Insane feminism in Sweden

If reports are correct, two women, who possibly could be CIA or Mossad assets, but are more likely to be gullible young women indoctrinated by feminist propaganda rampant in Scandinavia, have brought sex charges against Assange. One claims that she was having consensual sexual intercourse with him, but that he didn’t stop when she asked him to when the condom broke.

Think about this for a minute. Other than male porn stars who are bored with it all, how many men can stop at the point of orgasm or when approaching orgasm? How does anyone know where Assange was in the process of the sex act? In a healthy society, women would be competing for the sperm of high IQ men such as Assange. Perhaps he thought he was doing them a favor by attempting to pass on his genes.

Would a real government that had any integrity and commitment to truth try to blacken the name of the prime truth teller of our time on the basis of such flimsy charges? Obviously, Sweden has become another two-bit punk puppet government of the US.

Joe Lieberman from Connecticut, who is Israel&#8217;s most influential senator in the US Senate, delivered sufficiently credible threats to Amazon to cause the company to <a href="http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/01/facing-lieberman-boycott-amazon-ousts-wikileaks/">oust WikiLeaks content from their hosting service</a>.

The US government has got away with telling lies for so long that it no longer hesitates to lie in the most blatant way. WikiLeaks released a US classified document signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that explicitly orders US diplomats to spy on UN Security Council officials and on the Secretary General of the United Nations. The cable is now in the public record. No one challenges its authenticity. Yet, today the Obama regime, precisely White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, declared that Hillary had never ordered or even asked US officials to spy on UN officials.

Anyone who believes the US government about anything is the epitome of gullibility.


Who, Precisely, Is Attacking the World?
by Paul Craig Roberts, December 01, 2010

The stuck pigs are squealing. To shift the onus from the U.S. State Department, Hillary Clinton paints WikiLeaks’ release of the “diplomatic cables” as an “attack on the international community.” To reveal truth is equivalent, in the eyes of the U.S. government, to an attack on the world.

It is WikiLeaks’ fault that all those U.S. diplomats wrote a quarter of a million undiplomatic messages about America’s allies, a.k.a. puppet states. It is also WikiLeaks’ fault that a member of the U.S. government could no longer stomach the cynical ways in which the U.S. government manipulates foreign governments to serve, not their own people, but American interests, and delivered the incriminating evidence to WikiLeaks.

The U.S. government actually thinks that it was WikiLeaks’ patriotic duty to return the evidence and to identify the leaker. After all, we mustn’t let the rest of the world find out what we are up to. They might stop believing our lies.

The influential German magazine Der Spiegel writes: “It is nothing short of a political meltdown for U.S. foreign policy.”

This might be more a hope than a reality. The “Soviet threat” during the second half of the 20th century enabled U.S. governments to create institutions that subordinated the interests of other countries to those of the U.S. government. After decades of following U.S. leadership, European “leaders” know no other way to act. Finding out that the boss badmouths and deceives them is unlikely to light a spirit of independence. At least not until America’s economic collapse becomes more noticeable.

The question is: how much will the press tell us about the documents? Spiegel itself has said that the magazine is permitting the U.S. government to censor, at least in part, what it prints about the leaked material. Most likely, this means the public will not learn the content of the 4,330 documents that “are so explosive that they are labeled ‘NOFORN,’” meaning that foreigners, including presidents, prime ministers, and security services that share information with the CIA are not permitted to read the documents. Possibly, also, the content of the 16,652 cables classified as “secret” will not be revealed to the public.

Most likely the press, considering their readers’ interests, will focus on gossip and the unflattering remarks Americans made about their foreign counterparts. It will be good for laughs. Also, the U.S. government will attempt to focus the media in ways that advance U.S. policies.

Indeed, it has already begun. On Nov. 29, National Public Radio emphasized that the cables showed that Iran was isolated even in the Muslim world, making it easier for the Israelis and Americans to attack. The leaked cables reveal that the president of Egypt, an American puppet, hates Iran, and the Saudi Arabian government has been long urging the U.S. government to attack Iran. In other words, Iran is so dangerous to the world that even its co-religionists want Iran wiped off the face of the earth.

