The first week of the Julian Assange extradition trial has concluded, to be resumed on May 18th. If you haven’t been following the proceedings closely, let me sum up what you missed:

The prosecution is working to extradite Assange to the US under a US-UK extradition treaty, a treaty whose contents the prosecution now says we should ignore because they explicitly forbid political extraditions. The prosecution says it doesn’t matter anyway because Assange is not a political actor, yet in 2010 the US government that’s trying to extradite him labeled him a political actor in those exact words. Assange’s trial is taking place in a maximum security prison for dangerous violent offenders because that’s where he’s being jailed for no stated reason and despite having no history of violence, which means he’s kept separate from the courtroom in a sound-resistant safety enclosure where he can’t hear or participate in his own trial. The magistrate judging the case says he can’t be allowed out of the enclosure since he’s considered dangerous, because he’s been arbitrarily placed in a prison for dangerous violent offenders. The magistrate keeps telling Assange to stop speaking up during his trial and to speak through his lawyers, yet he’s being actively prevented from communicating with his lawyers.

Make sense?


Not even a tiny bit?

Oh. Okay. Let me explain.

It’s common in British courtrooms to have something called a “dock”, a place where defendants sit separately from court proceedings. Not all UK courtrooms have docks, and not all docks are the “secure” glass cabinet type which Assange is kept in; they can also be open wooden enclosures. Because Assange is being kept without explanation in a maximum security prison normally reserved the most dangerous violent offenders and terrorism convicts, his trial is taking place in a cage that is very much the “secure” type (so much so that he’s been complaining that he can’t hear the proceedings in his own trial through the bulletproof glass), and there is an expectation that he remain there. The magistrate has ruled that this nonviolent offender shall be kept in his sound-resistant enclosure throughout the duration of his trial, bizarrely asserting that Assange poses a danger to the public.

Former UK ambassador and longtime Assange supporter Craig Murray was at court all four days of the trial, and he described the situation as follows (Edward Fitzgerald is Assange’s defense attorney, Vanessa Baraitser is the magistrate):

On return, Edward Fitzgerald made a formal application for Julian to be allowed to sit beside his lawyers in the court. Julian was “a gentle, intellectual man” and not a terrorist. Baraitser replied that releasing Assange from the dock into the body of the court would mean he was released from custody. To achieve that would require an application for bail.


Again, the prosecution counsel James Lewis intervened on the side of the defence to try to make Julian’s treatment less extreme. He was not, he suggested diffidently, quite sure that it was correct that it required bail for Julian to be in the body of the court, or that being in the body of the court accompanied by security officers meant that a prisoner was no longer in custody. Prisoners, even the most dangerous of terrorists, gave evidence from the witness box in the body of the court nest to the lawyers and magistrate. In the High Court prisoners frequently sat with their lawyers in extradition hearings, in extreme cases of violent criminals handcuffed to a security officer.


Baraitser replied that Assange might pose a danger to the public. It was a question of health and safety.

Ah yes, yes I’m sure everyone at the courtroom is very concerned that the emaciated computer nerd might at any moment go full beast mode and start throwing them all across the room. Sure thing, Vanessa.

So to recap, Assange has been placed in a prison for dangerous offenders for no reason, and he’s designated too dangerous to participate in his own trial because he’s in a prison for dangerous offenders. Both the defense and the prosecution agree that this is absurd, yet the supposedly impartial judge ruled against them both.

Does that make sense to you?


Good. Means you’re sane.

In the same report Murray also says Assange was forbidden from passing notes to his lawyers, yet when he tried to speak up during his trial to get someone’s attention Baraitser told him he may only speak through his lawyers. Even when they let him, Shadowproof‘s Kevin Gosztola also reports that the defense has complained that they can’t even see when he wishes to communicate something with them, because his dock is behind them in the courtroom.

Bridges for Media Freedom reports the following:

Assange then stood up in the dock and said, “The problem is I’m not able to get representation.” Judge Baraitser then told him to “keep quiet and speak through his lawyers.” He replied, “That’s the problem, I can’t.”

Assange has also complained that even when he is both able and permitted to speak to his lawyers during the trial, he’s unable to do so in private, saying, “I cannot communicate with my lawyers or ask them for clarifications without the other side seeing” and “The other side has about 100 times more contact with their lawyers per day.”

