WikiLeaks' Bottom-Line Revelation

by

Austin Bay

Julian Assange, the man behind the WikiLeaks dump of secret US State Department cables, has been frank about his reasons for releasing thousands of classified -and stolen -- documents.

Assange says he wants to seriously damage the United States. If this damage forwards America's ultimate destruction, so be it. The son of leftist America-haters, Assange was born and weaned during the Cold War. Then the wrong side won. What the superpower Soviet Union failed to do with its armies, he, a super-empowered individual, will accomplish via the information anarchy of the Internet.

If Assange's history-shaping goal seems grandiose and detached from reality, indeed it is. However, once you understand the man's religion, his megalomania and solipsism become a bit more comprehensible if even more reprehensible.

Like other anti-American cranks on the planet, Assange holds firm in his warped faith that the U.S. is the leading source of global evil. The roots of this religion run deep, beginning with 18th century European aristocrats who despised the American Revolution. The anti-Americanism of Nazis, communists, tribalists, anarchists and now militant Islamists all rehash the same tropes, with their semi-schizoid baseline being the U.S. is simultaneously a vast authoritarian conspiracy and a heterogeneous menagerie of infidel-cowboy-capitalist idiots who dogmatically resist enlightened social policies.

Assange argues his revelations will force this conglomerate American monster to become more secretive and authoritarian. Limiting access to information, in order to stop future leaks, will reduce the monster's secretive and authoritarian effectiveness. The monster's "security state" will dumb down, and --here's the moment of religious rapture in Assange's prophecy -- this will increase global justice.

Assange also links this shackling of America to creating peace. Don't snicker too long. There are a lot of tenured gray-haired profs with ponytails who teach this dreck at notable universities and get paid for it.

Assange understands media grandstanding, but he doesn't understand people and certainly doesn't understand how American diplomats contribute to maintaining peace.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates understands people and diplomacy, and his assessment of Assange's info dump is as clear as it is historically and psychologically informed. At the Pentagon last week, Gates said: "The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments -- some governments -- deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation."

Gates added that the cables were "embarrassing" and "awkward," but the ultimate effects on policy would be "modest."

Pray that Gates is right about modest impact, but right now and for at least the next six months, the world confronts the possibility of a nuclear war in East Asia ignited by North Korean aggression. This is a time period when the world absolutely needs close -- and trustworthy -- cooperation between the U.S. and China. A big war in Korea could kill millions but will guarantee a global economic depression. Leaked cables discuss corruption in China's Communist Party and names hypocritical party elites.

Even if the information is accurate, this is a case where revealed candor damages personal relationships among key U.S. diplomatic personnel and Chinese leaders. China is a face culture, and the leaders have lost face. A mature appreciation of the common danger should override personal anger, but another leak revealed that China sees North Korea as a "spoiled child" and that it believes Korea will ultimately be reunited with South Korea absorbing the North. This revelation weakens China's political leverage with North Korea at a moment when any leverage is precious.

Assange, of course, did not consider how he increased the threat to the lives of millions of Korean, Japanese and Chinese when he dumped his filched documents. His faith-based narrative of American evil excludes the possibility that American diplomats are collaborating with China to avoid war and eventually put an end to North Korea's armed brinksmanship without a nuclear explosion.

Here's WikiLeaks' bottom-line revelation: Assange and ideologues like him promote an ignorant and destructive solipsism that has nothing to do with peace and justice but a lot to do with sociopathic narcissism.

Agreed, but religion is a special consideration because it claims to know of a divine, metaphysical truth of enormous importance. Being an atheist, I've no issue with people subscribing to religion - not at all. I take issue with religion being imposed on children, inserted into the wrong canals of education and being so significantly involved in politics and government.

You've just said, in so many words, that you have no problems with religion, as long as it's invisible and has no effect on society. Children are incapable of making rational, informed decisions (same with a lot of "adults"). While Bertrand Rusell is correct that children's religious beliefs is installed at the mother's knee, there's not a better way. The State has no morality.

Like Karl Marx said, religion is a drug. But what I would add is that instead of being opium, it's a mild performance enhancing drug. At least that's what religious people think. But it's simply a placebo: religious people think that by believing in god they are protected/doing good/gaining eternal afterlife/etc. and so they feel better. Classic self-fulfilling prophecy type of thing. The problem of course is that this changes their mental balance, and if something comes that challenge their world view they will get angry, like the addict you try to reason with. If something happens to make their religious worldview crumble, they get depressed, i.e. withdrawal syndrome.

