Assange Wedding Footage

I was able to attend the Assange wedding celebration/protest outside Belmarsh prison on the 23rd March. I have some footage which I will post samples of below.

About 150 people turned up outside the prison.

The independent media people present (that I saw) were Craig Murray, Gordon Dimmack, Mohammad Elmaazi, and Resistance GB. Chris Hedges was also there which I wasn’t expecting.

Craig Murray spoke to some of the media (primarily Gordon Dimmack, see below) regarding his exclusion from being a witness at the wedding. Apparently, he was considered a threat to the prison by the British state:

Murray also talked about the meaning of the Assange wedding.

You can see the crowd in the video below:

The microphone was set up next to the tent. Julian Assange activist Truman read out some messages from worldwide Assange supporters.

After that there were more formal speeches. Chris Hedges gave a 13 minute speech that can be seen in this video where he talks about the collapse of the rule of law and the power of the ruling elite, as well as the need for mass civil disobedience:

Gordon Dimmack and Daniel Fooks were also invited up to give short speeches.

The police were mostly standing around looking bored and preventing anyone from getting too close to the prison. They would shoo people out of the road but that was about it. However, when ‘Lean on Me’ started playing through the stereo at around 3.40pm, the police decided to be extremely petty and turn of the music, claiming that it violated Greenwich by-laws.

After that the police started standing in the road and being more in your face about their presence. So that there was a line of 3-4 police keeping people on the street and not the road and generally trying to look more intimidating. I am not sure what the point was since before they turned the music off there hadn’t been any issues with the crowd but it seemed to me to be an exercise in willy waving from the officers.

Further footage is available on my channel.

The ‘Case’ Against Julian Assange is Still a Fraud

In the midst of all the insanity we are seeing with the Covid narrative, it is easy to neglect other aspects of the current authoritarian push. The persecution of Julian Assange is continuing with the US appeal to have him extradited having taken place on the 27th and 28th October at the Royal Courts of Justice.

Security State Terror

The official narrative of the incidents that happened on 9/11 was used to usher in a full scale American security state and to ramp up the military industrial complex. A new rationale was needed for military spending after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that same collapse also gave America a free hand acting in the world as there was no major power to support anti-imperialist governments in the South. Enter the 9/11 narrative of Islamic terrorists – which justified military campaigns for profit in the name of ‘preventing terrorism’.

This led to the destruction of large parts of the Middle East and the murder of millions of people along with millions more displaced. This destruction is still going on with the US and Israel expanding warfare into Syria.

The persecution of Julian Assange is a crucial part of the continuation of this imperialist project, which is still ongoing despite the alleged ‘withdrawal’ from Afghanistan. The conflicts – including the Israeli targeting of Syria and the continuing starvation of people in Yemen – have continued despite the new narrative being pushed on the world – that we are ‘in the middle of a deadly pandemic’.

The persecution of Assange is also essential to prevent any journalists in the future coming forward. Any actual journalist could expose the Covid narrative or any other future official narrative that may emerge as we head further into biosecurity state transhumanism – a parallel of the 9/11 security state except now the elites have declared war on our biology itself.

The ‘Case’ for Extradition

Due to the ruling made by District Judge Vanessa Baraitser in January 2021, which stated that Julian Assange could not be extradited to the US because of his poor health, the US ‘case’ consisted of arguing that Assange is a malingerer and that he won’t be treated badly in the US.

The idea that a torture victim that looked severely ill in court (via videolink) is a malingerer is self evidently absurd, and this is just another in a long list of lies stated by the prosecution (including using a convicted pedophile to commit perjury).

More importantly, it seems (as I suspected in January, though perhaps did not articulate in the best way) that the original ruling was a ploy. A ploy forced by opposition to Assange’s extradition, perhaps, but a ploy nevertheless. It set up the appeal to be about the issue of mistreatment in the US. The US can always deny that it will torture Julian Assange, giving the British authorities an excuse to take them at their word and send him over there to die.

There has been no verdict in this case yet and I would guess that there will not be until after Christmas. Meanwhile Assange continues to endure hellish torture in Belmarsh. We must not forget that it doesn’t matter to the establishment where he suffers and dies, just so long as he does.

Zombie Russians Part 2: Steele Beats a Dead Steed

Many people have observed that every other narrative in the world just got dropped as soon as Covid came along. ISIS terrorists and Russian spies magically disappeared the moment the deadliest pandemic in a century narrative became the most convienent one.

However, this doesn’t seem to stop the occassional half hearted flaying of a dead narrative. As I pointed out in my previous piece, Zombie Russians, our old friends Petrov and Boshirov were (briefly) brought out of retirement when the government needed a distraction from the US attempt to have anti-lockdown Belarussian president Alexander Lukashenko murdered.