“I am as much a participant in these proceedings as a spectator at Wimbledon,” a frustrated Assange complained at one point.

So Assange may only speak through his lawyers, but also he’s been presented with many obstacles to speaking with his lawyers. Perfectly normal stuff in a perfectly normal trial being treated in a perfectly normal way by a perfectly normal empire.

It’s pretty clear by the way Baraitser is even more biased against Assange than the actual prosecutors that she made up her mind how she’s going to rule long before the trial even began. This is made all the more shady by the fact that there are apparently no photographs of this public official anywhere online, and indeed no documentation of her existence outside of the court.

“Ms Baraitser is not fond of photography – she appears to be the only public figure in Western Europe with no photo on the internet,” wrote Murray after noting her anger at someone photographing the courtroom. “Indeed the average proprietor of a rural car wash has left more evidence of their existence and life history on the internet than Vanessa Baraitser. Which is no crime on her part, but I suspect the expunging is not achieved without considerable effort. Somebody suggested to me she might be a hologram, but I think not. Holograms have more empathy.”

This by itself is weird. How is someone with no public face ruling on an extradition trial of such immense historical significance? How is a public official allowed to make a decision which will affect every member of the public in one way or another, yet the public is not allowed to know anything about her or what she even looks like? That, in my opinion, is weird and creepy.

Then there’s the prosecution. They’re trying to argue that the US-UK extradition treaty which expressly forbids extradition for political offenses is void and inapplicable to this case because of another law called the Extradition Act which is written differently, despite the fact that the extradition treaty formed the basis for Assange’s extradition request in the first place.

“We’re in a pretty strange Alice in Wonderland world where the treaty that controls and gives rise to the request, supposedly has nothing to do with the legality of it, it’s very strange,” Fitzgerald said at one point, adding: “it is generally accepted worldwide that people should not be extradited for a non-violent offense of a political nature.”

The prosecution also attempted to argue that even if the exemptions in the extradition treaty did apply, it wouldn’t matter because Assange is not accused of anything that could be called a political offense. They said the defense must “equate what Mr Assange is alleged to have done against whether or not the only purpose was to change the government in America or induce America to change its policy, both of which we say it’s not.”

The defense correctly countered that not only was WikiLeaks trying to affect US government behavior, but that they actually succeeded in doing so. Not only that, but the US government has itself accused Assange of being a political actor who is trying to change America’s behavior.

“He’s not a journalist. He’s not a whistleblower. He is a political actor. He has a political agenda,” State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said of Assange in 2010 after WikiLeaks began exposing US war crimes. “He is trying to undermine the international system that enables us to cooperate and collaborate with other governments and to work in in multilateral settings and on a bilateral basis to help solve regional and international issues.”

In other words, Assange is a political actor who is deliberately trying to interfere with the US government agenda of world domination.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word Kafkaesque as “of, relating to, or suggestive of Franz Kafka or his writings, especiallyhaving a nightmarishly complex, bizarre, or illogical quality.” 

“Kafka’s work is characterized by nightmarish settings in which characters are crushed by nonsensical, blind authority,” says Merriam-Webster. “Thus, the word Kafkaesque is often applied to bizarre and impersonal administrative situations where the individual feels powerless to understand or control what is happening.”

I generally try to avoid words that not everyone will understand in my writings, especially in my headlines, but, you know, damn. That’s the most perfect definition of this ridiculous bootlicking bureaucratic nightmare maze that you could possibly come up with.

We can expect more of this when the trial resumes in May, and, to be clear, this is the more just and equitable half of the fight. If Assange is successfully extradited to the United States as the mysterious Vanessa Baraitser seems primed to allow, he will face a rigged trial after he and his legal team were spied on by US intelligence agencies when preparing his defense. He and his legal team will be completely silenced from commentary on the trial, and he’ll disappear into a black hole of “Special Administrative Measures” where he won’t be heard from again.

The time to speak up for Assange and the future of press freedoms is now. Not when he’s extradited. Not after his fake trial and draconian sentencing. Now.


Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either YoutubesoundcloudApple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Liked it? Take a second to support Caitlin Johnstone on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!

