
Do OffGers think it would make no difference to Julian’s case whether or not Chelsea is an agent and Collateral Murder is faked and thus this is why there is no discussion of the matter?
Those who express opposition to my claim do not present a rational argument to back up their opposition which suggests they are completely seduced by and wedded to the belief that Chelsea is a sister-in-arms with Julian and a brave whistleblower. Unfortunately, the power elite understand the kinds of people who will seduce us: we see the “brave whistleblower” everywhere. We need to understand that the power elite understand exactly the kinds of people who we tend to admire and support and they will supply simulations of those people to us. We need to be very wary of this kind of seduction and becoming attached to it. Attachment to belief is antithetical to truth and when we are attached to our beliefs rational argument flies out the window.
Of course, if people think it doesn’t make much difference one way or another I’m happy to shut up. I thought perhaps it wouldn’t but when I watched a video about what happened on the second day of the hearing, Chelsea’s name was mentioned and it seemed as though she plays a reasonably significant role in the case which suggests that it is important to be clear on whether or not she’s an agent and the video is faked.
Four downvotes, no argument.
I’m not brave – if I were I would’ve pushed so much harder for the truth about Chelsea and Collateral Murder. I was brought up to believe that thinking like others and groupthink are virtual crimes so while I certainly don’t like the flak I receive I know that it simply reflects hostility emanating from a challenge to beliefs. I do have to say that it does surprise me though how attached to beliefs people are and how much hostility is produced as a result of it.
Every picture tells a story, and I will deal with the sketch at the top of this article first. We all have an innate ability to read body language and physiognomy – though oftentimes we may be wrong (for which we should be grateful). I just found the quote (by St. Jerome apparently): “The face is the mirror of the mind, and eyes without speaking confess the secrets of the heart”.
What does the body language and facial expression say about Judge Baraitser? It says to me that she is not fully in control, is quite out of her depth. There is both fear and worry in her posture and I would almost feel sorry for her if I did not know the context of the sketch. (But what do I know?).
Dealing with the other sketches atop the 2 latest OffG articles, I am confused about Julian’s beard. Has it grown overnight or maybe its a part of a disguise to frighten and confuse the poor judge?
“What does the body language and facial expression say about Judge Baraitser?”
It’s an artist’s rendition. He may be trying to emulate an “objective” reporter, he may not.
Julian may have perceived a domineering, vicious kunt.
P.S. Baraitser is a lowly District Court Judge, which is about as far down the kick tree as one can get, having only barristers, solicitors and their clients left to kick down to. In the order of things she kisses up to Arbuthnot, who is the Chief Magistrate and the Senior District Judge, who seems not to have recused herself from hearing the Assange case but has merely delegated the role to Baraitser, whom she formally “leads” (kicks down to). In other words, in the matter of Julian Assange’s Extradition hearing, Baraitser is what would be popularly termed “Arbuthnot’s bitch”.
The wife of an American embassy employee can run over and kill a Brit, yet nothing is really done to extradite that killer back to stand trial, while Assange gets tortured to death for exposing American war crimes.
Warnings from the Deep State. Expose our crimes and you’ll either rot in prison or get shot in the back and killed, like Seth Rich.
As it ever was-Crazy Horse got it the back, too.
The fact that filth like Tony Blair can amass vast wealth for ‘services rendered’ and spend not one day in jail, while Julian Assange goes thru this vengeance based show trial, and that so many ‘polite’ and ‘values based’ citizens of the West say nothing and do nothing and many actually approve of what is taking place sickens me. Completely shameful.
I have no legal background but you keep hearing reference to international law does it exist or just a convenient phrase for something that doesn’t but should.
It amuses me that Chomsky is often accused of being an anarchist and in a way they are right in that an anarchist believes that there should be an international law that covers everybody even if you are “exceptional”.
One learns today that it was the Guardian that was responsible for putting informants lives at risk so really it should be their editor facing extradition to a closed court in America.
Reading all that is going on, the term that comes to mind is that this is a British judicial lynching and that whatever is said will make no difference to the final outcome and that Assange will be sent to an American closed court with a carefully selected jury.
Quite rightly many countries like America and Russia and many others will not allow their citizens to be carted off to other countries. Okay Assange is Australian but I am surprised by the lack of involvement of his country, he appears to have the same rights as if he was stateless. Even terrorists or those who have documented war crimes have better recourse to the law than Assange.
Then there was the recent case involving Judge Baraitser where she allowed two Indians to stay in this country who were accused of murdering a child. Are Assanges so called crimes so much worse or is a USUK trade deal worth so much more?
I am ashamed for where British justice now stands and the scales of justice above the Old Bailey should now be heavily tilted towards injustice.
There is NO such thing as ‘British justice’. There is ruling elite power, and various sham facades to hide its operation.
“I have no legal background but you keep hearing reference to international law does it exist or just a convenient phrase for something that doesn’t but should.”
It is something that has been trying to exist for a very long time. Some would say very trying.
I don’t know if this will work here. If it doesn’t and you have Facebook, go watch it there, it is well worth the while:
It works. George’s Facebook page (or whatever it’s called) is public.
What I meant by “I don’t know if this will work here.” was that I didn’t know if the actual video would show up here. It didn’t, therefore it didn’t work in the sense I explained in my first sentence. 🙂
“What I meant by “I don’t know if this will work here.” was that I didn’t know if the actual video would show up here.”
