What’s next for Julian Assange?

…by fact, speculation, disinformation, psyop lies, and investigative journalism.  Let’s start with his hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court in London.

(Attorney Jen Robinson and Kristinn Hrafnsson  outside Westminster Magistrates Court)

‘Former UK ambassador Craig Murray denounces arrest and conviction of Julian Assange’, wsws.org, April 12, 2019

“Judge Michael Snow found Assange guilty of bail charges that date back to 2012, ordering him to appear at Southwark Crown Court at an unknown date. He could face a sentence of 12 months.”

“During a brief hearing Judge Snow gave voice to the state vendetta against Assange, attacking the award-winning journalist as a “narcissist”, telling him to “get over the US” and “get on with your life” and describing as “laughable” his claim he had not received a fair hearing.”

…then quoting long-time Assange supporter Craig Murray who was who was outside the court:

“What we have seen today is extraordinary. It’s amazing that you can be dragged out of somewhere by armed police and within three hours brought up before a judge and found guilty of a crime involving a serious jail sentence. There was no jury and no chance to mount a proper defence or have a proper hearing.

It is clear the judge was extremely prejudiced. It was very short hearing today and he cannot possibly have formed during that time his judgment that Julian Assange is a ‘narcissistic personality’.

That plainly shows that he must have formed his judgement from what he had read in the media before he ever came into the court. That judgement could not possibly be formed in the few minutes in the court. There are serious reasons to question Judge Snow and about the quality of justice that has gone on here. It is a case of extreme prejudice. There is no way anyone could call what has happened a fair trial.”

‘Out of the embassy, straight into custody: Assange’s court hearing’, Alistair Smount, reuters.com, April 11, 2019

“As Assange sat and read [Gore Vidal’s History of The National Security State], Judge Michael Snow considered calling security to locate Assange’s lawyers, who were late for the start of the hearing.

A lawyer representing Assange said he pleaded not guilty to failing to surrender over the Swedish charges, arguing it had been reasonable for him to enter the embassy given concerns that the United States could try and have him extradited, and because the original hearings were biased against him.

But Assange declined to give evidence, and Snow found him guilty of breaching his bail.

Representing Assange, lawyer Liam Walker said his client had always said there was a U.S. extradition request “waiting in the wings” for him. “His reasons for seeking refuge were well founded,” he said.

The judge said Assange could at a later date consent to be extradited to the United States.  The benefit of this, he said with a hint of irony, was that Assange would be able to “get there faster and get on with your life.”

The judge also gave the U.S. government a deadline of June 12 to outline its case [for extradition to the US] against Assange.”

WATCH: ‘British Gitmo’ jail where Julian Assange is being held’, RT.com, April 12

“Belmarsh is located on the eastern outskirts of London, about 5 miles (8 km) east of Greenwich on the southern bank of the Thames River. The prison opened in 1991, and has been used to imprison high-profile inmates such as Jordanian cleric Abu Qatada and Salafist preacher Anjem Choudary – but also former Labour MP Denis MacShane, convicted of fraud, and former Conservative politician Baron Jeffrey Archer, convicted of perjury.

Belmarsh was also used as the holding facility for around 17 individuals detained under anti-terrorism laws since 2001. Some of them were held in solitary for 22 hours a day, “entombed in concrete” without charges for months, their attorneys told BBC in 2004.

Both Assange’s lawyers and the UK authorities are yet to publicly confirm his whereabouts.”

The Latest on Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange’s Arrest, US Extradition, mintpressnews.com, April 11, 2019

“Following his arrest on Thursday, an independent U.N. human rights expert said that Assange’s arrest would not deter efforts to determine if the privacy rights of the WikiLeaks founder were violated, ostensibly by the Ecuadorian government who is accused of recording Assange and handing those recording to U.S. intelligence agencies.

UN Special Rapporteur Joe Cannataci had planned to travel to London on April 25 to meet with Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy, where Assange sought asylum in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden. Cannataci says he still plans to keep the meeting despite Assange’s arrest at the embassy on Thursday.

Cannataci said in a statement: “I will visit him and speak to him in a police station or elsewhere in the U.K. where Cannataci in a statement. He says the U.N. human rights office plans to ask the British government to give him access to Assange on April 25. And if Assange is extradited to the United States by then, Cannataci said “then I will direct my request for access to the government of the United States.”