You've also just described liberalism. Liberals believe they are doing only good and that liberalism is altruistic. Who's going to argue against caring for the poor? But when the latest social program not only fails to reduce an evil but instead legitimizes and expands it, it's depressing. It has to be the fault of The Other. It's the Republican/Devils' fault--or lack of money--when the real answer is flawed human nature.

On the other hand atheists are always on neutral. If new scientific evidence challenge their worldview, they'll just say "well, my experience of the world is the same, but my understanding of that experience must change". This is exactly to the contrary of the religious, who always thinks that his experience of the world itself is at stake. Religious people think their experience of the world includes a god, when in fact only their understanding of the world - gotten from the Bible or whatever source of authority - includes a god to explain Everything Else. This is why, I think, the theological debate hasn't advanced in two thousand years: religious types try to prove or disprove the experience of a god - which with the way they usually define god is impossible either way - whereas scientific types say with Laplace that a god is a superfluous hypothesis in the understanding of the experience we have of the world.

Atheism is not neutral. It is a declaration that there are no deities and no supernatural influences, because they have never been scientifically proven. Yes, the religious are 'dependent' on their God/s, but the idea that atheists are Vulcan geniuses is equally absurd. Man remains a vicious animal with only a thin veneer of reason. If a stranger struck your child for no reason, rare is the fellow who would stop and say, "This stranger is obviously mentally unbalanced or just having a bad day, that's why he did that." The other 999 out of a thousand would have to be restrained to keep from killing the SOB.

So atheists are more mentally stable and view the world and our experience of it in a more reasonable, detached manner. These, I think, are two things needed for humankind to not destroy itself with its own technological marvels. With this in min, it is no wonder that fundamentalists think global warming and weapons of mass destruction are "necessary" : they think the world is ok as it is and all is well with their god's plan, whereas they must also protect themselves against the guys that do not believe in their own god (the atheist commies and the islamic terrorists).

There has never been a successful State sans religion. Remove God and the State becomes god, and the results of that are never good. Put another way, "As long as there is poverty, there will be gods."

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^mizila:
In fact, I think atheists tend to appreciate life more and just plain be happier.
Actually, David Sloan Wilson in an amazing experiment using the "Experience Sampling Method" pioneered by Csikszentmihalyi (the guy who investigated psychological "flow" experiences) found the following:
"On average, religious believers are more prosocial than non-believers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long-term planning rather than gratifying their impulsive desires. On a moment-by-moment basis, they report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited. Some of these differences remain even when religious and non-religious believers are matched for their degree of prosociality." (From this article in which Sloan takes issues with some of Dawkins' statements in The God Delusion.)
So technically, your statement just hasn't been borne out by scientific investigation. That's not to say ALL religious people are happier than atheists. We're talking in the aggregate: on average, religious people tend to be happier (along with having other benefits). This should, of course, in no way interfere with your happiness as an atheist. You personally might be happier than everyone else that Wilson studied. But that doesn't mean everybody in the world besides you is better off without religion.
EDIT: What I would say, I guess, is that some people are happier and more productive being religious and others are happier and more productive being atheist. Depends on the individual.


Like Karl Marx said, religion is a drug. But what I would add is that instead of being opium, it's a mild performance enhancing drug. At least that's what religious people think. But it's simply a placebo: religious people think that by believing in god they are protected/doing good/gaining eternal afterlife/etc. and so they feel better. Classic self-fulfilling prophecy type of thing. The problem of course is that this changes their mental balance, and if something comes that challenge their world view they will get angry, like the addict you try to reason with. If something happens to make their religious worldview crumble, they get depressed, i.e. withdrawal syndrome.

On the other hand atheists are always on neutral. If new scientific evidence challenge their worldview, they'll just say "well, my experience of the world is the same, but my understanding of that experience must change". This is exactly to the contrary of the religious, who always thinks that his experience of the world itself is at stake. Religious people think their experience of the world includes a god, when in fact only their understanding of the world - gotten from the Bible or whatever source of authority - includes a god to explain Everything Else. This is why, I think, the theological debate hasn't advanced in two thousand years: religious types try to prove or disprove the experience of a god - which with the way they usually define god is impossible either way - whereas scientific types say with Laplace that a god is a superfluous hypothesis in the understanding of the experience we have of the world.