“Actual videos” do or do not show up, according to the current beat state of the juju on. If they don’t show up then it seems that the link they would have shown up on shows up instead. Facebook, YouTube, whatever…
Today the Guardian repeated another lie about Assange’s reasons for seeking refuge in the Ecaudorian embassy.
“He did so to avoid extradition to Sweden over sexual assault allegations.”
That isn’t true. In fact he wanted the case in Sweden resolved. What he was afraid of was that Sweden would hand him over to the Americans once he was in Sweden and isolated from his supporters. Pointedly, the Swedes refused to assure Assange that they wouldn’t extradite him to the US and bow to American demands for his head on a silver platter.
The Guardian is such den of fucking liars. It’s like they breed them and nuture them. What a bunch of swine they are.
Your Man in the Public Gallery – The Assange Hearing Day 3
James Lewis QC in action (different case, same silk):
‘Can’t participate, can’t communicate’: Day 3 of Assange’s US extradition hearing as it happened
Debunking The Smear That Assange Recklessly Published Unredacted Documents
AUTHOR: CAITLIN JOHNSTONE
Regarding the Magistrates claim that the extradition treaty differs from the UK Act, it should make no difference since the Primary legislation of the Act does not conflict with the treaty even if it is silent. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is an international agreement regulating treaties between states.The VCLT is considered a codification of customary international law and state practice concerning treaties.
The Hague regulations are not, however the customary international law of the Hague regulations will be interpreted as part of UK law provided that it is not in conflict with any law not already on the statute books. In Chung Chi Cheng V the King (1939) AC160 Lord Atkin stated that when faced with a customary rule “UK courts will treat it as incorporated into the domestic law, so far as it is not inconsistent with rules enacted by statutes or finally declared by their tribunals.” It has been said that when interpreting customary international law, something more than an opinion in a textbook would be required in order for a judgement to be made. That such a rule will not be applied in the face of conflicting primary legislation.
There is no CONFLICTING primary legislation.
“Regarding the Magistrates claim that the extradition treaty differs from the UK Act, it should make no difference since the Primary legislation of the Act does not conflict with the treaty even if it is silent. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is an international agreement regulating treaties between states.”
However, the fact that the provision in the relevant Acts prior to 2003 was conspicuously absent from the superseding 2003 Act is what has given Baraitser her (so to speak) opinion that that putatively intentional omission renders the 2007 Treaty irrelevant, so that is the argument that must be conclusively quashed.
As Harry Stotle begins to say below: the real travesty is that it is the abnegated and alienated powers of the British People that are being used here to strip, torture, and dehumanise an innocent man. The UK is still a Common Law Jurisdiction – which has been usurped toward some sort of statute biased Civil Law Jurisdiction – by the successive abuse of the jural power of the People being used against the People.
Largely, with the covenant of consensual legitimisation of the People, by the People. In that we/they – 31 million of us – voted to legitimate this farce not two months ago. And handed our abnegated powers to the prosecution to prosecute Julian in our name. Which in a collective act of cultural amnesis: we promptly not only forget …but create a discursive trail of procedural silencing and personal innocence that separates the People from the State, Judiciary, and administrative Bureaucracies we had no part in legitimating. Which is the unconscious action of a People setting out to voluntarily dehumanise even themselves …by proxy and in actuality. All that power is a convenient windfall for the State: as the co-consensual representative of the hegemonic hierarchical authority of
the Peoplethe transcendent neoliberal corporate power structure that has absorbed the power of the People. To become incorporated juridical People (statist and corporate personhood) of a transcendent supra-state.
They do not even have to extract their authoritative power with violence. The People can’t wait to give it away. Or be stopped to think about what they are doing.
Which is why it is a reflexive and habituated unconscious collectivist action – because there exists no obvious causal linkage between the vote which co-constitutes the State or Transcendent (Transnational) Supra-State (TNS – from which the Judiciary is self-evidently NOT separated or acting as a democratic check and balance of autocratic Statist power …ergo: there is neither democracy or an independent judiciary). Which is largely because the People do not want one. The residual exercise of the freedom of the People is to create imaginary free men (which is a patrilineal descent) who have no linkage whatsoever to the actions of the State, the TNS Corporatocracy, or the neolib/neocon Imperium that is nothing but the congealment of their/our own alienated powers.
Which very few want to make the connection or develop a critical theory thereof. And such structural theories as there are are repudiated …”It’s not us, it’s them” goes the circular causality of an ever deepening depersonalisation and dehumanisation People …for the People by the People. Whose fictionalising unconsciousness is the sole source of the ideological superstructure’s Imperium …which is dialectically weakened in direct inverse proportion to the Imperium’s power over us. It is a negative dialectical race to the bottom with no winner’s. Which virtually no one takes any account of.
But boy, can we moan about the economic and judicial injustice …as we discursively distance ourselves in imaginary protest at the source of the law we take to be anything but us. One day the People might remember the source of the law is the People. And if they so deem: they can absolve the usurping power of Statute and Parliamentarian Civil Law …try Tony Blair in his own US-style Supreme Court (without the right to a trial by jury) …and put the war criminals behind bars for life (as Magistrate or Judge sitting alone) …not those who tried to expose them.
