Wikileaks - The Proposition - The Stakes

I completely agree with you up to one point. That this is the end of the gate keeping structure. In my opinion that is a little optimistic. I would say the proverbial gates have been badly damaged, and that the elements of our society which utilize those gates to disseminate information to further their own agenda is certainly injured and scared. The structure we live under is not yet gone.

I think it must be considered that the reason things have worked as they have for so long is that in many ways we as a population are complicit in our own deception. We have always been aware we were being lied to. Or at least being given an altered version of the truth. There have always been those that have informed us those lies, but so often people have turned their heads.

What wikileaks has done, in my opinion, is not only badly damaged the gates, but forced us the population to look and see the cracks in the screen we've been starring at so long. Unfortunately many of us will carry on listening to the party line as it were. That is what many people know and are comfortable with. However, from now on, those who wish the play along will find it harder to to do so, now no matter where you turn your head, denial is becoming a much more complicated procedure to achieve.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


What a pleasure to look into the face of a real Patriot.
Well done!

FREEDOM.
FREEDOM.

Great video man, you got some balls, not everyone could turn a camera on and speak like that. It is way easier to just stay anonymous and type words. You were right on when you said the "free internet" can help people to realize real life is even less freedom. That was one of the catalysts for me, the "free internet", you can find information on almost everything, if you look hard enough, and not have to pay someone for the priveledge.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


it was nice to her your thoughts in person, well kind of in person and i accept what you are saying and hope you are right about it. but we should be aware how the whole situation can be used against the people and how it can be used to restrict further the flow of information as well as how it can free it. i accept your points about them not shutting down the internet and what others have said on ATS about why the will not do it, but it is still possible they could go after and shut down boards like this. leaving only the ones that are 'filtered' and turning the internet eventually into an other form of filtered information for the masses.

i am not saying wikileaks is not a good thing in principle, i can see the good that can come out of it, but we must also be aware of the bad or flip side, regardless of if it is wikileaks goal or assange's goal.

assange will be standing trial by the sounds of it, for doing nothing different to what the main stream media did, yet i somehow doubt any charges will be brought against them, they will only go for that they do not already control, conspiracy theory sites and freedom to say what you want on the internet.

they have to get the public on board to accept these changes, hence the tone towards assange and wikileaks in the media. yet you would think the media would have a different tone, seeing as though they did the same as assange, so by them criminalizing him they are criminalizing their own actions also, yet there they are trying to convince the public it was a bad thing and put them in danger, trying to shape public opinion towards 'dangerous' information, and trying to convict somebody in the public eye, whilst acting all innocent even though they have done the same thing.

there was also a thread posted here about wikileaks wallpapers, everybody is getting excited that some of the things in the poster is a taste of what is to come, and i hope they are right. but people should also be aware it could just be to link wikileaks to conspiracy theory websites, for the public's consumption.

there are declassified documents out there that i feel are more eyebrow raising if the public were aware of them than anything wikileaks has released so far. but regardless of what we think about it, we have all got to hope it all turns out for the best, but just being aware of the possible dangers or the way it can all be used against people, is better than being suddenly taken by surprise if it turns that way. it does not mean i or others do not support wikileaks in principle and what it is attempting to do on the surface, it's just like saying, hey guys beware, here is what could happen, then people are aware and will know instantly if it takes a turn and goes bad, working against the people rather than for them.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Very Astute analysis. I'm totally, unequivically in agreement with what you said. Also i concur as to the gravity of the situation at hand with respect to Wikileaks, the internet, gatekeeping and so on.

This is it, it really doesn't get bigger than this in this world, in this realm. This battle is a revolutionist wet dream. The little guy just found a big gun and he's gonna use it and when he does he's gonna strike a death blow to Goliaith.

Folks, think of what these fascists are saying to Us. We can spy on you, monitor your emails, your phone calls, we can force you to go through body scanners, etc. But you can't do the same to Us.

How do they sell this perspective to Us??

"If we, the government, don't have the ability to keep these secrets then we can't protect you and your whole way of life (provided and CONTROLLED by the same government) will be irreparably harmed and you will be in danger."

Let me re-phrase that so you can really understand what they are saying:

" If we, the government / corporations, can't lie to you and control the thoughts and images that enter into your brain, then our power over you will cease to exist."

Where do i sign up????