60 responses to “This Assange “Trial” Is A Self-Contradictory Kafkaesque Nightmare”

  1. Barbara Richards Avatar
    Barbara Richards

    I think she might be the same district judge that I had last November in Stoke on Trent, she was taking a PIP tribunal and I collapsed in court and she was threatening me as I lay unconcious,my son told me she was threatening me. She left me in the court on the floor and an hour later the mental health people came. I think it’s the same woman only with a different name.I know the PIP tribunal and the secret family courts use the same judges

  2. Peter in Seattle Avatar
    Peter in Seattle

    Baraitser — if that’s her real name and not just a work name from whatever intelligence or defence agency she’s on secondment from — isn’t even pretending to try to maintain the appearance of due process in these proceedings. Julian’s only legal hope is that the US/UK Deep State doesn’t have lethal leverage over a majority of UK Supreme Court Justices, and his only practical hope is a massive popular uprising on both sides of the Atlantic if and when the UK judiciary rubberstamps Assange’s extradition.

  3. George Carver Avatar
    George Carver

    Wikileaks spreads falsehoods. Michael Hastings was a bad driver, and Mercedes designs vehicles that eject their engines and explode before impact. Pay no attention to the fact that Vault 7 proved John Brennan could hack cars, and Rolling Stone was about to publish his expose. Whatever happened to that? Maybe ask Hastings’ cheery black widow, Elise Jordan.
    Magna Carta is outdated. Epstein committed suicide. War crimes are peace times. Empire benefits humanity. Seth Rich was mugged. Democracy is darkness. Billionaires are philanthropists. Forget Ghislane Maxwell. No one is above the law. Obscurity is transparency. Baraitser is impartial. Assange isn’t a journalist. Ignorance is strength.
    p.s. Corporation/government-funded propagandists depend on additional financial support from listeners/viewers like you. Thanks for the cherry on top of an excrement sundae.

  4. The truth is no longer “an absolute defence”. I remember the movie, “A Dry White Season”. Donald Sutherland plays a South African lawyer looking for justice. He complains to Marlon Brando, his lawyer, who drunkenly sneers, “Justice and the law are distant cousins at best. And in South Africa they aren’t even on speaking terms.”
    I’m also reminded of a scene from “O Lucky man” where the judge, having made his summation retires to chambers. Awaiting the verdict he selects a lash from a variety of whips and has his assistant thrash the air over his back.
    Make no mistake: treaties are laws like all ‘just us’, used to control society for the benefit of those who rule. It is their society, their community, that counts not ours. Their community is represented by Winston Churchill who didn’t know how to use the tube before WWII.

  5. The so-called Nuremberg Trials were a complete sham, a travesty of justice, and in fact a criminal enterprise. Hey, just like Assange’s trial! German officers were tortured into signing confessions fabricated by the prosecution. Hey, wasn’t Assange also quietly tortured by chemical means? The defense team at Nuremberg had their hands completely tied before the trial had even begun, and they were simply window dressing during the kangaroo-court proceedings. Assange’s defense team has it a little better than that, it appears, so there could be some hope. However, the Nuremberg judges already had their rulings pre-determined from the start, just like the shadowy magistrate Vanessa Baraitser. So far, our narrative controllers are using almost the same script as they used at Nuremberg. Condemning this solitary and helpless journalist must be really important to them. History repeats.

    1. Fake history, such a yours, does not exist, let alone repeat.

  6. Kevin Gallagher Avatar
    Kevin Gallagher

    When it gets to this point of this farse of the powers that be, it is time to bring out the hanging ropes. settle things up, make examples, put the fear of Ggod in those that don’t have it. The evil is way out of control, but not exempt. We know who you are, we need to look for you and we will find you. Beware.

  7. Intuitus Derivativus Avatar
    Intuitus Derivativus

    Baraitser is an unusual surname of Jewish origin commonly found in the UK and South Africa
    Mossad doing the leg work on this one ?
    Guess your spying career gets cooked once your mug shot is all over the interweb

  8. Baraitser photo?
    oddly, an image search on yahoo returned some results initially, now, none to be found.

    1. Good find. Thanks!

  9. Assanges magistrate, this mysterious Vanessa Baraitser also judged an upskirt photo taking creep in another case. A businessman with background in banking, she gave him a wrist-slap judgement, some fines annd recompense to the victim, but no jail time. His name is Neil Abbott. Other than that case, I havent found any others

