Julian Assange is an all around piece of shit.

I can't comment on whether Mr. Assange is a piece of shit, but in reading the linked Daily Mail article, I thought to myself, "this is just the sort of tabloid journalism which should never, ever be used as a source in Wikipedia BLPs." Then, out of curiosity, I went to Julian Assange (T-H-L-K-D), and sure enough, there it was (although not that particular article. Not yet, anyway.)

If The Daily Mail doesn't like him, he can't be all bad.

No, just bad enough to be an embarrassment to freedom of speech.

There's no such thing, it's never free there's always a price to pay.

Well if freedom of speech can survive the Hollywood ACLU honoring Courtney Love despite giving journalists and reviewers death threats I guess it will survive this too. Mind you I love the ACLU and figure that those folks in Hollywood and The Free Kulture Reich are just some kind of aberrations.

After stripping this down through the layers of mis-information, it is a most peculiar case, but then Mr A is a most peculiar person.

It seems a number of women, on the basis of very little personal contact, decided that they fancied a shag - it all seems in the grand tradition of groupy-ism going back to the 60s and the various pop stars of that era. Their casual approach to sex lowers the expected standards of behaviour in my book, so my initial reaction is that I don't have a lot of sympathy.

However, if it did turn out to be true that Mr A deliberately and deceptively did things like damaging a condom and initiating sex whilst asleep (though there is something rather odd in the telling which makes it sound as if she never woke up, which then brings up the question of whether there was drink or drugs involved) then it does turn the situation into something more akin to a deliberate assault. I think in the modern age, it is understood that the basic standard of casual sex, especially based on such a fleeting meeting, is that it is appropriate to have protected sex. In fact, it seems rather reckless of Mr A that he should seek to risk catching something interesting, given his predilection for casual sex - perhaps a sign of some self-destructive tendencies.

The whole casual sex arrangement of the groupies giving service to their anointed one is rather cultish, and it is that imbalance of power that makes me uneasy, though it seems to me that these were mature women taking conscious decisions.

The lack of self-control and ego does make a convincing story in the context of previously revealed splits in WikiLeaks and the determined release of diplomatic tittle-tattle that is damaging without there being a perceived benefit. Convincing story? Well, it also seems to be the case that it is not a fabrication but too well founded in actual events to be a CIA-style plot.

Assange is a vile animal, plain and simple. He's benefited greatly by the laws of society and a standard of living built for him in the western world, while tearing down the institutions that brought him that life and hiding behind its civilized laws. Reading this story in particular, he sounds like he has no conscience. The article dings at least 10 of 15 traits of a psychopath;

*Glibness and Superficial Charm
*Manipulative and Conning
*Grandiose Sense of Self, Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
*Pathological Lying
*Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
*Shallow Emotions
*Incapacity for Love
*Need for Stimulation
*Callousness/Lack of Empathy
*Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
*Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
*Irresponsibility/Unreliability
*Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
*Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
*Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility

It is that the story is in the Daily Mail which unfortunately means that I have to dismiss it - the Mail is a very right wing, uncritical paper which is a propaganda sheet for the Conservatives. Its speciality is apparently plausible stories that allow the unthinking nation to nod in agreement and fume at the injustice of the world.

Before this story broke, it was clear that there was something not quite right in the world of WikiLeaks. That being said, when your fact gathering is through the media, you have to be entirely suspicious of why you are being told what you are being told. I have a rule that you should treat a subject you know nothing about with the same scepticism as those you know about: simple example, when have the press ever managed an accurate story about Wikipedia that shows that they know what they are talking about, so why should we think that the press is helpful in understanding Assange?

I'd like to know on what basis Assange thinks he will not get a fair trial. His team have been running a fairly strong propaganda war yet they have not been denying the underlying basis of the story. I wonder if Assange knows he did what he did and simply doesn't see why it should be considered a crime.

Wait, I thought we were talking about Assange; why are you listing Jimmy Wales' traits?

Assange has been celebrated in the press for a long time. My take on him never matched the dozens of articles painting him as an honorable and fearless whistleblower. You can see that in my earlier posts before these negative articles started coming out. So you don't need to tell me to be skeptical of the press.

Contrast Assange with Michale Moore. Moore's been married to the same woman for twenty years. He's willing to face the people he criticizes, eye to eye. By all accounts, he's no bigot. He's a real stand-up man you can respect, even if you don't agree with him. Assange is a philandering anti-American bigot, who hides like a coward while sniping. He'll never be a stand-up man like Michael Moore.

Michael Moore is not free from sin, either. After making a decent film, "Sicko," which exposed the criminality of the HMOs, Moore then followed Obama like an eager puppy, even as Obama transformed the US health system into one giant HMO.

So they failed to slay Goliath. At least they tried.

Assange, on the other hand, paints himself as some honorable truth and justice crusader, but all he does is sling prurient gossip while hiding like a coward, and screwing everyone he can before discarding them.

Agree - in fact there are a long line of honourable journalists who are thorns in the sides of the powers that be. The likes of Assange have the potential to do a lot of damage to quality investigative journalism.

