Julian Assange is a terrorist

Assange's useful idiots rally in Melbourne

Assange's useful idiots rally in Melbourne

Julian Assange has a plan. The plan is to leak lots of information so governments become fearful of leaks. As they become more fearful they become less likely to share information among their departments and appendages. The restriction of information flow will retard government operations and eventually cause their demise. Assange explains:

Conspiracies take information about the world in which they operate, and pass it around the conspirators and then act on the result … We can marginalize a conspiracy’s ability to act by decreasing total conspiratorial power until it is no longer able to understand, and hence respond effectively to its environment. . . . An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think efficiently cannot act to preserve itself.

This is very interesting. Usually anti-state people see transparency in government as a good thing. Many have defended Assange with pro-transparency arguments, but they don’t understand that his objective is the exact opposite; he wants less transparency. He wants to encourage a highly secretive, paranoid government because he feels that it will be less effective in its various ‘conspiracies’ and more susceptible to overthrow.

I’m not sure if I’m sold on the logic but it certainly is logical. Paranoid repressive regimes usually fail and provoking them to become more paranoid and repressive might well have the desired effect. However transparency and accountability in government have been hard won, sometimes very hard. Terrorising governments into repression to incite collapse and revolution puts a lot at risk for a high-minded ideal.

17 thoughts on “Julian Assange is a terrorist

  1. what assange is describing in there is blackmail. blackmail raises the price/risk of committing crime. when a group of people engaged in criminal activity can’t trust each other their power is destroyed and ultimately will lead to the collapse of the conspiracy. the more i learn about this project the more i am inclined to believe that they are producing a benefit for the public. you may not know this but coming down the wikileaks pipeline in the near future will be stuff about cia/nkvd/mi6/asio etc and jpmorgan and very likely DHS and – this made me smile – vatican…

    wikileaks is utilising the power of the spectacle against the puppet masters and their acolytes. they may yet flush assange down the toilet but there is hundreds of others who will stand up where he stood if they do.

  2. Governments only become paranoid because they fear their secrets being released. If their secrets were benign, they would have nothing to fear. So Assange’s methods only work against governments that are already conspiratorial.

  3. Joseph – what you say is interesting and makes some sence. Except the bit about Assange being a terrorist. That characterisation of who he is and what he is doing makes no real sence.

  4. governments become conspiratorial when they grow beyond the primary mandate of adding sufficient cost to antisocial behaviour to curb its proliferation and thus facilitating the growth of division of labor and the prosperity that this produces.

    when people demand government take responsibility for their own mistakes or the natural vicissitudes of the marketplace or environment in any way, shape or form, conspiracy begins. price, import restriction, commodity prohibition and wage controls, hate speech laws, fiat money issuance, centralised management, taxation to fund bureacracy beyond the local level.

    socialist policies (or whatever name you prefer, communist, collectivist, marxist, etc) implicitly require conspiratorial behaviour to implement. nationalism is a product of socialism, and naturally tends towards the upward growth of government out into international conspiracy aiming towards the encompassing of all government by socialist policy.

    assange has said on record that he considers the nearest thing to his personal politics to be libertarianism. it is my view that wikileaks, rather than representing the beginning of a global hegemony, represents the first shots fired by an organised and very well thought out revolutionary uprising that leapfrogs all of government’s capabilities to prevent its’ progress. what they are doing is not really anything new, it’s straight out of the classic fable about the emperor’s new clothes. get people talking about the deception and before you know it, government credibility collapses and the would be regents and courtiers suddenly find themselves without bodyguards or slaves to do their work for them.

  5. Joseph,

    Characterizing Assange’s ends as “less transparency” is inaccurate. He does indeed want to force conspiracies like excessively powerful governments to become insular, paranoid and thus sufficiently authoritarian to provoke public backlash and delegitimize these governments in the eyes of their citizens. But this makes “less transparency” the MEANS rather than the ENDS.

    I do agree with you that Assange’s strategy is potentially very risky. However, it can still be productive without going all the way to the endgame. Terrified governments may accept reform to reclaim some legitimacy, rather than growing progressively more demented until a popular revolution occurs.

    And yes, I disagree with the characterization of Assange as a terrorist. The simple fact is that the MSM will (when actually being adversarial towards the government) do exactly what Assange does (publish secret documents) and then invoke Freedom Of The Press to protect themselves. If we grant this to the mainstream Dead Tree Edition press, we should grant it to Wikileaks.

  6. Terje and Andrew,
    By terrorist I mean he is using fear as a tool. I was intentionally being a bit over the top but I think the word is technically appropriate.

  7. at base, government is naturally a device for coercion and use of force. old dictionaries even define terrorism as a type of government where threat of violence is the device for control.

    ter·ror·ism (ter′ər iz′əm)
    1. the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy
    2. the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way

    the distinction that should be made, and something that is very problematic, is that these people and even the writer of this article, mixing up the defense of justice and truth using force (which is necessary) versus the use of force to defend deception. this is the quandry that has not yet been fully elucidated and dealt with by society – that ultimately the impartial use of force in the form of police and law courts is essential, because if government does not perform this function then you bring about the rise of spontaneously organised protective systems just like the rise of the mafia in new york city as the local police refused to protect italian immigrants.

    the difficulty is that you can’t just bend over when someone points a gun to your head and demands you hand over your money, you really should shoot directly in response to this demand, if not someone else help you to shoot back. this is precisely the sole function that government should have. if you let government control anything else the same methodology is used, bureacracy, compliance regulations, and the use of force to demand compliance. it is inapplicable to regulation of the free market, it is inapplicable to the speech and ideas of the citizens and journalistic operations, it is inapplicable to medicine. to call the retaliation against this force as terrorism when the threat is only words, the only applicable terms are extortion and blackmail. should it be considered wrong to openly extort and blackmail conspiracies? i think this is what the police should have already been doing, that they are not shows that they are all bent save for a few ‘good guys’ that mostly just get used for PR.

  8. One would have hoped that having quoted Julian Assange, Joseph Clark would read the quote. Not so apparently. The last sentence refers to “An authoritarian conspiracy” and thus relates to a conspiracy occurring within a society where the citizens have submitted to authority. The antithesis of a democratic society. Revealing the secrets of an autocratic government may be useful, if one believes in democracy.
    Within a democratic society all politicians have two goals. The more important is to remain a politician, the less important is to do the job. Spin, well lies actually, is the tool used by politicians to misrepresent data and thus preserve the popularity index (votes). Inconvenient data has to be kept hidden. The vast majority of the data so far released by WikiLeaks falls into this inconvenient category.
    As to Julian being a terrorist. Regrettably Joseph has swallowed the spin redefining the word terrorist; the actual definition is one who attempts to further his views or rule by a system of coercive intimidation. (Let’s leave aside for a minute the question of whether using drones to drop explosives on Pakistan and in so doing kill innocent Pakistan citizens is coercive intimidation.) It is hard to see how making a government “fearful” of leaks of data that they are trying to hide in order to keep the popular vote by threatening and actually leaking the data can possible be defined as coercive intimidation.

  9. You might be over reading what I said. I just thought it was interesting that Assange’s intention was the opposite of what a lot of people (particularly his supporters) thought.

    I wasn’t using the word terrorist in a pejorative way. That’s just how I would describe what he is doing based on what he has written. Of course states are terrorists too.


  11. I think julian assange is an absolute idiot. railroading the general publics perception for his own agenda. governments worldwide should absolutely have the right to secrecy. imagine if this idiot was a prime minister or president. nothing would ever get done. shoot me an email if you agree or want to argue. chrisso_965@hotmail.com

Comments are closed.