Sweden’s Prestige Deadlocks Case Assange – Part IV of the series “7 Pillars of Deception”

What could end Sweden’s prestige-bound deadlock of the case Assange? Analysing important developments in Latin-America

By Marcello Ferrada de Noli

The facts reviewed here, together with the peculiar treatment by Sweden of the so-called Assange case - which at times violates its own legal praxis - has resulted in a direct deterioration of the sympathies that the "Olof Palme country" previously enjoyed among the Latin-American people. Those sentiments will surely play a role in an eventual economic boycott of Sweden - which is the natural outcome in a domino effect in the event that an Anglo-Ecuadorian political confrontation would arise, because of the asylum-issue deadlock. As Sweden does not seem being ready for applying the Roman principle  ”pactum abrogare eodem modo fabricati”, dropping the ”legal case” against the WikiLeaks founder is not exactly in sight.

 

Nevertheless, when a call for a boycott of the industrial products of Sweden would start from the grassroots by an angry popular pressure in Latin-America, and subsequently from their organizations towards the left-oriented governments in ALBA; and when, according the "inverted matryoshka-doll" effect, the message will be delivered from other Ecuadorian-sympathetic governments in ALBA to the rest of the country-organizations in the Region; Then, perhaps the “miracle” will occur: Economic and commercial boycott of Swedish goods and services, the effective threat to the capitalist profits and fiscal revenues in Sweden would be perhaps the only measure that would cause Sweden to review their prestige-bound stance on the case Assange.

CONTENTS:

I. The Prestige issue; II. The political background; III. Five political scenarios that can break the deadlock: The Latin-American situation; IV. Appendix 1: Update with relevant news on Latin-American developments [Appendix 1 by “Espressino”]

I

The prestige issue

In the centuries old “Diritto Romano” there was a juridical axiom that I will freely refer as to “pactum abrogare eodem modo fabricati” (contracts can be simply dissembled just by reversing the steps through which they were assembled). I would say that a simple way of ending the apparently complicated deadlock in the “case Assange”, as far Sweden is concerned, is to dissemble step by step the actions taken by the Swedish prosecutor Authority in this regard. And ending things where it commenced – drop the case.

However, the above would entail a cultural premise that Swedish authorities – atavistically considered - do not exhibit easily: To admit being wrong, of being at the wrong side of justice, or history.

The Australian journalist Elizabeth Farrelly, in her highly publicised piece Held in a gilded cage, optimism still reigns supreme for Assange (originally published in The Sydney Morning Herald on the 7 of February 2013), noticed recently Assange’s views that  “Sweden’s is a culture of profound conformism; a population half the size of Australia’s with a language spoken (and a culture therefore scrutinised) by no one else on earth. A country that, unlike say Germany, ”never denazified” after World War II. Never pushed the reset button.”

After over 40 years living in Sweden, my own impression is the vast majority among these peoples is very far from having Nazi sympathies. Yet, I have in fact never heard of an ”apology” from the Swedish government, the Foreign Ministry, or any of the established political parties, for the official collaboration of Sweden with the Nazi weaponry industry, or for letting SS troops passing Swedish territories or using Sweden’s railroads and communications infrastructure for their invasion of Norway.

Several historical episodes, and also modern political events, would indicate that prestige is involved in a prominent fashion among Swedish authorities’ behaviour – particularly referred to issues of international or geopolitical nature.

From the times of the classical illustration above mentioned in the article by Farrelly [See some background-facts in Sweden, NATO and Assange and Sweden’s phony prosecution] until modern times we have learned of a variety of episodes showing the same trends. For instance, it was disclosed that the Swedish government indulged  – and eventually on the back of the Swedish Parliament, and therefore violating the Constitution of Sweden – in “informal agreements” with foreign power’s intelligence services to give away comprehensive private information about Swedish nationals on behalf of that foreign power’s interest. The WikiLeaks Cables exposed this in 2010. Three years after that scandal still no apology whatsoever has been heard from the part to the Swedish rulers or the corresponding political parties towards the Parliament or the people.

Nowadays we have the situation in which the management by Sweden of the “case Assange” has caused to the country more than international embarrassment. It has led to an ostensible deterioration of Sweden’s international stand. The international community gave recently a proof of this lowered reputation when Sweden lost with lowest number of country-votes their bid for a post in the United Nations body for Human Rights in 2012 (event commented by SvD by referring how despicable and inefficient such UN Human Rights organizations are. Aesop in Swedish: surt sa räven om rönnbären). 

At this stage, every politician or reporter interested in the case against Assange, even if peripherally, has become aware that the Swedish authorities’ refusal of using normal procedures to interrogate Assange in London is NOT based – as it was initially declared by the Sweden – in actual “local legal regulations” that would not permit such proceedings. By now it is widely known those hindrances simply do not exist; and to the contrary, procedures for conducting interrogations with “detainees” abroad are even explicated in the Swedish Law codex.

Sweden has “painted itself into a corner” and, partly because the prestige issue, they will not offer a solution by their own initiative. For it will be – according to them – recognition they had been wrong from the beginning or that their authorities have acted with a lack of professionalism.

What I am pointing to is that the deadlock in the “Assange Affair” is more likely to be solved by direct political means - and, again, NOT initiated by juridical developments or spontaneous retractions by Swedish officials. Further explained in the Introduction-section of Manifest in To How To Best Defend Assange. Here summarized,

"The problem has been euphemistically complicated, and successively, as to produce a huge political Gordian knot. Instead of consuming time and energy in trying to find a “legal” way to a labyrinth exit which does not exist, the only way of untying such puzzle and get rid of the deadlock is following the example of Alessandro di Macedonia: Taking a sharpest-edged political sword crushing in one swift the “juridical” paraphernalia in thousand absurd fragments. One of most highly effective of such political weapons is to be found in political pressures to the governments involved, converging to the acceptance of the sovereign Ecuadorian decision on the issue of asylum."

In this article I explore into certain elements in the Latin-American scenario that would likely be crucial to future developments of the case Sweden maintains against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. I also add as an appendix an interesting news-summary authored by “Espressino” (@ulvis, https://twitter.com/ulvdis), giving an updated glance on Latin-American events – in my opinion relevant to the case Assange. I also thank @treisiroon for a postscriptum proofread of the text.

II

The political background

From the perspective of those in power, WikiLeaks represents a significant threat: a) Partly for the potential of future exposures, b) but also because of the WikiLeaks model - the example-design presented by the Wikileaks project founded by Assange for providing a direct free-information source, which c) is not under the control of either the government or the MSM. In other words, information that is not filtered by establishment’s criteria. There is the “peril”.