NPR presented several nonobjective “Iranian experts” who denigrated Iran and its leadership and declared that the U.S. government, by resisting its Middle Eastern allies’ call for bombing Iran, was the moderate in the picture. The fact that President George W. Bush declared Iran to be a member of “the axis of evil” and threatened repeatedly to attack Iran and that President Obama has continued the threats – Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, has just reiterated that the U.S. hasn’t taken the attack option off the table – are not regarded by American “Iran experts” as indications of anything other than American moderation.

Somehow it did not come across the NPR newscast that it is not Iran but Israel that routinely slaughters civilians in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, and that it is not Iran but the U.S. and its NATO mercenaries who slaughter civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan.

Iran has not invaded any of its neighbors, but the Americans are invading countries halfway around the globe.

The “Iranian experts” treated the Saudi and Egyptian rulers’ hatred of Iran as a vindication of the U.S. and Israeli governments’ demonization of Iran. Not a single “Iranian expert” was capable of pointing out that the tyrants who rule Egypt and Saudi Arabia fear Iran because the Iranian government represents the interests of Muslims, and the Saudi and Egyptian governments represent the interests of the Americans.

Think what it must feel like to be a tyrant suppressing the aspirations of your own people in order to serve the hegemony of a foreign country, while a nearby Muslim government strives to protect its people’s independence from foreign hegemony.

Undoubtedly, the tyrants become very anxious. What if their oppressed subjects get ideas? Little wonder the Saudi and Egyptian rulers want the Americans to eliminate the independent-minded country that is a bad example for Egyptian and Saudi subjects.

As long as the dollar has enough value that it can be used to purchase foreign governments, information damaging to the U.S. government is unlikely to have much affect. As Alain of Lille said a long time ago, “Money is all.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts285.html

 

Includes alot of smear bullshit, partially true though.

Like the part about Leiberman being "israel's most influential senator", as if Israel has something to hide here. The fact is the wikileaks have been very good for Israel's reputation, and have exonerated Israel from a lot of the bullshit conspiracy theories which are often spread about it.

 

Sounds like BS. How would she know the condom broke? Could she feel that? Did he pull out every couple of strokes for her inspection?

 

Exactly. Only a fucking idiot can't see that this is a flimsy excuse to tie him down following the wikileaks incident. The fact that they manufacture some entirely fictitious horse shit to go after him on instead only further damages their credibility.

 

In the old days the CIA would have grabbed this prick and thrown his smug ass out an airplane.

It disgusts me that there are people on this site who cheer the indictment of Dick Cheney, not because they know anything about the merits of the case but merely because he is a republican, yet defend this Assange guy.

The people who "leaked" this material should be charged with espionage and this guy should be charged with aiding and abetting them. Give them a fair trial them lock them all up for decades.

 

Unreal! I bet you are a fan of the third reich.


:eek:

 

All depends. If you have no respect for women, then yeah, a man isnt going to stop. Its still called rape. If a man does have respect for a woman, he can stop and pull out and put on another condom. So what if assange now has to spend 4 minutes having sex instead of 2.

If you dont think this is rape then think about it this way. Suppose the woman wanted him to stop because he was too big and it was hurting her(I know, I know...its something YOU will never have to worry about) would it still be ok for him to keep having sex with her even though she was in pain? After all as you said..."how many men can stop at the point of orgasm or when approaching?"

You seriously do not know how close you are to the mentality of a rapist.

 

That all of you denigrate this essay only lends more credibility to its merit.

 

Condoms are not comfortable to most males, and some otherwise rational and intelligent men lose the ability to think straight when having sex. This undoubtedly has to do with blood flowing from the brain to the extremities.

Perhaps the girl was a virgin, and forcing a way through the intact membrane with a condom may have been quite painful to Assange. Swedish women are quite tall, and the depth of her vagina may have further compounded the problem. How can we blame him for having enjoyed the feeling of instant relief the breaking of the condom likely afforded him? Depriving men of their right to natural vaginal lubrication is a crime that feminists never mention.

Also relevant is the fact that many women and children, lacking maturity and reason, have a hard time distinguishing between pain and pleasure during intercourse. The reason rape experiences are so traumatic to many women is that they actually experienced pleasure. In fact, women are more likely to experience orgasm when they are being ravished without consent. This also explains why women are attracted to violent men.

 

She felt it. It was in her mouth.