The Russians call it Kompromat – the use by the state of sexual accusations to destroy a public figure. When I was attacked in this way by the government I worked for, Uzbek dissidents smiled at me, shook their heads and said “Kompromat“. They were used to it from the Soviet and Uzbek governments. They found it rather amusing to find that Western governments did it too.
Well, Julian Assange has been getting the bog standard Kompromat. I had imagined he would get something rather more spectacular, like being framed for murder and found hanging with an orange in his mouth. He deserves a better class of kompromat. If I am a whistleblower, then Julian is a veritable mighty pipe organ. Yet we just have the normal sex stuff, and very weak.
Bizarrely the offence for which Julian is wanted for questioning in Sweden was dropped from rape to sexual harassment, and then from sexual harassment to just harassment. The precise law in Swedish, as translated for me and other Sam Adams alumni by our colleague Major Frank Grevil, reads:
“He who lays hands on or by means of shooting from a firearm, throwing of stones, noise or in any other way harasses another person will be sentenced for harassment to fines or imprisonment for up to one year.”
So from rape to non-sexual something. Actually I rather like that law – if we had it here, I could have had Jack Straw locked up for a year.
Julian tells us that the first woman accuser and prime mover had worked in the Swedish Embassy in Washington DC and had been expelled from Cuba for anti-Cuban government activity, as well as the rather different persona of being a feminist lesbian who owns lesbian night clubs.
Scott Ritter and I are well known whistleblowers subsequently accused of sexual offences. A less well known whistleblower is James Cameron, another FCO employee. Almost simultaneous with my case, a number of the sexual allegations the FCO made against Cameron were identical even in wording to those the FCO initially threw at me.
Another fascinating point about kompromat is that being cleared of the allegations – as happens in virtually every case – doesn’t help, as the blackening of reputation has taken effect. In my own case I was formerly cleared of all allegations of both misconduct and gross misconduct, except for the Kafkaesque charge of having told defence witnesses of the existence of the allegations. The allegations were officially a state secret, even though it was the government who leaked them to the tabloids.
Yet, even to this day, the FCO has refused to acknowledge in public that I was in fact cleared of all charges. This is even true of the new government. A letter I wrote for my MP to pass to William Hague, complaining that the FCO was obscuring the fact that I was cleared on all charges, received a reply from a junior Conservative minister stating that the allegations were serious and had needed to be properly investigated – but still failing to acknowledge the result of the process. Nor has there been any official revelation of who originated these “serious allegations”.
Governments operate in the blackest of ways, especially when it comes to big war money and big oil money. I can see what they are doing to Julian Assange, I know what they did to me and others (another recent example – Brigadier Janis Karpinski was framed for shoplifting). In a very real sense, it makes little difference if they murdered David Kelly or terrified him into doing it himself. Telling the truth is hazardous in today’s Western political system.
“Has paranoia really got the better of you, as your recent posts would strongly suggest?”
Glenn. You are a 9/11 Truther and you’re calling ME paranoid.
Of course, like most 9/11 Truthers you are, ironically, a liar.
Now, let’s go slowly.
Where was the interview first broadcast? On BBC or on al-Jazeera?
Angrysoba,
Re: “You stupid fool…”
I was not addressing you. Nor do I ever wish to address you, since you cannot address any comment to me without a gross insult, which bears in no way on the facts. In fact, the smear seems to be your only arguement about anything.
You may not like the Daily Express, whose proprietor served in Churchill’s wartime government as Minister of Munitions and who must, therefore, have been responsible for the deaths of more than a few German Nazis, but the issue is not what you think of the Daily Express or what links you find from the page that displays the the image of the March 24, 1933 Express headline, but the facts conveyed by that image.
Anyway I was addressing Larry, not you. Who knows, he and I might be able to conduct a polite exchange that would establish on what we agree, if anything, and on what we disagree and why.
So why don’t you just take a valium and take a rest for now.
“the issue is not what you think of the Daily Express or what links you find from the page that displays the the image of the March 24, 1933 Express headline, but the facts conveyed by that image.”
And what are the facts conveyed by the image?