So atheists are more mentally stable and view the world and our experience of it in a more reasonable, detached manner. These, I think, are two things needed for humankind to not destroy itself with its own technological marvels. With this in min, it is no wonder that fundamentalists think global warming and weapons of mass destruction are "necessary" : they think the world is ok as it is and all is well with their god's plan, whereas they must also protect themselves against the guys that do not believe in their own god (the atheist commies and the islamic terrorists).

If we were talking about someone pissing in my water supply, would I really have to drink it, and then later prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it did some harm to me before I could expect law enforcement to get involved? Couldn't I just say "I don't consent to have pee put in my drinking water!" and get the police to stop people who wouldn't comply?

No. You can prove they pissed in your water. That's ample. If someone is dumping pollutants into that water, you could also prove that and seek damages. Same with pollutants in the air. You always have to mitigate damages. Let's be reasonable, please.

As for the "good reason" Al Gore is being sued for fraud, it's because there's a tremendous amount of right-wing political groups and corporations that want to discredit the entire environmental movement. A cost-effective way to do that is to try to tarnish the movement's most recognizable representative.

Speculation. A cost-effective way to discredit environmental movements is to pick on Gore? And, is it just insidious right-wing political groups? Maybe draw a dastardly twisty mustache on these shadowy groups while you're at it. The founder of the weather channel is evil! Kill him with fire!

You really should read more about what climate scientists who study this say.

I do, but only so far. I have other things that take my time, and reading every perspective of global warming isn't a top priority. It seems a lot of the 'the world is coming to an end' environmental prophecy is doom and gloom fear-mongering. It's a rabbit hole. A dark, scary rabbit hole.

So, are you going to donate to Campaign for Liberty? I am! Woohoo! They can come back to dip in my well anytime. Gay pun intended.

I think it's difficult to dispute that you weren't arguing against free trade in your previous post even if that wasn't your intention. The first paragraph seems clearly about it when you talk about being up in arms about your job going overseas, and I think in the second you misunderstand how capitalism works. But anyway, I don't think that we disagree on a great deal then. Like I stated in my original post, I believe in necessary government regulation and oversight in a capitalist economy, preventing deterimental effects like market failure, and financial, environmental or other crises.
>> ^Asmo:

>> ^RedSky:
Well, at this point you're simply arguing against free trade.
Would I be infuriated to lose a job because a firm has chosen to use cheaper labour from overseas? Sure. I go about preventing this from happening by studying about and working in an area that requires technical knowledge that cannot be easily substituted. As a comparison, would you be for sticking to old technologies purely because there are workers only trained in them? Should be have avoided embracing computation simply because previous generations were unfamiliar with them and stuck to letters and typewriters? Obviously given that these factors are mostly out of people's control, specific and unemployment assistance should be and is provided in most highly developed countries. The countries which don't have generous unemployment benefits are usually the ones that simply can't afford them. Typically though, they're the biggest relative beneficiaries of free trade though.
The better question should be, are willing up to give up the drastically lower prices, product variety and willing to scare of businesses who bring employment? Because you can bet that if you restrict companies from laying off workers in favor of cheaper employment overseas, they'll move overseas in droves to countries which do not and you'll have created a self fulfilling prophecy.
Free trade works two ways as well, which people seem to blissfully forget. Where do you think developing countries go to get their technical expertise?
Free trade leads to lower prices not higher profits. When all firms lower their wage costs, this creates the incentive to lower prices and capture more market share. Once one company in an industry does that, everyone follows suit. If that doesn't happen, it's a failure of competition policy and anti-trust and has nothing to do with free trade.
No offence, but I honestly think you should take Economics 101, or at least Wikipedia the basic concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand


