Julian Assange, Prince of Trolls

Malware, viruses, denial-of-service, hacking — a troll attack of global proportions:

A small army of activist hackers orchestrated a broad campaign of cyberattacks on Wednesday in support of the beleaguered antisecrecy organization WikiLeaks, which has drawn governmental criticism from around the globe for its release of classified American documents and whose founder, Julian Assange, is being held in Britain on accusations of rape.
Targets included Mastercard.com, which stopped processing donations for WikiLeaks; Amazon.com, which had briefly provided WikiLeaks server space; the online payment service PayPal, which cut off its commercial cooperation with WikiLeaks; the lawyer representing the two Swedish women who have accused Mr. Assange of sexual offenses; and PostFinance, the Swiss postal system’s financial arm, which closed Mr. Assange’s account after saying he provided false information by saying that he resided in Switzerland. . . .

Read the rest.

Clearing the Browser Tabs

Borrowing Jimmie Bise’s meme once more, it’s been a heckuva few days, with offline work stacked up like cordwood, various Dad-the-taxi-driver errands to run, etc., and so many trolls and feminists to smack around.

Honestly, I’d ignore those pests, but it’s Holiday Traffic Suckage Season. At this time of year, the potential traffic lost by not blogging every breaking political development is not so great a loss compared to the pleasure provided to regular readers who love to watch me work out on a troll.

Anyway, there’s a backlog of stuff I was thinking of blogging about, but never got around to:

So that’s the roundup. Please hit the tip jar, or you’ll make my children cry.

Jill Filipovic and Amanda Marcotte to Denounce Keith Olbermann in 3, 2, 1 . . .

Defenders of Julian Assange are now “downshifting from Camille Paglia to Three Days of the Condor,” resorting to a conspiracy-theory defense of the WikiLeaker’s First Amendment right to condom-free sex with Swedish socialists:

Here’s how an evidence-free, innuendo-filled personal attack on a rape accuser trespasses the mainstream political debate. On his Twitter feed, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann (162,000 followers) links to a rambling blog post arguing that Anna Ardin, the Swedish feminist who accused Assange of rape, is an anti-Castro activist with connections to CIA front groups. . . .

Read the whole brutal thing by Michael Moynihan, whose wife is Swedish, but not socialist, and therefore safe from Julian Assange’s penis.

UPDATE: Despite the fact that Olbermann was up to his usual tricks — re-Tweeting crackpot conspiracy theories from Holocaust-denying anti-Semites in order to smear innocent rape victims — we have discovered evidence that, indeed, the accusations against Julian Assange are part of a right-wing plot. Thanks to Kirk James Murphy of Progressive Alaska, we now have a photo of the so-called “Swedish feminist” who is at the center of this international scheme to frame Assange: Continue reading Jill Filipovic and Amanda Marcotte to Denounce Keith Olbermann in 3, 2, 1 . . . →

‘I Feel As If I’m in a Surreal Swedish Movie Being Threatened by Bizarre Trolls’

No, this has nothing to do with Barrett Brown. Rather, the quote is from Mark Stephens, lawyer for Julian Assange, describing his feelings at attempting to get his client off the hook for his not-entirely-consensual hook-ups with two Swedish socialist women.

The same quote would also fairly describe my surprise at finding none other than Amanda Marcotte accusing me of being “pro-rape” in the comments of last night’s post about Assange.

Also, Tommy Christopher condescends to notice me. Not in a good way.

Before we go wading into that troll-infested argument, however, let’s pause to consider a remarkable fact: Interpol is now issuing warrants for men who fail to wear condoms.

Perhaps Julian Assange should convert to Catholicism and ask the Pope to testify on his behalf.

OK, now that I’ve added Catholics to the long list of people who hate me today, let’s just go ahead and offend everyone else: George Bush had it all wrong. Instead of claiming that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction, he should have instructed the CIA to gin up evidence that Saddam refused to wear condoms, at which point Amanda Marcotte would have demanded an immediate invasion of Iraq.

The good news: A British judge has denied Julian Assange bail, which means he won’t be free to keep leaking U.S. national security secrets on the Internet.

The bad news: A British judge has denied Julian Assange bail, which means some other poor shmuck will now have to satisfy the twisted carnal cravings of Swedish socialist women.

More good news: The Left is thrust onto the horns of a dilemma, forced to choose between conflicting principles of feminism and anti-Americanism.

More bad news: This has given Naomi Wolf an excuse to write a column.

In such a storm of controversy, by what lights should a conservative steer? Simple enough: Find out what side of the argument Andrew Sullivan has taken, and get on the other side.

A useful reality-check from Greenwald. I have to say the coincidence of these strange sexual charges and the ire of so many governments is extremely convenient, don’t you think? It’s like a movie. And no bail? Assange is on the road to underground hero status.

