WikiLeaks reveals a much larger truth

[info being]

I want to thank Julian Assange and WikiLeaks for being brave enough to do its part in setting the truth free. What we have seen in these past weeks is one of the most blatant acts of authoritarianism and overt censorship this century has seen.

In fact, I'm not sure exactly how significant the information that WikiLeaks released was, but what is even more interesting and revealing is the way that some of the world's most powerful corporations such as Mastercard and Paypal are attempting to govern our lives in order to protect their own power. It is just as interesting as it is terrifying to watch corporations and governments working in lock-step around the world to silence a small organization that is only trying to fight the highest levels of corruption by letting the people see occassional fragments of truth.

Do they not think we see what is going on here? It is important to first understand the genious of the WikiLeaks model. In the past, any whistleblower who was courageous enough to attempt to expose scandal and corruption only had one way to get the truth out. If he wanted to reach a large, mainstream audience, he had to approach the mainstream media with the story. The problem, of course, is that the mainsteam media is owned by and run by corporations who don't want certain information out (such as the information about Bank of America that WikiLeaks was threatening to share next). In the past, the mainstream media would simply refuse to run the story (at best) or (at worst) likely report the whistleblower to the offended authorities to have him silence or killed.

The genious of WikiLeaks, the very purpose of WikiLeaks, was that the mainstream media could not ignore it. Assange would post the information to the website while simultaneously alerting all of the media. Because he revealed the leaks in such a public and transparent way, they could not burry it and were forced to do at least some basic reporting if they wished to appear as an actual news source. He gave them little choice.

I can't help wondering whether this, what is happening now, is exactly what Assange planned. He must have known that the media would over-react and reveal itself as the corporate / government mouthpiece it really is. He must have known that the world's most powerful governments, after being embarrassed by the information that was leaked, would eagerly work with the world's most powerful corporations to respond in just the clumsy, obvious, and revealing ways they have. And now, rather than arresting him on actual charges having anything to do with what he actually has done, the UK government is cooking up some kind of bullshit sex-scandal in an attempt to smear him. This sex-scandal playbook is getting really tiresome.

So I wonder whether the population will be fooled by authority, as it always has been historically. Or I wonder whether Assange will go down as the bravest person in the world in 2010...somebody who followed in the tradition of the greatest political activists before him. As we watch him turn himself in to the British police, let us remember that in doing so he is becoming nothing other than a political prisoner. Like the political prisoners of the USSR, the only thing he has done wrong is that he dared to challenge power.

[TexasObserver]

1. recommend

[grumgrum]

2. KR

[xiamiam]

3. the drama surrounding assange and wikileaks is revolutionary

the only thing which keeps us informed is the net..not the media, not our governments or our representatives..he is one brave and brilliant visionary. We've been given an opportunity by wikileaks..what we do with it, and if let our handlers control the situation, remains to be seen..but i see it as one of the few lights on the horizon.

[tcaudilllg]

5. I agree

and I very much hope this is the beginning of a new attitude in the U.S. towards its greater place in the world community.

But that's up to Obama in the near term....

[tcaudilllg]

4. I agree with your insights.

At the16types.info, there is a wide ranging discussion over Assange's personality. The consensus over there is that he's an intuitive ethical introvert (IEI), the kind of person who is really effective at getting insight into a nation or group's psyche. These abilities are particularly evident in his interview with TIME.

IEI people specialize in illuminating character, often on a mass scale. They do something to provoke a reaction, which puts character on display. This enables people to see the true nature of the people around them. Consider how Mike Huckabee responded to the release of the cables, calling for Assange's assassination. And Sarah Palin, too. So now we have explicit evidence that these people are would-be murderers. Hence, their political chances are just about doomed. Conversely, look at Eric Holder: he's not who you thought he was, is he? The decision not to prosecute Cheney was just the beginning.

Assange has given us reason to be a lot more cynical about our politicians and even our government, and that's a good thing. IEI has a conflictor relation with logical sensory extrovert (LSE). The logical/sensing types form the core of government: LSE staffs the government; SLI (sensory logical introvert) establishes its structure; LSI (logical sensory introvert) establishes rule of law; and SLE (sensory logical extrovert) is the commander. When any of these four aspects of government are threatened, persons of these four types will insist on their importance and attempt to reinforce them. Logical sensory extrovert is the position also of the diplomat, who looks the other way when unethical deeds occur in the interest of what they see as vital cooperation. It is this ethical ambivalence which an IEI like Assange despises: he wants us to clean up our act, and he figures that by shaking down the government (by forcing our reactions and our outrage) that he can make us a less practical, but maybe more ethical nation. It doesn't help Assange that Obama is SLI, the sister type to LSE which is only a little bit less likely to tolerate unethical dealings on their watch. (and if you want an example of an LSE in the White House, just dial that clock back a couple years...)

I'm not bashing administrator-type people -- I'm just agreeing with Assange that we think, in terms of our diplomacy, a little too much like one big LSE. If we were more ethical in our goings-ons, we might have to rely on our soldiers a little less to clean up the messes we make when we work with despicable people.

[KharmaTrain]

6. As Long As Wikileaks Remains Credible...

I have always felt a site like Wikileaks has a value...especially in an age when whistleblowers are either ignored or harassed. It will remain a valuable resource as long as it stays credible...and I'll be honest, I do have my concerns about that. As we see with so many that want to believe that it would be easy for someone to plant a bunch of bogus documents as another revelation that would have the opposite affect to those who want the real truth. While it appears not to be the case so far...that doesn't mean someone with the intention to mislead or coopt this site could do so and there's little verification.

The issue is Wikileaks viablity and credibility...and those who provide the information...not the man who runs the site. He's a conduit...that's all. One would hope that if this site is silenced that someone else will put it up on another.

Being fooled goes both ways and just as I am cynical of anyone on the right who can maniuplate people, I feel the same about those on the left.

[Wednesdays]

7. K&R

:kick:

[no_hypocrisy]

8. I wonder what Fred Friendly, Bill Paley, and Edward R. Murrow would have done with the

opportunities presented by Wikileaks.