None taken, but you've become so impressed with your own rhetoric (and wandered off in to free trade) that you've ignored the key element...
Exploitation. Foreign outsourcing was an example of 'free' trade (rather than 'fair' trade). But exploitation wears many coats. Usury rates on credit cards combined with stagnant wages, for example. Or sub prime mortgages for another. Destroying the environment to squeeze the last few drops of resources out.
And this is the core of the penultimate capitalist ideal (as opposed to individual flavours). Accumulate wealth. The more corners you cut, the faster you can accumulate wealth. Then you die and someone else get's it. Yay, you win.
Regulation, fair trade, competition laws etc are all ideals forced upon capitalists because people generally recognise that capitalism without checks = a disaster (BP + gulf, Union Carbide/Bhopal disaster etc). There is nothing wrong with working and expecting fair recompense for your labours but too often these labours aren't honest. They game the system and exploit (there's that word again) not only the workers but the customers as well so the man in the middle can make as much cash as possible.
ps. For the record, I don't have an issue with fair trade and the commensurate rise in prices if quality rises with it. That's the whole point of fair trade, not increasing wages for sweatshop quality.

>> ^RedSky:

Well, at this point you're simply arguing against free trade.
Would I be infuriated to lose a job because a firm has chosen to use cheaper labour from overseas? Sure. I go about preventing this from happening by studying about and working in an area that requires technical knowledge that cannot be easily substituted. As a comparison, would you be for sticking to old technologies purely because there are workers only trained in them? Should be have avoided embracing computation simply because previous generations were unfamiliar with them and stuck to letters and typewriters? Obviously given that these factors are mostly out of people's control, specific and unemployment assistance should be and is provided in most highly developed countries. The countries which don't have generous unemployment benefits are usually the ones that simply can't afford them. Typically though, they're the biggest relative beneficiaries of free trade though.
The better question should be, are willing up to give up the drastically lower prices, product variety and willing to scare of businesses who bring employment? Because you can bet that if you restrict companies from laying off workers in favor of cheaper employment overseas, they'll move overseas in droves to countries which do not and you'll have created a self fulfilling prophecy.
Free trade works two ways as well, which people seem to blissfully forget. Where do you think developing countries go to get their technical expertise?
Free trade leads to lower prices not higher profits. When all firms lower their wage costs, this creates the incentive to lower prices and capture more market share. Once one company in an industry does that, everyone follows suit. If that doesn't happen, it's a failure of competition policy and anti-trust and has nothing to do with free trade.
No offence, but I honestly think you should take Economics 101, or at least Wikipedia the basic concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand



None taken, but you've become so impressed with your own rhetoric (and wandered off in to free trade) that you've ignored the key element...

Exploitation. Foreign outsourcing was an example of 'free' trade (rather than 'fair' trade). But exploitation wears many coats. Usury rates on credit cards combined with stagnant wages, for example. Or sub prime mortgages for another. Destroying the environment to squeeze the last few drops of resources out.

And this is the core of the penultimate capitalist ideal (as opposed to individual flavours). Accumulate wealth. The more corners you cut, the faster you can accumulate wealth. Then you die and someone else get's it. Yay, you win.

Regulation, fair trade, competition laws etc are all ideals forced upon capitalists because people generally recognise that capitalism without checks = a disaster (BP + gulf, Union Carbide/Bhopal disaster etc). There is nothing wrong with working and expecting fair recompense for your labours but too often these labours aren't honest. They game the system and exploit (there's that word again) not only the workers but the customers as well so the man in the middle can make as much cash as possible.

ps. For the record, I don't have an issue with fair trade and the commensurate rise in prices if quality rises with it. That's the whole point of fair trade, not increasing wages for sweatshop quality.

Well, at this point you're simply arguing against free trade.

Would I be infuriated to lose a job because a firm has chosen to use cheaper labour from overseas? Sure. I go about preventing this from happening by studying about and working in an area that requires technical knowledge that cannot be easily substituted. As a comparison, would you be for sticking to old technologies purely because there are workers only trained in them? Should be have avoided embracing computation simply because previous generations were unfamiliar with them and stuck to letters and typewriters? Obviously given that these factors are mostly out of people's control, specific and unemployment assistance should be and is provided in most highly developed countries. The countries which don't have generous unemployment benefits are usually the ones that simply can't afford them. Typically though, they're the biggest relative beneficiaries of free trade though.

The better question should be, are willing up to give up the drastically lower prices, product variety and willing to scare of businesses who bring employment? Because you can bet that if you restrict companies from laying off workers in favor of cheaper employment overseas, they'll move overseas in droves to countries which do not and you'll have created a self fulfilling prophecy.