Responding to this (ahem) potentially complicating factor:

‘Julian Assange accuser asks for sex assault case to be reopened in Sweden, The Wikileaks founder is being held on behalf of the US authorities, as well as for breaching his bail conditions, Scotland Yard says’ sky.com, mint press news reports:

‘Initially, Sweden’s Chief Prosecutor Ingrid Isgren said, “we have not been able to decide on the available information” whether a stalled investigation into alleged sexual offenses against Julian Assange could be reopened if he returns to Sweden before the statute of limitations lapses in August 2020, but hours later following Assange’s appearance in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Swedish prosecutors reopened their preliminary investigation into allegations of rape against Assange after a lawyer for one of the alleged victims requested that Swedish prosecutors revisit the case. The prosecutors’ office has affirmed that the case against Assange will be reopened but did not give a deadline for the probe.”

“Former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa accused the nation’s current leader of retaliating against Julian Assange for WikiLeaks’ publication of documents that could implicate President Lenin Moreno in corruption. Correa — who led the South American nation when Assange was granted asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy — said Thursday that the decision to revoke asylum is “cowardly.”

WD here: Correa is mistaken: See Background on the INA Papers and Attempts to Expel Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy at defendwikileaks.org about two thirds of the way down the page, including:

“WikiLeaks did not publish the INA Papers. WikiLeaks only reported on the INA Papers investigation by Ecuador’s National Assembly in a March 25th tweet which stated, “Corruption investigation opened against Ecuador’s president Moreno, after purported leaked contents of his iPhone (Whatsapp, Telegram) & Gmail were published. New York Times reported that Moreno tried to sell Assange to US for debt relief. http://inapapers.org/.”

“In a stream of remarks on Twitter, Correa criticized Moreno for allowing British authorities to arrest Assange, and linked that to WikiLeaks’ disclosure about an offshore bank account allegedly linked to Moreno’s family and friends. Correa said the decision “will never been forgotten by all of humanity.”

Meanwhile, RT.com is reporting that Rafael Correa’s Facebook account has been deleted.  He’s now living in Belgium to escape political persecution by the Moreno administration.

And from Kevin Gosztola: ‘Justice Department Charges Julian Assange With Computer Crime But Alleges Conspiracy To Abet Espionage’, shadowproof.com, April 11, 2019, some excellent analysis. If you’d like to follow along:

[From the US Dept. of ‘Justice’, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Virginia, Thursday, April 11, 2019, ‘WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Computer Hacking Conspiracy’]

“The Justice Department’s grand jury investigation into WikiLeaks charged Assange with “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.” It falls under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and a general part of the criminal code that can be used against individuals who conspire to defraud the United States.

While on the surface it appears the Justice Department attempted to circumvent many of the First Amendment issues, which discouraged President Barack Obama’s administration from moving forward with an indictment of Assange, the language in the indictment—dated March 6, 2018—is very similar to what prosecutors typically include in indictments against individuals charged with violating the Espionage Act.

The indictment criminalizes Assange as an “aider” and “abettor” of “espionage” for publishing unauthorized disclosures of classified information on the WikiLeaks website.

When referring to an alleged “password-cracking agreement” between Assange and Manning, the indictment contends, “Assange knew that Manning was providing WikiLeaks with classified records containing national defense information of the United States. Assange was knowingly receiving such classified records from Manning for the purpose of disclosing them on the WikiLeaks website.”

“Part of the alleged computer crime contains language alleging Assange violated the CFAA. Yet, the Justice Department mostly shoehorns language from the Espionage Act into the alleged computer violation:

(a) to knowingly access a computer, without authorization and exceeding authorized access, to obtain information that has been determined by the United States government pursuant to an executive order and statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense and foreign relations, namely, documents relating to the national defense classified up to the “secret” level, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States and the advantage of any foreign nation, and to willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, and cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, to any person not entitled to receive it, and willfully retain the same and fail to deliver it to the officer or employee entitled to receive it.”

“Additionally, there is the timeline of events that appears in the indictment. On March 8, 2010, prosecutors allege Assange “agreed” to assist in cracking a password so she could anonymously access Defense Department computer connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network that held the documents.

