War=Good, Sex=Evil

Did you know that Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks and traitor to the “These Colors Don’t Run” crowd, likes sex?  Did you know that it is now confirmed beyond any doubt that he has had sex at least four times in his life, with at least three different women?  Did you know that before having sex with two of these women, he stopped foreplay long enough to roll a condom onto his erection?  Well, if you didn’t, I’m here to tell you what you desperately need to know, in order to make sense of the War on Certain Kinds of Terror, a war that, before it is finished, may very well lay claim to everything you’ve ever known.  Not content with ruining the economy and running on lies, this war may very well call into question, on the part of a government supposedly “of the people, by the people, for the people”, the very existence of the Internet.

Yes, it may only be a matter of time before the corporations given control of the Internet are called upon, as VISA, MasterCard, Amazon, and PayPal have learned, by the government they support and believe in, to yank “objectionable” material off this pesky thing for good.  They will never learn, and they will never stop.  There is too much money to be made, and too much security given by getting into bed (so to speak) with the world’s most successful mafias.  But more importantly, the prosecutors of this never-ending war want you to know one thing: Julian Assange has a sex drive, which makes him less of a hero and more of a pervert.

Assange’s sex drive is dirty, disgusting, and rapine.  His free-thinking mother never bothered to explain to him that a man’s sexuality must be thoroughly tamed by a woman, who has remained a virgin until their wedding night.  And now Assange, by virtue of being a dirty, disgusting male, is accused of rape.  The government of the United States is so angered by this charge that they have put themselves behind an international warrant of arrest for Assange, and they have succeeded.  It’s a victory for feminism, and a refreshing sight to all of us who had lost our faith in the mafia of government, a crime family that sat on their hands all morning on 9/11 and failed to do a single thing for which they steal our money.  But that’s not important.  What’s important is what Assange — who has blood on his hands (according to bloody-handed politicians that ought to know how it looks, smells, and tastes by now) — wears or does not wear on his dink.

Before Assange, the media in bed with bloody-minded politicians got quite a lot of mileage out of destroying Tiger Woods, another man who has (gasp) had sex.  It’s true that Woods’s sexual behavior led to a divorce, but the only thing that concerns me is that children are involved, and they will never get over that divorce.  Try counting the number of articles you’ve read that discuss in any detail the trauma that his kids will now suffer with for life.  Should be fairly easy.  Now count the number of articles describing in detail their father’s sexual dalliances, and explain to me how these articles will help them cope with the sudden, shocking reality that Mom and Dad don’t really love each other.

Is Woods entirely to blame?  I don’t really know, and I’m not going to play Armchair Divorce Judge.  It’s none of my business, after all.  I can tell from his press conference last year, however, that he’s not the slightest bit interested in determining how the whole mess started: “Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes an unhappy and pointless search for security.”  Then stop eating, sleeping, having sex, accepting endorsement deals, watching movies, and generally enjoying the world in which you live, most of which can be found outside the self.  No pets, either.  No wonder the children aren’t mentioned in any of these articles.  According to Buddhism, you shouldn’t enjoy them either?  Is the divorce going to cause any “unhappy and pointless” searches for security on the children’s part?  Geez, this is boring and unpleasant.  It’s much more fun to talk about their father’s sexual escapades, so back on topic we go.

It appears that American Buddhism teaches much the same thing about sexuality that American Christianity does: You should feel somewhat bad and weak for enjoying it, especially if you’re a man.  I also suspect that a father like Earl Woods, who started coaching his son before he was out of diapers, may have been the type of father who applied numerous systems of coercion to get his kid to be as good at golf as he became.  It is highly unlikely that any child prodigy is given much leeway with his free time.  Sex would undoubtedly be something that would make a dead man feel alive again.  But Buddhism, like Christianity, never goes there.  It always goes someplace else, like a politician desperate to wipe the blood off of his hands onto the nearest passerby.

Now that people care less about Woods and more about Assange, let’s have an endless debate in the media about the fact that Assange also likes dirty, disgusting sex.  More than one million people are dead due to the murderous policies embraced by many people in government, but we can save that for, oh, let’s say ten years from now, when we can find a way to blame it on the free market or voter apathy.  Surely by then, everyone will have forgotten about the collapse of World Trade Center 7.  For now, it’s about un-Christian, non-Buddhist sex.  (At least all those dead Middle Eastern men have stopped having it.)

In the London Daily Mail, an intriguing article was written about the whole sordid affair.  It is clear, once you reach the end of it, that the charges are as baseless and pointless as the false rape accusations against the Duke Lacrosse players.  Regardless, there’s this gem: “This is only one of several puzzling flaws in the prosecution case.”  Yes, indeed, it is puzzling, unless you’ve already drawn the conclusion that I have: It’s a load of crap and these women are liars.  Just in case they’re not (and I have a greater chance of winning the lottery twice after pigs learn to fly), this article gives the women pseudonyms.  But why are they using the pseudonyms Jessica and Sarah, when Justin Raimondo over at Antiwar.com has already given us their full names?  (And if any article sums this thing up better, I’d like to see it.)