Christopher Steele, the infamous author of the ‘Trump pee tape’ dossier, is back and being given uncritical coverage by Sky News. A 13 minute video put out by the news corporation asks Steele to defend his dossier and how he feels about the current situation with Russia. I couldn’t think of someone less qualified to talk about Russia than this muppet, but whatever.

If you’d like to laugh at it for yourself, it’s embedded below.

Sky News, of course, jazzes up the interview with some dramatic music and shots of Steele’s safe where he supposedly kept all his ‘research’. This is to make it seem like something out of James Bond when it’s really something out of Steele’s fever dreams.

The interview starts with the dramatic. “There are serious people at the top of Russia who regard themselves at war with us.” At the top of Russia? So there’s people standing on Mount Elbrus screaming about how we really need to bomb the Brits? It’s also rather funny how this ‘war’ with Russia has been on hold for 18 months because of ‘Covid’. You’d think if those pesky Russians were so dangerous the mainstream media would have stopped talking about the flu for more than two minutes over the past 18 months.

The next clip shows Steele agreeing to the idea that Russia has done hostile intelligence ops against the UK (after taking an extremely dramatic sip of tea.) Yeah, because Russia is like every other country in the world and has spies. They always act so shocked at the fact that Russia has spies, it’s hilarious.

The footage then flips to Steele’s Orbis Business Intelligence office, Steele’s hand on a chair, all very dramatic. (Pablo Miller, the guy who worked at Orbis Business Intelligence and just happened by some coincidence to be Sergei Skripal’s handler is not mentioned).

The ‘investigation’ by Steele into Trump and Russia is then launched into. “It was in this safe here that the bomb ticked,” Steele claims, bigging himself up as though the idea of Trump having sex with prostitutes is the most shocking and unexpected claim in the universe. Interestingly though, he implicitly distances himself from his work, talking about how ‘it was produced’ rather than ‘I produced it’. Probably because deep down he knows its bollocks.

Our sycophant for hire ‘journalist’ then asks him how much of his nonsense is true. Of course he says he ‘thinks’ it’s mostly true (allowing me to think it’s a load of nonsense). She then asks him about the reliability of his sources and he says ‘we were pretty confident that the majority of the sources were highly reliable’. (Who’s ‘we’ Mr. Steele? She asked you for your opinion.)

The narrator then says that Russia was accused of hacking the Clinton emails by the US government. One thing is not mentioned though is the name of the journalist (Julian Assange) or publisher (Wikileaks) which printed the emails. Can’t have our viewers searching ‘Julian Assange’ and inadvertently getting a bit of truth, now can we? (Or the protest footage from the march for Assange that happened in London yesterday for that matter.)

It then says that no evidence was found to corroborate the pee claim (although it doesn’t call it that, just calls it Trump with prostitutes and ‘sex tapes’ without mentioning any urination). Then Steele is asked his level of confidence in the ‘sex tape’ claim. He says it’s ‘pretty high’.

She then asks him if he is a fraud. He says ‘no’ but then adds ‘of course I’m not.’ He them talks about all the security clearances he’s been issued over the years as if that somehow proves something.

He then comes up with a bizarre claim that the Russians put some wedding rings in his wife’s sponge bag. Apparently this is the new Novichok.

We’re informed a Putin spokesperson declined to comment. Probably because he was too busy laughing.

The interview then moves on to the Brexit referendum, saying there was ‘potential attempts to fund parts of the Brexit campaign.’ So Russia didn’t fund the Brexit campaign, they only ‘attempted’ to? (There’s a serious point here; lingustically, the use of the words ‘potential attempts’ shows Steele is not committed to his own words. If he was, he would have just said ‘Russia funded the Leave campaign’.)

She then asks for evidence and he says that he doesn’t have it to hand. No shit. A lot of other things aimed at Russia are mentioned including that they tried to hack the Covid vaccine research, so if you thought we were gonna get through a mainstream media piece without them mentioning the scamdemic, well, you were wrong.

According to Steele, Russia also threatens unity among EU member states. Because the vast historical, lingustic, cultural and political differences between 27 separate countries are obviously caused by Putin.

Right at the end of the interview, Steele quotes Putin in the original Russian. I always find it so amusing that they think it somehow improves their argument if they are a capable of using a Russian word.

I probably know at least 2000 Russian words so my argument has got to be pretty good.

I’ve had enough of Steele now, so do svidaniya!

A Critical Assessment of the Feminist Case for Occupying Afghanistan

Introduction

Official narratives coming from the White House and media are stating that American president Joe Biden is fully withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and ending the 20 year war on the country. Many neoconservative pundits are condemning this decision and essentially arguing for permanent occupation. However, another group not associated with neoconservative ideology have also been advancing an argument for the essentially permanent occupation of Afghanistan: feminists. This article will offer a critical assessment of the feminist case for the occupation of Afghanistan.