But probably not in my lifetime. The People are too busy making fake realities of personalising absolvement – upholding a tacit supranational compact of silence- to remember who the People are. Judicial power is ours: one day we might take it back. Not soon enough for Julian, though.
The mere existence of such a court operating in this manner is a mark of historical shame to the British justice system.
It is also a historical shame to all Western Democracies (a.k.a. US allies) for turning a blind eye to the abuse of process. A process that started with the persecution of a hero by the Swedish justice.
Not shame at all-just the system operating as it ALWAYS does. Protecting the genocidaires while hounding, remorselessly, anyone who dares to tell the truth. We are all Palestinians, now and always.
Craig was in good form this morning. Just before queuing to get in the courtroom on Day 4 (today) he posted his Day 3 account. With Assange in a bullet proof cage, unable to communicate with his lawyers, even the prosecution took issue with Baraitser on the matter. Clearly dismayed at the absurdity of her arguments, Prosecution Counsel James Lewis, looked at the judge,:
“… like a kindly uncle whose favourite niece has just started drinking tequila from the bottle at a family party …”
I recommend putting a few quid at the bookies on the judge becoming ‘Lady’ Baraitser as soon as she has packed Julian off to meet his fate in the USA.
I honestly never thought British justice could sink so low.
Baraitser started to throw out jargon like a Dalek when it spins out of control. “Risk assessment” and “health and safety” featured a lot. She started to resemble something worse than a Dalek, a particularly stupid local government officer of a very low grade. “No jurisdiction” – “Up to Group 4”.
From todays post by Craig Murray, on which Clive P comments on the absurdity of Baraitsers claim that the defendant couldn’t sit with his lawyer – as Clive was allowed from day 1.
Mr. Baraitser to his wife: “How was Julian today?”.
Judge Baraitser: “Not very well…”
Mr. Baraitser: “Why was that dear?”
Judge Baraitser: “I exterminated him. Put him in the curry.”
Applause Hugh superb Spike Milligan Q quote 🤣
Washington’s satraps don’t do self respect.
bernard has pulled it all together too for links.
The hanging judges and those behind the scenes instructing them have always been able to rely on the monumental naivety of the British electorate (the same way they can in the USA).
Lets be clear, the road to the kangaroo court at Belmarsh pretending to conduct an impartial trial is drenched in the blood of over a million Iraqis, Afghanis, Libyians, Syrians, Yemenese and Palestinians.
All along politician have lied about their motives for invading country after country while at no point has the MSM made any serious effort to analyse or explain why the west’s policy of brute military force is both illegal and littered with egregious humans rights abuses.
Quite the opposite – the MSM embodies the dark heart of the west’s totalitarianism system, and can always be relied on to sanitise endless atrocities while neutralising any journalist or politician who poses even the most feeble threat to those who now exert such monumental power.
It is all too apparent that the MSM has become an extension of the intelligence community (at least on geopolitical issues) while politicians no longer have to even pretend that truth matters, in fact having a reputation as a proven liar may well be an electoral asset if the success of Boris Johnson or Donld Trump is anything to go by.
And now, depressingly it looks like the British legal profession has become a fully-fledged member of the same cryptofascist club.
For some reason the electorate seems to lack motivation, sufficient political knowledge, or both, to think differently – or at least I assume this is the case because they keep voting for the same monsters who commit these crimes (epitomised by the neocon’s favourite son, Tony Blair) rather than tearing them limb from limb for the terrible suffering they have inflicted.
If you want to think of an image that typifies the synergy between the MSM and later day Nazis’, think of a lesbian like Ellen Denerers metaphorically going down on George Bush on national TV.
Unless all of this changes it goes without saying that it is not going to end well for Julian nor the rest of us in the near to middling future.
Don’t forget the blood of a few hundred million Indians, Chinese, Africans and sundry others during the glory days of the ‘Empire on Which the Sun Never Sets’.
Is this not part of the breakdown of communication to its exposure as parody in use as a weapon of coercion?
A loveless and unreasoning dictate cannot mask over its own exposure in grotesque pretence of a trial.
This is not just revealing a lack of moral integrity or true substance, but an open attack on true integrity by giving power to the lie. Without integrity, there is no law but only war.
A closed system is not acting in relation to its environment, but set against it as the intent to limit threat to its face or masking identification so as to gain and maintain an inner domain of control that hides its own intent by projection onto the outer or other.
It outsources and generates conflict to mitigate ‘trouble at home’ or inner conflicted-ness – and maintain a narrative illusion of unity and continuity under notional security. It is a shame of lies that are defended by the sacrifice of all that is true – as the lies by which to ‘sustain survival in the terms of conditions of control that runs on secrets and lies.
To the threatened, that which protects and empowers them is given worth-ship.
Thus the lies that are deemed necessary for survival or the achievement of a greater goal, are not accorded the moral status of self and other betrayal – but of war’s necessity – where life is accepted as war and replaced by war and sacrificed to war.
When does a madness of such dispossession pass to reveal the horror of its error?
Not while fear of such damnation crushes any willingness to open to something true.
Madness is given power as attack on life, and its subsequent replacement with systemic and coercive corruption – which will seem in madness to be the only power under which to align, comply and conform in order to survive.
