© Risk



By the time I publish this we'll be at or around the 24-hour mark since WikiLeaks announced that two high level Ecuadorian government insiders had told them that Julian Assange faces eviction from the Ecuadorian embassy within days, which seems to have been further confirmed by the Foreign Minister of Ecuador now tweeting that states have the right to revoke political asylum at any time. Activists are mobilizing everywhere, a round-the-clock presence has been set up outside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and a #Unity4J emergency broadcast is currently underway full of many respected dissident voices coming together in defense of the legendary leak publisher.And, as we should all have come to expect by now, the establishment narrative management patrol has been going out of its way to inform us all that this is a good thing and no cause for alarm. Whenever you voice concerns about the persecution of Julian Assange on any public forum, you will with remarkable predictability encounter empire loyalists calling Assange a stinky Nazi rapist Putin puppet Trump supporter who deserves to be in prison forever.What's striking about these responses, which by now are as familiar to me as the keyboard I type these words on, is howthey always are. If you talk about economic policy or foreign policy, for example, you might get a few angry troglodytes who take internet arguments far too seriously, but you'll also typically get people calmly explaining why they believe you're wrong and laying out ostensibly fact-based arguments for why this is so.This is literally never the case with people who want to see Assange imprisoned, in my extensive experience. There's. It's always vitriolic, hyperbolic, frequently profanity-riddled arguments from pure emotion, usually something to the effect of "He collaborated with Russia/helped Trump win the election, therefore and I want him punished because I hate him." Which is just another way of saying, "I want Assange imprisoned because of the way my feelings feel."Now, aside from the established fact that thethis is also a completely fallacious argument from top to bottom. Claiming that something ought to happen because of how your feelings feel is very obviously a logical fallacy , but this kind of argument comprises the entirety of support for Assange's imprisonment that Assange defenders encounter on a regular basis.This happens because the smear campaign that has been used by the western political/media class to manufacture support for Assange's silencing and imprisonment has its foundation not in fact, but in emotion. Smear campaigns are by their nature emotional at their core, because they are intended to elicit public disgust, disdain and hatred for their target. That's why you'll see so many mainstream news media articles claiming that Assange smells bad , for example, despite that having nothing whatsoever to do with the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Assange's work.So naturally, because they are constantly being inundated with establishment propaganda about Assange consisting of nothing other than appeals to emotion, mainstream liberals are going to believe that spewing vitriol about how their feelings feel is a perfectly legitimate response to his name coming up in political discourse. This is all they have had modeled for them in responding to Assange's plight. It's been normalized for them.Yes, the mainstream liberal political conversation really has gotten that crazy and stupid. Their emotions really are that insanely coddled, and facts really have become that marginalized. That is why you can't defend Assange in public without getting a bunch of brainwashed MSM-swilling liberals falling all over themselves to show you how emotional they feel about the subject at hand.Another reason the Assange smears focus on emotion rather than facts is because the facts are very contrary to the interests of the smear merchants.This is because there are no legal distinctions in place separating an outlet like WikiLeaks from outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Guardian, meaning that. Which is why the New York Times , the Washington Post and the Guardian have all warned sternly of this precedent, which has also been recognized by the Obama administration These are facts.These are facts regardless of how your feelings feel about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.These are facts regardless of how your feelings feel about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.These are facts regardless of how your feelings feel about Russia and Vladimir Putin.These are facts regardless of how assertively and authoritatively Rachel Maddow speaks.These are facts regardless of how much of a stinky, stinky stink man the news media claims Assange is.These are facts regardless of how much your emotions have been coddled by your favorite pundits, your university professors, your political cliques and your echo chamber.These are facts. It does not matter how your feelings feel. Your feelings are irrelevant to this conversation. Only facts matter here. And the facts say that everyone, regardless of how they feel about Assange, must defend him against the US government's attempts to prosecute him for publishing inconvenient truths. Not because it's the right thing to do, not because anyone expects you to behave in a moral way, but out of sheer, garden variety self-interest. We all need the ability to hold power to account, and the prosecution of Assange will necessarily cripple our ability to do that. This is a fact. Regardless of how your feelings feel.