Interestingly, at the masthead for the Daily Mail, there is a link for “Femail.”  Just go to that link to find all sorts of crucially important “news” items centered on and around women:

“Emotionally cut off. Physically strong. Sexually aware. How does a mother cope when autistic boys grow up?”  Yes, their autism is all about you, Mum.

“I waited years to have first child, says tumour mum, and I’ve spent £30k on her.”  Well, she’ll have plenty of false security to help her cope with the lack of real security coming from her mother.

“Liz Hurley… shows off her lacy side (but the sheer shirt and bra combo fail to make the style grade).”  Bitch.  How dare she?!

“For Wills and Kate, the bishops’ guide to a happy marriage.”  Look at his parents. You’re screwed.  The numerous systems of coercion to which you are both subject are likely to drive your husband into the arms of Tiger Woods’s ex-sex partners.  Learn to grin and bear it.  There will be plenty of false security to help you cope with the lack of real security from your husband, or from his grandmother, who will probably like you about as much as she did his mother.

Is it any wonder, reading this garbage, that there have been dozens of articles written about Assange having sex with two gorgeous Swedes, but very few about more than one million dead people, and millions more displaced?  Are you even aware that 1 in 5 Iraqis was displaced?  Are you aware that the former population of Iraq equaled California?  Are you cognizant of how radically different any Californian’s life would be if he were to go to work one day to discover that 1 in 5 of his coworkers had simply disappeared, and that an occupying army with an incomprehensible language was wandering around on the street outside?  Forget it.  Back to Assange’s Nights of Unbridled Anarchist Passion.

We know far more about Mr. Assange’s sexual proclivities than we ought.  The same can be said for Woods; for Paul Reubens, who was arrested for doing nothing wrong; for Bradley Manning, who may or may not be gay, none of which is any of our business; and yes, I hate to say it since the man is a politician, even for Senator Larry Craig, who was arrested and humiliated in front of millions for being a closet gay and sticking his fingers under a bathroom stall wall.

(And let’s just jump off once more for a second.  Why, if so many heterosexual men have a problem with fingers being run under the stall wall, and other such horrific events, do stall walls still fail to go all the way to the floor?  For that matter, why, to this day, do stall doors still have cracks in them wide enough that you can usually see some part of the stall user’s body as he’s sitting on the toilet?  Why doesn’t someone do something about this, like they did in Little America, Wyoming, where each bathroom stall is a separate room with a goddamn lock and a full-sized door?  Okay, back on topic.)

“Clearly, he is responsible for an avalanche of political leaks. Whether he is also guilty of sexual offences remains to be seen.”  No, it doesn’t.  He’s innocent.  What remains to be seen is exactly how long men will continue to take this nonsense.  I doubt it’s much longer, especially given the tone of this next phrase:

“…[H]e is certainly a man of strong sexual appetites who is not averse to exploiting his fame.”  He may also very well be a desperate man with mild sexual appetites, who has no home, who is subject to numerous systems of coercion to which he is not entirely accustomed, that threaten every hour that he is conscious to end what is left of his life, and a little sexual relief might just be one of the few things he has left to make him feel alive and manly.  Certainly, that can also be true.  So why the conclusion about him thinking of himself as a sex god of some sort?

When an article that paints Assange as “a man of strong sexual appetites who is not averse to exploiting his fame” can’t find a single thing to substantiate the rape charges, what are the chances that a single male reader will not see this as a wake-up call?  What is the possibility of men continuing to support or believe in a government that uses these false charges as an excuse to nab someone who has embarrassed them?  The government and its media, desperate to milk the non-existent-sex-scandal angle as long as possible to distract attention from the bloodshed, are counting on us being just that stupid, that we won’t see through it.  Allow me to show you some of what you’re being sold, just in case you actually are that stupid.

The article cannot defend the rape charges.  It is obvious that those responsible for writing, editing and publishing this article know it.  Therefore, the admission of innocence is carefully couched: “…there remains a huge question mark…” “Again there is scant evidence — in the public domain at least — of rape, sexual molestation or unlawful coercion.”  In that last sentence, “scant” is synonymous with “no,” and the phrase “in the public domain at least” means “outside the memories of two thoroughly untrustworthy witnesses who are obviously lying.”

The article claims that one of these women was someone “with whom he was having a concurrent fling.”  There is nothing “concurrent” about two one-night stands in a row.  But now Assange is painted as a womanizer who practically did a three-way with two women who were each unaware that the other woman was lying on the other side of the bed.  Now Assange is a “cheater” and a “pervert” as well as a “traitor.”  Enjoying this so far?