Truth is not a weapon or leverage over life or others or world – but the attempt to make it so is to accept war as truth of life and lose the true witness for life – that shines on both the good and bad equally.
The attempt to weaponise communication is the power struggle for the means to set or dictate the narrative – or to make the judgement that will be final.
Aligning against evil is not the same as aligning in truth.
What we give power to, we make real and live the experience of.
War against evil will always demand the sacrifice of self-honesty.
And choosing to align in our core integrity will often seem to offend all sides of any conflict so as to operate and exclusion or closed system OF conflict valued above truth.
Claiming moral high ground as a basis for justified war (denial of others) is always a way to hide vendetta that ultimately has its root in our own patterns of separation trauma.
What is it when we are triggered to rage… or terror?
Is it not a dispossession that ‘possesses us’?
Whether running hot in flamed passion or cold in systemic determination?
The virtues of life are not a ‘good ideal’ but the core integrity without which life cannot be sustained or its conditions maintained. This is nothing to do with the ‘narrative deceits of false flagged cover stories’ that are pushed and weaponised as ‘control’ of the mind in division. And the virtues of life are uncovered to a transparency of true account and NOT added on as virtue signalling set over and against the scapegoat.
A cover story can hide the truth if we engage in its frame. This is like phishing for identity theft. Before reacting to the framing narrative, connect and be centred or collected to a self-honesty that is open to communication and not ‘already set’.
Truth is not threatened by lies, but our connection and alignment in ‘true with-ness’ can be lost, to a false conviction set in hate and fear.
The ‘globalist’ agenda seeks to deconstruct humanity so as to remake the world in its own image – under the framing of humanity as a virus or cancer on the planet – or in short unfit and unworthy of life, honour or right to love or freedom. The lure of greater ‘control’ is the ongoing willingness to dehumanise in exchange for a seeming power or seeming protection.
This mindset is what needs to be brought to the light – instead of our light being sacrificed to serve its darkness and division. A mindset is not a person and the personification of a set of ideas may serve an example – but to scapegoat the person of an example for denial is not to address the ideas but to seem to exclude them while giving them power as denial.
This is not evident – but what may be becoming evident for many is that debts of denied life accumulate as toxic and operate the shadow power OF denial. This can only become more so until responsibility awakens – instead of its denial under the deceit-magic of scapegoating blame.
Consciousness of shared existence is lost to guilt and blame as denial – regardless the hit of a sense of personal power that in its moment promises power and protection, but cannot keep it. A mind set in such a futile attempt of regaining control it never really had is living from false premises from which all else goes awry no matter how well intentioned.
Sir Keir Starmer while head of the CPS directly approved the witchhunt of Julian Assange.
He is personally responsible for this grossest miscarriage of legal process.
He should NOT become Labour Leader because of just that simple fact.
I’ve been flagging up his deep state links on the alternative fora for a long time. At last, people are picking up on it. but it’s probably too late. He will probably be the next Labour leader, and very likely be our next prime minister. And I never refer to him as ‘Sir’. Wasn’t that ‘honour’ bestowed on him by our most eminent war criminal?
I vividly recall Starmer at the time supporting the ‘Western Allied Regime’ (WAR!) military attack on Syria despite the absence of evidence of guilt on the part of the Syrian or Russian forces. There would appear to have been some fundamental 180 degree about-turn in law education during his, and presumably Baraitser’s, studentship whereby defendants are to be deemed guilty as charged; the barrister’s role now being to ensure the guilty charge is upheld at all cost.
But Polly Toynbee lerves him. And please don’t use the ‘Sir’ bull-dust-it’s Starmer, the Blairite thug.
This probably doesn’t even need mentioning, though I do believe it illustrates and is symbolic of the lurch away from traditional liberal democracy towards the strong, national security state; that the Guardian has effectively abolished the Comment is Free idea. The number of articles where one is allowed to comment or invited to comment, has shrunk dramatically since the Security Services enrolled the Guardian in their ‘battle to protect freedom.’
This is especially evident when one looks at the stuff they’ve produced about Assange recently and especially the show-trial. That the Guardian is so afraid of the opinions of its own readership is telling. I think the shifts at the Guardian reflect the death of liberal values and their total capitulation to the ideology of neo-conservatism, neo-liberalism and neo-imperialism, similiar to what’s happening inside the Labour Party. The fate of Assange seems linked to all of this, the almost ritualised attempt to snuff out the fading, flickering, damaged candle of democracy.
They have published an absurd and vicious attack on China and Xi by some dissident who left in the 80’s today.
That’s a favourite tactic. Ignore the massive efforts ongoing in China, and instead feature one or two local traitor compradore scum, who usually end up going hysterical, the even viler emigre traitor compradore scum, and disinterested organs like Epoch Times ie Falun Gong ie the CIA. Show a few videos of people going hysterical in A&E, which happens every day in every Emergency Department on Earth, even when not dealing with an epidemic, and sundry other hate propaganda predicting ‘China’s fall’, or ‘China’s Chernobyl moment’ or some such shite, some already shown to be faked like the bat soup being consumed in Palau, but said to be being consumed in China. Just another day in the Western MSM sewer.
