Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av wtfuk
Det som är extra ball är att både rött och blått a lá sverige tydligen är inblandade i denna härva.
Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av GoodwinStrawman
Det är ingen större skillnad på rött och blått i Sverige vad gäller praktisk politik, då båda tjänar en och samma husse, nämligen de få stora finansfamiljerna. (ops där lät jag dumkonspiratorisk) . . .
Och eftersom den förljugna självbilden i Sverige gör att det inrikespolitiska Sverige inte blir så spännande, för de som inte sett sprickorna i fasaden, så får glada idealister höja blicken mot tyrannerna utomlands och interfera i andra länders inrikespolitik (i strid med FN-stadgans anda, för övrigt).
Interesting reflexions above by wtkuk and GoodwinStrawman. I will comment with a main contention here:
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; and which wrongly have been mixed up in discussions in this forum and also internationally, by Assange lawyers, Assange supporters, etc.
* * *
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
Bildergerg, a very good illustration), 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 "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.
Not all of it is connected with what it is advertised as “National security“ interests, but some are. Here 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
practical example. 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
Wtfuk put 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
consensually implemented by all the Swedish traditional political parties, was given at the deliberations at the Swedish Parliament on 1 Aprile 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 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".
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 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 (Tomas 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 Sweden” and “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, 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.
