Wikileaks changed ‘climate’ rather than the ‘weather’…

Wikileaks is in trouble.

You can sort of see why Bank of America, which Assange said in December would be WikiLeaks’ next target, with the release of documents that would produce a scandal as big as Enron, might not want to fund an organisation which wanted to bring about its downfall, and why some other financial institutions might feel the same way. What’s harder to see is why a man whose website exists to “expose bastards” should be surprised when some of the people he thinks are bastards actually behave like bastards. And particularly since the “bastards” seem to include anyone with any authority, or power.

And towards the end she makes this telling point:

WikiLeaks did change the world, and not too many teenage rebels wanting to “get the bastards” can say they’ve done that. It has made sure that no organisation on the face of the planet, including the government of the most powerful country in the world, can be confident that information it wants to be secret will stay secret. That will make some people doing bad things very uneasy. It will also make some people doing good things in difficult circumstances uneasy, and might even make the good things more difficult to bring about.
But WikiLeaks doesn’t care about people doing good things in difficult circumstances, unless the good thing is speaking what it would like to call truth to what it would like to call power. “If material is suppressed, we must see it as a blockage,” says Assange, “and alleviate the problem. That way, we get to justice.”

  • Alias

    “But one thing I’m pretty sure the world doesn’t want, or need, is any more unscrupulous, uncompromising, and psychotically self-justifying fanatics.”

    Christina Patterson finishes her article with man-playing after spending mearly all of it delivering risible psychobabble to explain why Wikileaks is the spawn of a rebel without his medication…

    She forgets to mention that the organised campaign by the credit card companies to close Wikileaks was initiated prior to Assange’s counter attack and, therefore, is not the reason why those credit card companies blocked donations to Wikileaks.

    The US government made it illegal for US citizens to donate to Wikileaks but had no legal powers to compel other citizens not to donate. It did, however, have leverage to request that US-based credit card companies refuse donations worldwide to Wikileaks, and it duly applied that leverage.

    So what we have is a conspiracy by the US government to close Wikileaks. Christina Patterson is simply proffering propaganda to the support the state censorship to the effect that we shouldn’t care if Wikileaks is censored because, well, because she thinks Assange is a wee bit touched in the head.

    It’s not much of an argument, but every little helps (to borrow a slogan)…

  • aquifer

    Capital runs the show in the USA, try to close it down and capital fights back.

  • Neil

    But WikiLeaks doesn’t care about people doing good things in difficult circumstances, unless the good thing is speaking what it would like to call truth to what it would like to call power.

    Would like to call truth? She must mean the actual ‘truth’ that most people refer to as ‘truth’.

    to what it would like to call power

    Huh? Who do they tell the truth to? Everyone, everywhere? Maybe she’s inadvertantly accurate there. Wikileaks I imagine may like to call all people everywhere ‘power’ though that’s sadly not the case.