Individuals may have hidden fears but the underlying intent is the manipulation of the ‘opinions’ of the unworthy. Having aligned against humanity as part of elitism, of course the expectation is of the perceived ‘evils’ or threat to such control and ‘security’ as seeking to undermine and overthrow ‘Order’.
To anyone who does not align in such elitism or its mirrored anti-elitism, this is an insanity – but self-sealed from any real dialogue.
I often get the image of an armed and dissociated gunman (as in hostage situations) in which communication has so broken down as to lose all trust of any communication with anyone ‘outside’.
Forceful intervention may get that particular ‘cancer’ but lose the patient.
Appeasing the demands will establish precedent for always more such demands.
Opening a communication or indeed establishing relationship is the key – but the ability of another under fear to pick up on even the slightest deceit is heightened as their alertness for lies and betrayal that are always part of their own personal history – that has expressed in violence.
But whereas the above is usually set in someone who feels alienated, denied and betrayed by the state or by power, tyranny works as a rogue state set against its own people and setting up its people to react in ways that ‘justify’ the consolidation of unchecked power over its people. Democracy is used to mean anything and nothing – but democratic checks and balances to abuse of power are the institutions of social justice. Demos is the people – who can become mob-minded or easily misled. Hieros is the ‘aristocracy’ that became guards and controllers to their own self-specialness instead of guardians of order in which citizens or subjects had rights and responsibilities.
The archetypes of order set over chaos goes back to a prehistory that is called ‘mythological’ – and which I hold involved catastrophic human trauma that also drove the development of an activated subjective consciousness and culture.
But the nature of Life and Universe that is being uncovered by honest science and spiritual enquiry is of the drawing forth or discerning and aligning of order from a chaos of new or shifted context and communication.
The difference is all the difference. Seeking to conform life, in self, others and world to a subjective image, model or narrative, is backwards.
It is one thing to shape our life in an expression of creative cooperation, but another to usurp life as ‘mind-control’ – which is closed, dissociative and segregative or ‘self-special’.
Maybe China and Xi wants to test their extradition with the UK directly for the vicious and lie laden Opinion piece by ‘Ma Jian from Qingdao, China. Who left Beijing for Hong Kong in 1987 as a dissident,’
Wasn’t the HK ‘color’ agitation kicked off with US backing to OPPOSE extradition to the Mainland??
Should we get school kids to go on strike and stop traffic?
Extradition Extinction – anyone?
Come on you sjw’s and concerned humans!
But the trick is to effectively abolish freedom of speech while continuing to give the impression that you haven’t abolished it and indeed to make it look like you are upholding it. Better still, to paint the ones speaking truth as if they are attacking freedom and vice versa. You would think that was impossible but then again the owners of the media can accomplish anything by repetition.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
“His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”
The United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler’s psychological profile
That description is Trump, BoJo and our very own ‘Smoko’ Morrison to the life!
‘Freedom of Speech’ for Rupert Murdoch and his ilk.
– pro Israel
– anti 9-11 truth
– made famous by CIA media NY Times Guardian who ignore most real dissidents
– Netanyahu tells Israel media Assange is Mossad asset
– Brzezinski admits on US TV PBS News Hour Assange is intel
– 3 people trusting Assange dead
– has Rothschild fam lawyer
– Rothschild relative pays his bail
– Assange leaks to wreck Rothschild rival bank
– Refuses to use US fed judge bribery files that stopped other extraditions
– Fake “living” in Ecuador embassy just there for photos
– Fake being in Belmarsh prison
– Rat trap for real dissidents duped into contacting him
– Useful idiots around the world think this clown is real cuz CIA media said so
you can negate how much you want it will not change the fact that Tolstoy described so beautifully:
“I know that most people, even those who deal with the problems of the highest complexity, are rarely able to accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it forces them to declare the falsehood of the conclusions that they happily presented to their colleagues, telling them about them with pride, and from which, thread by thread, they woven the matter of their lives. “
I’m prepared to consider any proof you have to support your thesis – link it.
– pro Israel
– anti 9-11 truth
Belfast Telegraph: What about 9/11?
Mossange: “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”
– made famous by CIA media NY Times Guardian who ignore most real dissidents
Only a finite idiot will believe that MSM (superhero published in NYT, Spigel, Guardian, Economist, etc.) would allow to publish anything against its owners.
– Netanyahu tells Israel media Assange is Mossad asset
– Brzezinski admits on US TV PBS News Hour Assange is intel
– has Rothschild fam lawyer
– Rothschild relative pays his bail
– Assange leaks to wreck Rothschild rival bank
– Refuses to use US fed judge bribery files that stopped other extraditions
– Fake ‘living’ in Ecuador embassy just there for photos
– Fake being in Belmarsh prison
– Rat trap for real dissidents duped into contacting him
At least two people who contacted Assange have turned up dead – Seth Rich & Peter W Smith.
Item 1 from 2010 –
“Netanyahu added that Israel had worked in advance to limit any damage from leaks.”
So your first claim is actually proved to be bullshit from your own link.
I expect the rest are crap too but may look into them later if bored.
However your attempt at diverting attention from the gross abuse of process at Belmarsh – which started with the fake rape investigation in Sweden and was encouraged by Starmers CPS to get us to this point – makes you a straw man constructing/ dead cat on table throwing / squizzle pointing, TROLL, at first sight.