Free trade works two ways as well, which people seem to blissfully forget. Where do you think developing countries go to get their technical expertise?

Free trade leads to lower prices not higher profits. When all firms lower their wage costs, this creates the incentive to lower prices and capture more market share. Once one company in an industry does that, everyone follows suit. If that doesn't happen, it's a failure of competition policy and anti-trust and has nothing to do with free trade.

No offence, but I honestly think you should take Economics 101, or at least Wikipedia the basic concepts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microeconomics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_debate>> ^Asmo:

Of course not but outsourcing to foreign countries means someone local loses their job, right? What's the difference in service apart from the language barrier? Would you take a massive paycut to ensure your job didn't go overseas? I think you'd be rather up in arms about it.
In your attempts to simplify it down to "oh well, they need jobs too" you've ignored the core root of capitalism. The only thing that changes for the company is they get greater profits while they exploit people (and perhaps a few complaints about language barriers). The workers are doing the same job but getting paid far less. Working longer, harder for less money in, for the most part, worse conditions. And local workers are now unemployed (which for the most part ain't the cushy dole train available in Aus).
Where's the regulatory oversight now?

as of 1:05 CST there are a total of 3 sifts in the top 15 with the word 'boobs' in the title.....the GenjiKilpatrick prophecy is coming into fruition...the great boobsift is upon us....
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

I feel videosift is slowly evolving into nothing but an archive of obscure non-porngraphic boob vids..

as of 1:05 CST there are a total of 3 sifts in the top 15 with the word 'boobs' in the title.....the GenjiKilpatrick prophecy is coming into fruition...the great boobsift is upon us....

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
I feel videosift is slowly evolving into nothing but an archive of obscure non-porngraphic boob vids..

>> ^thinker247:

Such a divisive character. Don't worry, in three days go see the stone rolled away from his profile page.


THE PROPHECY IS FULFILLED!>> ^chicchorea:

Why? Whatever would make you ask that?
That was easier and faster than I expected.
Now...breathe deeply and count backwards from one hundred...you won't feel a th.......

Alrighty then...#10 Scalpel

QUICK DRAW THAT CURTAIN!

Well...beggars canyon is useless if nobody uses it. It's a working self fulfilling prophecy. If more people believe it's relevant then it's relevant.

I wonder if this was done around the time Prophecy was released... I could see that being the inspiration for this.

Blind followers of the "chosen ones" mentality because they think this will help to ensure their passage to heaven due to fulfillment of a fabled prophecy is reminiscent of how suicide bombers think they'll go to heaven for their cause. It's nearly the same mentality and is a result of brainwashing from the cult of the church.

Yeah, I get it,
You're an outcast.
Always under attack.
Always coming in last,
Bringing up the past.
No one owes you anything.
I think you need a shotgun blast,
A kick in the ass,
So paranoid. . .
Watch your back!!

Oh my, here we go...

Another lose cannon gone bi-polar
Slipped down, couldn't get much lower.
Quicksand's got no sense of humor.
I'm still laughing like hell.
You think that by crying to me
Looking so sorry that I'm gonna believe,
You've been infected by a social disease.
Well, then take your medicine.

[Chorus:]
I created the Sound of Madness.
Wrote the book on pain.
Somehow I'm still here,
To explain,
That the darkest hour never comes in the night.
You can sleep with a gun.
When you gonna wake up and fight... for yourself?

I'm so sick of this tombstone mentality,
If there's an afterlife,
Then it'll set you free.
But I'm not gonna part the seas
You're a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You think that crying to me,
Looking so sorry that I'm gonna believe,
You've been infected by a social disease.
Well, then take your medicine.

[Chorus]

I created the Sound of Madness.
Wrote the book on pain.
Somehow I'm still here,
To explain,
That the darkest hour never comes in the night.
You can sleep with a gun.
When you gonna wake up...
When you gonna wake up and fight...

[Chorus]

When you gonna wake up and fight... for yourself? [x3]

From what I know—and hopefully somebody will correct me if I'm wrong—is that there is no straight forward prophecy about the rapture. It was in fact contrived by the theologian named John Nelson Darby. Granted, it would have no more merit if it were in the bible, but it's just funny how so many take this idea as actual scripture, when really it's just a far fetched interpretation, at best.