NP Rank:
Julian Assange, women's rights, and the depth of corruption
Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, has been issued an international arrest warrant over trumped-up charges of rape. The two women who made these charges have repeatedly said that the sex was consensual and are continuing to say that the sex was consensual. Meanwhile most real victims of rape not only do not get justice, but are aggressively silenced, beaten, called whores and sluts and nutcases, and are not only disbelieved by the courts but in many cases are accused of making false lawsuits and sued for vast sums of money or put themselves behind bars.
Of the many women I know who have been raped, only one got her rapist in jail. There is a very simple reason for this state of affairs. The women who are likely to get raped - women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, women who are socially disempowered, women who do not have stable family situations, women who cannot afford a good lawyer - are not given credibility in court. With the exception of a few heroic and brilliant women who have been able to manage a strong and informed legal stance while coming from a profoundly disempowered position, the women who do get credibility in court are either women living protected lifestyles or women who know how to lie. The first group is not likely to get raped by strangers; it is more likely to get raped by their families, who are protected by community loyalty and family reputation from having their crimes revealed. The second group is not likely to get raped, period, but is frequently quite effective at screwing innocent men and women.
These are the same women who like to destroy the careers of Chinese immigrants for telling them that they look pretty, but silence their own American sisters when their American conservative husbands are viciously battering them and raping their kids. These are the same women who in their youth like to have consensual sex with young black men and when found out get them convicted of rape, but when their daughters report that their own white conservative Southern husbands are raping them tell their daughters not to use such words as rape in the house. These are the same women who like to attach themselves to multi-millionaires and then screw them in a divorce court for half their fortune, but when another woman is trying to leave a severely brutal relationship tell her and everyone else that she is a lying nutcase and a traitor who is destroying the family or alienating her children from their father.
There are of course men - many men - involved in this as well. These men themselves commit severe brutality against their wives and more severe abuse against their children; but when someone outside one's group is accused of the most minor things or most falsely, jump howling for his blood. On one side, in the liberal cultures, we see defined as abuse things that very few people elsewhere see as abusive and that a vast majority of people practice - things that are found to a much greater extent and intensity in any business, any community, any military or police force, any medical or legal or academic group, and the vast bulk of marital relationships. On the other side, we see people who see ongoing severe brutality (and in many cases incest) as normal marital business and believe that any man who does not practice such things is a sissie, a coward, a communist or a fag. The second group sees men in liberal cultures who get accused of abuse as not abusers at all but rather as pussywhipped liberal idiots. But that does not prevent them from crying bloody murder when it suits their purposes to do so, then going back to their home to whiplash their wives, rape their daughters, and intimidate both at gunpoint, murdering many more than anyone cares to admit.
This level of dishonesty must not have been easy to achieve. And yet these same people then go on and claim that they have - values, integrity, honesty, honor - and that the rest of the world does not. These are the same people who then claim that they are America and that the majority of America is not, then say that they value democracy; who use lies, fraud and corruption to impose on America an illegal regime and claim that they respect the Constitution; who stomp on women's heads and claim that they respect women; who murder a million Iraqi citizens on false pretext and claim that they are honest peaceful Americans who have respect for life. What those people actually are, is known to any woman who tried to get herself and her children away from brutality and sexual abuse practiced by members of their communities, as much as it is known to anyone who has studied their political practices for any length of time.
You may call this hate speech. Guilty as charged. If you are not outraged by corruption this deep, then it is you that have the problem. And while there are many people who want to solve this problem through - positive thinking, love, positive example, self-esteem, forgiveness, personal relationship with Jesus, or tending to one's own garden, none of these begin to address the problem. What we have seen historically is this: That any knowledge achieved, any work done, any goodwill extended, only empowers the corrupt in being more corrupt. So how rich it is that these people are now using feminist arguments against the person who has exposed some of their practices, even as they use family-values or Tea Party or Fatherhood Foundation or Christian-Right or "winner-and-loser" or personality-psychology or community-loyalty or you-are-responsible-for-your-suffering or how-can-you-trust-your-perceptions-you-crazy-bitch arguments against anyone in their communities who see what is happening or who is at the receiving end of real abuse practiced by the supposedly upstanding members of these communities. The people who get abused and the people who see what is happening are not the ones with the problem, and it is preposterous that they be the ones having to change themselves to adapt to the color of the corrupt. It is the corrupt that need to be changed. And I don't mean raising their self-esteem or teaching them positive thinking or imparting to them the counseling or psychological or "self-empowerment" and "consciousness-raising" knowledge that they, in their typical lying fashion, then invert, pervert and use against everyone else, including of course the "liberal" academia, the "dirty" hippies, the "godless" liberals, or the "Satanist" Buddhists and New Age "freaks" who came up with or gave them the knowledge in the first place.
