December 14, 2010


So the British courts allowed Wikileaks founder Julian Assange bail today. And in a dashing, uh, rescue, the Swedish said, "no... no... no... you can't the fuck go." Presumably because, oh, come on, because he can flee the country? Because he will go deep underground?

Bull. Shit. Not only was Assange in Sweden after the accusations broke, and thus had been available for questioning (and according to his legal team, no questioning ever came, wow, isn't that a surprise), he didn't flee Sweden in a tug or row boat in the middle of the night, no, he simply left for Britain, which is just across the channel, you know.

And furthermore, what is often forgotten, especially by our pals and buddies in the "real media", he wasn't hunted down, chased and arrested by Scotland Yard. When the warrant was certified and all was in order (and before somebody says, "he should have gone to Scotland Yard before and...", I say, and what? I wasn't aware that you have to pro-actively have to surrender yourself to the authorities. Unless you are Jewish. And in Berlin, circa 1938.Think about what you are saying before you open your mouth, will you?)

And it is the same media who now complains that this is a media frenzy, a personality cult (isn't that right, Heather Brooke, who closes her twats today from the courthouse with, I shit you not, "Folks I am now in dance class and off the grid so for #Assange case news follow Guardian et al."). Of course it is a media frenzy around a person, you retard.

You made it that way, all of you. Instead of dealing with the truths that the leaked documents, published by WikiLeaks, you go for the fucking rocking star angle.

Political Rebel Accused Of Rape! How is out there at the court, Heather?

Well, George, here we really don't know anything, but that won't us stop from telling you all the fucking irrelevant details, down to the fact that Assange is wearing a navy suit and an open white shirt. Yes, George, you heard it here first.

It's all the news we can fit in 140 fucking characters!

A real-time bullshit extravaganza of hyenias who don't know the first thing about journalism and its function in a democracy. Come on in! Come on it! We will treat this travesty of justice with the same depth and respect that we treat a weather report in the build-up of Hurricane Julian. Because that is what this is. Retards in front of cameras, giving us daily, hourly, minute-by-minute accounts of themselves.

Yes, George, I don't know how you feel in the studio, but out here, we can feel the first gusts of cold wind coming up our skirts!

What WikiLeaks has shown is not only the complete failure of checks and balances in our political systems, which appear to be thinking that transparancy is only good for dictatorships in a third world country, but secrecy, deception and corruption are vital, let me repeat that, vital for a democracy...

... it has also shown the complete breakdown of the corporate media and the people working within. Come on in! Come on in! Get your hot dogs here, some soda, some popcorn, show's about to start. And we are going to narrate it. In short, functional, teasing tweets, in set-ups that show you... well, us, the "reporters", telling you... nothing of value. Filling inches. Filling space. Filling time.

What is the value of this mockery?

What is the value of this trial, no, wait, there isn't a trial, not even that is there, it is a trial in the media, it is Dreyfus all over again, it is a dog and pony show, and hell, if this isn't the best example of "man bites dog", then I don't know what it is.

Where are the reporters hounding down the two women? And yes, dear feminists, the way this all has unfolded, in all of its weirdness and with one of the accusers to be more than a little bit iffy, complete with her own blog entry about how to take revenge on a man when jilted...

...makes the two women fair game. If Assange is already pre-convicted in the media, then it is equal opportunity time. Who exactly are these women? Has Accuser A. already implemented her "revenge plan" in other instances? How could Assange have possibly emotionally coerced her into anything, considering that he had neither political, social or monetary power over her? She is not Anita Hill. This is not sexual harrassment. This is not about the fear of losing your job, if you don't play a good puppy. And so all the feminists crying on about that, it is not comparable. In any way. And I want to see evidence to the contrary.

But instead I get P.T. Barnum, and hell, there's more than one fool born every minute, we are in the fool-making business, boys and girls, we have started to mass-produce them, we have given them suits and wrinkle-free faces and put them in front of the cameras. Only real life, people, is not like Bridget Jones, and stupidity in front of the camera is not only, well, stupid, it is also dangerous.

Where are the reporters hounding down the prosecutors, where are the reporters investigating the claim that Assange offered numerous times to talk to the prosecution, where is the reporter who - with the financial backing of his corporate masters - is not merely content with voice-over narration, but with investigation?

I tell you where.