Also from the perspective of those in power there is a perceived threat to the commercial heart of the corporate enterprises they manage. WikiLeaks has represented a danger of destabilizing the “normal” flow of profit and revenues of such corporations - and that has to be stopped. After all, what are governments for in capitalist societies if not to protect primarily the economic interests of the class they represent? It is a demonstrated fact that the US government has used diplomatic resources – including threats - to protect commercial interests of corporate holdings. That was the case with the direct intervention of the US – through assignments to the Swedish Ministry of Justice - during the Swedish file-sharing events which ended with the Pirate Bay trial put forward by the Swedish Prosecutor Authority - after the US requests.

Considering all the above, it should no be that strange that the same Prosecution Authority put up a direct “investigation” of Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, on the request of a known pro USA law-firm (Bodström & Borgström) after the case had been dismissed by an earlier prosecutor. Thomas Bodström, the former Justice Minister of Sweden, has even made a bragging number (in “The Bodström Society”, his own blog from Virginia, USA, where he lived at the time of the “accusations”) that it his firm Bodström & Borgström the one sustaining “the plaintiffs”.

The question must be asked, how can any such “accusations”  so easily prosper in “official” Sweden? (“Official” Sweden includes the “independent” MSM). How could it result that all the Swedish political parties – with the exception of very few individual politicians - reacted unanimously in the condemnation or defamation of Assange?

I have given in the previous article of this series some background about this particular “consensus” phenomenon in the political parties and elsewhere in Sweden. See Analysing The Swedish Phenomenon Of Political Consensus – Part III in the series “Seven Pillars Of Deception”.

The officially sponsored “accusations” against Assange still were received nice and easy in Sweden due to a constellation of further factors:

A) The accusations go hand in hand with the "radical feminist" political movement designed to further radicalize sexual-offences legislation (the using of the Assange case as “symbol”. See “The use of the Julian Assange “case” in Sweden as symbolic issue and political instrument” in Swedish Likely Forensic-Psychiatry Scenario in the Assange "case" – Updated Analysis. In my opinion, however, this movement is neither “radical” nor "feminist" in the classical sense of gender-equality. At the contrary, such movement could be more properly characterised in regard to that issue as ideological right-wing (even if prominent members happens to be militants of the “Vänster” or Social Democratic parties), ultra-conservative and gender-supremacist.

B) The case was instrumental in helping the government to consolidate its new international profile (See Exporting Sweden's "gender" perspective model) in the aftermath of the vacuum that was left when the abandonment by Sweden of the Neutrality policy decreased its political trade mark in the international community.

C) The role of the Sweden’s MSM, particularly the economic interests of Swedish press, which reacted against “Assange” in an effort to discredit the emerging “rival” WikiLeaks (‘Journalistic Jealousy’ Or Politics, Or Both?).

D) Further factors have been explained in a variety of articles in this blog. See for instance:

• Fallet Assange är politiskt orsakat. Lösningen är endast politisk
• Sweden versus Assange – Insider Analyses. Introduction and Part I: Duckpond in Swedish legal system
• Sweden versus Assange – Insider Analyses. Part II: Exporting Sweden’s “gender” perspective model
• This is why
• Timing the processes
• Analysis: Why Sweden revenge against Assange
• The NATO factor. Extradition process initiated in Sweden against the WikiLeaks founder is to the uppermost extent POLITICAL
• Professors Blogg And The Role Of Radical “Feminism” in Sweden’s case vs Assange
• Swedish/U.S. Intelligence co-operation in the Bodström Society. Part IV of the series “Sweden VS Assange” – Insider Analyses
• Shall Sweden’s politically appointed Judges decide the political case against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange?
• The Media, The Man & The Misinformation: Swedish Media War Against Assange Intensifies
• Assange and WikiLeaks have NOT caused the deterioration of Sweden’s international prestige. This is done by Swedes themselves
• Sweden’s political decision on the extradition of Assange to the U.S.
• In the history of Swedish extradition of political prisoners to foreign powers

Sweden’s reaction against WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange cannot be explained solely by through Sweden operating primarily according to USA’s interests in the matter. The secret telegrams revealed by WikiLeaks were also a direct blow to the Swedish authorities. And these authorities remain vulnerable to any new revelations that the organization WikiLeaks would present in the future. In addition, Julian Assange explicitly announced these exposures in his December address from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. It is important to bear in mind that the exposures of WikiLeaks have affected not only the right-wing government of Reindfeldt and Bildt, but also the social democratic government (in my opinion quite right-wing profiled) of Göran Person and Thomas Bodström.

Another aspect that helps to characterize the case as political is that in Sweden, the main players in the so-called legal case have an indisputable political or ideological agenda. To begin with Bodstrom & Borgström - the initiative-owners of the reopening of the case (as Claes Bogström have declared himself. Also Thomas Bodström is "proud" about this as he wrote in his blog from Virginia). With regard to the promotion and radicalization of sexual-offences legislation, they are in the same ideological line that Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny. Marianne Ny, at the time of the assessment of the case presented to her by Claes Bogström, still had an assignment from the government as a member of the special committee studying a new legislation body which comprised reforms to exactly the same type of offences described in the “accusations” against Assange. See further details on this important issue – to the best of my knowledge not commented elsewhere – in my analysis Duckpond In Swedish Legal System.

Finally we have to ask, who is benefiting from the prolonging of the deadlock of the case Assange? One answer is the time the US needs to prepare materials for the indictment of Assange and WikiLeaks. Also, it is highly favourable that Assange remains as “Sweden’s prisoner” as long the trial against Manning is ongoing. The aim would be here to implicate Assange with elements in the Manning trial. I have developed this thesis in two interviews aired by RT (see Timing The Processes). In other words, the Swedish authorities are giving precious extra time to the Grand Jury's sealed indictment against Assange. Also in this context, the extradition request has an extraordinary importance for the implementation of the indictment.

In a meta-perspective, the longer the WikiLeaks chief leader is deprived of freedom of movement and normal communications, the more damage the WikiLeaks political foes perform to WikiLeaks as an organization. In turn, a partial immobilization of the core activities and tarnishing of the WikiLeaks name via smear of his founder in the long run can create fractioning among the supporters.

In conclusion, it is imperative to break the deadlock represented by the a) refusal of Sweden to interrogate Assange in London; b) refusal of the UK to provide salvo conducto (safe passage). And the most evident possibilities for this are to be found in the following scenarios, mainly recent developments in Latin-America.