Manning had a security clearance because she was an all-source military intelligence analyst in Baghdad. She did not need Assange to help her obtain access. What the prosecutors are claiming is her interest in shielding her identity, and the fact that Assange allegedly was willing to help her protect her identity, opened him up to a charge of conspiracy.

The indictment highlights chats that allegedly occurred between Assange and Manning over the Jabber online chat service. What the indictment does not state is that the account Manning corresponded with was “Nathaniel Frank.” The U.S. government believes Assange used this account, but they will have to prove it in order to mount a successful prosecution.”

“To the Justice Department, part of the conspiracy involves publishing information that could “damage” the United States. They believe when Assange received the information he should have destroyed the documents or tried to “return” them to the U.S. government. It is but another alarming aspect of this indictment.”

He has a lot more, including the prosecution’s claims at Manning’s Article 32 in Dec. 2011, and quotes from Alexa O’Brien who’d covered the hearing as Kevin had.

Apparently this single charge carries a sentence up to five years in prison; if he were to be convicted under the Espionage Act, the penalty can include…death, the fact of which his attorneys are only too aware, see video at the top.  The single charge is obviously a psyop to schmooze credulous idiots into believing that it’s fine to extradite him to Amerika; he’ll only have to serve five years, and then…get back to his life! It additionally provides cover to Moreno and British law to not extradite Julian to a nation where he could receive the Death Penalty.

According to politico.com:

In the U.S., Eastern Virginia District Court Judge Claude Hilton, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan and a former judge on the intelligence court that approves foreign surveillance warrants, will hear Assange’s case. That’s the same location as the trial of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and the place where Hilton recently held Manning in contempt of court.”

Back to Craig Murray speaking to wsws reporters:

“Then there is the truly appalling behaviour of Ecuador’s dreadful President Moreno. He has not only curried favour with the United States and UK but sold Julian out.

One good thing, if you wish, that has come out of this is that now we are talking about extradition. We can now see what all of this is really about. It is about freedom of the press, about Julian being charged with publishing the revelations made by Chelsea Manning. From day one this has been about the United States wishing to lock Julian up for the Chelsea Manning leak exposing serious American war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

I guess I don’t think that’s it, as this is only the first charge, or shall we call it ‘the initial  gambit’?; even Julian reckons the bastards really want to get him for publishing the two CIA vaults, most especially.

And just in this morning, ‘Julian Assange’s life is in danger’, wsws.org, 13 April 2019, and whoa,  Eric London does not mince his words; a few outtakes:

“The official pretext being used to extradite Assange is a transparent lie. In a previously-sealed indictment made public Thursday, the US Department of Justice charged Assange only with violating a federal law against conspiring to break passwords to government computers.

The fact that the crime carries only a 5-year sentence and does not fall under the Espionage Act provides all involved parties with a cover for handing Assange over to the Americans. In particular, the US-UK extradition treaty excludes transfer for “political offenses,” including espionage. Citing the Justice Department document, the British government will claim in the courts that Assange’s extradition will not be prevented by this exclusion.

The Ecuadoran government, moreover, claims it could revoke Assange’s asylum because the indictment shows he will not face the threat of the death penalty.

In fact, once Assange is in the hands of the United States, he will quickly confront a series of additional charges, including espionage. The efforts to downplay the threat to the freedom of the press and understate the charge against Assange are aimed at sowing complacency in the population and distracting from the core free speech issues at stake.”

“Based on the language of the indictment, both Assange and Manning could face criminal persecution under this law. By announcing that Assange is being prosecuted based explicitly on Manning’s activity, the government is demonstrating her future is at risk as well. In fact, the first two words of the indictment are “Chelsea Manning.”

OMG; I’ve been studiously avoiding reactions from the political class, but one paragraph after his exposing the facts that so many are eager to seize Assange and lock him up for life—if not impose worse punishments:

“Like a dungeonmaster who has been handed his latest victim, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin declared: “He is our property and we can get the facts and the truth from him.” On the basis of this statement, Assange is being transferred to the US for the purpose of interrogation—which would fall under the category of extraordinary rendition, not extradition.”

