The 3rd of July is the birthday of Julian Assange. And this article is a birthday gift to Julian.
I was astonished by the reaction of my colleague, when she told me “there are much more important issues than Julian Assange in our agenda” meaning that the LGBTQ “struggle” was more important than endorsing Assange — sad to mention here, she is professor of Ethics… Now considering this course of events in the post-Nazi Atlantic order that are slightly different than known in the public, things become clearer and nothing becomes astonishing.
He most probably holds a world record of modern times for being kept in the prison for so long, without neither any conviction issued nor any lawsuit carried against him. In banana republics we had the term “desaparecidos” for thousands of disappeared socialists at police custody or in clandestine centers founded by the CIA or by being thrown down from a C130 to the ocean. Here the situation with Assange is worse: he is made ‘disappeared’ while he is being kept alive and present in Belmarsh in the knowledge of all people in the world.
Making a person ‘disappeared’ while that person is physically existent is a more complicated operation than throwing hundreds of people down to the ocean from a C130 to jollify sharks.
Let’s get back to 2010 and study the course of events, first, the staged accusations against him in Sweden, then asylum to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and then his detention and imprisonment in Belmarsh.. ..what was so minatory for the US and it’s allies that made them to so grossly violate their own so called ‘democratic’ values? It was risky for them and they had to carry a delicate marginalization operation to gradually disappear him from public sight.
As Prof Zizek said, we learned basically nothing out of Assange’s leaks. Everybody in the world knew that horrible things were going on in Iraq, in Afganistan, but people were taking these atrocities as granted and living their lives as usual. According to Zizek, what’s important about Assange’s work was that his leaks made people not to pretend being unaware of these facts. It’s a good point by Prof Zizek but still too optimistic in undermining the lack of memory of masses. Undeniably, today everything is forgotten again: Assange, as person, is made forgotten in the prison as well as the content and the meaning of his work. The war crimes he unearthed became part of the public knowledge. Today nobody denies these facts. But still, nobody cares his persecution. Thus Prof Zizek was wrong: we still live as if we didn’t know about the ignominies and we still let the British rogue state keeping him in the prison, that is, nobody takes any action towards the Belmarsh prison contrary to what was previously done in Bastille a little a while ago.
Assuming that the Atlantic gang is not stupid to take such a risk and carry such sophisticated marginalization operation against him, there should be something much more minatory for them than the already published leaks. There should have been a current threat or a threat for the future to be avoided originating from Assange than just the leaks. Here we will ask and speculate what this threat could be.
The theory of gender identity
Let’s direct the torch on the notions of gender identity and freedom that are correlated in two different ways, each resulting in opposite political stances: for someone who feels stuck in it’s gender identity (gender dysphoria, discordance with sex), gender dichotomy in accordance with sex is the biggest impediment against freedom. They can easily be indoctrinated in such a way to take any other kind of freedom struggle as secondary to their ‘identity’ politics. Their ‘identity’ here is spelled under single quotation marks, because it’s conceptual, not a real identity. However paradoxically, one needs exactly to get stuck in his or her gender identity in accordance with his or her sex and admit this stuckness so to build his or her self identification and to acquire a real identity. Identity is not something given. It’s a self-realization. The best figurative form of this logic is exhibited in the life of the redskins (the so called ‘native Americans’): a child only gets his name after showing a success appreciated in the tribe. Thus the process of self-identification is structured through socialization and the main motive for socialization is sexual orientation. Affirmation of fluidity and/or admittance of the lack of any precise sexual orientation halts this real identity building process.
There is a crucial point to underline here: it’s not how someone feels himself or herself which structures the identity. The way one feels itself either male or female or anything else, is not the cause but it’s the consequence of one’s sexual orientation and it is structured through the orientation of it’s desire. And this self-identification of oneself is not necessarily the opposite and not even related of the kind of that person’s sexual orientation — it’s not related to its heterosexuality or homosexuality of its any “traditional” or “non-traditional” kind of orientation. At any case as the admittance struggle may end up with an healthy and firm self-identification it can go into impasses with momentary or constant failure showing symptoms of violence, self-uncertainty, dysphoria, fluidity, various forms of addictions and so on. Such a loser condition is always prone to manipulation through politicization. Politicization doesn’t resolute but aggravates the problem.
