3-Dec-10 News -- Iran/Arab relations roiled by Wikileaks

[John]

3-Dec-10 News -- Iran/Arab relations roiled by Wikileaks memos

Americans are oblivious to foreign policy issues

** 3-Dec-10 News -- Iran/Arab relations roiled by Wikileaks memos
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e101203#e101203

Contents:
"Wikileaks a story of frustrated nihilism"
"Iran/Arab relations roiled by Wikileaks memos"
"Buy the dip"
"Additional links"
Americans are oblivious to foreign policy issues
86-year-old Saudi King Abdullah recuperating in New York
Egypt says that neither Fatah nor Hamas wants peace agreement
South Koreans increasingly distrust China over North Korea

[ridgel]

Calling Assange nihilistic (death seeking) is a bit extreme for a man who heads an organization that posts information on his website. Ted Kazinsky - now there's a nihilist, sending bombs through the mail as he wrote end-of-the-world manifestos. What Assange is doing is pissing off the U.S. government - which history generally views more fondly than the people living at the time. I bet a lot of people were foaming at the mouth when McCarthy went on his anti-communist hunt. Fifty years later he's universally viewed as a blowhard idiot and an aberation. Likewise the leaks of the pentagon papers had people shouting treason at the time. Years later Ellsberg is a respected author and journalist who could get invited on any major news program just by suggesting it.

If Assange is killed he will be remembered as a martyr to a military industrial complex that wasted the wealth of a once-great nation. If he lives his actions will be remembered as a triumph of truth and the human spirit over the faceless "team-player" bureaucracy that has U.S. military presence in a hundred countries around the world while our infrastructure crumbles at home.

You just have to look at the actions of the current governments to realize how desperate they are to hold onto their corrupt power. They trump up a "sex" charge of not using a condom, then describe it as "rape" in the wholly-corporate-owned mass media and get Interpol to issue a warrant. They pressure U.S. corporations like paypal and amazon to deny service to wikileaks - as if that could stop an encrypted file from being sent across the internet to anyone that really wanted it. They accuse him of treason - despite the fact that he is an Australian and is only re-posting information that other people within their own organizations actually leaked. It's desperate flailing by a corrupt, incompetent crew.

[John]

Dear Rob,

> Calling Assange nihilistic (death seeking) is a bit extreme for a
> man who heads an organization that posts information on his
> website. Ted Kazinsky - now there's a nihilist, sending bombs
> through the mail as he wrote end-of-the-world manifestos. What
> Assange is doing is pissing off the U.S. government - which
> history generally views more fondly than the people living at the
> time. I bet a lot of people were foaming at the mouth when
> McCarthy went on his anti-communist hunt. Fifty years later he's
> universally viewed as a blowhard idiot and an aberation. Likewise
> the leaks of the pentagon papers had people shouting treason at
> the time. Years later Ellsberg is a respected author and
> journalist who could get invited on any major news program just by
> suggesting it.

When I refer to Generation-Xers as nihilistic, I'm not saying that
they want to blow up the world. What I'm saying is that they want to
destroy the infrastructure put in place by the GIs, Silents and
Boomers, and start all over again with their own fantasy
infrastructure. That fits Assange completely.

The contrast with Ellsberg is instructive. Ellsberg was targeting one
policy - the Vietnam war. His objective was to end the war, not
change the world.

Assange is targeting the entire world diplomatic infrastructure, and
he sees himself as some kind of god that's going to change history.
It's a big difference.

John

[Higgenbotham]

Assange is targeting the entire world diplomatic infrastructure, and
he sees himself as some kind of god that's going to change history.
It's a big difference.

John

John,

Let's use Ben Bernanke, a Boomer I just wrote about in the other thread, as an example. My view of Bernanke is that he's targeting the entire world financial structure. He sees himself as some kind of god who's going to change history. In his mind, he's going to prevent a Depression but, due to his incompetence, he's going to likely blow up the entire world financial structure instead.