What is the Feminist Case for Occupation?

Many feminists are making the case that Afghanistan needs to continue to be occupied by Western military forces in order ‘to protect women and girls from the Taliban’. While this commentary is common among war hawks, some individuals who are critical of the mainstream (at least in some respects) are also making this argument.

One example is Marianne Williamson, a critic of some elements of the establishment who nevertheless ran in the Democratic Party Primary in 2019-2020. She posted the following on Twitter, referring to the situation in Afghanistan.

Tolerance of systemic violence against women can’t be justified in the name of anti-imperialism, helping other human beings isn’t “a savior complex,” and leaving the most powerless & desperate people to fend for themselves in the hour of their agony isn’t political sophistication

This kind of sentiment is common among feminist and gender critical accounts, many of whom are anonymous. I am going to discuss three key problems with this argument: historical ignorance, whitewashing war crimes, and reinforcing misleading official narratives.

Problem #1: Historical Ignorance

The first problem with this argument is that it ignores historical context, and particularly the role the West has played in undermining women’s rights in Afghanistan.

On the 27th April 1978, there was a political change of power in Afghanistan, known as the Saur Revolution. This brought left wing groups to power, and they sought sweeping changes to the way Afghan society functioned. One of the ways in which they did this was to get rid of misogynistic laws and to create a more equal legal basis for women.

However, the West opposed the Saur Revolution, because it was a leftist government that would prevent future imperialist exploitation of the country. They sought to destroy this government. They also wanted to bait the Soviet Union into military intervention there and thus create the ‘Soviet Vietnam’ – which would squander Soviet resources and bog them down in an unwinnable conflict.

The US decided to do this by funding reactionary Islamist fighters called the Mujahideen. This CIA operation was known as ‘Operation Cyclone’. The Mujahideen has the same ideology as the Taliban – reactionary, misogynistic, homophobic, and demanding compliance to Islamic law. Not only do they have the same ideology, but some of the same individuals:

Notably, the Taliban’s own top negotiator of this new [Trump] “peace” deal, Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanekzai, was among those trained and armed as part of the Mujahideen force created during Operation Cyclone.

The fact that Western countries were more than willing to support Islamic fundamentalism when it suited them geopolitically demonstrates that the idea of promoting women’s rights is a Western fraud.

Problem #2: Whitewashing Western War Crimes

The feminist case for occupation of Afghanistan also has has an (implicit) tenet that Western intervention is basically benign. This ignores the reality of war crimes committed in Afghanistan. This narrative essentially erases the war crimes from existence.

We know about the multitude of offenses committed by Western troops and companies in Afghanistan due to the Afghan war logs and US diplomatic cables, material leaked by whistleblower Chelsea Manning to Wikileaks journalist Julian Assange.

This information showed the reality of the war, and its unwelcome disclosure led to the imprisonment and torture of Manning and Assange.

Let’s look at some examples. One crime that was discovered thanks to the disclosure of these documents involved the Dyncorp corporation. The business had helped arrange ‘dancing boys’ for Afghan warlords – meaning underage boys to be raped by these warlords as part of Afghan traditional practices.

The Afghan puppet government was concerned about the exposure of this fact, as the cable refers to the ‘Kunduz Dyncorp problem’.

On the Kunduz Regional Training Center (RTC) DynCorp event of April 11 (reftel), Atmar reiterated his insistence that the U.S. try to quash any news article on the incident or circulation of a video connected with it. He continued to predict that publicity would “endanger lives.” He disclosed that he has arrested two Afghan police and nine other Afghans as part of an MoI investigation into Afghans who facilitated this crime of “purchasing a service from a child.” 

This is far from the only crime perpetrated in Afghanistan. Here is one example that involved the Polish contingent:

The day centered around consequence management plans and actions regarding the PBG [Polish Battle Group] mortar incident in Waza Kwah (Naghar Khel village) yesterday evening which killed 6 LN [Local Nationals] and wounded 3 LN. A detailed report is in the Political section.

The detailed report goes on to clarify that 4 of the people killed were children. When addressed, the village said:

The crowd was flabbergasted at how the CF [Coalition Forces] could fire on a village with women, children and old men without cause (i.e. no fire coming from the village) using mortars in an attempt to hit Taliban insurgents instead of coming up to the village and questioning the owners on the presence of insurgents.

This is just one example of civilians being killed during this conflict.

Problem #3: Failing to Question the Official Narrative

Uncritically believing what the mainstream media reports is a terrible idea, given that they twist the truth on any and every topic.