And as seen by the wording of explanations above, this struggle for one’s admittance of own sexual orientation is a purely personal struggle. This condition is very similar to drug addiction cycle. It opens room to politicization if and only if the struggle is failed and it’s politicization is always manipulative: it never empowers the struggle but on the contrary it ruins the subject while serving to intermediary agents.
The struggle for admittance of oneself’s sexual orientation is the very precondition of ‘individual’ identification as well. ‘Individual’ here is again spelled under single quotation, because it’s a conceptual entity. Contrary to identity, ‘individual’ has no a real version. It’s imaginary. We continuously do factualize and realize our ID (our symbolic identification) by presumably being an ‘individual’, while our subjectivity is non-individual, barred, splitted between the ego ideal (imaginary) and the ideal ego (symbolic). That what makes the struggle a continuous and dynamic process: it doesn’t end, it is reversible, it’s stability is situational, it stands on a brittle, ticklish poise.
‘Individual’ is the conceptual antonym of ‘social’. Therefore, again for a subject without it’s accomplishment of ‘individual’ identification, no social project (politics) can be founded and defended. It is only when the subject restitutes it’s own ID stability that it can act as a political subject. Otherwise things become a mascarade: the seemingly “freedom struggle” becomes the self satisfaction of each one’s irresolute phantasms.
Now we have some basic tools to understand the delicate operation to marginalize and erase Julian Assange and his colleagues.
The ripped condom
First of all the staged accusation against Julian in Sweden that started on September 2010 was about the dick of Julian (the ripped condom issue and failing to change it on time). Dick, is a very big issue for the LGBTQ community: it’s often asserted by the LGBTQ pioneers that how possible to designate the gender of a baby boy through that little dick he has (that is his sex, his biological feature).. ..let’s investigate this common but strange wording they use in defining it with the adjective “little”.. ..why little? and what size of a baby’s dick could have been defined as “big”? (that’s an enigma which betokens their problematic relationship with phallus, which is either never big enough or too big to do, but never at optimal size to operate).. ..and this constant imaginary maladjustment behind the LGBTQ logic was exactly the basis of the strategy for the first attack to Assange: first they made possible to trivialize his work by bringing out into discussion — not his leaks, not his monumental work, but — his dick.
Actually the same arrestation procedure that had later been proceeded in England could had well been pursued earlier, while he was in Sweden in 2010: Some US prosecutor could ask extradition from Sweden to the US and he could be imprisoned in Sweden as it’s the case today in London’s Belmarsh. But as a first step, the problematization of the dick was strategically preferred rather than going through a discussion on espionage (Prof Zizek beautifully and precisely defined this “espionage” as kinda espionage for people, comparing his act to that of Encyclopedists in pre-revolutionary France. But today, unlike Julian, nobody in the world remembers the French Encyclopedists with their dicks). This delicate strategic preference of the Atlantic gang should be examined together with the castration of Bradley Manning — we will investigate it later.
The murder
And secondly these staged accusations in Sweden started right before the murder of Linda Norgrove. Although she was allegedly a MI6 agent, was Linda Norgrove a whistle-blower of Julian, maybe a decent girl who just pissed of by the ignominies she witnessed and tended to whistleblow to Julian? And if it was so, did she leak something more than just US war crimes in Afghanistan? Actually, Linda Norgrove was in the “kitchen”. She used to work at NGOs as WWF and DAI and knew how these NGOs are funded and for what undeclared purposes they operate.. Maybe as a consequence of their cooperation Julian made comments conflicting George Soros, on Podesta email hackings. It was also a little while after the murder of Linda Norgrove that Julian criticized the American establishment and the ongoing fermentation of Russofobia.. ..a firm geopolitical cause concerning the future —definitely not the already done leaks— a quite minatory threat for the Atlantic gang as the last drop to start Assange’s persecution.
