“The world is divided into two: those that are part of a system of empire and those that are not. The warning that British Prime Minister David Cameron’s coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats has issued to the government of Ecuador that it will assault Quito’s diplomatic mission in London if Assange is not turned over to the British government is in total disregard for international law and signifies a feeling of impunity felt within the system of empire that includes the UK. Cameron’s government is making threats to ignore and breach international law at the behest Washington, DC. The Ecuadorian government, with the support of all Latin America, has responded by telling Britain that it is not a “British colony.” Quito should have re-worded its comments and said it is not an “American colony or dependency like the UK.”

my principal question is:

what happened to Olaf Palme and why?

for my money Assange is a patsy. his fate is of less interest to me than who has been running him, and with what goals in mind. having said that, he is entitled, as anyone else, to protection from arbitrary ill-treatment by so-called ‘authorities’.

you say no evidence of a honey trap. to me the case itself is prima facie evidence of a honey trap. however given Assange’s peculiar status, the motives for setting him up, must be more obscure and complex than what has been released to the public.

but what has happened to Sweden? it appears to have been taken over by an extremist ideology of political correctness. why? and by whom? the kind of hysteria that seems evident in official attitudes is very similar to that put out by those who scream ‘anti-semite’.

so the most economical initial hypothesis, albeit one merely based on a few shreds of evidence, coupled with well-known geopolitical conditions, is:

Palme must have been an obstacle to some aspect of the Kazzer masterplan. Mossad helped to get rid of the obstacle, possibly making use of the S. African BOSS outfit. JP then moved in to initiate the passing of restrictive thought-crime laws and the criminalisation of fairly trivial matters relating to sexuality, under cover of the noble aims of feminism.

i would love to hear what someone who knows the Swedish political scene more intimately has to say about the last thirty years.

Groupies in musical life never complan of the sexual behaviour of their trofies, as it is not about love – either way. Maybe some feminists cannot make the difference between love and sex like some male chauvinists?

The hard facts are

1. The 2 women were afraid they might have got a sexual illness, and wanted A to be tested.

2. The 2 women did not fully appreciate A:s sexual behavior (we donot know if A fully appreciated theirs), but it was all about sex and not love – “one night stand”- type.

3. In Sweden feminism have fucked up the interpretation of the laws about sexual assults, and anything may happen in court.

4. Sweden is a lapdog to US and have earlier, with the knowlage of a minister, helped a CIA-plane on Swedish ground to transport citisence to Egypt for tourture and prison – all against Swedish law.

5. While A still was in Sweden there was plenty of time to question him, but the “case” was evedently not hot enought at that time.

The rest is political spinnoffs.

One may think that a person in A:s position should not have sex with unknown women – stupid, maybe, but not a crime.

Give me one reason why A volontary should go to Sweden!

http://www.deliberation.info/assange-patsy-fool