Nice job, nice thread. I usually just read but i was compelled to write. Thank you for lighting a fire in me. Lets get it on!!!!!!! F-in bring it.

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by Maxmars

 

Tired and sluggish as I am.. I have to respond to your post! Thank you, by the way

Some questions and issues...

...in the last century or so, as our governance became increasingly focused on commerce, ...Secrets were kept about economics, finance, corporate undertakings, and soon the ill-defined and mostly closeted relationships between transnational corporate entities and our (or other) governments (acting as a member of the corporate community.)

The "corporate community" you describe is global - and purportedly places transnational corporations on an equal footing national governments.

Q:
* Do you see that such partnerships implicitly define -and establish- global corporate government?
* Do you think transnational corporations and national governments should be equal?

Essentially, my perception calls into question certain paradigms about organizational structures, on the first point specifically;

As a collective organism, mankind has learned unequivocally that it cannot be ruled by a person. The reason being that as all people are equal, all people are equally prone to conduct that is self-serving, and even if the individual is not seeking vainglory, authority over others places them in a position to engender the worst sort of abuse. Most mythologies, philosophies, and "common understandings" teach either through allegory or parable or direct admonition that all people are equal, and leadership without consent is a futile exercise in relatively short-lived violent oppression.

Socially, we have 'evolved' a common wisdom that motivates us to create systems of governance which we can tolerate. The systems include certain axiomatic principles, which we like to think are either natural, divine, or self-evident laws. In my opinion the fundamental truth of personal equality is the grandest of all concepts.

Generally speaking, we accept 'temporary' allocations of authority and access to serve, and we apparently rarely accept the notion of leadership by force as tolerable. Now here's the rub...

Corporations, while legally protected and empowered as citizens in the least (while in practice their status of late is much higher,) have some characteristics that distinctly separate them from a 'person'.

Allowing corporations to govern without considering these characteristics is folly. Corporations are immortal.... If a person were to seize rule, say for example, in the manner of a charismatic leader establishing a totalitarian regime, his mortality guarantees that the leadership will be subject to a finite period. His plans may mature past his death, but nothing can prevent the changes that the subsequent leader and time will force upon the original tyrants rule.

Corporations do not die. They either commit suicide by purposeful termination, a conscious decision to dissolve itself, or it is subsumed by another corporation. Once under corporate rule, the only thing that can end it barring suicide would be outright rebellion.

Also, in the reality of the law, corporations exists at the whim of the authority which grants them a charter. In other words in a bizarre, perhaps ironic way, humans have succeeded in creating an immortal entity larger and more powerful than himself... the immortal corporation.

These trifles complicate the idea of accepting the viability of corporate governance. Corporations are 'held' by boards... these boards 'own' the corporation and define its character and conduct. This would mean essentially that the governed would be, in effect, "owned" by a board.

On the second point above, I do not believe that corporations can exercise civic, judicial, or ideological authority. They should be barred from existing outside of any nations' authority to terminate their existence. In that way, they would become more like a true person, who must face mortality. Many different corporations have opted frequently to offend many different nation's security and or law by participating in support of wars, engaging in massive economic attacks, and interfering with the public good; all driven by the distinctly unpatriotic notion of 'anything for profit' and 'greed is good.'

Since a corporation cannot die, and cannot be compelled to serve the community, it must never enjoy the protection of citizenship. Corporations should not be empowered to own other corporations. Only one layer of corporate protection is necessary for honest business. Corporations are not people, they are created by a charter and that charter should be iron clad. A corporation cannot face it's accuser because a corporation is not a person, it cannot go to jail, or even be punished because it is not a real thinking living person.

A corporation is a tool. It can no more effectively run a nation than a monkey wrench can.

This is to say that when we talk about corporate governance, we are pretending it isn't in reality a bunch of people hiding behind a corporate identity running everything... and with a 'front' that will never perish.

Issue:
* Such "equality" gives a great deal more power to corporations because governments are saddled with far more responsibilities than the mandate to profit: governments must protect civil rights, their people, etc. It's a losing battle in negotiations.

That's the real problem isn't it? By definition, a government exists at the will of the governed - to serve them. Corporations exist at the whim of the government - to serve itself. Merge the two, as has clearly happened, and you have a catastrophic combination of corporate agenda eclipsing the mandate of the governed.

A term established under international law with the North American "Free Trade" Agreement - and subsequently exported around the world in other "free trade" agreements.