Unfortunately, “controlled opposition” lawyers have infiltrated Julian and Wikileaks.
And you believe him?
Do you not think that Julian looks as if he has been through a great ordeal while Chelsea, on the other hand, was in top form, last time we saw her? Can you not see the difference and see that there is a very good reason for it? Shouldn’t their demeanour look a bit more similar?
You are misreading the evidence, der einzige – big time.
This is so stupid that I have no words for it!He spent 7 years locked in embassy, then locked in another few years in jail to be handed over to USA to be convicted to 175 years in prison, just to please Israel?What kind of moron would do that?And he is not even Jewish!
It’s GREAT to have Mossad agents advocating for transparecy. The world desperately needs more heros like him!!
In particular, he was in favor of transparency in case 911. bravo!
You seem you’re willing to help. What would be on your list of websites dealing with 9/11 truths?
don’t deal with it, you didn’t understand what the superhero was saying to you
“I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”
you’ll find all the answers in MSM, there superhero published his “revelations”
Do you mean, you don’t deal with 9/11?
Anyway, do you think we should have doubts about the authenticity of what Wikileaks published?
What else you would like to tell us?
Assange is being mopped up – that’s why the rules don’t apply. But then they routinely don’t apply at Westminster Magistrates’ or the Old Bailey for prisoners who go to Belmarsh afterwards. Of course, these other cases, and there are plenty of them and so plenty of opportunity, never excite the ex-ambassador to the role (so heartily executed) as chief court correspondent to the beguiled alternative media audience.
Instead of pasting silly gifs, answer the question:
You believe that MSM (superhero published in NYT, Spigel, Guardian, Economist, etc.) would allow to publish anything against its owners?
yes or no?
if “yes” you are finite idiot
if “no” I’m right
These gifs are perfectly ad hoc, whether you like it or not. However, you are obviously entitled to post all the bullshit you like.
Some interesting and bizarre details from the show-trial that I’m convinced the Guardian won’t be reporting!
I’m finding it increasingly difficult to read about the extradition court proceedings as the result has been blatantly predetermined and sitting on my arse 14,000 kilometers away makes reading about this travesty feel increasingly voyeuristic.
Face it we all know the only way to rescue Mr Assange is through direct intervention – direct action.
The only ‘fix’ would be if sufficient humans in and around england created sufficient fuss to wake the englander ptb up with the realisation that “This cannot stand”.
Of course the chances of that happening anywhere outside some badly acted feelgood movie are negligible.
Everyome will whine & whinge but ultimately because this railroad isn’t happening to Us none of Us will do anything about it, apart from wail and post pithy remarks.
USuk know this, just as they know in a few years (years that will seem an eternity to Mr Assange) people will say “Julian who?” “Oh, you mean the rapist!”
None of Us will do anything for the same reason none of us set up a world-changing web site without the means to pay the rent, let alone reach billions, because none of Us had the smarts or the balls.
And no that should not be read as permission to do nothing about this travesty. It is a plea for all of those close to Belmarsh or in possession of the means to get close to Belmarsh prison, to surround that testament to man’s inhumanity and block off all the roads for sufficient time, to prevent Mr Assange from being railroaded into the heart of the empire.
What happened to the Greenham Common mindset, eh?
It would be great if sufficient englanders elected to put justice ahead of their own personal comfort, but I won’t be holding my breath.
So everyone wants to just sit on the sidelines while this trainwreck of a trial continues until a seemingly inevitable result of extradition of Julian.
No one wants to take the oh-so-brave step of calling out Chelsea and the Collateral Murder video, both easily proven not to be genuine – similarly, Adrian Llamo and Ethan McCord.
Everyone just wants to sit on the sidelines wailing and gnashing their teeth.
If it ever goes public who Chelsea et al are and what Collateral Murder is, I beg you, please don’t say, as many said after the reign of German Nazism:
“I didn’t know.”
If, of course, anyone has any evidence to show that Chelsea Manning or Collateral Murder are genuine please indicate in comments. If you have no evidence by all means go ahead and indicate your hostility to the truth by downvoting or derisive comments/gifs but do it with the full understanding that such acts are moronic and cannot squash the unsquashable truth – and please ask yourself why you wish to perform such an act. They certainly do not help Julian if that is what you wish to do.
Julian has always said that he is interested in exposing the truth and it is for this ideal he is so greatly admired and supported. Assiduous avoidance of the truth about Chelsea and Collateral Murder is the complete opposite of that ideal. Hypocrisy rules!
“…by all means go ahead and indicate your hostility to the truth by downvoting or derisive comments/gifs…”
I’ ve responded to your evidence-free denigration of Chelsea–and, by implication, Julian’s intelligence–at least twice before, but as you request some specific additions:
GIF and not-really-hostility-more-like-derision at https://imgur.com/QJW1YWk
Downvote is, per the system, anonymous (you’ll have to take my word for it).
For one who makes free with Occams Razor you seem extraordinarily naive on matters of epistemology. Your comment reverses burden of proof. Worse, you wasted fifteen minutes of my life. I actually read your linked musings on the matter, searching in vain for evidence that “Chelsea Manning and Collateral Damage are fake“.
No, I didn’t downvote you. I never do, however absurd I find a comment.