III

Five political scenarios that can break the deadlock: The Latin-American situation

1. Latin America:

There is in Latin-America a relative militant but with increasing influence in the region named ALBA (integrated among others countries by Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia). On the one hand the re-election of Correa in the upcoming presidential polls in Ecuador not only will reinforce the influence of Ecuador in ALBA but it will give ALBA itself a booster in its influence in the region. On the other hand, a victory of the Ecuadorian oppositional candidate  Lucio Gutierrez would represent – as far the Assange case is concerned – a formidable blow, since in this cased it has been announced that Gutiérrez would revoke the asylum decision made by the Correa administration.

One could argue that ALBA is not all Latin America. However, those familiarized with the modern Latin-American developments towards superpowers (i.e. USA) have characterized this stance as an "inverted matryoshka doll” – where the inner structures gradually exercise pressure on outer structures in order to produce changes in accordance with the more militant or radical agenda emerging from the “inner” structures. And then there is UNASUR (the twelve South American countries); Alianza del Pacífico; MERCOSUR, and CELAC (all the countries in the continent, excluding USA and Canada, meaning 33 countries!

Elections in Chile are neither far from today. If the Centre-Left Coalition would win, as many analyses predict, then an effective incorporation of Chile to ALBA is to be expected. Chile has, among the Latin American countries, the strongest economy and also relatively the strongest influence in he forum of EU countries. This factor, added to that several Latin-American countries have started a more utterly support of Argentina’s reclaim of sovereignty of the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands) nowadays still under military occupation of Great Britain, etc. All these developments would signify pressures upon the British government, and in the context of the dispute between Ecuador and the UK it is likely to think of a scenario in which economic and political pressures will be exercised against the government of Great Britain to make them respect the sovereignty of Ecuador on the matter to which they decide to give asylum. I repeat,

This right, or praxis, of granting political asylum is a very strong tradition in the Latin American countries, question that has not been fully understood – or not even discussed - at least in Sweden.

An open confrontation between Ecuador and England has not yet initiated, possibly because of the Ecuadorian presidential-election period. But in the case that confrontation will be declared – and if England would again miss (like in the Falkland crisis with Argentina) to grasp the Latin American “honour-bound” political cultural in international affairs – the consequences will likely be:

a)   Economic blockade for import goods and services towards the UK,
b)   Sooner thereafter a “domino effect” of such blockade will reach Sweden. This, because a common current geopolitical denominator between these two countries, seen from Latin-American perspective, is their collaboration in the unjustified detention of Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy, blockading the processes of political asylum which in Latin America is instead a sacred institution.

Here below further political scenarios that can open for solutions of the stalemate in the “Assange case”

 

2. WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks have announced thousand new disclosures (which compromise all the countries, as Julian Assange emphasized in his speed in December at the Ecuadorian Embassy). Depending on the quality and aggravating tenure of those contents wit regard to Sweden, the pressures towards Sweden’s readiness for discussing an ending of the stalemate on the “Assange case” will increase – not the least because not doing so it would be interpreted as if the prolonging of the “legal case” is a further revenge from Sweden motivated by the further WikiLeaks’ political exposures on Sweden.

 

3. Sweden:

Regretful, and mainly because of the prestige issues analysed above, Sweden would be the last scenario where a solution-initiative for the impasse occasioned by Sweden could be authored.

For instance, Sweden has apparently not understood the fully extent of their political embarrassing at the election in the United Nations body for Human Rights where Sweden got the lowest number of votes from the international community represented there (referred above in Introduction). Or perhaps the current engagement of Carl Bildt in Latin America is a “damaging control” task in view of such situation. The assessing of the main causes intervening in the current worsening of the Swedish international standing would be complicated. The abandonment of the Neutrality policy can be cited as one of them. But there are more concrete deeds committed by Sweden, which have portrayed the country as frankly alien to the praxis of Human Rights that the United Nations has been pursuing after.

To the context above the fact that Sweden has been sanctioned by the United Nations for serious “violation on the United Nations Absolute Ban On Torture” – a Convention that Sweden had signed. As the secret collaboration by Sweden with the CIA perplexed the international community, the fact that torture was implicated (it referred to the “Egyptians case” of renditions to CIA by the Swedish authorities under the time Thomas Bodström was Justice Minister) made the things worst. It s NOT a thing that one could have expected from Sweden, it was commented in Latin America. It has to be observed that many among the current leadership of these countries have been victims or witness of such atrocities committed by the military dictatorships supported from the mid 70’s through the 80’s by the US.

To make things worst for Sweden in Latin America, the recent revelations on the (passive or active) involvement of Sweden in the rendition of further Swedish nationals to the US – that in this particular case had been cleared of criminal suspicions by Swedish prosecutor investigations – have increased the reluctance of considering Sweden as having an independent, sovereign stand in the issues of extradition. And here we get one core issue on the dispute around the “Assange case”, as the political asylum was granted by Ecuador precisely in considering the risk fro extradition to the US performed by Sweden.

The facts reviewed here, together with the peculiar treatment by Sweden of the so-called Assange case - which at times violates its own legal praxis - has resulted in a direct deterioration of the sympathies that the "Olof Palme country" previously enjoyed among the Latin-American people. Those sentiments will surely play a role in an eventual economic boycott of Sweden - which is the natural outcome in a domino effect in the event that an Anglo-Ecuadorian political confrontation would arise, because of the asylum-issue deadlock.

As Sweden does not seem being ready for applying the Roman principle  ”pactum abrogare eodem modo fabricati”, dropping the ”legal case” against the WikiLeaks founder is not exactly in sight.

Nevertheless, when a call for a boycott of the industrial products of Sweden would start from the grassroots by an angry popular pressure in Latin-America, and subsequently from their organizations towards the left-oriented governments in ALBA; and when, according the "inverted matryoshka-doll" effect, the message will be delivered from other Ecuadorian-sympathetic governments in ALBA to the rest of the country-organizations in the Region; Then, perhaps the “miracle” will occur:

Economic and commercial boycott of Swedish goods and services, the effective threat to the capitalist profits and fiscal revenues in Sweden would be perhaps the only measure that would cause Sweden to review their prestige-bound stance on the case Assange.

