9 ms·
tl;dr version (and it is quite long). I've copied out what I think are the key bits, the following is all quoted: He begins by positing that conspiracy and aut
by CWuestefeld 16y ago
tl;dr version (and it is quite long). I've copied out what I think are the key bits, the following is all quoted:
He begins by positing that conspiracy and authoritarianism go hand in hand, arguing that since authoritarianism produces resistance to itself -- to the extent that its authoritarianism becomes generally known -- it can only continue to exist and function by preventing its intentions (the authorship of its authority?) from being generally known. It inevitably becomes, he argues, a conspiracy ...
the most effective way to attack this kind of organization would be to make "leaks" a fundamental part of the conspiracy’s information environment. Which is why the point is not that particular leaks are specifically effective. Wikileaks does not leak something like the Collateral Murder video as a way of putting an end to that particular military tactic; that would be to target a specific leg of the hydra even as it grows two more. Instead, the idea is that increasing the porousness of the conspiracy’s information system will impede its functioning, that the conspiracy will turn against itself in self-defense, clamping down on its own information flows in ways that will then impede its own cognitive function. You destroy the conspiracy, in other words, by making it so paranoid of itself that it can no longer conspire ...
The leak, in other words, is only the catalyst for the desired counter-overreaction; Wikileaks wants to provoke the conspiracy into turning off its own brain in response to the threat. As it tries to plug its own holes and find the leakers, he reasons, its component elements will de-synchronize from and turn against each other, de-link from the central processing network, and come undone.
... he quotes Theodore Roosevelt’s words from his 1912 Progressive party presidential platform as the epigraph to the first essay; Roosevelt realized a hundred years ago that "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people," and it was true, then too, that "To destroy this invisible government, to befoul this unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of statesmanship."
- sudont 16y agoIt's a good strategy, as long as the US doesn't become as autocratic as the Nazis or Viet Cong (correct?). Then, plugging leaks becomes hanging their corpses as a warning. Peaceful protests only work against peaceful regimes.
- ryoshu 16y agoThere have already been calls from prominent US politicians to declare WikiLeaks a terrorist organization. Predator drone strikes are how the US deals with terrorists.
- steveklabnik 16y agoPalin: > [Julian] is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- alexqgb 16y agoMost terrorists aren't sitting on huge piles of sensitive material set to be released en masse in the event of sudden, unplanned death.
- DanielBMarkham 16y agoI don't want to get into a detailed analysis of the piece -- I only had time to skim it. But am I to understand that I (and the rest of the American people) have paid tens of billions of dollars, had multiple elections, politically demonstrated and pleaded to Congressmen, to have a State Department that Assange doesn't feel should keep secrets, so he dumps the embassy cables? If a single actor can take it on himself to do all of that, then why am I wasting my time choosing who to vote for, paying taxes, and debating with my fellow citizens what the correct policy on "X" might be? Seems like I should just take it on myself -- after careful analysis of course -- that Assange is a danger to my representative form of government and I should go shoot him (I mean this completely rhetorically, by the way. I in no way support violence against anybody) The problem here is believing your own bullshit, as they say on the streets. Or put nicer, coming up with a line of reasoning that you (and perhaps others) deem to be the "correct" one, and then imposing it on the rest of us against our will. Democracies don't work by doing the right or correct thing. They work by the consent of the governed. If Assange takes away my illusion of having some say in the governing of my state, then he's effectively attacking the social contract. I just can't see how this plays out very well.
- gvb 16y agoYes. See also comment 32 by "Incomitatus": 2. Assange believes that what he calls ‘conspiracy’ is bad, that authority is bad. He regards these things as inherently ‘unjust’. He may not say it, or maybe the analyst who wrote this piece didn’t feel the need to draw it out, but his position logically requires him to regard the State as inherently unjust and evil. If he doesn’t, it can only be because he misapprehends the fundamental nature of the State. In short, Assange is an Anarchist, whether he realises it or not, and his agenda can be countered by every argument ever made for the value of the State as an institution.
- troutwine 16y agoTo my mind, the most interesting, basic questions raised by the Wikileaks sensation are these: To what extent may a good and proper government of the People keep secrets from its People and to what extent may it not? Secondly, if the State deems knowledge inappropriate for dissemination to the People how then are citizens empowered to change the State? I don't have an answer for either of these questions. To have no secrets it desirable, but I do not see how this would not lead to pure Anarchy (in the political sense); hardly desirable in which malevolent actors are a part of the political process. Swing around to the other extreme and we've dropped ourselves into a Totalitarian Democracy.
- uuilly 16y agoI wonder if he would have any objection to posting internal Wikileaks emails and documents. In the name of transparency I'd like to see the behind the scenes thought process for posting the cables.
- thisrod 16y agoAssange claims that Wikileaks would publish his own emails, if anyone submitted them. Presumably none of his correspondents have done so yet.
- jerf 16y agoIf you consider the logic of this essay, it makes perfect sense for him to post his own emails. It won't trip up his very small network which is probably operating under the assumption this stuff is coming out sooner or later anyhow.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]