“For one who makes free with Occams Razor you seem extraordinarily naive on matters of epistemology.”
It’s not for shaving one’s legs?
Well, maybe Petra has in mind the cut-throat kind as favoured by nineteen-twenties street gangs …
I don’t believe I do reverse the burden of proof, Philip, as I give my own points of proof and people have the choice of either refuting my evidence or providing their own – OK I didn’t state explicitly “provide your own evidence or refute mine” but that is an obvious choice. A priori, however, there is no reason to believe that Chelsea and the video are genuine, is there? Surely, you would agree that it would be completely expected for the power elite to attempt to infiltrate a group such as Wikileaks, no? That as soon as they were aware of such a group on the distant horizon that they would already be preparing their welcoming party for them. Thus, not so outlandish to think that Chelsea may be an infiltrator at the outset and what better way to make her a credible leaker than to provide her with the gift of a shocking video showing US soldiers targeting civilians.
Philip, you provide no refutation, simply an empty claim. If you wish to refute my argument you must do something other than make a claim that you found no evidence. I made some points. You need to provide detail of how you don’t think the content of those points serves to support my claims.
Petra even your short comment here demonstrates both the reversed burden of proof I speak of, and an intermingling of “points”, “claims” and “evidence” as if these things were interchangeable.
You do the same with reasoning, which is not the same as evidence. You offer a reason – “well they would do that, wouldn’t they?” argument – which may or may not be true but in principle cannot be refuted because it is not, contrary to your protests, a statement of fact which can be falsified empirically.
Please offer a summary of your factual grounds for an argument whose very nature demands a very high degree of empirical substantiation. Please do so in the body of a comment as I will waste no more time on specious links. I’ve done enough of that, of late, with Louis Proyect.
Philip, You made a claim without backup and I asked you to back it up. Please do that.
You made the claim that you searched in vain for evidence on my webpage. I’d argue that whatever words I used in my second-last comment, there is certainly information that counts as evidence on my webpage.
I think you’re misinterpreting what I claim with my words “they would, wouldn’t they”. I do not make the claim of evidence at all. I completely agree with you that speculation is definitely not evidence as I’ve only finished a 56-email exchange with Noam Chomsky, arguing that he uses speculation as evidence. So I’m totally with you on speculation not counting as evidence and I certainly didn’t mean to imply it was, although it can have a supporting role – we shouldn’t discount that. I only meant to make the point that it is not outlandish at the outset to think that Chelsea might be an intelligence asset as we would expect the power elite to implement infiltration of Wikileaks. It would be extremely naive to think they wouldn’t, no? Just making the point that it is not outlandish to think she might be.
Before my second-last comment that you have so much to say on, you made the claim that you found no evidence on my webpage and as someone who works in academia you know very well that unsupported claims are a no-no.
If you don’t wish to waste your time backing your claim from the information you wasted your time reading on my webpage that is certainly your prerogative. However, I suggest that if you don’t have the time to waste backing your claim from the information you perused and upon which you based your claim then you shouldn’t waste your breath making your unsupported claim in the first place, as unsupported claims have zero value.
I spent considerable time writing my webpage where I think my points are presented logically and concisely and I’m certainly not going to waste my time doing as you ask as I expect people who make claims based on information they have consulted to use that consulted information to support their claims and not to expect someone else to then present the information in a particular form so that they can then back up their claim. Really, Philip, when you make a claim it should be automatic that you provide some backup for it. All you have to do is say “you put Point X forward as evidence but it doesn’t count as evidence because Y”.
More wasted time. Actually taking the trouble – the last time I shall do so on this matter – to read and unravel your latest screed, I surmise that the claim I need to substantiate is this from my initial reply:
You ask me to substantiate what I did not find? Truly bizarre. Over and decidedly out.
You found material purporting to be evidence so to make a valid claim that you found none you need to explain how the purported evidence doesn’t qualify as evidence.
It is very much you, Philip, who is the timewaster. You make a completely unsupported claim about my work, waste time giving specious arguments why you don’t have support that claim and demand that I waste my time putting my work into a particular form when in the first instance you should have backed your claim. You really have a nerve.
Robbob’s Razor says, “Fuck off, Petra.”
“unsupported claims have zero value”
Short, nice, sweet and to the point!
“I completely agree with you that speculation is definitely not evidence as I’ve only finished a 56-email exchange with Noam Chomsky, arguing that he uses speculation as evidence.”
The man is 91, Petra; how dare you waste any of his remaining time with your, nasty, manipulative, psychotically narcissistic–thus obsessively a priori–mind fuck; you rabidly slandering, tenth rate apology for a polemicist with your shitty little distortions of second hand opinions (think your repeated web-wide plagiarism of paranoia-plagued bullshitters is undetectable?) dressed up as the intellectual centre of the actual, ex-Petra universe. How fucking dare you. Oh, I forgot, I’ve already covered that: “psychotically narcissistic”, that’s how.
My apologies, Philip. My ego got in the way. As I claim that my interest is only in the truth it would have been much simpler for me to respond to your request for a summary rather than carry on in high-and-mighty fashion. Julian’s situation is not about trying to win arguments.
I provide a number of points to support my hypothesis below. I also add that taken separately, the evidence for Chelsea being an intelligence asset and Collateral Murder being faked each support the other.