IV

Appendix 1: Update with relevant news on Latin-American developments

By “Espressino” (@ulvis, https://twitter.com/ulvdis)

Hit pieces in a never-ending stream,

Torpedo Articles in a never ending stream, and as if that was not enough so re publish each other in a never-ending stream.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...kholm-syndrome

Feels like one last build up before the election in Ecuador, which takes place in about a week. Activity on #assange thread on twitter and intense, and where David Allen Green English lawyer and pronounced anti Assange supporters and taking credit for having turned Jemima Khan and led her to see the right light. Threatened a while ago to 'unleash his followers on the #assange thread for criticizing him. Jemima Kahn was executive producer of a documentary film about Wikileaks entitled "We Steal Secrets"

Quote:
 

Which Khan recently premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in the United States. Khan said the film, directed by Oscar-winning documentary maker Alex Gibney, Sought to present a balanced view of the WikiLeaks story but Assange had denounced it before seeing it.

Bildt just returned from EU CELAC Summit in Santiago, Chile

http://www.euronews.com/2013/01/26/c...s-in-santiago/

Quote:
 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, January 27, 2013 Carl Bildt on the summit between Latin America, the Caribbean and the European Union
 

On Sunday ended EU CELAC Summit in Santiago de Chile. The summit - which has gathered heads of state and government and foreign ministers from more than 60 countries in Latin America, the Caribbean and the European Union - adopted a declaration which, among other things, stipulates regions common values of basic human rights. States also undertook to act against protectionism.

At the same time this is published,

REGION: Sabotaging CELAC - The U.S. and Sweden / / h / t Duqu, trenterx

Quote:
 

The Governments of the United States and Sweden are conniving Directly with an extreme-right wing network in Latin America in a move to sabotage the summit meeting in Santiago, Chile of Heads of State from the European Union (EU) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). To do so They are working with the CIA and the most reactionary elements of the anti-Cuban mafia in Miami.

Quote:
 

- The Swedish diplomat Anders Ingemar Cederberg, who dedicated himself full time During his time in Havana to interfering in Cuba's affairs to the point That the Cuban Authorities made formal Protests to the Swedish government;

Quote:
 

Of Particular not traveled is this network's relationship with Sweden. In February 2011, CADAL awarded Swedish diplomat Anders Ingemar Cederberg the Prize for Committed Democracy for services rendered in Cuba. In April of That same year, CADAL brought him to Argentina to make a private report of his destabilization Activities while Representing Sweden in Havana. CADAL published a book based on That exchange, Funded by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Which Cederberg relates with complete lack of inhibition is his "heroic" exploits as a spy with diplomatic immunity in Cuba.

http://tortillaconsal.com/tortilla/es/node/12421

Nota bene, he is in Cuba while Ardin sent to support the opposition to the point that she gets deported, and and stamped "persona non grata" Cederberg attracts through its activities on the protests of Cuban government to the Swedish Government.

According to yet confirmed data Bildt will be in Canberra on February 27, so folks what do you see in the crystal ball?
__________________

https://twitter.com/ulvdis

Analysing The Swedish Phenomenon Of Political Consensus – Part III in the series “Seven Pillars Of Deception”

Why Are Swedish Political Parties And MSM Altogether Hostile Against WikiLeaks And Assange? 

As far the "accusations-item" is concerned, Sweden has at-large demonstrated NOT being interested in ending the legal case. The only interest Sweden has demonstrated is in trying to obtain the extradition of Assange to Sweden by all means possible, with the ensuing incommunicado-status behind bars that this legal action will entail for their prisoner. The extradition-prisoner status of Assange (the status he would have if taken prisoner to Sweden) it enables other "juridical" possibilities for Sweden, respectively USA, that were not accessible at the time he would have been interrogated by the Swedish prosecutor while on free foot in Sweden. And this is in turn a conceivable explanation why Assange was lead to understand he was "free to travel".

 

The Swedish legal extradition process against Assange, and the Swedish legal process on the accusation "by the two women" against Assange, are in the main two different things - in fact only euphemistically connected; which wrongly has been mixed up in the discussions around the "juridical case". The synthesis of this dialectics confirms conclusively that the Swedish "legal" case against Assange is solely the political case of USA against WikiLeaks.

 

The known homogeneity or “consensus” between the Swedish political parties appears most visible in a) matters of foreign policy, b) issues of  “National security”, or c) any topic that might compromise the prestige or trademarks of Sweden abroad. And we find the Assange case implicated by the Swedish authorities in those three items altogether.

"In the case of Assange (among others) Sweden has time and again violated its own procedures and laws. The Swedish State is both persecuting Assange and failing in its responsibilities to the Swedish women involved in the case. A hard analytical look at what (and who) has brought us to this point is fully justified." Recent comment by Treisiroon in Professors blogg

By Marcello  Ferrada de Noli, Bergamo, Italy

In the Swedish forum Flashback, two commentators – “Wtfuk” and “GoodwinStrawman” - posted today interesting reflections about the apparently consensual activities by the Swedish parties, meaning that no essential differences do exist between them, irrespectively if they were right-wing or left-wing.  “GoodwinStrawman” gives as an explanation that both political cohorts (the right-wing and left-wing) would be serving the same master, namely “the few big finance families”. Although he is apologetic on whether this thesis would sound conspiracy-minded.

This is what I have to say on this topic, in reference to the Swedish case against WikiLeaks and Julian Assange:

Serving the few big families’ financial interests – the “de få stora finansfamiljerna” as mentioned by GoodwinStrawman - may be a plausible explanation (and not so conspiracy-minded, but factual). However, there are yet other paramount factors behind this political behaviour of consensus (see below). Also, in regard to corporative interests, the “Swedish” financial panorama has to be understood in a global basis, not only in domestic terms, namely an increasing phenomena of international concentration of economic power: The originally Swedish private ownership of domestic-based companies, institutions or corporations is growingly shared with the international capital. This order in its turn is staunchly protected by global political alliances (such as the Bildergerg Group, which is a very good illustration of these endeavours), and of course their corresponding military shield (NATO). No wonder Carl von Clausewitz defined war as "the continuation of politic s by other means".

This homogeneity or “consensus” between the Swedish political parties mentioned by GoodwinStrawman appears most visible in a) matters of foreign policy, b) issues of "National security", or c) any topic that might compromise the prestige or trademarks of Sweden abroad. And we find the Assange case implicated in those three items.
 

-->

In "The Seven Pillars Of Deception", Part I, we asked, Is Sweden Motivated by Revenge? And I referred among others to these facts, summarizing:

The WikiLeaks cables have disclosed several democracy-corruption episodes regarding Swedish rulers, exposure that has ostensibly damaged the Sweden trademark. Further, Wikileaks cables have lead recent investigations into huge economic corruption scandals as enacted by the Swedish state-owned Telia Sonera – discussed in the above mentioned.