The old conspiratorial “question the timing” mood, eh? Perhaps this entire plot against Assange has been contrived by that notorious arch-villain, Sarah Palin’s uterus.

Well, Amanda Marcotte is in my comments. You perhaps remember Marcotte as having helped coin the immortal slogan, “Vote for Edwards, Godbag Christofascists!” And you remember how Senator Edwards — so loyal and courageous and committed to True Feminist principles — defended Marcotte. Continue reading ‘I Feel As If I’m in a Surreal Swedish Movie Being Threatened by Bizarre Trolls’ →

Julian Assange Arrested in London

BBC:

The founder of the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has been arrested by police in London.
The 39-year-old Australian, who was the subject of a European arrest warrant, denies allegations he sexually assaulted two women in Sweden. . . .
Scotland Yard said Mr Assange was arrested by appointment at a London police station at 0930 GMT.

The Guardian: “A group calling itself Justice for Assange is planning a protest outside City of Wesminster magistrates court at 1.30pm.”

Well, of course they are. Take notes, guys: If you ever get accused of date-rape and want to rally a bunch of leftists to your defense, make sure you leak a lot of damaging U.S. national-security secrets first.

UPDATE: Christopher Hitchens has weighed in:

As for the public’s right to know and the accountability of our covert or confidential agencies, it is only a short time since the entire American liberal consensus was witlessly applauding a clumsy and fruitless prosecution, directed entirely at the hopelessly overdramatized exposure of a relatively minor CIA official, married to a monster of conceit who makes Assange look bashful. It then turned out that Valerie Plame’s job description had been made public by Robert Novak and Richard Armitage, who also had in common with Assange a rooted opposition to the administration’s Iraq policy. Elements of the left and the right appear to have switched positions on full disclosure since then. . . .

But Hitchens here glosses over a crucial distinction: Novak wasn’t publishing national security documents hacked (or leaked) from the State Department. He was merely reporting what he had been told by an administration official in answer to a fairly obvious question, to wit: How the hell had the CIA decided on Joseph Wilson, of all people, as the man to investigate reports that Saddam had attempted to obtain uranium ore from Niger? And the answer was: His wife works at the agency.

Valerie Plame wasn’t “outed.” She wasn’t a covert agent, and her public identification created no risk to her or (so far as we know) to anyone else.

As for Hitchens’ conclusion that Assange “is plainly a micro-megalomaniac with few if any scruples and an undisguised agenda,” who could argue? It remains to be seen whether Assange is also guilty of “rape-rape.”

Much more news and commentary at Memeorandum.

Unintentional Hilarity: Feminists Ask If Julian Assange Committed ‘Rape-Rape’

Exactly why this showed up on Memeorandum, I don’t know, but with a headline like “Some thoughts on ‘sex by surprise,'” I had to click and it’s Jill Filipovic at Feministing:

There’s a lot going around in bloglandia and on the interwebs about WikiLeaks honcho Julian Assange’s sexual assault charge in Sweden; commentators are saying that Assange didn’t really rape anyone, and these are trumped-up charges of “sex by surprise,” which basically means that Assange didn’t wear a condom and so days later the women he slept with are claiming rape. . . .
It also sounds like in one case, condom use was negotiated for and Assange agreed to wear a condom but didn’t, and the woman didn’t realize it until after they had sex; in the second case, it sounds like the condom broke and the woman told Assange to stop, which he did not. . . .

Yadda, yadda, now the unadulterated nonsense:

It’s an obvious enough concept for feminist thinkers who have spent more than 10 minutes considering the realities of sex and sexual assault: If you consent to sex but then at some point during sex withdraw that consent by telling your partner to stop, your partner should stop, and if your partner doesn’t stop then that’s assault. . . .
Whether withdrawal of consent is what actually happened here is impossible to tell, so I’m not suggesting that Assange is a rapist or that these charges are 100% definitely on-point; I have no idea. But neither do the commentators who are saying that Assange did nothing more than have sex without a condom. And it’s important to counter the “haha sex by surprise those crazy Swedes” media narrative with the fact that actually, non-consensual sex is assault and should be recognized as such by law. Consenting to one kind of sexual act doesn’t mean that you consent to anything else your partner wants to do; if it’s agreed that the only kind of sex we’re having is with a condom, then it does remove an element of consent to have sex without a condom with only one partner’s knowledge. To use another example, if you and your partner agree that you can penetrate her, it doesn’t necessarily follow that she has the green light to penetrate you whenever and however. . . .

Go read the whole silly thing, but I warn you: That’s three minutes of your life you’ll never get back.

