WikiLeaks game plan
posted by fluidity | December 3, 2010
- Login or register to post comments
- Print this page
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Icerocketan amazing picture into Julian Assange's strategy for the WikiLeaks to attack/disrupt an authoritarian conspiracy, like the US government
"The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive “secrecy tax”) and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption. Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance."
the original document, 'State and Terrorist Conspiracies' and followed up by 'Conspiracy as Governance', written by Assange, is at:
http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf
here's a commentary/analysis on his writing/theory:
http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-comput...
and here's a video just for fun...
Comments
my analysis
— Dec 03, 2010
he's an anarchist
is he a CIA disinfo/psyops plant? don't know
but he's certainly getting a lot of attention
in activism, some people get the attention while a lot of people do the work. do we need 'heroes' or do they just make it seem like people can rely on these 'heroes' to 'bring on the revolution' and somewhat abdicate their own responsibility?
i have had the insight in doing activism, that i think some others (not activists, but could be) kind of somewhat 'delegate' the doing something part of being a concerned citizen to people who are already doing stuff / known for doing stuff, so maybe that is harmful in a way because they kind of hand off responsibility to others, or think that things are 'taken care of', instead of taking it into their own hands (and we really need everyone to take part in creating the change we want to see...)
but enough on that, this is a social networking site, it's for sharing stuff that is interesting, people need 'filters' to see things that are important, that's why i share the stuff i do, cause i think it gives people different perspectives that they might not otherwise see....
anarchist?
— Dec 05, 2010
It's not really accurate to call him an anarchist—at least, not according to the modern definition. Anarchism today is a paradoxical situation where people gather and commit acts of violence in the name of total individualism or freedom from the constraints of authority. However, the original definition of anarchy was quite different. Emma Goldman said, "Destruction and violence! How is the ordinary man to know that the most violent element in society is ignorance; that its power of destruction is the very thing Anarchism is combating" (from "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For").
So we could call Assange a first-wave anarchist, but a more meaningful word today would be an arch-democrat. His mission is very simple: corruption lives on secrecy. Democracy lives on information. This isn't just about activism, since activism is valuable at every level of society. His activism is at a level that most people don't have access to. That's where his background in computer hacking comes into play.
I wrote about the value of Wikileaks in a post here back in April. And I summarized a New Yorker profile about Assange in June on my Refractor blog.
huh?
— Dec 06, 2010
"Anarchism today is a paradoxical situation where people gather and commit acts of violence in the name of total individualism or freedom from the constraints of authority."
where did you get that definition?
from what i understand, anarchism is about freedom (from authority, hierarchy, ...), equality/equity, and mutual aid/solidarity
the point being that 'total individualism' is actually 'libertarian' as opposed to anarchist, due to the lack of the other 2/3 of the anarchist principles...
and anarchism does not hinge on violence, now or back then, as you point out it is actually working against violence
post-modern anarchism
— Dec 08, 2010
All I knew about anarchism until this year (age 27) was what I learned in 8th grade: that there's a thing called the Anarchist Cookbook that teaches you how to build bombs. My point is that I don't think people growing up today have any sense that anarchism contains any other meaning than violence in the realm of jihad, unless they learn about it through a college class or go back to the original writers. I just heard about Goldman for the first time a week ago and was very surprised at what I learned.
Anarchy and anarchism have
— Dec 22, 2010
Anarchy and anarchism have been straddled with numerous layers of obfuscation of the original meaning of the actual word(s). A(n)=without + archy=structure, organisation(government). Thus from a strict interpretation of the word would be: without organisation, i.e. without government. I personally think anarchism is a reaction to the apparently endemic corruption of any form of government toward becoming a tool by the few entrusted with power to coerce and leverage control on the population for the benefit of those in power and the systemic perpetuation of the established paradigm of power/control. To read violence as inherent to anarchy is to pideonhole it. What we do know, is government and 'rule of law' has produced no shortage of violence in society, so anyone who claims anarchy is about violence and chaos should consider the current state of affairs throughout the world brouught about by governments and their laws. Then, consider the archaeological records that show war(as an example of organised, gov't sanctioned violence) is a relatively modern construct appearing along with (so-called)civilization. Prior to ca. 30,000 years ago, there is no clear evidence to support that ancient hunter-gatherers engaged in warfare. They also lived in a tribal organisation that is probably about as close to anarchy as you'll find. Their survival depended on cooperation, not competition. Tribal governance was most likely that of consensus and thus egalitarian. It certainly lacked anything even resembling the HIERarchy of the governmental and economical systems of control we live under today.
"Be who you are. Say what you feel. Because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