The first thing to consider is that when the power elite hoax us they – most counterintuitively – slip us the clues. So there is always a two-part hypothesis.
H1a. Chelsea is an agent and Collateral Murder is faked
H1b. They let us know in implausibilities and ridiculousness, sloppiness of execution, things not adding up, contradictions in the story and different versions of it, etc
H2. Chelsea and Collateral Murder are genuine.
1. The method provided of release of documents by Chelsea is not credible:
The media sources for the method are given in the article footnotes
On January 5, 2010, Manning downloaded the 400,000 documents that became known as the Iraq War logs. On January 8, she downloaded 91,000 documents from the Afghanistan database, known later as part of the Afghan War logs. She saved the material on CD-RW and smuggled it through security by labeling the CD-RW media “Lady Gaga”. She then copied it onto her personal computer. The next day, she wrote a message in a readme.txt file, which she told the court was initially intended for The Washington Post.
Comment: They could have provided a much more credible method but they didn’t so this item supports both H1a and H1b. There are five other items in the Wikipedia entry that I find not credible and have put my reasons.
2. In her interview with Juju Chang, ABC’s Nightline anchor, after her alleged 7-year incarceration, Chelsea says things that seems at odds with who she is and there are other anomalies in the interview. She also seems in great spirits, is treated in an extremely friendly manner and I think the interview shows signs of scripting.
I highly recommend watching the interview for yourself here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSx1VG8UnF8
In response to viewing of footage of Collateral Murder Chelsea says:
“Counterinsurgency is not a simple thing. … It’s not as simple as good guys versus bad guys. It’s a mess.”
Comment: Her response to the footage is in no way negative and yet this is the footage she valiantly released to Wikileaks.
In response to Juju’s question about reaction to her reporting of the video to a superior is that the superior said to her:
“It’s just another incident. The only reason it sticks out and is prominent is because it was two journalists. There are thousands and thousands of videos like that.
Comment: Thousands and thousands of videos is not credible.
Juju says in discussion of released documents, “Turns out some of the low-level army battlefield reports were found in Osama Bin Laden’s compound after his death.”
Comment: We know this is complete BS. There are a number of other anomalous items pointed out in this interview
1. The audio track sounds as if it’s bits of genuine audio stitched together over faked footage and what is said often doesn’t match what we’re shown (a typical feature of staged events is mismatch of what we’re told and what we’re shown thus H1b very much in evidence here. They surely could have scripted actors to provide the audio rather than stitching bits of genuine audio together with poor matching to the footage in order to make it more credible.)
Supporting this hypothesis:
We are told that two Apache helicopters are involved but even taking into consideration ground control there are simply too many callsigns – 13:
Bushmaster Five, Bushmaster Forty, Bushmaster Four, Bushmaster Seven, Bushmaster Six, Bushmaster Six-Romeo, Bushmaster Three-Six, Bushmaster Two-Six, Copperhead One-Six, Crazy Horse One-Eight (one helicopter), Hotel Two-Seven, Hotel Two-Six (the other helicopter), Victor Charlie Alpha
Interestingly, in the Wikipedia entry, July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike, we are told that there are two Apache helicopters one with callsign Crazy Horse One-Eight and the other Crazy Horse One-Nine but there is zero mention of One-Nine in the video while in the Wikileaks transcript the two Apache helicopters are identified as Hotel Two-Six and Crazy Horse One-Eight.
Below are comments on what we hear against what we are shown in the footage.
2:48 – There’s more that keep walking by and one of them has a weapon [cannot see people or weapon]
2:53 – Arab-sounding voice says “two-oh-eight” [not in transcript – where does this come from?]
2:55 – See all those people standing down there [can’t see anyone]
3:19 – That’s a weapon. [seemingly directed at “Namir” with camera. This is supposed to make us believe that in very unprofessional lack of recognition of camera, the soldier is looking for an excuse to kill, however, obviously if it’s stitched-together audio snippets the soldier saying “That’s a weapon” could easily be referring to a person genuinely carrying a weapon. I have to say that the soldier sounds to me as if he’s perfectly serious and is not misidentifying a camera as a weapon as an excuse to kill.] There are a number more of these comments.
I don’t expect you to respond to this comment, Philip. What I ask you to do though is consider how attached you are to your belief that Chelsea is a brave whistleblower and whether it is your attachment to that belief that makes you hostile to my claims rather than evidence supporting that belief. From my 56-email exchange with Noam Chomsky what I learnt so very empirically was that when someone is attached to their belief, rational argument flies out the window and it doesn’t matter what you say, they will manage to deflect it.
Your voice is much more heard than mine, Philip, so I ask you to please consider carefully whether, if it is true that Chelsea is an agent and the video is fake, how helpful the exposing of that truth would be for Julian’s case.
And now for some light relief from better days…
“Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings.”
The dehumanization of Assange is intended to humiliate not only its targeted victim, but to intimidate all other independent publishers, investigative journalists, and whistleblowers. The mainstream media news feels quite content to ignore this unjust political show trial, and to indifferently accept the callous treatment of Assange. These guileless dunces think they’re forever immuned from the arbitrary heavy-handedness of authoritarian law.
That is beyond inhumane and beyond scandalous.
Under Stalin they got Gulag for telling truths he did not like.