Prior to that he’d brought these examples from the D political class proving again that Russia-gate will live in their mangy souls forever:

“Democratic Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer tweeted, “I hope he will soon be held to account for his meddling in our elections on behalf of Putin and the Russian government.” Democratic Senator Mark Warner called Assange “a direct participant in Russian efforts to weaken the West and undermine American security. I hope British courts will quickly transfer him to U.S. custody so he can finally get the justice he deserves.”

Read the rest at your peril; thought crimes might result.

What, then, is to be done? From comment under London’s piece:

“In the age of mouthpiece journalism echo chambering the approved gov. news; Julian Assange and wikileaks is without any exaggeration the bright light in the valley of darkness. This is.. the going out of the last light! If we fall prey to indifference and powerlessness; and do not stand up for this hero; then i do not know if a day where the working class becoming the ruling class can be any more than just words.”

Begging the question, yes, there will be protests globally, more letters to sign, etc., and all supporters will do what they must do, and are able to do…but how often has the working ever caused the Ruling Class to heed us?

 (cross-posted at caucus99percent.com)

26 responses to “What’s next for Julian Assange?

  1. Thank you, wendye. Lambert at NC had put forward quite a few new threads, one of which had a Real News interview with Daniel Ellsburgh that began thusly:

    “…my prosecution is the very first prosecution of an American for disclosing information to the American public. And that was ended a couple of years later by governmental misconduct. There were two others before President Obama, and nine or so under President Obama, of sources, none of these having been tested in the Supreme Court yet as to their relation to the First Amendment. Hasn’t gone to them.

    This is the first indictment of a journalist and editor or publisher, Julian Assange…”

    Not that any of these prosecutions would be favorably viewed by the Supreme Court as currently constructed, but that was a surprise to me given the obvious involvement of First Amendment rights. Ellsburgh also comments on those who assisted him avoid arrest back before his trial being even now unwilling to be identified. It does seem you are correct about the underlying purpose of the US extradition request.

    What exactly is the Supreme Court concerning itself with these days? (I guess I shouldn’t ask.)

    I did see somewhere a question being raised as to whether the judge could be himself causing a mistrial with respect to his blatantly obvious prejudice in the case.

  2. as for the judge slamming the door on him in his ‘failure to face bail charges in the UK’ i doubt his sentence will be less than the full year in belmarsh UK gitmo. calling him a narcissistic (as in the OP wouldn’t be grounds for a mistrial, imo, because at least in US courts, the presiding judge would be the one to decide that.

    the larger issue is extreme rendition to the US, as per eric london on the D electeds, but as i understand it julian will appear by skype from his jail cell in belmarsh prison.

    we can hope, pray, protest, sign letters…but none of it may matter to the outcome. a full-court press from moreno, the UK, and the US has him right where they want him, tragically.

  3. He is our property

    Is that demagoguery, comrade? When US slurps tiny, tasty caterpillar Assange, won’t that doom the fourth reich?

    • he sure did tip his hand, didn’t he, dark-hearted joe manchin. precisely why old sourpuss imagined this scenario lookout had provided over yonder. the same glimmer of hope was posited by a commenter there as well; i don’t see it at all, unless his appeals take a decade or so, and the geopolitical situation shifts immeasurably. the UK’s home secretary is just a prince of a guy.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sajid_Javid

      • Comrade, you sure you’ve busted the dragon?

        Assange played by the rules and they broke their own system to git’um. Now how did the monsters unleashed by Drumpf get there? Russia made “us” do it?

        HA HA HA HA HA HA. National Security. HA HA HA HA HA HA.

        These savagery managers have one legacy: war criminals. Their prosecution awaits.

      • Can the hostages of settler-colonials be born again?