Julian Assange is one of the day's true heroes, who exposed corrupt misdeeds of the military - misdeeds done at your expense and in your name. But the corruption goes many times deeper than that. What Julian Assange has shown is a slice of the character of the American Right. What has found him, is an even more monstrous aspect of the same character.


Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (16)
at 02:55 on November 19th, 2010
Ish, you keep on churning out the same old drivel , mate.
This insistence that everyone who isnt a liberal is a racist, wifebeating , child rapist who causes the false imprisonment of black people. It is getting a little worn out now and your constant reffering to it borders on the disturbing.
at 03:47 on November 19th, 2010
I didn't say anyone who's not a liberal, I said the American Right. I specifically pointed out the Tea Party.
If you find this disturbing, you should. Life is hell for people in their communities, more so for anyone who tries to escape. And it's a hell they want to inflict on you.
at 04:23 on November 19th, 2010
Thats my point, what percentage of the right do you think are actually guilty of the crimes you are accusing them of?
Not liking them is one thing, them being not particularly nice people is another thing, but labeling them all as wife beating child-molesters who frame innocent black people is a step too far, wouldn't you say?
at 18:21 on November 19th, 2010
I said what I said because of what I know happens to people - and has to many people I know - in the conservative areas. Also by studying these people's political activities. Basically, if you live there and are not quite like them, they will find ways to destroy you. And if you see them for what they are or have been through abuse by them, they will redouble their efforts to that effect.
at 19:33 on November 19th, 2010
But the people you know, even if you know a great many people still only account for a tiny percentage of the whole, basing your conclusions of such a small sample is bound to distort the picture. You cannot possibly know the behaviours and actions of the majority of people.
Also you are not so different in your attempts to destroy people different from you, in your case you are labelling them all as child abusers for having difficult political beliefs.
Please dont take this too badly, on the whole I find your articles to be interesting and well thought out, which is why it surprised me so much that you attack them with such venom at times.
at 20:41 on November 19th, 2010
I have many reasons to hate them. Everything from how they treated the 60s people and single mothers, to what they have done to people I care about, to putting America $11 trillion in debt, using Texas Oil lobbying to suffocate clean energy innovation, jailing whistleblowers, murdering a million Iraqis, and lying constantly and without consequence. I am pointing out what their character is as shown by actions such as above.
There are people who see hatred and anger as evil and who want to solve such problems by doing positive things. And yet the right-wingers are sabotaging all constructive efforts - everything from education to women's empowerment to human rights to clean energy. And having seen what is done to people who are in fact looking for constructive solutions, including for example how they've treated Clinton and Obama, it does not look like these constructive paths are viable unless someone is willing to meet these people at their level.
I am glad that you find my articles interesting and well thought out. I believe that one can be thoughtful and see wrong for what it is at the same time.
at 00:41 on December 16th, 2010
i think the narrow dichotomy of "who gets raped"and by "whom" leaves out a lot of the picture. men, not just women,(you did mention children), also get raped and socioeconomic status is not the only marker of power. that is, even women with some of the advantages of 'high social class' can be isolated/disadvantaged and discredited. this is not to say that it is not true that women who are highly disadvantaged/isolated/trapped will have a harder time of getting out, much less getting to court. but where do you get your statistics? not that these are all that helpful since most rapes are most likely not reported at all. but still, remember that you and the people you know have as diverse a collection of experiences as all the rest of the people on the planet. even when patterns are similar, details always entail something distinct. plus, your binary judgement of "group 1" and "group 2" perpetrates plenty of harmful stereotypes and also leaves a lot of people inbetween and within out of luck. and if there ever was any justice, you are doing them an injustice just by writing that. you could argue that since rape is an issue of power, the more powerful the target the more malign and vicious the predator. people who manage to bring their rape cases to court often don't get the perpetrator punished at all, regardless of their credibility. the legal advantage is always on the side of the accused, "innocent till proven guilty" which unfortunately sort of puts the psychological disadavtange in the victim's court (e.g. "if he's innocent till proven guilty, what position does that put me in?"). You could of course argue that the court is actually there to protect the "conservative" liars and beaters and "brutals" you are talking about... and i might even agree with you on that one, since the law was always an instrument of conservative rules and traditions. We can pretend it is searching for justice, but it is only searching for its own truth over and over again so it doesn't have to change and it does not really help those who it would most need to protect. Imagine what would happen if it started defending the people who most need it -- the whole system would turn upside down because you'd have to get a new judge and jury and lawyer, etc etc etc. Won't happen, I'm afraid and I'm afraid I've run out of steam.the whole point of this post was to point out that you are a bit flippant in your description of the possible world X of rape victims/survivors and it might behoove you to be more open in your consideration of who rapes and who is raped. (and also, just because a person has had consensual sex with another does not de facto mean that this person is not at risk of being raped by the same guy. which i think is a fact you would know by your otherwise feasible descriptions of rape victims.)