I don't see Assange as being a primary destructive force (you posted something to this effect); I see him as someone who is trying to destroy destructive forces by exposing them for what they are. Some say that certain things need to be secret to maintain the political/economic/social order and should not be exposed. I agree with that on its face. However, the new technologies cannot allow the current order with its dependence on secrecy to be maintained anyway. That's a major reason why I view the former USSR and the US as two sides of the same coin. The dissidents helped bring the USSR down through self publishing. Is Solzhenitsyn a villain? What's the difference between Solzhenitsyn and Assange? I see them as two sides of the same coin, using current technologies to expose wrongdoing of the state. One could argue that the US doesn't maintain physical gulags and use physical torture on its citizens. I would counter that the US maintains mental gulags and uses mental torture on its citizens. Look at what the former Soviets are saying about Assange.

Bernanke is operating within the system whereas Assange is not. Bernanke is probably operating out of ignorance and what I call "The Boomer proclivity to proselytize, pontificate, prevaricate and puff", whereas Assange is operating out of vengeance of some sort. Ignorance is no excuse. As an Xer, I find Bernanke's ignorance abhorrent, revolting, despicable, etc. I find Assange's particular brand of vengeance to be sweet revenge on the oppressors and love every minute of it. I can't wait for him to expose the banks. Other than that, I see these 2 men as 2 sides of the same coin in the big picture. They are both working diligently to break down the current world political/economic/social order.

[John]

Dear Higgie,

I really can't go along with that description of Bernanke. I don't
see him as a world changer at all. I see him as someone who figured
out how the Fed could have made a "minor adjustment" in 1930 and
prevented the Great Depression, and who has tried to make the same
"minor adjustment" now, but it's not working, and he's becoming more
and more desperate. I see him as someone whom the world considers to
be an expert, and now that he's in a position to apply his expertise,
he realizes that the world is crashing and that's he's going to be the
one everyone blames.

Assange is not attempting some "minor adjustment." He's trying to
bring down the whole system. Now, maybe you think that's a good
thing, and that the whole system SHOULD come down. I'm not passing
judgment on that. I'm just saying that he's trying to destroy the
whole system and start with a blank slate, and that's what nihilism is
about.

You say that he's trying to "destroy the destructive forces." Well,
yes, but the destructive forces are all the institutions put in place
by the GIs and Silents. Bernanke isn't trying to destroy anything --
although he may be blamed for destroying everything.

John

P.S.: By the way, I've just upgraded the forum software to a new
version, supposedly better and more secure. If anything strange
happens to anyone, post the information in the Administrative
Discussion thread.

[Higgenbotham]

Assange is not attempting some "minor adjustment." He's trying to
bring down the whole system. Now, maybe you think that's a good
thing, and that the whole system SHOULD come down. I'm not passing
judgment on that. I'm just saying that he's trying to destroy the
whole system and start with a blank slate, and that's what nihilism is
about.

You say that he's trying to "destroy the destructive forces." Well,
yes, but the destructive forces are all the institutions put in place
by the GIs and Silents. Bernanke isn't trying to destroy anything --
although he may be blamed for destroying everything.

John

I haven't studied Assange, but your response prompted me to do some research. From what I thought I knew, I saw him as an individual who is attempting to remove corrupt elements and restore dignity. I found a couple of relevant passages that I believe accurately demonstrate the motivations of such a person. Some people view whistleblowers as narcissistic. As best I can remember, that view says whistleblowers are unable to conform to the give and take required to work within a system to improve it and instead turn on the system by exposing to outsiders. I look at that more as a question of to what extent a system is amenable to reform. Under the current generational constellation, it is probably not without an outside shock. Assange states pretty clearly that he is trying to provoke that shock in order to restore integrity and dignity.

As far as the heirarchy of values, the 3 archetypes other than the Nomad would probably say that maintaining the system is more important than restoring the integrity of the individual. That's how we got to where we are. Since the integrity of the Nomad archetype has been compromised since birth, I believe the Nomad considers restoring individual integrity as being the higher value and will do so even if the whole system must be brought down, but either reform or disintegration are acceptable in order to achieve that goal. As an Xer, I can affirmatively state that I agree with that goal and philosophy, as my first post indicated.

What do you think WikiLeaks mean for business? How do businesses need to adjust to a world where WikiLeaks exists?

WikiLeaks means it’s easier to run a good business and harder to run a bad business, and all CEOs should be encouraged by this. I think about the case in China where milk powder companies started cutting the protein in milk powder with plastics. That happened at a number of separate manufacturers.