  4. the weakening of the liberal world order is due, more than anything else, to the changed attitude of the U.S. Under President Donald Trump, the US decided against joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership and to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. It has threatened to leave the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. It has unilaterally introduced steel and aluminum tariffs, relying on a justification (national security) that others could use, in the process placing the world at risk of a trade war….America First” and the liberal world order seem incompatible.
    -Richard Hass, CFR

    What Haass is saying is that the cure for globalisation is more globalization, that the greatest threat to the liberal world order is preventing the behemoth corporations from getting more of what they want; more self-aggrandizing trade agreements, more offshoring of businesses, more outsourcing of jobs, more labor arbitrage, and more privatization of public assets and critical resources. Trade liberalization is not liberalization, it does not strengthen democracy or create an environment where human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law are respected. It’s a policy that focuses almost-exclusively on the free movement of capital in order to enrich wealthy shareholders and fatten the bottom line. The sporadic uprisings around the world– Brexit, yellow vests, emergent right wing groups– can all trace their roots back to these one-sided, corporate-friendly trade deals that have precipitated the steady slide in living standards, the shrinking of incomes, and the curtailing of crucial benefits for the great mass of working people across the US and Europe. President Trump is not responsible for the outbreak of populism and social unrest, he is merely an expression of the peoples rage. Trump’s presidential triumph was a clear rejection of the thoroughly-rigged elitist system that continues to transfer the bulk of the nation’s wealth to tiniest layer of people at the top.

    Assange irritates globalists, Trump bounties Assange, Globalists blame Trump. New World order bad for digestion, comrade.

  5. i’l be back, but i want to drop this sequence off:

    and this from craig murray:

  6. “Wikileaks has been put on notice: ‘sell your soul for Assange’s pardon or we can pile on the charges and he’ll rot forever in Florence, Colorado, solitary confinement.’”

  7. guess we’ll see by june 12 what case the dept of injustice makes for his extreme rendition and how the UK rules or postpones or waffles.

    thing is, what would torture make him say? here’s the dead man’s switch code?

    • Huh? Julian Assange will confirm that the Swiss Government will take uyghurs in Guantanamo in exchange for Swiss Bank assets? This is credible?

      Seems like pretending to be lesser evil (in this case the Trump mafiosos/white righteous wingers less evil than the degenerate super-national imperialists) leads to mental illness …

      • is that from the video, x?

      • No, I had it wrong. The claim is that Clinton’s State Department was running a “racketeering conspiracy to finance terrorism” and to profit her operatives and to punish her enemies and to get rid of the Uyghurs in Guantanamo.

        Really.

        Known as the 2007 “Birkenfeld Disclosure”, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it had reached a deferred prosecution agreement with UBS that resulted in a US$780 million fine and the release of previously privileged information on American tax evaders.

        IOW, UBS was criminal before HRC could shake them down from the State Department.

        In 2012, HSBC was fined for funding terrorists and laundering drug money:

        What is different about this settlement is that the Justice Department, for the first time, admitted why it decided to go soft on this particular kind of criminal. It was worried that anything more than a wrist slap for HSBC might undermine the world economy. “Had the U.S. authorities decided to press criminal charges,” said Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer at a press conference to announce the settlement, “HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking license in the U.S., the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized.”

        And Obama’s modus operandi – take it easy on your patrons – was applied to UBS in 2012:

        A little over a week later, Breuer was back in front of the press, giving a cushy deal to another huge international firm, the Swiss bank UBS, which had just admitted to a key role in perhaps the biggest antitrust/price-fixing case in history, the so-called LIBOR scandal, a massive interest-rate ­rigging conspiracy involving hundreds of trillions (“trillions,” with a “t”) of dollars in financial products. While two minor players did face charges, Breuer and the Justice Department worried aloud about global stability as they explained why no criminal charges were being filed against the parent company.

        So. It appears the criminals here were bigger fish than Clinton’s State Department. Is it credible that Clinton was also extorting UBS?

        Scott Bennett had a background in advertising, before being fast tracked into the US military PSYOPS division, receiving a Direct Commission as an Officer, and held a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (TS/SCI) security clearance.

        Bennett’s milieu is right-wing conspiracy.

        Handle with care, comrade.

    • thank you, and it’s well said, but i’ll have to watch the 14 minute video later. i’ve actually been busy digging for answers to comments on my more recent diary ‘updates on the dire straits of julian and chelsea’, over yonder, but lit’s here as well, of course. you might want to take a gander at this one.

      https://cafe-babylon.net/2019/04/23/updates-on-the-dire-straits-of-julian-and-chelsea/
      always good to see you, my friend.