But in spite the WikiLeaks cables were NOT specifically directed to target just Sweden, neither authored by WikiLeaks. And although he cables are instead untouched transcriptions of reports from the US embassies all over the world:

The Swedish establishment – i.e. the government, the military complex, the mainstream media, the “cultural elite”, and the established political parties – have a) partly reacted with vengeful and draconian measures against WikiLeaks – the messenger, and b) as the international forum world has witnessed, also with the use of vilifying attacks on the person Julian Assange.

Not all the WikiLeaks cables on Sweden are connected with what it is advertised as “National security“ interests, but some are. However, about this item it is important to bear in mind that Sweden does NOT any longer exercise an independent national-interests minded foreign policy, but a one strictly subordinated to a "främmande makt", namely to USA/NATO interests. The Swedish military occupation of Afghanistan territories, done under USA-command, is one militarily practicalexample. And a political doctrinal example is found in the appointment by NATO of the Swedish Ministry of Defence as main megaphone of the new NATO economic-program towards EU countries. See own declarations of Tolgfors in his SvD debate article of 15 Jan 2012 or in The NATO factor. Extradition process initiated in Sweden against the WikiLeaks founder is to the uppermost extent POLITICAL.

In the new Swedish pro-NATO defence order, is totally possible for Swedish troops to remain in combat in USA wars - as in Afghanistan - for years; while in defending Swedish territory these troops would not stand “more than seven days”. Another example was the abolition of the Varnplikt system, which in actual fact served noble for years in maintaining and reproducing a genuine National-Security spirit of cohesion among old and new generations of Swedes. Amid this “både rött och blått a lá sverige”, as Wtfukput it graphically, not a single political party in Sweden has protested against this new, in fact “anti-Sweden” kamikaze order in defence affairs.

Perhaps a clearer illustration of the above mentioned Swedish identification with USA's corporative interests, which is in fact consensuallyimplemented by all the Swedish traditional political parties, was given at the deliberations at the Swedish Parliament on 1 April 2011. There all the traditional parties, including the so-called Vänster Partiet led by “communist” Lars Ohly (and formerly by “international feminist” Gudrun Schyman) voted in accordance to the Reindfelt-Bildt proposition of sending the Swedish Air Force to surveillance-assist the bombardment of Libyans in order to retake the oil in favour of the companies represented in the Bilderberg consortium [I commented the event in Om Sverigedemokraternas utrikes politik är ”osvensk” vad är då Socialdemokraternas? Och kampen för Assange och Mannings frihet fortsätter.

The collaboration of Sweden in giving USA time for the preparations of the Grand Jury against Assange - including the possibilities of connecting it with the Manning trial [see "Stalling hypothesis" in Timing The Process] - is another example. I found this is a plausible reason of the neglecting, respectively artificial refusal from the part of Sweden about interrogating Assange (in Sweden 2010 and thereafter in London), or dropping the case.

The Swedish legal extradition process against Assange, and the Swedish legal process on the accusation "by two women" against Assange, are in the main two different things - in fact only euphemistically connected; which wrongly has been mixed up in discussions in this forum and also internationally, by Assange lawyers, Assange supporters, etc.

As far the "accusations-item" is concerned, Sweden has at-large demonstrated NOT being interested in ending the legal case. The only interest Sweden has demonstrated is in trying to obtain the extradition of Assange to Sweden by all means possible, with the ensuing incommunicado-status behind bars that this legal action will entail for their prisoner. The extradition-prisoner status of Assange (the status he would have if taken prisoner to Sweden) it enables other "juridical" possibilities for Sweden, respectively USA, that were not accessible at the time he would have been interrogated by the Swedish prosecutor while on free foot in Sweden. And this is in turn a conceivable explanation why Assange was lead to understand he was "free to travel".

For details on the US Grand Jury preparations against the WIkiLeaks founder Julian Assange I refer here to this material, republished in Professors blogg after courtesy of Senator Scott Ludlam [See doc.  Senator Ludlam to Carr on Grand Jury-1].

In addition, and considering the context above, the Assange case has ben converted (perhaps by design or perhaps by own dynamics) in an issue of international prestige for Sweden, and to the highest degree. This explain the involvement in the anti-WikiLeaks / anti-Assange campaign by both the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (See their website) and the Swedish Ministry of Defence (see FOI high-ranking official's public declarations in SvT here). Besides, I have in a variety of occasions referred to the Trial by Media exercised by the Swedish MSM and prominent Swedish journalists, and which point to exactly the same thing: Truth is concealed, or truth is even ridiculed by these Swedish journalists. Sad for this honourable profession. Please observe that the same happened during the (Thomas Bodström era) ferocious police repression in the Gothenburg anti-Bush protests: The International press attending the event was perplexed on the Swedish journalists docile reporting, basically reproducing the government’s press releases. Not to mention the role of the Swedish MSM under the Carl Bildt's agitated “submarine crisis”.

Another extreme illustration, quite recently, it was when Sweden lost with lowest number of country-votes their candidacy for a post in the United Nations organ for Human Rights. While the event was reported abroad, it was practically compact ignored by the Swedish press. I believe the only exception was an article in SvD, which instead commented (after it was known on the catastrophic election results) how despicable and inefficient such UN Human Rights organizations was. Aesop in Swedish: surt sa räven om rönnbären (The Fox And The Grapes).

Would these “foreign-policy” or “Swedish international prestige” factors be enough to explain the astonishingly, solid consensus of the Swedish political parties in categorizing both the Assange “process” and Julian Assange as a person? The characterizations of Assange by both functionaries of the Ministry of Defence and the Swedish National Television as an enemy of Sweden (“Assange blackmailing the entire Nation of Sweden” and “Assange, Sweden’s Number One enemy”, respectively) are of course echoed by several political personalities, from Prime Minister Reinfeldt himself to the Christian Democratic Party leader (see list of utterances in the letter by Senator Scott Ludlam to Foreign Minister Bob Carr [See doc. carr prejudicial statements]  of the 24 of January 2013, recently translated into Swedish in Professorsblogg)

Or there is other idiosyncratic factors that would also contribute in explaining this very peculiar phenomena of “national” consensus of denial in front of obvious anomalies about the “Affair Assange”, that have strongly and objectively been denounced in the international forum. Being the most aggravating of all the indications that Swedish authorities are in this case – but also in others – infringing Sweden’s own legal order, procedures and regulations in order to comply with their vassal and dishonourable self-commitment with a foreign power. THIS, and the spectacle provided by the complicity of known Swedish journalists in defaming or concealing truth, is what is definitely discrediting Sweden internationally.

How to best defend Assange?