  10. There is only one thing that the last 20 years has taught our Elite masters — that They can get away with absolutely anything, and I do mean ANYTHING, and that Their increasingly bewildered herd will do absolutely NOTHING to stop them!
    The Elite realize that by spending a realatively few billion printed-out-of-thin-air fiat USD on public-schooling, 24/7 propaganda and they’ll-barely-survive welfare, the only things that Their herd will be capavble of doing are a little bitching, threatening and typing, but THAT. IS. ALL!
    We members of that herd have to understand that sticks and stones (and possibly votes) will break their bones, but words will never hurt them, even if they’re shouted real loud, with real feeling.
    The good thing is that our 5 minutes of REAL, IRRESISTIBLE POWER will happen in November. If we play (mark) our cards right, we can live in a better world — free Assange, make peace with the other people of the world and maybe take some human “load” off Mother Earth itself, etc. All we have to do is know EXACTLY HOW we want the world to be.

    1. Re: ISHKABIBBLE / FEBRUARY 28, 2020
      This is one of the, if not the most, well stated and cogent comments I have encountered in internet discussions!
      Thank You,

  11. Is there no decency, no sanity left in London? This is happening in plain sight, in view if the world and yet nothing appears to be able to stop it.
    Kafkaesque indeed.

    1. Are the Brits in the streets to protest it ? No ! No one really cares and that’s why they get away with it .Leaving comments in forums is what we do .

  12. Kafkaesque is a description I see frequently in stories about whistleblowers. Assange is clearly being treated like a whistleblower, although he is mainly a journalist publishing the revelations of whistleblowers. And his work clearly has political implications for governments whose wrongdoing is exposed.

    The US government’s arguments have potentially grave consequences for people around the world if they succeed…and not just for other journalists. That’s the thing most Americans don’t understand. If the US government can arrest Assange–whom they routinely say is NOT a journalist–for possessing and disseminating classified information (however illegally it may be classified), then everyone who has ever forwarded a link to a story based on classified information (whether published by Wikileaks or the New York Times) is vulnerable to arrest. And we can give up all hope for knowing what our government is doing with the authority and resources entrusted to it, which means corruption can only increase.

  13. By persecuting a righteous man like Mr Assange, they are bringing the wrath of Jesus on themselves.

    Look at the new diseases and look at the fall of the stock exchange.

    And volcanoes are more and more active.

    Remember the flood in the days of Noah. And we are in the return of those days just before the Second Coming of Jesus and I pray the Rosary to hasten His Glorious return because I do have seen enough of all the current bs.

  14. Forebear and My Heritage list Baraitser as a name found only in England.

  15. I would suggest Baraitser is a made up name. From Barrister.

    1. Just following a hunch: the name “Baraitser” comes up snake eyes on the first genealogy search engine I try.

  16. Most likely the “judge” Vanessa Baraitser is American. They don’t want anyone searching the internet using facial recognition

  17. I am a huge fan of Franz Kafka. Only those who have read his book The Trial will fully understand just how similar that work is to what you just described of the Assange trial. The only difference is Julian has an inkling of why he is being tried though the logic employed is absurd. In short he is a bug being chewed up in the cog of political revenge.

  18. Justice in and of itself is on trial here, and its going to lose, as it has in so many other instances. Perhaps in most instances. Perhaps in nearly all instances. Governments have never, ever promoted justice, and in fact cannot abide it. Politics: The art and science of getting the most people to believe the most preposterous lies. What is happening to Julian is a crime, by any definition, and no one will be held accountable for it. Government: A construct dependent upon the illusion that a monopoly of violence used to force its subject population to comply with its edicts is beneficial to that population. We can govern ourselves or be governed by monsters.

    1. Here Here!
      well said

  19. “‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first – verdict afterwards.’ . . . ‘Off with her head!’”

  20. Caitlin Johnstone wrote:
    > If Assange is successfully extradited to the United States as the mysterious Vanessa Baraitser seems primed to allow, he will face a rigged trial after he and his legal team were spied on by US intelligence agencies when preparing his defense. He and his legal team will be completely silenced from commentary on the trial, and he’ll disappear into a black hole of “Special Administrative Measures” where he won’t be heard from again.
    > The time to speak up for Assange and the future of press freedoms is now. Not when he’s extradited. Not after his fake trial and draconian sentencing. Now.
    Yes, it’s now:
    “As for supporting me if I am extradited, I would say that it would be way too late. If people want to support us, they need to do it before I am extradited . . . Even if they’re technically innocent under the law, which probably anyone within WikiLeaks is — as I know that our activities are protected under the First Amendment — the verdict is still not guaranteed, due to of the degree of national security sector influence in the judicial process.”
    — Julian Assange, June 15, 2011
    In Conversation with Julian Assange, Part II — Hans Ulrich Obrist — e-flux journal, 26

  21. OK, so I did a search on Brave for Vanessa Baraitser, and sure thing no images on this woman. That alone should scare the heck out of us.