at 14:06 on November 19th, 2010
I have to agree with Faithless Templar here. It is true that falsified rape cases can definitly diminish the level of awareness society has towards true victims of rape. Rape victims seldom come forward, for many of the reasons you have given. The problem is scope; your arguments so often start off well and accurate, but go a little too far in your conclusions, and this seems to be the case again here.
at 15:18 on November 19th, 2010
What FaithlessTemplar wrote. AND according to Democrats themselves, the socioeconomic strata ishambat identifies is a liberal or Democratic Party social sphere. NOT a conservative or Tea Party social sphere. Blaming all the worlds social ills on conservatives or more recently, the Tea Party, is a hallmark of ishambats very limited, hateful approach in support of his left-wing sociopolitical bias.
at 17:02 on November 19th, 2010
No, I'm talking about the conservative social sphere. Here it is again:
"On one side, in the liberal cultures, we see defined as abuse things that very few people elsewhere see as abusive and that a vast majority of people practice - things that are found to a much greater extent and intensity in any business, any community, any military or police force, any medical or legal or academic group, and the vast bulk of marital relationships. On the other side, we see people who see ongoing severe brutality (and in many cases incest) as normal marital business and believe that any man who does not practice such things is a sissie, a coward, a communist or a fag. The second group sees men in liberal cultures who get accused of abuse as not abusers at all but rather as pussywhipped liberal idiots. But that does not prevent them from crying bloody murder when it suits their purposes to do so, then going back to their home to whiplash their wives, rape their daughters, and intimidate both at gunpoint, murdering many more than anyone cares to admit."
at 20:42 on November 19th, 2010
Just wondering ishambat, do you have any personal experience related to the opinion you express here ? You write with specific passion for this subject matter.
Anyway to express such precise belief in such diverse subject matter, would eventually lead you to reevaluate yourself. This believe all comes back to you in the end. Is it you we are actually evaluating ? Some here seem to be noticing this already..
1
at 21:33 on November 19th, 2010
"What you see in others is a reflection of yourself" is one of the many beliefs used to stonewall inquiry into corrupt practices. If I was at any level describing myself in my articles, which are on subjects as diverse as Argentina's recovery, ghetto improvement, Russian politics, domestic violence, medical corruption, Tea Party, Republican tactics, Obama's policies and clean energy, then I would be everyone from Michael Gorbachev to Colin Powell to Glenn Sacks to Sarah Palin to General Galtieri to Joseph Biden to Al Gore. That not being the case, what must be evaluated is the truthfulness of the quoted statement as well as its usefulness for society - along with effect that it has had on societies that believe such things.
at 22:59 on November 19th, 2010
You may not of understood my point exactly. Not being too personal, what I'm suggesting is that when someone has a very specific point of view on rather diverse subject matter. It becomes in some cases, more about the person who's writing rather than the subject being debated. Based on the few other posters comments concerning your responses, I am suggesting this as a possibility.
at 00:48 on November 20th, 2010
I introspect, just not here. This is a public news and editorial forum, and my articles here address issues of public concern, not mine or anyone else's self-explorations. Sometimes I see tendencies similar to my own found in people and issues I scrutinize. Most of the time their tendencies are their tendencies and mine are mine.
at 21:47 on November 19th, 2010
If this author wasn't a rabid left-wing ideologue he'd be a right-wing ideologue. In either case his partisan rants would be equally vapid, filled with similar grossly biased unsubstantiated accusations and intentionally corrupted linkages.
at 07:13 on December 7th, 2010
Thank you Ishambat for having the courage to expose these facts. It is common that when people don't wish to address the subject they attack the personal sphere. If we're less identified with our own self and can let it be without attacking back, knowing it is a normal procedure, the others have a better opportunity to see their own selves.
What you're exposing are facts and being outraged about them is also normal. Only those wishing to keep supporting such status quo in which real rape victims are helpless while such a show is mounted on Mr. Assange, for not using a condom can question your article in this way.
Where can we stand up for freedom again and again and again?
Thank you again, Elena