OK, Alfred, as a regular contributor on Craig Murray’s blog, it seems that the Jews were responsible for WWII. No surprise there. I imagine Craig Murray, given his otherwise odd beliefs, his Jew hatred, and the company he keeps, secretly harbors such cultish views.
But let’s expand this.
I don’t think the Jews did 7/7. Any thoughts?
rather, it seems that you think that the Jews were responsible for WWII
“rather, it seems that you think that the Jews were responsible for WWII”
Come on, Larry,
Of course I don’t think that.
And I’ve said a good deal about the causes of WWII somewhere on this blog –basically a rehash of the history of the 20th century as recounted by Carrol Quigley (“Tragedy and Hope”) who, if he mentioned the Jews at all, did so merely in passing.
But maybe you don’t do real discussion. in which case, lets not even pretend to pursue the points I made about Israel and US action and policy.
The above was by me, obviously — if this goofy software will let me say so.
“Come on, Larry,
Of course I don’t think that.”
Right. But you cite Neo-Nazi sources.
You’re such a coward that you can’t admit to your beliefs. You run away when challenged. Stand up for yourself, you Jew-hating Nazi 911 truther.
Why has this thread now come to focus about the usual circlet of ‘Lowest Common Denominator’ subjects? Alfred invoking Larry and the immediate response. Here we go round the mulberry bush. A jig, a reel.
As angrysoba said, there is the other thread, which is dedicated solely to such dances.
“So it IS an argument from authority, as I said.”
–Angry
You brought up the mainstream press in relation to bin Laden. Not me. You said, “the view is not one that is common in the mainstream press”, and I replied that Jon Snow, for one, thinks he’s dead. And now you say I’m making an argument from authority? The fact that I think OBL is dead has nothing whatsoever to do with Jon Snow.
“If you could explain who you think I am being briefed by and for what purpose”
I voiced an opinion that didn’t include the words “being paid to write on blogs”. That’s all you need to know. I happen to think there’s something odd about your presence here. I’ve said it before.
“But let’s abandon such pedantry; it is tiresome beyond words.”
I didn’t bring up your famous comma splice. Yes, let’s abandon it along with your misquoting, your sarcasm, and your twisting of arguments. I have neither the time nor the energy to wade through your convolutions or be dragged around a mulberry bush by your slippery tactics.
Mulberry bush! Must have picked that up from Suhayl as I was scrolling down. Such is the power of suggestion. 🙂
Alfred, be a dear and don’t reply to Larry. He’s banned here.
I do like Wikipedia for this sort of thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_We_Go_Round_the_Mulberry_Bush
Is it/was it sung by Irish children Dreoilin?
Not these days, somebody, but yes, I remember it from when I was a small child. Pop goes the weasel.
Look at this:
“Tony Blair may cancel London book signing”
http://tinyurl.com/32ojecc
He’s citing the “hassle” to police!
I meant, Pop goes the Weasel too. 🙂
“You brought up the mainstream press in relation to bin Laden. Not me. You said, “the view is not one that is common in the mainstream press”, and I replied that Jon Snow, for one, thinks he’s dead. And now you say I’m making an argument from authority? The fact that I think OBL is dead has nothing whatsoever to do with Jon Snow.”
Oh my word!
This is like playing the game “Whack-a-mole”.
If I say, “Jon Snow is only one person so it hardly indicates a common view” you say: “Oh, well I think he knows more than you do.”
Then I say, “Well, maybe he does, but others have said they think he is alive” then, you say, “I’m only saying him because you said it isn’t a common view.”
I say, “Citing one commentator doesn’t mean it is a common view.”
Then you say, “I think he knows more about it than you.”
I say, “That’s irrelevant. The point was that it isn’t a common view. So the fact that one commentator, Jon Snow believes it still doesn’t show that it is a common view.”
Then you say…
“I voiced an opinion that didn’t include the words “being paid to write on blogs”. That’s all you need to know. I happen to think there’s something odd about your presence here. I’ve said it before.”
Okay, you also voiced the opinion I am being briefed.
What does that mean?