There are few others I have time for along with Moore (who had an excellent series TV Nation that worked very well in the UK before he went big screen): one is Robert Fisk, who refuses to tow any party line in his despair over the Israeli-Palestine conflict: the Israelis hate him because he points out the inequities of the situation there, but he has little time for the corrupt government of the Palestinians either.

I think I detect a change in the press, from uncritical adulation of lazy journalists, to a position of setting a healthy distance in case it all goes tits up. It doesn't mean that Sweden is acting appropriately, and it is unfortunate that they have let the legal process get unnecessarily politicised.

Assange did an interview on the BBC this morning, FYI. Jimmy could have stood in for him perfectly, assuming he could pull off the accent.

He's Jimmy's Mini-Me.

Let's hope Jules he doesn't leak when he has his 'accident'.

Yes, please gents, can you take the healthcare bit to the lounge area?
Thank you? Haveaniceday?

Done. Actually, it's in Politics, Religion and Such. In the future, don't wait for us to get around to reading your request -- use the Batsignal.

Kiss my hairy ass?

Assange's glow with the press is fading: The Independent disapproves.

Interesting, this animal considers himself a 'gentleman'.

Jimbo must be kicking himself over the fact that he's not the world's most famous Wiki* website leader. Taken out by a white-haired Australian.

What a humiliation.

In revenge, the peregrinations of Assange's bodily fluids and his predilection for assignations with admirers are being given far more extensive and detailed analysis on WP, than they were when Jimbo Wales was the target, back in the day.

What the media is doing to Assange is almost Clinton-esque. No, I take it back-- it is Clinton-esque. (I would say Arbuckle-esque but nobody would know what the hell I meant by THAT.) Only political revenge can generate this much interest in a sexual episode in which nobody was injured, and the delicate and tangled matter of what things were and weren't given permission for (as we go down our checklist of the many pages of possible sexual acts), are a matter of he-said/she-said.

In my world, if a woman is psychologically devastated by something physical that a man did to her, she usually doesn't go out to buy food with which to make him breakfast, then drive him to the train station. Then find out he had sex with another woman four days before, THEN go screaming to the cops about having been abused. Abused she might have been, but the time to decide THAT had long since gone, methinks. There has to be a statute of limitations for that sort of thing, even if both sides admit to exactly what happened. Be reasonable here.

"Only political revenge can generate this much interest in a sexual episode"

No, the sexual activities of any famous person are of keen interest to the public. Assange is a predatory pig which makes it even more interesting. Political revenge just added some oomph to the press reports, and I'm sure the US was thrilled to 'encourage' Sweden to issue a warrant.

As to why she went to the police after making him breakfast, it's simple ... the women found out about each other and realized they were used by a philandering pig. Had he been a decent human being and returned their calls, this probably wouldn't have amounted to anything.

Go get em Ladies!

I call BS on that, women get abused by men all the time, and still carry on cooking, cleaning, and serving them.

I call BS on his whole post, including but not limited to that.

Again, none of this has been proven. But it paints a picture that makes sense.

Any "sense" it makes, should make you ashamed to call "B.S." on anything I've said. Since I've been saying basically this story all along, and getting mostly cat-called for it.

Nobody comes out of this looking good, but any woman who screams "rape!" when what she really means is "Gee, I hope I don't have HIV!!" should be charged with perjury and some kind of criminal false accusation. For she has used the law to commit a battery against a man, and she has slandered the man, lied to her society, and (not least) betrayed her fellow women, who'd like to be taken a little more seriously than this kind of story encourages them to be in the future.

Cry wolf. Cry BS. But not to me.

If you choose to lie down with dogs, I don't want you to think you should use the "remedy" of government police power when you get up with what you're afraid might be fleas.

The story you've been saying all along may have included some elements of this, but certainly wasn't this.

It is, of course, quite possible that the woman was raped and she initially just wanted him to be tested for HIV.



From what I've read, it seems to be the prosecutor who first screamed rape, and the woman merely screamed I woke up to him having sex with me without a condom, which, had Assange not been involved with Wikileaks, would have probably been swept under the rug, but is, nevertheless, rape, if it is proven.

If Assange didn't in fact wake Ms. W up to sex without a condom, and she did in fact claim that he did, she should, of course, be "charged with perjury and some kind of criminal false accusation".

After knowing them for 12 hours??

Look: if a normally intelligent adult self-supporting independent Swedish woman can be transformed into a complete Stepford Wife Zombie after one boring fuck, I'd say we have a new psychological syndrome to describe in that country. Roll over, Stockholm Syndrome; this is way, way, WAY better.

Of course, the other possiblity we haven't considered is that Assange is actually Dracula. Or perhaps one of the lesser-known Malfoys.

Maybe you have a problem with women, or have see guys get a bum rap in the past. But if he did what they said he did, and it's a crime in Sweden, then so be it.

My own bias is known - Assange is a sleazy piece of shit who has intentionally harmed the United States' security in a way that has transcended laws and entered into a different realm.

All's fair in love and war.

I'm sure it has happened to plenty of rock stars.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/01/world/europe...ange/index.html

That guy will mount anything, if he feels like he has permission.