You know, it seems karmic that we allowed businessmen to convince us that they were the best suited to manage the governments day-to-day activity, and then were surprised when the key to national survival became 'business.'

Today the corporate and governmental are no longer separate... and certainly not separate in the manner of the civil and the governmental.

One of the many travesties that needs to be set right.

Well, despite the oaths of offices around the world, despite the ideological and sometimes even religious mandates of public service, the drafters of our principles of governance actually addressed specifically what we can and should do if the people decide they do not wish to be so governed. But our government recently further reduced that option to criminal behavior, dissent is no longer 'reasonable' to them. (All the while they exponentially increased prison populations and capacity. No wonder some more sensitive souls worry.)

The government has the power and mandate to police itself. Yet it does not... apparently.

You see, as citizens, we have no real interest in the systemic and mechanical maintenance of the information of government,

Oh yes I do.

I don't doubt you. Sadly, many people would rather take a nap than actually engage in some reasoned examination of the state of affairs. They require a sense of immediacy that can only be provided by vicarious entertainment, or gross materialism.

... it avails us nothing to know that a certain consul in some other country might be willing to open discussions on diplomatic negotiations for regulating trade subsidies, if the right motivation were provided.

Oh yes it does. Particularly if one of the terms negotiated requires "confidentiality" between government and corporation, and prohibits government from being responsible for and accountable to its citizens.

Such a development however would be a function of corporate loyalty or personal gain, and is a flaw of unwarranted trust in the judgment of a person who was appointed by a person who we were sold by popular media and psychology-savvy public relations people.

I mean, if a person of bad intent is in a position of authority, it is not the existence of the position that's the problem, it's the manner of filling (and overseeing) it that requires review.

I vote for personal sovereignty.

Me too.

Nicely done SD. Most appreciated.

The wild west days of the internet were allowed to get the public to give up freely their right to self incrimilization. Now they have 400 hundred pages of offenses on every person for the things they have done in the last 20 years or so.

That box on the interrogation table after you have been flagged contains all the dirt they have compiled against you.

Wikileaks IS a gatekeeper, true, in that they are holding information back that they have and releasing it at their own pace.

That said, I see them as more a doctor, lol, giving a really sick patient an IV drip. Too fast a drip and I think the patient would just die. That said, once the patient gets BETTER, he can start drinking whatever he wants at his own rate.

Originally posted by hadriana
Wikileaks IS a gatekeeper, true, in that they are holding information back that they have and releasing it at their own pace.

Whilst I understand why it may seem that way to many folks, I will try to explain why this line of reasoning is in my humble opinion flawed.

If WL was acting in a gatekeeping capacity there is no reason for them to tell you how many total documents they have in store so that one can make a determination of how much they are holding back. Meaning that the only reason one can see them as a gatekeeper is because they gave them a reference point to perceive it that way. But gatekeepers never let you know how much they are allowing you to see relative to the whole.

The question then becomes why is WL releasing cables at this rate as opposed to all at once? To me at least, the answer to this question is simple and is based on learning from relatively short history.

The last batch of documents they had was The Iraq War Logs which they did release all at once. How many people do you think read all 700,000 + of them? I suspect the answer is next to no one. So in fact what happened people relied on the media, the gatekeepers themselves, to let them know what was important and what was not. The result is people making the decision that there was nothing of significance in them because that's what they were told. Fact is that there may or may not have been anything of significance contained in those diaries but almost no one can claim that with certainty for almost no one read them themselves.

So the lesson learned is, tell people how much you got, and release it at a pace which they can absorb it without being totally dependent on the gatekeepers.

Does that make sense?

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Nice vid dude

I would really like to agree with you but i have an issue that s quite simple.
Why the media are giving so much exposure to wikileaks ? If it is a genuine attempt to uncover secrets, they would just ignore it and talk about useless junk.
But the MSM is actually giving echo to the "you are being lied", and thats something i cant understand...
Why wikileaks ?

PS : Until WL release some really important lies ( topics like apollo 11 or JFK ) i will stay mistrustful. You know, i have taken the habit of being lied to heh -_-

reply to post by Fedge


Hi schro, good work there and thanks for taking the time to give us this video.

