Leitmotif

I have been remiss to my friends and readership to update this blog in some time, not that I've been lacking plenty of source material in the news to write about. These are most certainly tumultuous times, and events have become bleaker and bleaker as the days have become shorter and shorter:

The wealth gap is at its worst since roaring 20's and as reported in Dec 10th's AM New York; 34.6% of wealth is owned by the top 1% of Americans and the following 50.5% is owned by the next 19%. If you do the math that leaves 14.9% of the wealth to be divvied up amongst the rest of us -the ill fed undereducated 80% that constitutes our wonderful proletariat/rabble.

To add insult to injury, the Bush tax cuts, which largely benefit the upper echelon of society, were renewed for another two years. Democrats took a demoralizing defeat in midterm elections, in part due to the Koch Bros. massive funding of the burgeoning and vapid Tea Party Movement. The DREAM Act was effective shot down in Congress, and Julian Assange was arrested for rape.

"Darkness warshed over the dude" - Sam Elliot

And it was this last bit that I found the most heart wrenchingly dismaying. It is so demoralizing for several reasons, the most important being that anti-heroes are dubbed thus precisely because they are not heroes, and can never be looked up to, or deeply revered, although we all secretly long to be them. Everyone wants to be Han Solo, but no one wants to get frozen in carbonite and paraded about as a trophy for an obese slug. But I digress. The point I was fumbling over was that even those of us that we wish to laud for their brave attempts to overthrow the yoke of universal control that encompasses us all are still, at the end of the day, jerks. Mister Assange is no exception to the rule. The second real reason this story is so demoralizing is it once illustrates how narrow minded we can be. As soon as it broke it polarized everyone into two camps and reduced the discussion to a hostile polemic dichotomy (a false one at that I might add, much like the one that exists between Democrats and Republicans) that served only to illustrate collective bias and ignorance as a whole...

"rarely have I seen so many “progressives” engaged in a dialogue of rape-apology—from leveling personal attacks against Assange’s accusers to dismissing his supposed actions as mere faux pas rather than “valid” acts of assault. As someone who identifies as both a radical leftist and a feminist—and who sees those two aspects of my identity as inseparable parts of a whole—I’ve been closely following the response to this case from all sides. And what I’ve witnessed is the divisive creation of a false dichotomy: either you are a progressive who supports WikiLeaks (and therefore must defend Assange by any means necessary), or you are a feminist who wishes to defend possible rape victims against public shaming (and therefore must be in opposition to the whole WikiLeaks project)" - Angi Becker Stevens

Although my perspective is radically different than that particular author, I can't help but shaking my head in reticent agreement. The conversation is either one of conspiracy by nebulous governmental entities and agencies to stop one man, or one of how reproachable such a man's actions are, both online and real-world. Both are equally right and wrong, composing some sort of fucked up ying yang that explains the yes/no duality of our flawed logic. It begs the question..."can Julian Assange be guilty of sexual assault and still be admired for Wikileaks?"

The answer requires only modest soul searching. It should be understood, that the charges levied against Julian Assange are most certainly politically motivated, regardless of their authenticity. The case was dismissed for lack of evidence, until this was ruling was appealed by a higher court after the US put international pressure on Sweden, threatening to cut it off from data sharing between intelligence services. That being said the intricacies and nuance in the case files point to Mr. Assange being a boorish lover to perhaps a level of criminality (well at least in Sweden, definitely not in Italy). It should also be noted that neither woman filed charges until they spoke with each other and shared their stories and realized he was an ass and didn't wear a condom with either. And still then they didn't file charges until he refused to get tested for V.D. The most important detail that is glossed over in everyone's feud over this is that both of these women are still ardent advocates for Wikileaks. I'm sure Julian Assange is guilty of having sex without a condom, and in general for just being an asshole to women, but I'm still convinced that the charges against him are trumped up and moving 8 months faster than the Swedish legal process usual moves and motivated by international pressure. These can be simultaneously true.

But the bigger, underlying picture, is somehow still the elephant in the room. There is a multi-tiered approach to deconstruction that "the man" uses to eliminate and pigeon hole "hostiles" from ever becoming systematic threats to their vested interests. Wikileaks presents an unprecedented threat the hierarchy of authority and hegemony that exists today. Recall the underrated "Bulworth", or perhaps more importantly the greater examples of the last century, Malcom X, Martin Luther King Jr., RFK, JFK, and Gandhi . All these men we're immensely fallible, and their lives were rife with scandal , MLK cheated on his wife, Malcom X did all sorts of shit, JFK and RFK both had Marylin Monroe, and Gandhi was a racist. None were beyond reproach, and neither is Mr. Assange. But all these figures promulgated ideas that were much greater than themselves, ideas which made these ad hominem attacks on their impeachable character fail, as will the attacks on Julian Assange. There is always the same slow methodology at play, first they try to buy you off, then they try to discredit your ideas, then they try to discredit you, and then they shut you up by force. This is the leitmotif of big brother, and you best be believing the same pattern is in play with Wikileaks. I've read an endless variety of editorials using bizarre arguments to discredit Wikileaks' brazen lack of morality (this being devoid of editorial irony; that being that the kettle is calling the pot black, and the US government is accusing Wikileaks[by proxy] of being without a moral compass when the documents released by Wikileaks paint a different picture), with a series of very narrow and pedantic ad hoc attacks.

The only message I want to seep forth from the screen into the cerebellums of all who read this is: avoid this clear quagmire of dichotomous thinking. Things aren't just black and white, and we should consider issues carefully before jumping to premature conclusions. For the love of God and all that is holy, don't let a clearly reductionist media dictate a conversation, or viewpoint, or discussion by reducing to it opposing polemics focused on ideology over substance. Use logic, research and intuition. I just implore everyone to use their brain and their heart(rather than one or the other[ethos and pathos]) just like when we followed King and Kennedy; lets allow the truth speak louder than those that speak it.


Happy Holidays

- DJV