Having already said that the proper response to Julian Assange can be summarized in four words — Predator drone. Hellfire missile. — I certainly have no interest in defending that disgusting scumbag. But I think many people who look at life from a practical, common-sense perspective will react to Jill’s fine scruples about the process of ensuring mutual consent much like I did: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Is this what all that ’60s “sexual liberation” rhetoric has wrought?

In an era when some 40% of U.S. births are to unmarried women, in a culture where “Girls Gone Wild” and “hook-ups” are normative, where threesomes, bisexual experimentation and amateur video-porn orgies have become a virtual rite of passage for many young Americans, where chlamydia and herpes are pandemic — in this era of rampant sexual decadence, I say, does Jill Filipovic (J.D., NYU) seriously expect horny strangers to negotiate consent calmly on an act-by-act basis while they’re knocking boots, making the beast with two backs, in flagrante delicto?

Listen up, sweetheart: You buy the ticket, you take the ride.

You made your choice when you picked the guy, who is going to run his standard modus operandi on you, just like he ran it on the last three-dozen hoes he played. Continue reading Unintentional Hilarity: Feminists Ask If Julian Assange Committed ‘Rape-Rape’ →

WikiLeaks and the Totalitarian Impulse

“The dissolution of the distinction between the private and public spheres was one of the great aims of totalitarianism.”
— Theodore Dalrymple, “What’s Really Wrong with WikiLeaks”

Coincidentally, last night I was thinking along very similar lines not only in regard to Julian Assange’s info-terrorism, but also in regard to what Betsy Rothstein does at FishbowlDC.

Those who delight in prying into the privacy of others are shocked when the tables are turned. The feature on Rothstein points out that she — who played a key role in the “Journolist” revelations — becomes quite flustered when people want to make her life the subject of inquiry:

By the next campaign season she had left [a congressional staff position] for The Hill, where she worked for a decade until leaving abruptly for (highly un-salacious) reasons about which she did not want to elaborate on the record. Before I learned most of this I gleaned that, despite the Adams Morgan residency, she spends many days blogging from a coffee shop in Bloomingdale. When I asked if she had a boyfriend in that neighborhood, it caused a mild freakout. . . .
This elusiveness only serves to reinforce Rothstein’s “agenda vacuum,” the unexplained motivations behind her posts that rankle her critics the most.

Exactly: What ax is she grinding? What’s she all about? What makes her tick? The kind of curiosity that drives Rothstein’s exposure of other people’s secrets feels distinctly uncomfortable to Rothstein when it’s directed at her.

And likewise, as Dan Riehl pointed out, while Julian Assange is subjecting massive amounts of U.S. national security materials to total disclosure,  the details of Assange’s own operation — Who’s paying the bills at WikiLeaks? Where’s he getting these leaks? What’s his motivation? — are unknown.

What would we discover if somebody hacked Assange’s e-mail account? What would happen if someone tapped his phone and released the recordings? What might be concealed in the financial records of WikiLeaks?

Dalrymple’s observation about the totalitarian impulse to eradicate privacy is relevant here because, of course, totalitarian governments are always intensely secretive about their own activities. And this inherent double-standard of totalitarianism was something that crossed my mind last night, as I pondered the WikiLeaks revelation of State Department secrets.

During the Russian Revolution, a major propaganda claim by the Bolsheviks was their repudiation of “secret diplomacy,” which they portrayed as the “imperialist” cause of the World War:

[I]n an attack on imperialism, [the Congress of Soviets] called on the nations of the world to abolish secret diplomacy. It promised that the Soviet government would conduct all negotiations in the light of day before the people. And it promised to publish all of the secret treaties to which Russia had been a party.

As the historic record shows, as soon as Lenin’s Bolsheviks gained power, they entered into secret negotiations with Germany that led to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. With similar secrecy, the Kremlin sent Comintern agents everywhere to subvert “capitalist” governments and foment labor unrest in an effort to spark revolutionary uprisings. The U.S. and other governments for some years refused to grant diplomatic recognition to the Soviet government, in part because of the concern — entirely warranted, as subsequent events proved — that Soviet embassies would become hubs of espionage and subversion.

Most notoriously of all, in 1939, after years of Communist propaganda about the need to maintain a “common front” against the fascist menace, Stalin reached a secret treaty with Hitler that provided for the partition of Poland and the liquidation of the Baltic states — the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that was the necessary and immediate precursor to World War II.

So now, while the democratic government of the United States finds its diplomatic messages turned into front-page news through the crimes of Julian Assange and his accomplices — and this action is defended by some who call themselves “libertarians” — WikiLeaks seems to pose no threat to the secrets of North Korea, Cuba, Iran and other terror-states.

As the communists used to say, “This is no accident.”