The Outlaws Among Us -- Regarding Julian Assange, Wikileaks

The existence and popularity of Wikileaks draws its power from the following:

1. An intensively active international intelligence community;
2. A general lack of transparency in the operations of government; and
3. A general suspicion held by John Q. Smith and co. that there is a serious disconnect somewhere on all levels of government from local to international between Right Knowing and Wrong Doing. (or maybe the suspicion is that Right Knowing and Wrong Doing are connected?)

Give a dog a bone and if the dog's not hungry or bones are not for dogs, then the bone lays there unused and unneeded. But if the dog bites, that's proof the bone was just the right thing. Wikileaks is that bone---and there's voracity in the gnawing by its intended audience. Is there any question as to the reason why?

Undeniable that Wikileaks creates apparent satisfaction of a particular need for a particularly large portion of the global population---the need for information; about one's government, which is essentially information about one's self. A resource like this is inevitable in an Information Age where war and hostile foreign policy are substantiated by claims derived from an intelligence community that puts all its info chips into a lock box only the kings can see.  

Naturally many democratic-minded people don't like feeling like subjects. We want to see for ourselves who Our government is, who Our enemies really are, so We can make determination for ourselves. When governments have golden age they operate so well the masses never get hungry for this sort of information. When they don't, some form of upheaval occurs---a natural check to despotism. In this case, Wikileaks presents a check against information czardom. Because truly, we are in an age where it is possible to deliver a true Democracy to people, to inform them and by their informed minds to draw consensus for right action out of right knowing.

The Outlaw Among Us

Julian Assange, Founder of WikiLeaks

Julian Strange is not so special, except that he's oriented himself against the world's largest dragons---to take information from those in power and give it to those without. He activates a familiar archetype in our minds, like Robin Hood, the outlaw. Deconstructing outlaws, you always find their existence to be a product of the times not the individual. Their coming is inevitable for whatever pressures the tectonics of "Inner Party, Outer Party and Proles" build up. As these various plates move about their business, the pressures created need to be released. The creation of a website like Wikileaks is just a symptom of that need for release---the need would be there whether Wikileaks existed or not.

I take heart knowing humanity's behavior is still linked and subject to natural law. Riverbeds flood, earthquake beds shake, active volcanoes plume red and blow high, all as a natural working of pressure systems. The arival of an outlaw on scene is like this, a sign that something is not right and lots and lots of people agree, overtly or secretly.  Of course, being human means attempting mastery over everything, including the earthquake, the flood and even the outlaw.

The Sheriff Hunts The Outlaw

If I were a leader in charge of bringing Dr. Strange down, I'd look through the outlaw canon: Hood, Billy the Kid,  Jesse James, John Dillinger. I'd start asking myself what they have and don't have in common. To find a weakness. Their murders and thefts were instantly forgiven by the folks of the day. The folks thought of them as heroes, even knights. And so they were protected by and concealed among the people. None of them were known to abuse women or children. Such knowledge would have cut into their heroic stature. Would have called upon impulses in the hearts of the folks to resist them and leave them isolated. No such knowledge was ever spread around about those outlaws, and so they were able to keep on trucking for many years each.

Julian Assange's case is much different.  Who knows if he really went crazy ape on a woman or not? But if I were in charge of bringing this Strangelove down, I'd allege the story regardless. Just to be accused is enough to be tainted. And I do not put past the people, who are actually are in charge, that dirty stories might be fabricated to cut into the celebrity of a rising outlaw and make him appear less heroic than he actually is. Though nature's pressures are constant, humans still find better ways to build dams and flood walls and earthquake proof buildings. We apply these natural energies in our human wars to wage dis-information campaigns against our enemies.

Remember who Julian Assange's Enemy is: The Intelligence Community.
Remember: The Intelligence Community scores an A++ in Counter Intelligence (Dis-Information). Remember: Assange raided their closet, they HAVE to take him down at all costs.
Don't make it too easy for them to do this.

Does Access Equal Permission?


As for the super secret government information now flagging like Sunday laundry on the Wikileaks' line---I always turn this question over----does access equal permission?

If I were a psychologist, I might with experience have access to my patient's mind by clues he gives me in his body language and word choice. But I wouldn't have permission to hit him with a, say level-5 assessment if he's only ready to hear about level-1. And if I were a gentleman caller, taking a young lady on a stroll, though I may outweigh her by 100 pounds and could easily leverage my weight advantage to gain more access to her body than merely holding hands in the moonlight, permission still needs to be given. There is definitely a time and place, a set of circumstances, where access does not equal permission.

However, in the realm of martial arts, which is not limited to monks practicing kung fu----in the realm of armies and black ops and cyber ops and guerrilla tactics, access does equal permission.  If you can't protect your throat, get out of the grand master's house or don't cry holy rain when he busts your adam's apple.

Julian Assange is not so strange, nor very special in that the need and demand for Wikileaks-type hackproducts and hackers is present and the hackers are out there. Their actions are meant to be called to question---not in the court of laws that they stand defiantly against---but in the court of opinions they hope to capture by revealing themselves and their actions to us. We're meant to look at the whole thing and ask ourselves Why? and try to get a real good answer.

The Outlaw vs. The Sheriff = Happier Sherwood

This Wikileaks vs. Intelligence Community business is an example of a conversation of the ages, as outlined by Hegel's Dialectic. Its happening right now. Governments and policies constitute The Thesis. Along comes these hacker Maries and they make The Anti-Thesis. Somehow after the horns lock and all the banging about runs its course, The Synthesis will be achieved.

Part of that somehow is the change of attitude and opinion by the general populace. Don't miss your opportunity to see this showdown for what its worth. See past the hype. Don't let your eyes be hijacked by disinformation. Participate in the discussion, and help render The Synthesis.