The first point that can be raised regarding official narratives is that the argument that ‘we need to remain in Afghanistan to protect the women and girls’ is itself an official narrative. A CIA document, leaked to Wikileaks, about shoring up support for war in France and Germany states that:

Afghan women could serve as ideal messengers in humanizing the ISAF role in combating the Taliban because of women’s ability to speak personally and credibly about their experiences under the Taliban, their aspirations for the future, and their fears of a Taliban victory. Outreach initiatives that create media opportunities for Afghan women to share their stories with French, German, and other European women could help to overcome pervasive skepticism among women in Western Europe toward the ISAF mission.

Furthermore, the way that the media presents the Afghanistan withdrawal itself is highly misleading. In an article for OffGuardian, Kit Knightly points out the continuing presence of mercenary forces in Afghanistan, and the fact that air strikes will continue. Knightly concludes:

“Private security firms” will carry out “targeted anti-terrorist operations”, or “precision strikes” will take out “known international criminals”…but no one will use the word “war”.

The US troops might be leaving the borders of Afghanistan, but the Imperial influence will remain, the corporate exploitation will continue, the fire will still fall from the sky, and there will be no peace.

Conclusion

The war in Afghanistan is a conflict that has always been about geopolitical and economic motivations, for example, the profits to be made from rare earth metals and opium. The framing of human rights is merely a shield for these fundamental interests. To argue that we need to remain in Afghanistan ‘to protect women and girls’ ignores those killed in Western war crimes and how the West sought to undermine women’s rights in Afghanistan, as well as uncritically affirming misleading narratives about reality on the ground.

Julian Assange Activism: What Now?

Baraitser cartoon

A post discussing Baraitser’s decisions in a little more detail as well as the message that I believe is most important to convey to the public at this moment.

Hosted at Shaziety.

Assange Extradition Ruling: What Does It Mean?

Yesterday District Judge Vanessa Baraitser announced the ruling in the Julian Assange US extradition hearing. Shockingly, she ruled against the extradition to the United States of WikiLeaks founder Assange, citing health reasons and a high chance that Mr. Assange would kill himself in prison should he be extradited. Despite the overall ruling she agreed with every other point raised by the US prosecution, including that Assange would get a fair trial in the US, that the UC Global scandal (where the CIA was spying on Assange in the embassy including privileged communications with his lawyers) was irrelevant, that Assange endangered lives by releasing the information provided by former US Army Intelligence officer Chelsea Manning, and that the US-UK Extradition Treaty 2007 banning extradition for political offenses is irrelevant because the Extradition Act 2003 does not ban extradition on political grounds.

Is this a victory? The answer to this question is ‘Yes, but.’

The sense in which this qualifies as a victory is this. Without scrutiny on this decision by ordinary citizens, the few journalists that bothered to their jobs, and individuals such as the UN Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer, I fully believe that Baraitser would have rubber stamped US extradition. In fact, I was shocked that she announced she would not be sending Assange to the US even with these factors. I think this decision does show that putting scrutiny on the establishment can work, and what’s more, its the only thing that does work.

Here’s the ‘but’. Many people, including Jonathan Cook and Rebecca Vincent, have pointed out that the fact that Baraitser agrees with everything the US prosecution said aside from the argument about prison conditions and suicide risk means that the ruling still sets a horrible precedent and does not protect journalism. This is of course a perfectly reasonable point.

Focusing simply on the implications for Assange however, there are two points which limit this victory. The first is that for now (pending a bail appeal tomorrow, 6th January) Assange remains incarcerated in Belmarsh prison. Due to his weak health and the effects of psychological torture, Assange will remain at risk of death in Belmarsh if he does not receive bail. If he has to remain in Belmarsh throughout the course of any appeal that will limit the victory in this case.

The second point to make is that we need to be aware of the possibility of establishment mind games. Having realised that they may not have been able to get away with having Baraitser rule against Assange, they may hope to induce complacency among supporters by giving them a victory and then overturn the decision on appeal. They may hope to get the idea across to the more uninformed public that “Assange has won so there is no need to pay any attention” while they plot a plane to the US.

Assange supporters must not let that happen. By all means, celebrate an unexpected gain yesterday. But as for today, it’s back to work.

ETA: Julian Assange was denied bail, meaning that he has to remain in prison throughout any US appeal. It is now looking as though the decision on Monday – though gained by public scrutiny on the case – was a ploy by the establishment. The establishment obviously thinks that rejecting the extradition and denying bail and hoping Assange dies in Belmarsh is a better option than granting extradition. If he dies in Belmarsh from the effects of psychological torture that serves their purposes just as much as if he was extradited to the US. Of course they may also have a plan to ensure that Assange is extradited on appeal, perhaps by hoping to inculcate complacency and hoping the public gets the misleading impression that ‘Assange has won’. Either way Assange loses more years of his life to horrific torture even if he does not die in Belmarsh and the appeal does not succeed.

It’s important that we don’t fall for the establishment’s lies and maneuvers and that we never give upon Julian Assange despite everything that they will try.