Julian Assange: His Role in Reality Creation

The people who rule us know that to behave overtly is death. Thus they are occult, which is to say, hidden. And this works brilliantly for them sure, but it's not without its downsides. Imagine the crushing irony of being a death cult god-king utterly full of yourself - self-impressed beyond all imagining - and having to keep it to yourself. What a bummer. Sure they award themselves honours and knighthoods and Nobel prizes etc. but these are all substitutes, awards they take in lieu of acknowledging their true brilliance.


If only they could crow like a rooster and brag of their real achievements, their true genius, their infinite superiority over the dim-witted masses. Happily for us sometimes they just can't help themselves and they say what they think. Does everyone remember this fine chestnut courtesy of Ron Suskind in the NYT 2004:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

That's perfect isn't it? In a real world, that would be headlining the Penguin Book of Quotations, but as things are it will never earn an entry. I actually already wrote about this quote way back when but here now I want to come at it from a slightly different angle: the idea of posited reality and the use of artifice to arrive us there, and also the created realities versus the creation itself.

With the above quote it should be kept in mind that the man saying it is undoubtedly an habitual liar. And Jewish, natch. The odds of the above sentiment being voiced by a non-Jew are so low as to be worthless. The only people to argue otherwise would be Jews - 'If a goy wants a Jew to stand witness against a Jew in a Court of Law, and if the Jew could give fair evidence, he is forbidden to do it' - and goyim who are unfamiliar with the book from which those italics were taken (which is admittedly pretty much everyone).


Where was I? Oh yeah, what with the quoted fellow lying like he blinks, the above quote, whilst telling, is not everything it says it is. For instance, 'we're an empire now' is neither here nor there. What would be more accurate? How about 'we're our own messiah', ha ha ha. The word 'now' is rubbish of course, merely there to put distance between the current shenanigans and what's otherwise been going on for centuries. His other furphy is the use of the word 'actors' to describe himself and his like-minded fellows. They are not actors - they are writer/directors. We, the Christian and Muslim bunnies fighting each other are the actors. We get given our lines and we do what we're told. And all to the tremendous amusement of our master scenarists, sure.

But never mind the lies. In amongst the above quote is a perfect discussion of the dilemmas facing anyone attempting to decipher the auteur's artifice. It's foolishness of course since the artifice is merely a vehicle. Not that we get that of course - we're all too busy with the minutiae. Meanwhile we're being carried somewhere with none of us even aware. We see the scenery outside the window constantly changing but that's what it's meant to do isn't it? It's 'progress' or something. And aren't our feet planted on firm ground same as it ever was? And sure we're moving forward but that's obviously a good thing otherwise why would sportsmen put it in every sentence?


Just now The Illusionist popped into my head. Poof! It's the perfect example of a narrative we didn't need leading us to a posited reality we were always going to get. Punters in the audience follow the plot's twists and turns - 'judiciously, as you will' - all the while utterly failing to realise it's all a con.The truth of the matter is that the film merely exists to lionise Jewish rat-bastardry and to depict those who doubt or oppose the Jewish trickster as flat-footed dimwits who deserve death. The entire film (as are most of them funnily enough) is merely artifice, a variety of reverse engineering to arrive us at the dreamt up Frank Frazetta reality of our Jewish hero triumphant with his foot planted on the corpse of his goyim victim, the deluded but worshipful trophy-shiksa on his arm, and his awe-struck shabat goy step-and-fetchit pleased to have glimpsed such genius.


Jewish people are not geniuses of course - they only imagine themselves so. But if all you get on TV is Jewish imaginings, then how would you know to think otherwise?

Long and short, the only thing worth knowing in any story coming from Jewish sources is that it's a story coming from Jewish sources. In the face of the Talmud's 'Love each other, love the robbery, hate your masters and never tell the truth,' the intricacies of any given plot were always going to be worthless - mere lies to arrive us all at the 2000 year old posited reality of Jews as masters over their goyim hewers of wood and drawers of water. 'When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves'. And of course in the Jewish world of us-and-them and its inevitable self-fulfilling prophecy of 'if the goyim knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly', all goyim effectively qualify as opposition and thus it's necessary we view each other as villains and make war upon ourselves.


And then there's Julian Assange! What's that, Julian? Australian ex PM KRudd said that America should attack China? And the Lebanese said that Israel should wipe out Hezbollah? And the Sauds said that America should cut the head off the Iranian snake? And the Americans said Putin is a Girl who takes it up the jacksy? And the English said the French don't wash, smell bad, and like to make love with their faces? Gosh it just goes on and on doesn't it? And of course always with Israel high and dry - no need to dance between the rain drops since since they're standing well back with their hand on the tap. Laugh? This is more fun than machine gunning Palestinian women and children.


Admittedly, Julian Assange is not Jewish. But gee whiz how many clues do we need as to whose zombified mouthpiece he is? Says Benjamin 'Three cheers for Wikileaks' Netanyahu:

“Israel has not been damaged at all by the WikiLeaks publications. On the contrary, the documents showed support in many quarters for Israel’s assessments, especially on Iran.”

Ha ha ha ha! Very good! And blow me down if Wikileaks' Assange doesn't love him right back:

"We can see the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu coming out with a very interesting statement that leaders should speak in public like they do in private whenever they can. He believes that the result of this publication, which makes the sentiments of many privately held beliefs public, are promising a pretty good [indecipherable] will lead to some kind of increase in the peace process in the Middle East and particularly in relation to Iran."