By Marcello Ferrada de Noli

The problem has been euphemistically complicated, and successively, as to produce a huge political Gordian knot. Instead of consuming time and energy in trying to find a “legal” way to a labyrinth exit which does not exist, the only way of untying such puzzle and get rid of the deadlock is following the example of Alessandro – the son of Filippo di Macedonia: Taking a sharpest-edged political sword crushing in one swift the “juridical” paraphernalia in thousand absurd fragments.

The best defence of the cause of justice for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is to contribute to a political scenario in which political decisions could break the deadlock in the asylum process. I have said it for the first time and it will probably also do it for the last time: The problem is NOT juridical, the problem is NOT legal-paragraph bounded.

One of the highest effective of such political weapons is to be found in mass mobilizations, in political pressures to the governments involved, in contacting own elected representatives to parliament, and also in extra-parliament activities converging to the international knowledge and thus acceptance of the sovereign Ecuadorian decision on the issue of asylum. Extra parliament activities do not need to be illegal; as well as legal activities do not always need to be right. What was illegal yesterday it is democracy today. What will be democracy tomorrow depends also on how we handle the issue of free information VS corruption of the press, of the conspiracy of authorities against the will of their people. The WikiLeaks social base has to be converted in a political force, or perish. WikiLeaks cannot duel with MSM with the MSM weapons; it has to choose own field and own strategy. This strategy is to be found out of the box!

Neither the solution will ever be found in accepting a dichotomy between the “Assange case” and the “WikiLeaks case”. For that is a pure fallacy invented by the enemy's psyop to confound and to divide. The offensive against the person Julian Assange has no other aim than to crush WikiLeaks. Rationale for these contentions is stated in the articles by professorsblogg cited bellow.

Alessandro cutting the Gordian knot. Painting by Giovanni Paolo Panini 1691 - 1765- Originally at Don Marcello Massarenti Collection, Rome

* * *

In my previous post ”Trial by Media fortsätter” I summarized characterizations done by prominent Swedish politicians and MSM journalists on Julian Assange, which are contained in the letter-denounce of Senator Scott Ludlam to the Foreign Minister of Australia. These characterizations ad-hominem included for instance, Julian Assange is just a paranoid, an Australian pig, a querulous, loud-mouth, a big coward, a vile pig, a disgusting little creep without principles, a “white-haired fool creep of rectal value". In the part concerning Ludlam’s references to the Swedish press, I regarded his summary as an update of my 2011 testimony on the Trial by the Media submitted to the London Court, in its turn based in my research report “Does Sweden Inflict Trial by Media against Assange?”

The Finnish Professor Tom Bäckström (currently at the University of Erlanger, Germany – se disclaimer down below in his post republished here) communicated to me per email he had written in his blog a comment on my “Trial by Media”. It is a very interesting comment because a) it takes up the issue of how to properly defend Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, an issue that I have taken up before and it has become of fully actuality during the last events - something we all have to re-analyse, the sooner the better; b) it suggests what, for my part, I would call idiosyncratic or cultural explanations on the behaviour of some Swedish professional circles or actors around the "case Assange".  This is a topic, such us the notion of "Swedish consensus", I anticipated in the Introduction of the series "Sweden versus Assange – Insider Analyses" and that it is left to be developed accordingly.

However, considering that I have expressly stated in these colums positions which agree with many of those put forward by Bäckström, one fair conclusion would be that Bäckström is not that acquaintance with the texts in Professors blogg - as he claims himself in order to base his criticism. This convert his important comment in a form of extrapolated Straw man fallacy, where I am presented not only with positions I do not have, but where my actual uttered statements on the matter, for instance on how to deal with “Swedish journalists” attacking Assange (or  for that part, how to deal with Swedish officials, or Swedish "feminists" engaged in the case) are ignored in Bäckström's post. It is important to bear in mind that Bäckström expressly refers his critic to the writings in Professors blogg in general, or the tone in these writings, and not specifically on "Trial by Media fortsätter".

Besides my reply to Bäckström, I publish here his own text in complete form and also I will add soon a translation into English of the post (Swedish) in the Professor blogg which triggered Bäckström's comment.

I

Some misconceptions by Tom Bäckström about Professors blogg

 Professor Tom Bäckström

 * * *

BÄCKSTRÖM: "I have become increasingly disturbed by the "barking-at-the-forest" approach of de Noli, as a contrast to 1) trying to improve things and 2) trying to understanding the causes of the problems."

On 1) above: 

Well, if I am not trying to improve things for the cause of justice for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, what then I would have been doing with all these circa 300 articles and analyses, trying to make things worse? Bäckström’s elliptical asseveration, as we say in Sweden, ”faller av sin egen orimlighet” - the postulate falls due to its own absurdity. WikiLeaks have rewetted or linked, even in its Facebook page, most of the main analyses I have put forward on defence of the cause of justice for the WikiLeaks founder.

On 2) above: The contention that Professors blogg is NOT trying to understanding the causes of the problems." 

One thing would be to say that the explanations put forward in Professorsblogg’s analyses or in the author's publications in Newsmill or Second-Opinion in trying to understand the causes of the problems are wrong or mistaken, or that the reader does not agree with. Fair enough. But another completely different thing - and in fact incomprehensible from a reader of Professors blogg – is to say that those “trying to give explanation to the problems” are absent in the analyses of Professors blogg. Here below a small sample from the ca 300 articles or analyses, and which are specifically devoted to give explanatory causes, or explanatory hypotheses, on the Swedish VS Assange case. Several of these analyses have been linked and twittered by WikiLeaks official sites:

Fallet Assange är politiskt orsakat. Lösningen är endast politisk

Sweden versus Assange – Insider Analyses. Introduction and Part I: Duckpond in Swedish legal system

Sweden versus Assange – Insider Analyses. Part II: Exporting Sweden’s "gender" perspective model

This is why

‘Journalistic Jealousy’ Or Politics, Or Both?

Timing the processes

Analysis: Why Sweden revenge against Assange
The NATO factor. Extradition process initiated in Sweden against the WikiLeaks founder is to the uppermost extent POLITICAL

Professors Blogg And The Role Of Radical "Feminism" in Sweden’s case vs Assange

Swedish/U.S. Intelligence co-operation in the Bodström Society. Part IV of the series “Sweden VS Assange” – Insider Analyses

Shall Sweden’s politically appointed Judges decide the political case against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange?

The Media, The Man & The Misinformation: Swedish Media War Against Assange Intensifies

Assange and WikiLeaks have NOT caused the deterioration of Sweden’s international prestige. This is done by Swedes themselves

Sweden’s political decision on the extradition of Assange to the U.S.

