Why are Swedish political parties and MSM altogether hostile against WikiLeaks and Assange?
[- Part III in the series “Seven Pillars Of Deception”]
As far the “accusations-item” is concerned, Sweden has at-large demonstrated it is NOT interested in ending the legal case. The only interest Sweden has demonstrated is in trying to obtain the extradition – by any means possible – of Assange to Sweden, where Assange would be kept incommunicado-status behind bars as per standard legal procedure in Sweden. The extradited-prisoner status of Assange (the status he would have if taken prisoner to Sweden) enables other “juridical” possibilities for Sweden, respective to USA, that were not accessible at the time he would have been interrogated by the Swedish prosecutor when he was free in Sweden. This situation may be one explanation why Assange was led to understand he was “free to travel”.
The Swedish legal extradition process against Assange, and the Swedish legal process regarding the accusation “by the two women” against Assange, are in the main two different things – and only euphemistically connected. Those two different things have wrongly 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 Prof. 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 political parties, meaning that irrespective of any right-wing or left-wing ideologies, no essential differences 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 one and same master”, namely “the few big finance families”. Although the commentator is apologetic on whether his 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 increasingly tied with international capital. This arrangement, in turn is staunchly protected by global political alliances. A prominent constellation in this regard is the Bildergerg Group, and its corresponding military shield (NATO). No wonder Carl von Clausewitz defined war as “the continuation of politics by other means”.
The “consensus” between the Swedish political parties mentioned by GoodwinStrawman appears – in my opinion – most visible in a) matters of foreign policy, b) issues of “National security”, and 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 no longer exercises an independent national-interests minded foreign policy, but 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 practical military example. A political doctrinal example is found in the appointment by NATO of the Swedish Ministry of Defence as the main megaphone of the new NATO economic-programme towards EU countries. For more on this, see Tolgfors’ own declarations in his SvD debate article of 15 Jan 2012 or in The NATO factor. The Extradition process initiated in Sweden against the WikiLeaks founder is to the uppermost extent POLITICAL.
In the new Swedish pro-NATO defence order, it is entirely 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” (this last, according to recent declarations by the Commander in Chief of the Swedish Armed Forces – ÖB).
Another example was the abolition of the Varnplikt system, which in actual fact served admirably, 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 explicitlly, 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 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 neglectful, artificial refusal on the part of Sweden to simply interrogate Assange (in Sweden 2010 and thereafter in London), or drop the case.
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 been converted (perhaps by design or perhaps by own dynamics) at the highest level to an issue of international prestige for Sweden. This explains involvement 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) in the anti-WikiLeaks / anti-Assange campaign. 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 some Swedish journalists. The same thing happened during the (Thomas Bodström era) ferocious police repression in the Gothenburg anti-Bush protests: The International press attending the event was perplexed as to the Swedish journalists docile reporting, basically reproducing the government’s press releases. Another prominent example in which media served as a willing mouthpiece to the State was the role of the Swedish MSM under the Carl Bildt’s agitated, or invented, “Soviet submarine activities in Swedish waters” during the 90’s.
Most recently, it was when Sweden lost with lowest number of country-votes their bid for a post in the United Nations body for Human Rights. While the event was reported abroad, it was almost completely 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 are. 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, consistent 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 arena – the most aggravating of all being 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 self-commitment to a foreign power [see in Professors blogg Swedish/U.S. Intelligence co-operation in the Bodström Society. THIS, and the spectacle provided by the complicity of known Swedish journalists in defaming or concealing truth, is what is definitely discrediting Sweden internationally.
Finally, further factors that would explain the Swedish “consensus” or uniformity in the journalistic reporting are described in previous articles, such as
or in the analysis Does Sweden Inflict Trial by Media against Assange?
Continue to IV Part in this series