God spare me, the butcher of Gaza as paragon of honest government. Hands up everyone who feels sick. And the dead-giveaway dirt continues to come to the fore. This via Aangirfan. Fine - me, I'm taking it as read. (PS - Oh look, the tail-wagged-dog did their bit too. Three cheers).

Not forgetting of course, that: in spite of AIPAC being the single most powerful lobby in the US (indeed none may stand against it); in spite of Israel being called the US's 'number one ally' for no apparent reason and absurdly receiving more US foreign aid than the rest of the world put together; in spite of Anne Coulter ruling herself out of the Neocons on account of not being Jewish enough, and all American policy right up until the other day being routinely described as 'neocon'; in spite of the last couple of years having seen hundreds of Israeli spies thrown out of the States for espionage immigration violations, easily more than every other country put together; in spite of every single one of Obama's 'czars' being Jewish and/or dual passport holders; in spite of the Jewish state seeming to wholly occupy American foreign policy it magically only seems to comprise 0.03% of the various memos that fly backwards and forwards through the Byzantine channels of the US government. The big message from Wikileaks is, 'Israel? Jews? Who? What?'

Hyperbole aside, that right there is what's known in the real world as a complete impossibility. Any punter with even the meanest understanding of the laws of probability would look at that and know that the game was fixed.

Memo
To: Mossad
From: nobody

Hey Boys and Girls, I just thought I'd drop you a line saying how much I love your work, love your gear. And big fan though I am, I thought you slipped up ever so slightly in this wikileaks caper. I mean honestly, what with Israel being the US's number one client state (Ha! Just joking, but you get it I'm sure) what with that as the facade don't you think that it looked a bit ordinary how every country seemed to be bagging out every other country but not a single person in the US had anything to say about Israel? It's a bit weird isn't it?

And sure I know Israel has to be that shining beacon on the hill with nothing bad said about it ever, but I had a thought - what if you had some US criticism of Israel but all from the basis of Israel not cracking down hard enough on the Palestinians? That would work wouldn't it? You could have whomever it is complaining that Israelis are just too big hearted, ha ha ha.

Here's an idea: what if it featured the phrase Israel is soft on terror? Tell me that that isn't the perfect soundbite? You guys of course would instantly come out in righteous indignation saying how untrue it all was and how you were selflessly leading the world in the very important battle against terrorism and to prove it you'd... I don't know, re-invade Gaza or Lebanon or something. But properly this time. None of the pooncing about like last time - imagine killing people in the six digits - wouldn't that be grand!

yours in dreams of bloodshed and carnage,

n

Okay so what was all that stuff about not getting distracted by the narrative etc? Haven't I done precisely that? Well yes, but that's the thing you see: the above chap sneering at us for playing catch-up - 'judiciously as you will' - knows that we haven't any choice. But at least we've got a head start: at least we know to cherchez le Juif. Ayah! There's an ugly phrase, eh? Who knew (back in our former lives) that we'd be uttering such things? But sure enough here we are, and sure enough here they are, hiding in plain sight, daring us to call them out.

Right, so we don't believe anything they tell us and we know that goyim being turned against each other is an inevitability, and... and... that's it, is it? We're going to be lied to and the lie will a neat, easy-to-understand one-off. Somehow I don't think so: as if the masters of the Big Lie would expend this much time and energy on a simple one-fer. Lies this big are always layered. Never mind the onion, any give Big Lie will be like a citadel with successive walls, each to be abandoned with the final never-breached inner sanctum being 'the truth is elsewhere'.


Whilst I was never a big fan of Marshall McLuhan's the medium is the message, I'm thinking it might be useful here, albeit from a sideways direction. In spite of the fact that not one single Wikileaks story went on the Wikileaks website without first being featured in (and of course vetted by) the MSM, somehow all this alleged leaking is the prompt for a discussion, not about the media, but rather the internet. Or so insists the MSM. Well they would wouldn't they?

Under this rubric, McLuhan suddenly becomes right, which is to say, the individual messages don't really count. That doesn't mean that there aren't rules about what the messages may discuss, but we can sum that up by saying that all the topics currently verboten in the media are likewise verboten in the Wikileaks' material. Or to put it another way, there is nothing in there to cause anyone any real trouble. No heads will roll. No heavens will fall.


Or to put it another way: IT'S THE END OF THE GODDAMN WORLD! WON'T SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING TO SAVE OUR INNOCENT WESTERN GOVERNMENTS FROM THIS WICKED INTERNET? OH, THE HUMANITY!

And there you have it. A medium that allows the free exchange of information cannot be allowed to live. Every other medium is in the hands of the Jews (in as precise a display of contempt for the medium is the message as could be found) and so it goes for the internet too.

Thinking about it, how much effort went into the media campaign to bring war against Iraq? Now compare war against Iraq with the taking of an entire medium. Believe it or not the latter is waay more important than the former. A people in control of a totality of falsity grant themselves the god-like ability to control the narrative and create their own reality. Thus lesser things like wars become a snap of the fingers.

The net as it stands must be taken - dead or alive, pick one. The falsity must be a totality. Everything else is second fiddle.


Thus: Julian Assange as scarlet pimpernel; the well-meaning but deluded legions rallying around him; our politicians flipping between nonchalance and high dudgeon; the machinations of Swedish justice; the endless carefully scripted talking heads; the earnest blatherings of should've-known-betters; hell, let's just say this whole fucking herculean effort is not here for any run of the mill ginned up wars. Sure they may result since everything is a two-fer minimum but really this is way beyond such lesser topics as this-or-that versions of desired reality. This is about the very ability to create those realities in the first place. Like I said, first comes the lie. Everything is subordinate to this.