In the history of Swedish extradition of political prisoners to foreign powers 

  
* * *

BÄCKSTRÖM: "More specifically, I do not think that Swedish journalists, police and politicians that de Noli writes about are evil. To the eyes of an outside observer, yes, their actions do seem deplorable, incomprehensible and outright evil, but that is a difference in perspective. I am as sure as I can be of anything, that each and every one of the journalists, police and politicians de Noli writes about are doing whatever they can for the best of their country and themselves.

For one, I do not think that framing these people as madmen, will do any good."

First, let's clarify that I never have referred or framed as "madmen" any  "Swedish journalists, police and politicians". In this international forum it is a bold move to impute slander without a concrete quotation.

Otherwise, I fully agree with Bäckström on the nonsense of characterizing  all those named above (for instance journalists, prosecutors or enforcement officials as a whole or as profession collegium) as evil. Further, this is an item which I have taken up in critical terms in communications with some WikiLeaks supporters. For the explanations behind this campaigns are hardly personal. Further, they are not even "juridical" per se. The explanations are instead systemic and are to be found in the political or societal context of Sweden. And this is EXACTLY what I have tried to make clear in a number of posts both in the Professors blogg, in the Flashback forum, or in Newsmill. Here follows a couple of illustrations, about legl-system officials and journalists, respectively - which are the two professions named by Bäckström in the context:

In my post "The scape-goat hypothesis; an alternative scenario" (in Flashback here, in Swedish) I clearly criticized the attacks ad hominem on prosecutor Marianne Ny. I concretely said,

"When the all process is characterized as Marianne Ny's wrong doing or Ny's decison, etc., one risks taking away the attention from the actual causality, the underlying political factors; and above all, from the one and only thing  that it could take the case out from its seemingly fatalistic orbit, namely a political decision"

[så länge det hela är endast karakteriserade som ”Nys fel”, ”Nys beslut”, etc. man riskerar ta analysblickar ifrån den egentliga kausaliteten, de politiska krafter bakomliggande, och framförallt, den enda som kan köra ut fallet ifrån sitt nuvarande fatalistisk kursförlopp: Ett politiskt beslut, således.]

This I wrote in the Professors blogg post

Professors blogg is now closed


My main purpose in these articles is trying to persuade serious Swedish Assange allies of the necessity of enlarging the supportive social force for this cause, instead of further isolating in Sweden the cause of Assange through alienating important societal groups or individuals that may feel wrongly identified as hostile.

My conviction is still that the campaign in Sweden against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been initiated/implemented by a limited number of political officials, a limited number of journalists, or a limited number of opportunist feminist activists. Altogether they do not represent Sweden as a whole, their political parties as a whole, all Swedish feminists, or the total ranks in the journalist collegium. The main part have not yet express their opinion and as the happenings approach they will most certain feel ethically obliged to declare their stand, about what is truth, what is justice, and what is history.

Above all, the singular instigators of the nasty campaign against Assange do not represent the noble Swedish people at large; a Nation that - as I have repeatedly characterized in the Professors blogg - is for the most part amiable and sincere, hard working and honest.

Clearly, Tom Bäckström is very wrong when depicting me as portraying Swedish journalists as "evil". In a quite recent post of 21 December 2012  - from which I transcribed the quoted text  below - I specifically pointed out to my observation that most of Swedish journalists act professional and with good quality in reporting events, and paradoxically not all would act with objectivity in referring to cases that would compromise the Swedish prestige internationally.  This post was (narrow-minded) interpreted by some as if I was being condescend to the attacks of the Swedish press on Assange, which is absolutely untrue - and also offensive.

For my part, those among WikiLeaks supporters - either with own agendas or simply out of naivety - which consider all Swedish journalists, all Swedish feminists, and all Swedish politicians as evil and anti-Assange per default are performing not only an oversimplification but also a gross strategic mistake. Because that obtuse position further alienate vital sectors which should instead be gained for the cause of justice for WikiLeaks and Assange. In this regard I completely agree with Tom Bäckström.

From On Torture. The Swedish-media paradox and the case against Assange

Posted on December 21, 2012

. . . An intrinsic paradox, an apparently inbuilt bias present in almost the entire Swedish media. This is one side of the paradox:

A number of the DN articles or reportages are social-minded, or humanistic minded, and some really scrutinize in what it would be considered truly journalistic fashion. Like inquiring into some government democratic flaws or wrongdoings – controlling those in power . . .

On the other hand, when it is the opportunity to analyse issues related to the international prestige of Sweden, DN – as well nearly every media in Sweden – loses the professional-journalist stature that otherwise would characterize the paper. In those items of Sweden’s international behaviour or the international criticism that such behaviour would entail, those in power are not controlled – the professional journalist is converted in the political establishment’s megaphone. That is the other side of the Swedish publicist paradox.

And I exemplify  DN for being the “dean” of the Swedish press, but this paradoxical behaviour can be observed in most of the media in Sweden – including the national TV (SvT) or Radio that from time to time also exposes isolated scandalous abuses of power or political corruption. In those regards, Professors blogg often uses as source good journalistic in Expressen, and also Aftonbladet or Svd. But when it comes to issues questioning Swedish institutions which may entail questioning of the international prestige of Sweden, or the system, most of Swedish MSM drop objectivity as per default.

And here is where the Assange case comes into context. DN has been no exception in the Swedish media crusade in the biased presenting of the “legal process” against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, or in the demonizing portrait of Assange.  For deeply in reality the issues around WikiLeaks are all issues which compromise Sweden’s foreign policy, as the issues around the “legal process” compromise the prestige of Sweden and the potential of exporting a unique juridical culture and specific legislation.

It is here where the apparently kamikaze or reckless campaigns such as Prataomdet – where DN and other media repeated in every article the same anti-Assange introductory text-mantra – find its political puzzle box.

And here is where the Swedish culture of consensus, the monolithic, rock-solid uncritical that all the political parties, all the MSM and the state-owned media have demonstrated on and on when it comes to maters of “national interest” [See chapter III - Background B:Sweden is not neutral and above all, Swedish media traditionally covers Swedish international disputes by plainly repeating the official line without further question it in “Does Sweden Inflict Trial by Media against Assange?"].
 

 * * *

BÄCKSTRÖM: "What I am trying to say is that it is not the people who we should blame and it is not an organized mafia that we should blame. The problem is systemic."

Well, this is exactly what I have said and arguing for, all along. Most recent in:

Fallet Assange är politiskt orsakat. Lösningen är endast politisk

III

RE: Trial by Media

by  Tom Bäckström

Iajatusvirtaa Satunnaisia ajatuksia /
Random thoughts.maanantaina, helmikuuta 04, 2013
Re: Trial by Media In response to "Trial by Media" on Professors Blog.

