There might be a much simpler reason for all of this. Being stuck in the embassy for years has severely taxed his emotional stability, encouraging narcissism, paranoia, and victimhood. At the very least, his journalism is sloppy, irresponsible, and ever-decreasing in integrity.
Both his sexual assaults and his antisemitism predate him running away to the embassy.
He ran away to the embassy in 2012 because he refused to take responsibility for his sexual assaults. In 2010 he hired Israel Shamir, an extremely outspoken antisemitic blogger, to help run Wikileaks, and a number of photographs show that they had been close friends for some time before Assange hired him. When he was confronted about this by Private Eye in 2011, he began spouting conspiracy theories about how the Jews were out to get him.
Let's separate Julian Assange and content of the leaks please. Ad hominem attacks are only meant to divert people from the content of the emails. Take them for what they are, not who rendered them to the public.
The content of his leaks is irrelevant. What matters is the intent behind releasing them.
Assange being alt-right and the fact that he is going out of his way to leak material that improves the chances of the standard-bearer of the alt-right, Donald Trump, becoming head of state of the most powerful country on Earth are absolutely 100% linked together, and those links should be investigated.
Some information should not be public for a reason.
OK then. The AKP leak exposed nothing, but rather added to an incredibly stressful and precarious situation in Türkiye. It carelessly aided in doxing most women in Türkiye. It helped spread malware. It was a good opportunity to co-opt the press around the coup.
Assange is absolutely a criminal for breaking the terms of his bail. The sexual assault charges, however, are unproven, and he really deserves his day in court, whether he is guilty or innocent. I hadn't heard the anti-semite bit before, however.
Is there any evidence that he lacks respect for women? I have not yet seen any. He was accused of something which in Sweden is called "rape" but in the US would be called "consensual sex". Is that what you are referring to?
True, however it is not typically labeled "rape" when the sexual contact aspect is consensual. It seems to constitute some sort of wrongdoing, but potentially also a misunderstanding. In any case, headlines and comments omitting this information and highlighting rape accusations are certainly intended to create a specific impression.
One of the charges as I understand it is Mr. Assange had sex with one of the accusers while she was asleep. That definitely seems to qualify as rape in Sweden penal code (https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K6P1S1 -- note I'm relying on Google Translate so corrections welcome).
Sweden is not the only country that considers sex with someone sleeping or otherwise unconscious as rape; a quick look at UK law for instance seems to bring this up in section 75 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42). Even in Mr. Assange's native Australia, failure to withdraw from sexual intercourse after consent is withdrawn appears in itself to be considered "rape" in all districts but Queensland. (https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/25.%20Sexual%20Offences...)
There are varying degrees of rape in Sweden, as I understand it Mr. Assange is being accused of the most minor degree of rape due to the circumstances. Still, it seems like what he is accused of is typically labeled "rape" in many places.
From what I see of the current status, the investigation regarding a rape charge is still pending; the other charges hit their statute of limitations last year. Since this is a recent article, I assume someone is still someone is still interested in pursuing the case currently.
> Saying you are wearing a condom when you aren't is wrongdoing.
Of course it is. Assange disputed the accusation and claimed that there was mutual understanding of the status of the condom. In any case, barring an unwanted VD or pregnancy, it seems peculiar to decide to pursue legal action about this a month after the fact.
While it's possible that Assange acted boorishly and inappropriately, I think rape is not the right word to describe it. Would a woman who lied about having been on birth control reasonably be said to have raped a male partner?
Claiming someone is alt-right is starting to have the feel of McCarthy era claims of communism. We are supposed to associate that label (and thus the person) with the deeply unsavory, without looking at their actual, specific positions and actions.
Claiming someone is alt-right is starting to have the feel of McCarthy era claims of communism.
I don't know what they stand for. But I visit generally progressive-leaning places on the internet and know I'm supposed to hate them.
I still haven't even figured out who the "reactionaries" are or what they believe in. I think what happened is some people used the wrong word when talking about "contrarians" and through a game of telephone turned created a new political boogieman.
Is the conservative side of the (American) political spectrum really going through this much ideological turmoil and restructuring? I haven't heard about it in any of the mainstream news when I glace at it, nor from the conservatives I talk politics with at work. It looks like a way for the left to shill hate.
The alt-right is what happened when 4chan trolls, MRAs/PUAs, and Stormfront had a baby called 8chan.net/pol/
It's a small group of maybe 10,000, of which 5,000 don't even take the positions seriously, just love to troll millennial college "activist" consumer-types. The Clinton speech about the alt-right will have the same effect as Geraldo Rivera's goofy coverage of Neo-nazi skinheads in the 80s - multiplying their numbers a hundred-fold.
> It's a small group [some of whom] don't even take the positions seriously, just love to troll millennial college "activist" consumer-types.
I completely agree that this group exists, that this phenomenon exists. However, it's also apparent from the way many people use the label "alt right", that they are not limiting themselves to describing this group.
It's a small group of maybe 10,000, of which 5,000 don't even take the positions seriously
Then why the fuck is anyone talking about them? Is the left really so terrified of taking positions or believing in anything at all that they have to scrape the bottom of the barrel like this for something to talk about?
Probably because questioning whether they're really the big boogeyman is enough to mark you as one of them in the core, outspoken, well-connected parts of the left.
You make a good point. Usually when somebody attempts to slander someone by saying they are alt right, they are exploiting our lack of awareness of equivocation fallacy.
There's a tiny group of terrible people who happen to also be alt right. We are supposed to associate any person who is labelled "alt right" with that tiny group even if they have nothing significant in common with them.
> about "contrarians" and through a game of telephone turned created a new political boogieman.
That's an interesting suggestion. It does look like many so called alt righters seem to be contrarians, non-conformists, critics of mainstream ideology or 'normal' right wing ideology. We need more of those people, and we often benefit from listening to them.
Some of them have beliefs I find abhorrent, but they also clearly do not all share the same beliefs.
Narrow minded bloggers and such on the left have cultivated this widespread belief (among some liberals) that we should automatically despise and ignore anyone that gets labelled "alt right"
Alt-right is basically a fancy label for 'outside of the mainstream, doesn't like political correctness and isn't in favour of Clinton' by this point.
It's basically used like the 'Bernie Bros' thing was when he was still running for president. A near meaningless buzzword to insult people the user disagreed with.