The Deeper Meaning of Julian Assange

by L. Reichard White 
EMAIL

It was one of those mistakes which often happen when you involve a government in your affairs—but it wasn’t Mr. Assange, it was the two women who managed to bed him who made that mistake——

Ms. Ardin accompanied Ms. Wilen to the police station on August 20 [2010], playing a supporting role. Neither of them intended to press any criminal charges against Mr. Assange. They wanted to compel him to take an HIV test. Once they were at the police station and told their stories, the female police commissioner informed them that this all fell within ”rape” law, and soon thereafter-that Mr. Assange was going to be arrested. Ms. Ardin and Ms. Wilen were upset when they heard this. 
—Julian Assange’s Penetration Agenda: Was it Rape in Stockholm? | Observer

As things played out however, Mr. Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden and only breaching bail in the U.K. That’s right, Sweden didn’t file charges and in May, 2017, dropped the investigationwhich led to Assange needing bail in the first place.

None the less, to make sure he doesn’t leave the country, the U.K. government has posted cops 24/7 outside the Ecuadorian embassy in London where Mr. Assange was granted asylum six years ago.

Maybe you’re thinking, “Wow, asylum from a bail charge? Breaching bail must be REALLY serious in the U.K.!”

Not so much. Even in these extremely unusual and unprecedented circumstances, the absolute best the UK legal machinery could possibly hope for from Mr. Assange is a five-thousand-pound fine and three months in the pokey. If the U.K. plays by its own rules.

In fact, this extremely unusual and unprecedented situation is so unusual and unprecedented that, incredibly, the United Nations got involved in what should be an insignificant bail case.

After looking into it however, the UN declared on Feb. 5, 2016, that the U.K. was unlawfully holding Mr. Assange under unlawful “arbitrary detention,” directed the UK machinery to release him “immediately,” and Sweden and U.K. to pay him compensation.

The U.K. refused to play by the rules.

In addition to asylum, Ecuador even granted Mr. Assange citizenship and diplomatic status. This should have freed him from Brit jurisdiction and allowed him to travel out of the U.K. under diplomatic immunity. Incredibly, however, the Brits again refuse to play by the rules.

And remember that 24/7 Brit surviellance? Well six plus years of it can get expensive.

According to information the BBC liberated from Scotland Yard, that would be £10,000 plus pounds per day expensive. Doing the math, as of July 31, 2018, it has cost the British taxpayers more than 22-million pounds (£22,000,000)—just short of 30-million dollars ($30,000,000)—to keep Mr. Assange cooped-up in the Ecuadorian Embassy. So far.

This pretty much sums things up——

“It is embarrassing to see the UK government spending more on surveillance and detaining an uncharged political refugee [Mr. Assange] than on its investigation into the Iraq war, which killed hundreds of thousands” [the Chilcot investigation she refers to cost “only” £10m] 
—Kristinn Hrafnsson via. BBC News

And, as Ms. Hrafnsson points out, Mr. Assange is in fact a “political refugee” because that’s your status if you manage to get someone to grant you asylum.

So all six years of sound, fury, and exorbitant expense is over bail on a sexual encounter that those involved didn’t consider a crime and which the Swedish Government has not been able to prosecute.

Or is something else going on?

Of course, given government’s congenital nature, a nagging and persistent thirty-million-dollar dumb screw-up by an inherently immoral and FUBAR organization isn’t completely out of the question. As Beatles drummer Ringo Starr so delicately put it, “Everything the government touches turns to crap.”

OK, that might explain the Brits, but what were the Ecuadorians looking at when they not only granted Mr. Assange asylum but also citizenship and diplomatic status? And what was the U.N. looking at when it ruled that holding Mr. Assange was arbitrary and “unlawful ?”

Whatever they were looking at, it probably wasn’t breaching bail in the U.K.

Could they have instead been looking at the U.S. “Justice” Dept. and its secret indictment of Mr. Assange and Wikileaks, his news publishing consortium—and the dire implications for freedom of the press? And/or were they looking at U.S. plans to extradite Mr. Assange? And maybe to prosecute him for “treason” even though, because he’s not a U.S. citizen and hadn’t even been in the U.S., they lack jurisdiction?