As a background, I have been reading de Noli’s blog for quite some time with great interest and I both sympathize with Julian Assange and support the cause of Wikileaks. However, I have become increasingly disturbed by the “barking-at-the-forest” approach of de Noli, as a contrast to 1) trying to improve things and 2) trying to understanding the causes of the problems.

In general, I do not think any one person is evil, save for some extremely rare criminally insane individuals. No, I think all people try their best to do what ever they perceive as best for themselves and best for their community. More specifically, I do not think that Swedish journalists, police and politicians that de Noli writes about are evil. To the eyes of an outside observer, yes, their actions do seem deplorable, incomprehensible and outright evil, but that is a difference in perspective. I am as sure as I can be of anything, that each and every one of the journalists, police and politicians de Noli writes about are doing whatever they can for the best of their country and themselves.

For one, I do not think that framing these people as madmen, will do any good. When people are subjected to an outburst, when they are called idiots or when they are screamed at, usually they either respond the same way with an outburst, calling you the idiot or scream at you, or then they completely ignore you. I think I have observed both responses in conjunction to Professors Blogg and quite frequently at that. What I have not observed so frequently, are calm and objective arguments. I do however appreciate de Noli’s efforts towards objectivity.

More importantly, how can it then be that these inherently good people act in ways that seem like idiocy or pure evil to us? That is the real question! How is it possible that these good people do things that seem abominable?

What I call for is to look at the thing from the perspective of your opponent. There must be some reason that makes the good people act in a way that looks bad to us. My first suggestion would be their frame of reference. Think of a journalist who has done his job conscientiously for the past 30 years. He has dug stories, he has written articles and he has learned to know a lot of people. It is not a conspiracy, nor an organized mafia, it is his friends and colleagues, the people he has known for all those years. He is the god-father of some of their children and after his good friend had died, he walked his daughter to the altar in his place. They live in Sweden, the doll-house of Europe, where everything is a bit prettier and nicer than anywhere else. They know that and they are kind of proud of that, even if they lull themselves into a bit of an illusion. Every system degenerates over time, so did Rome, so did the Inca, ancient Egypt and USA, and so did also Sweden.

When you are in that system, it is hard to see that you are in the system. Because of such a long time of stability, all your friends and colleagues think more or less the same way as you. It is not that they would try to make consensus, or to force unity. It is just that if there are no immediate big problems, then the easiest way is to not rock the boat and just follow the stream.

Enter Assange. You cannot but admit, initially, there were some legitimate concerns both with regard to Wikileaks as also with regard to his personal affairs. As far as I know, the personal affair concerns turned out to be widely exaggerated, but with regard to Wikileaks some legitimate ethical questions remain that deserve to be discussed. It is not necessarily that Wikileaks would be bad, but questions such as “What responsibilities should the media take for their publications?” are important questions. The media itself does not seem to be capable of asking that question, perhaps because it is not a good way to sell ads, but someone should be asking those questions.

In any case, these initial, legitimate concerns rocked the Swedish boat. As Wikileaks did not fit any existing category on any level, it was easier to either ignore it or dismiss it by pointing out the potential problems with it. It was then that Julian, by either an ill-timed accident, or due to overly protective US foreign services (according to who you want to believe), ran into his personal troubles and the whole case escalated.

I have to repeat, I do not think that any party operated with conscious evil intentions. Even if you choose to believe that CIA organized Julian’s predicament, I do think that their intentions are highly patriotic and that the operatives themselves think they have done nothing wrong. Likewise, I think that the Swedish government did what they saw best. Their first reaction was not to get involved, since they trust the Swedish police. In the beginning, it was not an act of submission towards USA, because they honestly (still) believe that the Swedish system works. As time went by, the political cost of changing positions grew. Acting for Wikileaks would naturally be an action against USA, and since the politicians have long good relations with their US allies, that would be difficult not only a political level, but on a personal level. Much worse, changing positions now would break the illusion that Sweden is somehow better than others, an illusion in which the politicians and journalists still live. Say, if Marianne Ny would suddenly drop her efforts against Assange, then she would be the one who is rocking the boat in Sweden. She would be the one who says, “Yes, we shouldn’t have done that.”. She is in a catch-22 situation. She can’t win whatever she does - either she has to admit failure or enters a fight she cannot win - so she does the lesser evil, “do what we’ve always done”.

What I am trying to say is that it is not the people who we should blame and it is not an organized mafia that we should blame. The problem is systemic. The people are caught in a self-supporting and self-reinforcing system, which limits their perspective and causes them to act in ways that we cannot comprehend. Attacking the individuals in the system forces them on their defense and makes them cling on to the system more desperately. Our attacks thus reinforce the system - exactly the opposite of our intention!

The question remains, what is the most efficient way to solve the problem? Name calling obviously will not help, since people become defensive or they ignore you. Framing somebody as an evil person also does not help, if you would ever again want the help of that person. What goes around comes around. You call that journalist an idiot today, she’ll call you an idiot tomorrow, with the only difference that she has a larger audience.

My first suggestion is to give “the bad guys” an easy way out. It is not often possible, but when you can give someone the option of disappearing from the scene without loosing his or her face, let them disappear. It could be, for example, that the Swedish police suddenly “discovers” a rule which causes any open cases regarding Assange to expire. That would give Marianne Ny a way out. She would not have to admit error. She would, while lamenting the outcome, be “forced” to drop the case.

The second approach, which is close to what de Noli has been trying to do, is to report facts consistently and passionately. Professors blogg does not lack in either, but where I have to disagree, is the tone. Pointing out absurdities does not require framing people as evil persons. Passion does not equal or warrant emotional reactions to attacks. I am afraid it is a very Swedish attitude, but I would call for a “lagom” (well-proportioned) intensity approach. Our objective, if we are to succeed, must be to understand our opponent. Only by understanding the people in the system, can we help them understand. Our objective should not be to win, because that requires that someone loses, but to find steps which improve upon the current.

Finally, I must admit that I have not done my homework by far as well as de Noli does. My comments do not reflect any specific incident or writing on Professors Blogg, but rather the general tone and impression I have.

I hope this helps us forward.

·      Tom Bäckström

The writer is professor at University of Erlangen, Germany, but does not claim any academic expertise in any area related to this text. This text also does not in any way reflect the opinions of his current, former or future employers, but only his personal opinions. You are free to redistribute the text as-is, without modification, as long as reference to the original and this disclaimer are retained.