  8. In fact, this SGT Report narrative smells like a setup. They stake out what Assange would “prove” were he to testify so that, were he not to, they have a claim on the cause of his disappearance. Otherwise, such confidence about such devastating evidence smells like fantasy …

    • I don’t have the impression that the SGT Report people are insincere. Are they in control of the situation? That is another question.

      • On the date of Assange’s arrest, Scott Bennett publishes:

        Julian Assange will be presenting material to the US Congress which will do the following: …

        Cocky!

        This individual is very fishy. Handle with care.

        • Sorry, four days after Assange’s arrest. Maybe Bennett’s in touch with some expert torturers?

        • why in the world does bennet believe assange will ever testify to congress by now? how long ago now was it that he’d been offered ‘limited immunity’ (whatever that means) to appear (iirc) the senate intel community, but comey had issued a stand-down order to prevent it. the gist was that he’d prove that nope, t’ warnt the rooskies who’d hacked the dnc and podesta emails, gave them to WL. can’t keep up the hoax with that!

          and anyway, fook no, he’d never give up a source like ‘seth rich’, dead or not. some feller had intimated the same thing on one of my assange updates over yonder. nope, it’s espionage treason they want him for: that’s why they’re still keeping schulte on the list.

          • yaknow, Scotty travels in cramped circles … Isn’t it not anomalous that he was confined with Brad Birkenfeld in “prison”, from which education Scotty constructed a parallel story about the NWO?

            It takes work to keep conflicting realities alive, comrade.

            Incidentally, Scotty’s “report” to Congress, “Shell Game”, is very peculiar, flamboyant, queer. In it he’s garish with his cultivation and sensitivity. Apparently he likes putting on a show.

            Scott Bennett, can you hear me? Got yer google filter on?

      • Scott Bennet:

        The typical communist socio-economic model is to a nation what an artificial steroid is to the human body: it appears to grow strength
        in the beginning but ends up destroying the body in the end

        Only capitalism can save us! HA HA HA

        Although similar to many of the societal erosions Russia faced in the 1980’s, America’s are far more insidious and lethal today. They are in fact terminal, unless properly purged from our body politic. These societal erosions include, but are not limited to, the following:

        * A self-consuming appetite for blind multi-culturalism that
        foments suicidally reckless immigration policies and spawns the
        unlawful monstrosity of “sanctuary cities”.
        * A desperate obsession to manufacture the perfect health-care
        system that will, somehow, automatically and effortlessly guarantee a
        constantly blissful, supernaturally healthy life. Unfortunately the
        Soma today are opioids and anti-depressants which transform the mind
        and body like tobacco smoked into ash.

        * A hyper-sensitivity and quasi-religious worship of
        ‘political-correctness’ which has essentially outlawed traditional
        notions of American moral-religious purity, as well as sickened
        America with a kind of sexual-identity schizophrenia. This
        schizophrenia has in turn unleashed a plague of confusion and
        misunderstanding in America about sex, love, intimacy, natural law,
        the human body, emotions, and male-female roles, which is now
        manifesting as selfishness, hedonism, transgenderism, sex
        re-assignment, pedophile friendly child-sized sex dolls, and other
        perversions and abominations.

        Despite the rotten stench of insanity and death it carries, this
        sexual and moral schizophrenia has been re-defined by the priests of
        political-correctness—the Democrats, cultural Marxists, and Strausian
        neocons—as the climax of civilized humanity and the ideal of feminist
        politics.

        Maybe Scott’s alpha-confidence comes from his muscular Kwistianity.

        [Nietzsche] sees the Jews as the victors in a great inversion of values. They were oppressed by warrior nobles (e.g., Romans), and they created the ultimatum revenge of convincing people that warrior nobles and their values were bad, and that being priestly and weak are good.

        Scotty’s spreading his delusions around. Who’d protect Julian when he’s “leaking” to Congress, Jeebus?

  9. Marxism had seen world revolution and its preliminaries as the panacea for the social problem: revolution and the subsequent collectivization of the means of production, so it was claimed, would immediately change things for the better. This illusion has vanished.

    A good crucifixion is very useful. When even the best have failed, and none dare to more, the oppressors are absolved (Ours is the natural order!)

    Julian, hallowed be thy name!

Leave a Reply to Comrade X Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s