You know the MSM publishes the WL stories safe for consumption. All the dodgy backroom deals, foreign gov corruption and saudi elite orgies are not mentioned.
Too many forget that the info WL releases is not only for the people but also politicians and officials worldwide, they now can access all this data and discover the truth behind their so called 'special relationships'.

Schrodinger, well done sir!

You have nailed it! Spot on!

2010: The Year We Make Contact!

Yes, that is a very good insight, and gatekeeping, control and filtering of all information is what they have done for ages, and its over. They will not succeed, for many reasons, some of this has to do with cycles and more to life that meets the eye, in this duality type school, they're not going to get away with being the bullies on the playground any longer.

We also need to support Julian Assange, for example, solidarity, an not allowing martyrs, we all need to put in our support and insist that he be released and given a medal.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


SDog just giving a flag and a star will not be enough for the message you have posted...with you're permission I would like to share this message across.

Bravo. You are a real thinker and you care about real freedoms. I pray you are right, that the freedoms we have will expand and not disappear. The powerful know if they slowly take these freedoms away and fill our minds with rationalizations, that we will accept our captivity. That is the future I see, but I dearly hope that I am wrong and you are right.

Originally posted by Fedge
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

Nice vid dude

I would really like to agree with you but i have an issue that s quite simple.
Why the media are giving so much exposure to wikileaks ? If it is a genuine attempt to uncover secrets, they would just ignore it and talk about useless junk.
But the MSM is actually giving echo to the "you are being lied", and thats something i cant understand...
Why wikileaks ?

PS : Until WL release some really important lies ( topics like apollo 11 or JFK ) i will stay mistrustful. You know, i have taken the habit of being lied to heh -_-

edit on 11-12-2010 by Fedge because: (no reason given)

I too am wondering if Wikileaks may not be what it seems, that it may be a game the CIA is playing with us and the world. That said, I think this could very well backfire on them, by stirring people up.

But the real point of the OP and his fabulous video is that support for what Julian Assange seems to be is what IS RELEVANT. Gatekeeping IS RELEVANT. No matter if we are being fooled or not, the fact is people are waking up and taking notice about the very powerful games being played with real lives and people's real money.

If Wikileaks is not what it seems and it is run by some secret govt. operation…well, they will have opened Pandora's box and it will not be easily closed. Not easily closed at all.

Originally posted by Fedge
PS : Until WL release some really important lies ( topics like apollo 11 or JFK ) i will stay mistrustful. You know, i have taken the habit of being lied to heh -_-

edit on 11-12-2010 by Fedge because: (no reason given)

You may be waiting a long time for those sort of releases.
Wikileaks does not hold the entire secret history of mankind.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Id probably take it a step further... good vid... but in the age of the internet and in the age of everybody being able to talk to everybody... then what do we need these 'diplomats' for in the first place? The guy in the vid didnt sound like he was from akron, ohio.. but I have heard of that town in the US... and the typical answer you get from people is 'oh well thats just the way it is.. we need diplomats'... Why? To negotiate criminal behavior on our behalf? Thats what the wikileaks release really awakened people to... Try that same argument that Rudy Giulliani vs Ron Paul argument again once people realize the inner workings of how we deal in diplomacy worldwide... and try and say that they hate us for our freedoms... Wikileaks is the first step in attempting to remove the veil from the eyes of the majority of americans who through the corporatization of politics, advertising and essentially their own lives... They are breaking that bubble... I apologize to anyone who has had to deal with our stupid sh1t... this sometimes is just what it takes for a culture to wake up... and quite frankly we may or may not even know what those ramifications here in the US might mean... I'd like to think they will become self aware.. in the same way whatever age personally you noticed your own individuality and freedom growing up in your early teens.. hopefully something like that... theres 2 arguments... an argument for an awakening... or they can turn right over and go back to sleep... watching American Idol or Dancing with the stars...

I expect the latter but I wish and hope that it would be something else...

Originally posted by gringoboy
so in essence then there are individual gatekeepers who can no longer be trusted and this whole wiki stuff is going to encourage TPTB to have one location for running the web,

The reason the internet was designed in the first place was for military purposes,so that the head cannot be severed in the case of attack.We get to use the internet much like we get to use the gps nav systems in our cars.

I think that all this wikileaks stuff is kind of like the snakes tail swinging around and bashing the head,though one cannot do without the other,if either were cut off.

To have one location for the internet would defeat that purpose and become a strategic risk for your country.

Good OP SD