Let’s say you want to run a good company. It’s nice to have an ethical workplace. Your employees are much less likely to screw you over if they’re not screwing other people over.

Then one company starts cutting their milk powder with melamine, and becomes more profitable. You can follow suit, or slowly go bankrupt and the one that’s cutting its milk powder will take you over. That’s the worst of all possible outcomes.

The other possibility is that the first one to cut its milk powder is exposed. Then you don’t have to cut your milk powder. There’s a threat of regulation that produces self-regulation.

It just means that it’s easier for honest CEOs to run an honest business, if the dishonest businesses are more effected negatively by leaks than honest businesses. That’s the whole idea. In the struggle between open and honest companies and dishonest and closed companies, we’re creating a tremendous reputational tax on the unethical companies.

No one wants to have their own things leaked. It pains us when we have internal leaks. But across any given industry, it is both good for the whole industry to have those leaks and it’s especially good for the good players.

But aside from the market as a whole, how should companies change their behavior understanding that leaks will increase?

Do things to encourage leaks from dishonest competitors. Be as open and honest as possible. Treat your employees well.

I think it’s extremely positive. You end up with a situation where honest companies producing quality products are more competitive than dishonest companies producing bad products. And companies that treat their employees well do better than those that treat them badly.

He had come to understand the defining human struggle not as left versus right, or faith versus reason, but as individual versus institution. As a student of Kafka, Koestler, and Solzhenitsyn, he believed that truth, creativity, love, and compassion are corrupted by institutional hierarchies, and by “patronage networks”—one of his favorite expressions—that contort the human spirit. He sketched out a manifesto of sorts, titled “Conspiracy as Governance,” which sought to apply graph theory to politics. Assange wrote that illegitimate governance was by definition conspiratorial—the product of functionaries in “collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population.” He argued that, when a regime’s lines of internal communication are disrupted, the information flow among conspirators must dwindle, and that, as the flow approaches zero, the conspiracy dissolves. Leaks were an instrument of information warfare.

[Higgenbotham]

I've been searching for something that articulates my concept of the "mental gulag" and the other comments made in the 2 posts above, as well as explain what I believe to be the world view and motivation of someone like Assange. This essay from 2002 does that better than I would have ever been able to.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Educate/irrational_ed.htm

[Tom Acre]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't GenDyn speak to group trends rather than individuals. Rather than whether Assange is a nihilist or a narcissist or a sociopath or whatever, it seems more relevant how everyone reacts to the information that is now in the open. His narcissism isn't even as relevant as Obama's; in that as Obama was elected, he illuminates larger generational trends among the five or so generations that now vote.

[Higgenbotham]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't GenDyn speak to group trends rather than individuals. Rather than whether Assange is a nihilist or a narcissist or a sociopath or whatever, it seems more relevant how everyone reacts to the information that is now in the open. His narcissism isn't even as relevant as Obama's; in that as Obama was elected, he illuminates larger generational trends among the five or so generations that now vote.

Yes, John is pointing out that Assange is acting consistently with his characterization of the Gen X archetype as being nihilistic. As an archetype, Nomads value individuality over community and can be perceived as nihilistic because their actions tend to tear down community (or institutions). The question is why do they do that and what are they trying to accomplish (many whistleblowers are early Nomads). Are they really trying to destroy institutions? As a Nomad, my answer is that they are trying to promote individual integrity, as strong communities can only arise from higher (enlightenment) principles of honor, liberty, etc., that have degraded over multiple generational cycles. A Fourth Turning is a time where the cycle is transitioning from maximum individualism to rising community. So I think it will be very interesting and informative to see how Assange is dealt with.

PS I could have this wrong. Strauss and Howe pages approximately 90 to 105 discuss some of this. The question in my mind is what does it mean at this time in history. It seems like this Wikileaks thing is pretty important, especially due to the fact that there is probably going to be a big dump of Bank of America's files within a month or two. And it was at the time that became known that it seems the heat was turned up on Assange.

[Tom Acre]

... doesn't GenDyn speak to group trends rather than individuals...

Yes, John is pointing out ... characterization of the Gen X archetype ...

I'm questioning the value of analyzing individual intent from the GenDyn perspective. It seems a bit like finding yourself in the path of a tornado and pondering which direction a sparrow caught in it would like to fly.