previously the Nazi collaborator,
currently the funder of NGOs
Something geopolitical and very critical might have bursted out with Linda Norgrove and that was the ‘last drop’ that started the persecution of Julian Assange. What could that be? Let’s do some reflections:
Both the murder of Linda Norgrove and the staged judicial attacks to Julian Assange began a few months before the burst of “Arab Spring” (which first started in Tunisia on February 2011, then spread into neighboring countries). These so-called ‘social’ events were the precursor to the carnavalesque occupy movements in the West that started in the fall of 2011. The use of social media in mass manipulation first started in this period, conducting social experiments for the main targets: Türkiye (2013 Gezi Riot pivoted by the US terrorist apparatus Fethullah Terrorist Organisation) and Russia (The Maidan coup against Yanukovich in 2014). It jas been seen that the quantity of the militants rallying on the streets is similar to the ‘activation energy’ in chemistry for starting reaction (a riot). Primats (including humans) activate themselves when they see they are many. This issue of multitude is not just related to just furnishing a sense of security. Seeing the multitude out there on the streets attracts them to join the mass. It’s about brain’s physiology leading to some kind of euphoria. This feature in primate brain is the most dangerous aspect for our specie as well as constituting the basis of fascism and the lynch culture. In different societies and cultures this ‘activation energy’ may vary. The beginning of the second decade of the 21st century was a period when the power of new communication technologies, namely the social media, was discovered as a weaponry to ferment social movements. Was Linda Norgrove in the ‘kitchen’ had observed all these experiments for determining the ‘activation energy’ for cooking social events, not of course for the sake of democracy but for imperialist and geopolitical settling?
The castration
2010s was also a period when the LGBTQ politics began to get promoted by higher pace. It was also fermented as the principal psychological/cultural warfare to attenuate the worldwide awakening and reactions against the Atlantic camp’s imperialist engagements and atrocities. Thus here is our question: Was Bradley Manning pushed to sign the consent to go onto gender reassignment surgery under torture, in the US military prison? And was the remission of Obama was conditioned to this consent of him for his castration? Now the world knows him as a transsexual named “Chelsea Elisabeth Manning”, a psychologically unstable person who went against his country. Through this ‘transition-of-his-gender-identity‘ Few people could figure out that he could have higher (universal) causes than just “betraying” his government as a result of some psychological disorder.
Obviously, a Bradley Manning living in the prison could have been more “dangerous” than the ‘Chelsea’ Manning released from the prison to enjoy his —so called— “inner” liberty. That would be an excellent Western democracy PR as well. What still remained from his act as ‘heroic’ would have been attributed to the Western democratic values, once again curtaining and marginalizing the real meaning of his vestige. That way, a subjective, personal “reason”, a psychological disturbance by gender dysphoria, is put ahead of his universal truth-seeking spirit, ahead the philos-sophia he was himself adhered to, as well as omitting him to become a role model for masses.
The castration operation of Manning has intermingled in a way to trivialize his vestige by opposing the two kinds of “freedoms” that are considered to be as the trivets of the Western democracies: the freedom of the press (let’s associate it as to the voice of the ego ideal) and the freedom of expression (and let’s associate it with the ideal ego). To make that logic clear to readers let’s remind the principal patheticising discourse of LGBTQ: LGBTQ members are allegedly subject to constant repression and discrimination by not being let to disclose their sexual orientation. but if they had their freedom to express themselves in public (and that’s allegedly the objective of pride parades) they could enjoy life as do the heterosexuals…
Bradley Manning (presumably as the PR aspect of his castration) had been ‘freed’ by the power he betrayed and his disclosure was even executed by the betrayed power on behalf of himself. This point is worth to get a closer look:
Being devastated by being freed twice — appreciated by the professor of Ethics
That is, he is freed twice. He is released from the jail by the mercy of Obama, in addition to get freed from his manhood.
And if his release from the prison was conditioned to —or even at least, contingent to— his release from manhood.. ..then here we find a beautiful example for the Hegelian logic on the role of the twice, that is, the retroactive counter-affirmation of the former ‘freeing’ by torture: it further legitimized the power which he betrayed by self subjectifying to it as an agency of libertarianism.
I was astonished by the reaction of my colleague, the advisor of our Institute, when she told me “there are much more important issues than Julian Assange in our agenda” meaning that the LGBTQ “struggle” was more important than endorsing Assange — sad to mention here, she is professor of Ethics… Now considering this course of events in the post-Nazi Atlantic order that are slightly different than known in the public, things become clearer and nothing becomes astonishing. Fortunately we assigned her as the advisor to our Institute as a counter-referral authority, not to pursue her advises but going exactly on the opposite paths of what she advises. Her reaction was indeed the mainstream one. At this farcical constellation, the freedom of self-expression is put against and ahead of the freedom of the press, moreover, in such a way that the former curtains the latter.
Happy birthday Julian !