  22. This place feels like a brand…and a cult. I liked Pastor Dan’s comment.

    1. And then they came

  23. The fix is in folks. We might as well get straight to the postmortem.
    This can’t pass for a trial. It’s a gaslighting exercise directed at those of us who are still paying attention.
    Is there anyone alive who remembers going to school with “Vanessa Baraitser”? Because it seems very hard to find evidence of her existence prior to this case. And I wouldn’t put it past them to hire an actress to play the role of the judge in this spectacle. Queen of Hearts in “Julian Through The Looking-Glass”. If that’s so, I also wouldn’t put it past them to make that actress disappear if or when she becomes a liability.
    So this may well be the thin end of the wedge right here.

  24. Hester Eisenstein Avatar
    Hester Eisenstein

    Thank you, Caitlin, for your usual brilliant commentary. In the US the Assange ordeal is passing virtually without media notice, with the honorable exception of ConsortiumNews. I was glad to see the interview on 2GB with Bob Carr calling for the Australian government to intervene. Will no one protect this brilliant maverick who has transformed the entire media landscape? Assange should be celebrated as a journalist/publisher/innovator, rather than persecuted, isolated, and treated as a violent criminal.

    1. “brilliant maverick…journalist/publisher/innovator”. Publisher? ok. But maverick and journalist? No way. Assange is a USA intelligence asset…always has been. Wikipedia is a honey pot for the credulous, courtesy of Dick Cheney, who was worried about further revelations such as those about Abu Graib. Maybe before you were born, that’s why you don’t know this shit. Bob Carr’s call? LOL

      1. Yeah, I heard that one. That’s Smear #24.

      2. Merely associating with our informed and gracious host’s referring to your shallow uninformed perversions earlier as “…a stupid, nonsensical accusation” does not address the obvious depth of your depraved ignorance.
        Exactly what is it that you are alluding to when you assail Hester saying: “Maybe before you were born, that’s why you don’t know this shit.”? Was it your equally ridiculous assertions that “Assange is a USA intelligence asset…always has been.” or that “Wikipedia is a honey pot for the credulous, courtesy of Dick Cheney…” that you presented as evidence of your knowledge of “this shit”?
        By the way genius, what does Wikipedia have to do with this topic? {This is not a trick question.}

  25. You are doxing the judge.

    1. What a stupid, nonsensical accusation.

  26. We need more research on this Baraitser woman – she’s not a proper magistrate anyway. For that reason alone this court case must be declared null and void and Julian freed – with a good 100 million pounds as compensation for him and his family/supporters over the past decade!

  27. A Kafkaesque Show Trail against Julian Assange.

    The trail for extradition against Julian Assange is worse than the show trails under Josef Stalin. At least, the assailants could defend themselves against the trump-up charges the Soviet dictator brought against them. He is looked-up in a sound-resistant safety enclosure where he can’t hear anything. Assange is a political prisoner, and the accusations against him are baseless. Another weird fact is the faceless “judge” Vanessa Baraitser. There doesn’t exist a shadow of this person publicly. No photo, no information on the internet. Even Stalin’s “judges” were seen in public. I presume that this kind of “judge” belongs to MI5 or MI6, the British secret services. As the court proceedings go on, this “judge” is going to rule for extradition. All arguments of Assange’s defense team were brushed aside, and the “verdict” seems already fixed. In the US, Assange will be at the mercy of the Deep State judges and tried in camera. Assange will disappear forever. Strange is that the mainstream media have no interest in this trial, except Russia Today with Peter Lavelle. No BBC, no CNN, no Guardian, not to speak of the other plutocratic owned media outlets. I no longer accept the crap about British democracy, not to talk of the rotten US injustice system.

  28. Mr. Julian Assange is being ” Railroaded ” just like so many other human beings have been throughout the history of humanity. Ms Vanessa Baraitser probably has a very long history of successfully railroading defendants no matter how innocent they were. The whole thing is just sickening!

