My Steemit series of "Being Julian Assange" begins, with additional new content and insights. Enjoy!
Hey everyone,
I've been promising for two weeks now that I would release 'Being Julian Assange' on Steemit. Because the article is well in excess of Steemit's word limit, I have to cut it into a series of posts. But I wanted to give you something more special than just a cut and paste. So I've decided to annotate each section of the article as I post it, contextualising my thoughts pertaining to them.
The annotations appear in italics after each sub-section. While they may be fascinating for those who have already read the article, they could be confusing or appear disjointed to first-time readers, so I do strongly recommend that you read the unabridged article first. You can find the original work in full, without annotations, at this link.
Because I am a geek who finds such things interesting, I've also decided to include some rudimentary linguistics, in the form of a table of basic stats about each section that I'm posting, as provided by WordCounter
(Note: The counts are intended to be indicative only and are likely not strictly accurate as some HTML elements are included rather than just plain text)
I will try to keep to one predominant topic or theme to each post. This one is rather brief, but the posts will get more expansive as they go on.
Being Julian Assange: Part One
Includes Sub-sections:
- Introduction
- That Election
Linguistics:
Introduction
That Election
Introduction
Certain journalists would consult an almanac for Washington DC on the night of the 2016 election, and begin this article with a few picturesque, scene-setting words about the chill winds whipping the capital as it lay poised, awaiting the results with bated breath.
But I have more respect for my readers than that.
So I'll cut to the chase.
[The introduction to 'Being Julian Assange' was originally one of the other much lengthier sub-sections, and fronted by the core concern of the article: "I am concerned that Julian Assange is slowly dying in front of our eyes while we argue about his tweets." Later in the editing process, I moved that sentence to become the lead-in to the study of Assange's medical records, which substantiated the concern, and wrote this much shorter, punchier introduction to make the point up front that this article was not going to be meaningless fluff, but was going to deliver brutally honest analysis of serious topics in a way that is rarely seen elsewhere. I've always disliked overly formulaic writing styles, particularly when the traditional scene-setting techniques of a novel are used in what is supposed to be non-fiction long form journalism. The cross-over of fiction to non-fiction is, in my view, inappropriate. In Micah Lee and Cora Currier's hit piece on WikiLeaks, which features heavily in 'Being Julian Assange', they typify this sense of lulling the reader into the setting; laying out their opening scene as if it's a B movie script ("a light snow was falling outside the windows of the Ecuadorean Embassy") and presenting details about their non-fiction character that they had no way to ascertain, yet presented as fact ("Julian Assange was inside, sitting at his computer and pondering the upcoming 2016 presidential election..") At best, it is a disingenuous way to write; at worst, insulting to the intelligence of the reader.]
That Election
In 2016 an accused serial sexual predator ran for the US presidency against the notoriously corrupt wife of a previously impeached President - who is also an accused serial sexual predator.
That these facts alone were insufficient to invalidate the entire race is testament to the audacity with which corrupt power operates in the West, and how conditioned the public is to consuming the warped byproducts of its naked machinations.
Arguably the most contentious election in recent history, the accused serial sexual predator won.
During the race, WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange aptly described the two candidates as "cholera vs gonorrhoea." Edward Snowden ran a Twitter poll asking his followers whether they would rather vote for a "calculating villain", an "unthinking monster" or "literally anyone else". 67% chose the latter. Yet those who didn't want to be forced into a false choice between Clinton or Trump became the forgotten voices, the silent majority; largely excluded from the endless, vapid mainstream media debates about the outcome.
Julian and Edward's descriptors were flawless metaphors for the Presidential contestants; cartoon-like characters that when paired together and portrayed as a legitimate democratic choice, made a mockery of the entire concept of political representation.
Unfortunately, this sham wasn't as anomalous as it may appear when viewed in such a simplistic light. The moral failings were business as usual in a modern "democracy". No matter who had won, the global public was going to be subjected to a continuation of Barack Obama's blatant lies and populist betrayals of his 'Hope and Change' platform.
The contenders for leadership are the reality TV stars (now, quite literally) of an intergenerational revolving political theatre: A four-yearly exercise in mass re-enfranchisement of the public, where two-dimensional aspiring figureheads promise to fulfil the dreams of their populace. You are told that with your vote, your candidate of choice will begin ending wars and bringing transparency to government, investing in infrastructure or asserting human rights and equality for all - yet once elected, the victor turns to the camera, sotto voce, like Kevin Spacey in House of Cards, and says "You didn't really think I'd do that, did you?"
Meanwhile, the media and the money-power that pull their strings ignore the blatantly obvious and work feverishly to emboss the proceedings with a veneer of credibility. In tandem, government-aligned big data and social media companies are employing ever more loathsome technologies to remodel human history in real time.
This industrialised historical revisionism requires the excoriating of the public reputation of the virtuous, the sanitising of the compromised, and the constant manipulation of the living memory of both.
These are the core tenets of manufacturing consent. They aren't just lying to us; they are already preparing the lies they will tell our unborn great-grandchildren.
It is some of those layers of contrived, mainstream bullshit that this article intends to peel back.
At the crux of the issue is a battle of authenticity versus falsehood, on a spectrum. With most of us sandwiched somewhere in between and WikiLeaks front and centre. Because WikiLeaks is the last available vestige of verifiable, unadulterated public truth.
That is why they are hated by those who fear the revelations WikiLeaks facilitates and why WikiLeaks' public reputation is desecrated every day. It is why their every pillar of support is systematically undermined and why Julian Assange is being ever so slowly murdered in front of our eyes.
We, the people, are the last line of their defence. Part of protecting WikiLeaks - and ultimately ourselves - is to understand the relentless nature of the psyops employed against them; that the hardships inflicted upon them by the enemies of human progress are not just reputational or financial but physical; that for those waging this thankless war of truth on our behalf, this is a matter of life or death.
And that is why we must push back.
That is why we must tell the truth about them.
[It is ridiculous that in 2018, the mainstream conversation is still about the 2016 election. Reams and reams of content exists on the topic, a volume perhaps unsurpassed by any other issue with the exception of one far more worthy of our attention: the Iraq War. What doesn't get enough market share however, is the very common and reasonable view that the election was a giant circus, an exercise in mass distraction and that neither candidate was desirable - by design. I was determined that my article would not end up rehashing every element of the 2016 election and therefore wanted to confront the issue at the very beginning of it, and in a way which laid bare the sick irony of the proceedings of Western 'democracy'. Furthermore, the perceived rift between WikiLeaks and Snowden, often salaciously touted by critics of each who wish to make a meal out of it, is more proportionately viewed when one realises that both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden were taking very similar positions in the lead-up to the election - Assange's 'Cholera versus Gonorrhoea' and Snowden's 'calculating villain versus unthinking monster'. Both were of course, spot on, but I have never seen that very obvious connection made, certainly not by parties most heavily invested in deepening the perceived divide.]
Part Two of Being Julian Assange will follow some time in the next few days! I hope you enjoyed this first taste.
Love,
Suzie
By Suzie Dawson
Twitter: @Suzi3D
Official Website: Suzi3d.com
Journalists who write truth pay a high price to do so. If you respect and value this work, please consider supporting Suzie’s efforts via credit card or Bitcoin donation at this link. Thank you!