They could as well prosecute former Ecuadorian PresideNT Rafael Correa for giving him asylum—or Bolivian PresideNT Evo Morales when, in an act of air piracy, the U.S. illegally forced his Presidential Plane to land because they suspected Ed Snowden might be on board after it departed from Moscow. Or, perhaps, indict Mr. Putin just for the heck of it.

Or maybe it was the death and assassination threats etc. from U.S. officials, politicos, and other U.S. Government related thugs they were all looking at.

As is often the case, these conspiracy theories nailed it. The theories about secret U.S. extradition were proven absolutely correct.

On April 11, 2019, Mr. Assange, against international law, was forceably kidnapped from the Ecuadorian embassy by British police. Scotland Yard verified that the arrest was in response to a U.S. request to extradite Mr. Assange to the U.S.

Unfortunately, this sort of thing is nothing new. By it’s chronic behavior, it’s clear governments fear the truth and anyone who reveals it.

It’s clear, for example, from the FBI’s attempt to frame whistle-blower Tom Drake and put him away for 26 years by classifying an unclassified document after he released it. Luckily gonzo whistle-blower and journalist James Bamford had archived a copy before the FBI minions fraudulently stamped it “Secret.”

Etc.

So, the government reflex—especially in the case of the U.S. Government—is to classify and hide nearly everything, maybe even restroom “paper work.” So the first question isn’t “Who leaked this?”—or often more honestly “Who told on us?”—but rather “ Why were you trying to hide it?”

And the MilitaryIndustrialCongressional (MIC) division of The Deep State especially fears whistle-blowers who reveal truths which endanger their lucrative “war” agenda.

Daniel Elsberg for example, who, by just barely managing to liberate The Pentagon Papers detailing U.S. failures in the Vietnam so-called “war,” was instrumental in ending that particular U.S. Government crime.

As a result, Nixon’s Sec. of State—and war criminal in his own right—Henry Kissinger, accurately laying-out clear MIC and deep-state thinking about those who endanger war profits, acknowledged Mr. Elsberg as “The Most Dangerous Man In America.”

And there was Bradley-Chelsea Manning who, by releasing this video of cold-blooded U.S. helicopter gun-ship “Collateral Murder ” in Iraq and other secrets—via Mr. Assange and Wikileaks—endangered the second Iraqso-called “war.”

Not to mention endangering action against those seven countries in five years—Libya, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq—the Bush Jr. administration was planning to attack as follow-up.

So it’s clear governments are correct to be in mortal fear of folks who tell the truth about them. As noted historian Howard Zinn put it, “Governments lie. If they told people the truth, they wouldn’t last very long.”

Information Officer Goebbels explained it like this:

“...the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.” —Chief NAZI “Information Officer” Dr. Joseph P. Goebbels

But not to worry, the evidence strongly suggests current world leaders are quite able to understand and emulate Dr. Goebbels and his organization, particularly when attempting to deal with their mutual mortal enemy.

We can gage the level of official fear governments experience in the presence of that mortal enemy by the desperation and angst they exhibit when trying to deal with it, especially in the context of freedom of speech and the First Amendment.

Like this for example——

“Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it.” 
—Senator Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) August 6, 2018

Senate Democrats Are Circulating Plans for Government Takeover of the Internet 
—Reason.com

Based on their six-year, $30,000,000 (thirty-million dollar) attempt to silence Mr. Assange, how fearful would you say they are? Are they perhaps terrified?

And that, my friend, begins to reveal the deeper meaning of Julian Assange.

What can you do to help?

HERE for updates, additions, comments, and corrections.

AND, “Like,” “Tweet,” and otherwise, pass this along!

©April 13, 2019 (4:47a) L. Reichard White [send him mail] taught physics, designed and built a house, ran for Nevada State Senate, served two terms on the Libertarian National Committee, managed a theater company, etc. For the next few decades, he supported his writing habit by beating casinos at their own games. His hobby, though, is explaining things he wishes someone had explained to him. You can find a few of his other explanations listed here.