  29. This is no trial. This is no hearing.
    This is a public humiliation of a man without a country and without laws to protect him no matter where on Earth.
    BTW – the artist failed to draw the stings that are attached to her head, hands and elbows.

  30. Just one more example of Britain acting like the 51st state of the USA. What do I mean? Well, America has this document it calls a constitution that outlines all of the duties, powers and prerogatives of the government as well as numerous actions that are thoroughly proscribed for it. Numerous specific laws zero in on the exquisite details of these things, but they must all be 100% entirely within the framework and completely consistent with the constitution. If not, those laws or actions under those laws are judged “unconstitutional” by the courts, with ultimate authority emanating from the Supreme Court.

    What does that veritable sacred document, the constitution, have to do with everyday routine procedure by the government, including not only its executive and legislative functions but its court system as well? Answer: not a damn thing. Why do I say this? Any idiot can clearly see they make it all up as they go, blatantly ignoring the constitution when expedient, to accomplish their preconceived outcomes and plans. The Brits may not have a written constitution but they are pure artists when it comes to blowing off their principle of “legal precedent” under vaunted English Common Law. We Yanks say, welcome to the club! Anything goes that furthers the agenda of the aristocracy! Good show, lads! Sucks to be you, Julian. I think I understand how this works.

    1. The US Constitution is a dead letter, and has been since its introduction. No where in the document is any external entity given authority to guarantee compliance. It leaves the fox in charge of the hen house.

      1. It was supposed to be “the people,” as in
        “We the people…do ordain and establish this constitution…” Whenever the people have made even the most feeble attempt to exert this prerogative, to enforce what were presented as standard operating procedures, they have been swatted down by the insiders who long ago either seized control from the get-go or actually perpetrated a ruse before even crafting what functionally is merely an impotent array of platitudes.

  31. Intuitus Derivativus Avatar
    Intuitus Derivativus

    District Judge Vanessa Baraitser was appointed by Lady Emma Arbuthnot , the Arbuthnots have some very interesting corporate / intell connections.

    Tertulius and Tatlidil anybody ?

    Baraitser is no doubt just a toady foot soldier,

  32. Pepe Escobar has a good article on Consortium news about Asylum by Macron.

    1. A historical drama featuring what the people who have to live next to the English really think of them.

      1. Ah, takes a group of English comedians to perfectly describe the English ruling classes ….
        “You tiny-brained wipers of other people’s bottoms.”

        1. Lol!

          RIP Terry Jones.

  33. It’s becoming a highly visible and public travesty of justice, happening in a country that used to take pride in the (relative) fairness of its judiciary. It is also insulting that he is being tried by a magistrate and not a more qualified judge, given the importance of the case.

    The whole world can see how badly Julian Assange is being treated, yet there is a deafening silence from the British & Australian governments and mainstream media. The establishment wants to see him silenced permanently.

    It is truly sickening. I feel so sorry for him. Everything that he was mocked for being afraid of has happened.

    1. Ask the Irish about that “fairness” of the English judiciary.
      One thing that is odd is that if you speak English in this world, then pretty much by default you are flooded from a very early age with tons of English propaganda about how wonderful the English are. We read histories written by Cambridge and Oxford dons all which describe how bloody wonderful the English are. We all get tons of propaganda into our heads about things like the wonders of English democracy and their justice …… when if you actually look at English history you find its a lot of nonsense.
      Thus, when you look, it is quite easy to find examples, such as the way the English locked up anyone who was Irish and that they called a “terrorist” and that things like “fair trials” can be very hard to come by in an English court.

      1. English history is the history of kings and queens and wars

        Only EP Thompson to my knowledge ever produced a working class history and, naturally, it’s been rubbished

        The shame heaped upon the British people by this event is enormous – and i’m not sure too many even care!

  34. Excellent writing. Assange likely will not survive long under these conditions. Kafka has to be screaming at this travesty of justice. Folks under 50 can count on trying to survive in a dying planet under control of dictatorial mentally diseased controllers like Trump.

  35. Thank you, Caitlin, Franz Kafka, MC Escher and self-licking-ice-cream-cone New World Order.
    Military lab created virus spreading in world update here:
    “God bless us, every one”

  36. Please remove me from your email list as the link does not work

    1. Is there an email list? There’s a link on the About page, but it sends me to the homepage.

Leave a Reply