“I didn’t bring up your famous comma splice. Yes, let’s abandon it along with your misquoting, your sarcasm, and your twisting of arguments. I have neither the time nor the energy to wade through your convolutions or be dragged around a mulberry bush by your slippery tactics.”
I’ll have you know I am a perfect gentleman. I never drag ladies around mulberry bushes, with or without slippery tactics.
“(hey, do tell us what those dancing Israelis were doing hi-fiving to the backdrop of the burning Twin Towers”
It was straight out of Mossad Operating Manual vol. 1. Once you’ve carried out a massive false-flag terrorist attack which will change world politics for years to come, make sure you celebrate in public, drawing as much attention to yourself as possible. Dancing is an optional extra.
“Pop goes the weasel
…
Tony Blair may cancel London book signing”
From the photos, I’d say he looks more like my idea of a goblin than a weasel.
Hello Richard Robinson, Suhayl Saadi, Somebody,
pointless fighting has broken out again. People are slagging each other off instead of addressing the issues or presenting evidence. Ho hum.
Clark: I realise I made a mistake. Frost used to work for the BBC, of course, but then he started working for al-Jazeera, and that’s where the original interview was held. Not that this actually makes any difference, of course. Nonetheless, my making this Huge Confession could bring pleasure to some correspondents here who are desperately in need of a little.
David Frost says, in this video, that he thought Benazir Bhutto had “mis-spoken” in the al-Jazeera interview. She had been talking about Osama bin Laden in the present tense off-camera and that the idea she would think Osama bin Laden had been “murdered by Omar Sheikh” was so obviously whack-o that he didn’t think it worth correcting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23HQFWw4Tro&feature=related
Maybe someone should tell Sir David that there is no way a mind as sharp as Benazir’s could have used Osama’s name instead of Daniel Pearl’s and the more obvious explanation is her sharp mind had just casually blurted out the biggest secret of the “War on Terror” and thought it hadn’t been worth commenting on before or after.
Once again I wasn’t the first person to bring up 911 and the idiots at this blog who think it was an inside job in conjunction with a Jew job.
This is like playing the game “Whack-a-mole”.
–Angry
Yes indeed, you’re still popping up with “quotes” that are a load of bull. So I’ll revert to what I said some time ago, and ignore you from now on.
Have a nice day. 🙂
Hello, Clark.
Yes, so it has.
I don’t really have any agendas or fixed ideas about what “should” be happening here, but I can’t escape the feeling that it needn’t be as bloody futile as this endless playground squabble.
I hope it isn’t costing our host very much money to provide the facilities for it, because if it is I’m not sure we (collectively) are giving good value for it.
Ach well, “good in parts”.
(musing aloud) I find it very odd that someone claiming to combat anti-semitism would use derogatory phrases like ‘a Jew job’ when no-one else here would, or tolerate it. No wonder that poster was banned.
Otherwise, anyone been listening to Blair on Iran? Does anyone take him seriously?
If you don’t understand the humor in making fun of anti-Semites for thinking that 911 and 7/7 and the underwear bomber and World War II were “Jew jobs,” then I can’t help you.
From @SkyNewsBreak
“Tony Blair pulls out of his high-profile central London book signing on Wednesday, after his first public appearance was met with protests.”
So he’s done it then.
And meanwhile he pimps for Israel on Iran.
There’s a man who knows which side his bread is buttered.
(small note) not ‘for Israel’; just for the paranoid maniacs in power. Think Shminitsim, think Yuri Avnery…
Jeez the world is in a terrible state of chassis. And am currently contributing my own small personal chaos, so am not feeling too good either. Rats.
Technicolour,
you don’t seem to be creating any chaos here. The stupid row seems to have burnt itself out for now, thank goodness. Hey, I think when we refer to a state, we sort of assume it’s the collective leadership decisions that we’re talking about. We say “Britain and the US invaded Iraq” without specifying Bush and Blair, and pointing out that millions of us were opposed. I don’t think that we should make a special case for Israel, just because certain people shout “Antisemitism!” if we don’t.
Jaded, take note: Technicolour just called the Israeli leadership “paranoid maniacs”. So probably not “Monsieur Zionista” then…