They post a big picture of Assange, just in case no one has seen his lithe, Aryan form before, posing like a successful model, but the faces of the “victims” are blocked out, and they’re given pseudonyms, even though their names have been printed elsewhere, as I mentioned above.  The message: This man likes pounding it good and hard, with as many women as he can get, but the “victims” must have our protection until the system of coercion in which we trust has run its course.  They can and should be forgiven for enjoying getting it good and hard.  They are, after all, victims, at the very least, of someone who was in a position of authority, and being women, they were quite naturally in a position of inferiority, even though men and women are equal.

More juicy details, then this sentence: “Afterwards, she hung around and was still there when Assange — who has a child from a failed relationship around 20 years ago — left with a group of male friends for lunch.”  There is no reason, of course, to bring up a failed relationship or a “bastard” child, except to remind everyone that Assange is a sex fiend, who squirts out kids left and right, for whom he feels no responsibility.  Disgusting.

“Jessica [not her real name] asked if they would meet again. ‘Of course,’ said the WikiLeaks supremo.”  See?  Assange was in a position of authority (probably bangs on top), and the writer is simply reminding us that as far as the dastardly WikiLeaks is concerned, he’s the head honcho, the big cheese, numero uno, the buck stops here, yada yada yada.

“A few hours after that party, Sarah apparently Tweeted: ‘Sitting outside … nearly freezing, with the world’s coolest people. It’s pretty amazing!’ She was later to try to erase this message.”  This is all the governments of the United States and Sweden need to know if they’re truly concerned about whether rape occurred.  Since we know it, they know it, Assange knows it, and his two sex partners know it, then we also know what these governments are actually up to, and we ought to know what the people who published this article are up to.

If you continue reading this salacious play-by-play (that unfortunately leaves out the most pornographic details… maybe the next article), you will also stumble upon one of feminism’s goals, ready to be put into practice by the People’s Government of Sweden: “Sarah [whose real name is Anna Ardin] next spoke to a newspaper, saying: ‘In both cases, the sex had been consensual from the start but had eventually turned into abuse.’”  In other words, what “Sarah” wants is to prosecute a man based on her testimony alone.  “Sarah” has no scars on her body, no hidden camera or microphone recordings, no witnesses, and no evidence of any wrongdoing.  What she has is the testimony of the accused, who has admitted to consensual sex, and the testimony of the accuser, who also testifies that “part” of the sex was consensual.  Twice.

If a case like this goes to court, it essentially turns women into cops.  This is what cops can get away with, at least in traffic court.  A cop pulls you over, uses a device no one else can see, writes down what the device says, interviews you in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution (which he swore to uphold and defend when it is convenient for his purposes), and shows up in court with nothing but his testimony.  Yes, he has a video camera in his car, but all that does is verify that he pulled you over and asked you questions.  If you don’t say anything against yourself, the officer will have you convicted of an offense based on nothing but his testimony.  And cops, like women, are scrupulously honest.  As the ancient Romans used to say, “Fuck habeas corpus.”

The article asks us: “So what to make of a story in which it’s hard to argue that any of the parties emerges with much credit?”  You get it?  Assange had sex with two women over a matter of days.  This offense precludes him from getting any credit, for showing the world the murderous nature of war and the dishonesty of their ruling elite, for suffering at their hands, for having to run year after year from country to country and seeking a little solace inside an inviting, warm, wet, safe, feminine place, as she softly coos and moans while he fully experiences his manhood.  Disgusting.  No credit for you!  Come back after you’ve had a Tiger-Woods-style press conference.  Pig.

The ruling elite, who bungle every war, who steal tons of money, who regulate everything to death, who lie, who cheat, who have tons of sex, who pretend they don’t, who mangle everything they’ve touched, who are routinely exposed by journalists like those at WikiLeaks, could not engage Julian Assange on the facts.  Therefore, they invented a scandal, with the aid of two silly-headed women, out of thin air.  They did this because the shame of sexuality, especially male sexuality, is so ingrained in most First World nations (which sprang from a deep bed of Judeo-Christian philosophy), that such a scandal would even be possible.  In a world filled with something other than idiots, the baseless charges would never have made it to the press, because it was obvious they were made up.  The only reason they have done so is not because anybody believes them (outside a few radicals, perhaps — even prominent feminists are abandoning these women), but because millions still believe there is something wrong with what Assange did in bed.  What he actually did was seek a little relief.  It is unfortunate for him that he is unmoved in the same-sex direction, where seeking a little relief seldom carries any baggage at all, and never a baseless charge of rape.  If it’s possible to be guilty of something good, then it appears that Assange, like all other victims of society’s disdain for dick, is guilty of being a heterosexual man with a conscience.  Why don’t we put him on trial for that?  At least there would be some honesty about what’s happening, and some reasonable chance of convicting the pervert.

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: