The Real Game

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
If you wish to truly understand the real game that is being played by Julian Assange and Wikileaks, you'll want to read the linked analysis, which I believe is spot on. The analysis uses early statements (circa 2006, pre-Wikileaks ?) of Assange to shed light on the matter.

The "game" is not what you most likely think it is.

And from all appearances thus far, it is not what many in the US government think it is.

No matter where you are on the question of Assange and Wikileaks .... whether you are someone who "used to admire them until they strayed from their original purpose ....." (they haven't strayed at all - they are doing precisely and exactly what they need to do, to cause the effect that they intend to cause)

Or whether you are someone who believes Assange and Wikileaks are an enemy and ought to be locked up/assassinated/whatever (.... woe unto those fools who fail to understand their enemies .....)

The piece below accurately describes what Wikileaks is doing (which isn't all that apparent), how they are doing it (which is very apparent), why they are doing it ...... and to what end:

Julian Assange and the Computer Conspiracy
 
Last edited:

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will LOL) but is Assange saying that he is doing this so that the Governments willl tighten up who gets to say what, how they send a memo, Less is better?

These wiki leaks are just to prove how lax security is & if he can get these memo's anyone can. So therefore he is doing everyone a favour by doing this?
:confused:
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Actually I think Rlent is trying to make a case that Assange is doing the "right thing" and there is a need for this attack to come externally to destroy the hidden or invisible government.

I happen to agree to a point but the issue for me and many like me are a few facts surrounding the way things are handled, one of them is that this is external and only focuses on the US opposed to any EU member, which is equally as secretive if not more and equally corrupt in both actions and reason.

The other fact that seems to be a bit of an issue is that Assange used systems within the US to launch his attack and when the US companies decided to sever their relationship with him, a further attack came from outside. There are other facts but no doubt Rlent will pick them apart.

Now with that said, the US citizens already knows that their government is a problem (part of a bigger problem), anyone can look around and see what's going on with the tea party and other organizations who are just now starting to get an actual voice. We as citizens know what they have done, not to the extent but enough to know to change things. As much as it is great to have access to this "so important" material, I think that a lot of people are upset with the continuing bashing of their country by foreigners, especially from those in the EU and that like other attacks in the past, it doesn't effect change but rather harden our resolve against the attacker.

AND

If there is a need to change things, it starts with and always will start with the people, not the critics. At this time, the worst time for us in our recent history, we are unable to change our government. It isn't a situation where we need or have to worry about trivial things in our lives like who did what in the state department, but rather we as a nation are focused on important things like putting food on our table. It is time consuming to change the government, even with the progress of the election, there is a lot of work to be done and a lot of convincing to be made. IF by chance Assange and wikileaks triggers anything immediate and possibly destructive, it is going to come from the few who are equally guilty and corrupt of those they are fighting. These right now are the ones who have the time, are funded by outside interests and who will not do it in a manner that should be done - through our process. Already you can see how the institutionalize media and the "bloggers" have come into our homes to tell us what to think and it seems to be rejected by the public at large.

The biggest threat to us, and the world is not the people in the agencies where these documents originate from, but it is where the entrenched will fight for their bureaucratic jobs. It is there that our fight has to take place first and then once that is finished, we can start opening up what needs to be open when other countries do the same.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will LOL) but is Assange saying that he is doing this so that the Governments willl tighten up who gets to say what, how they send a memo, Less is better?
He's doing it to reduce communication within a conspiracy (authoritarian government) - by making it dangerous to communicate internally within the conspiracy.

This causes the conspiracy (authoritarian government) to become stupid and unable to function.

BTW, his definition of "conspiracy" in this context isn't exactly what most would typically think of as conspiracy - it's a little more broad.

These wiki leaks are just to prove how lax security is & if he can get these memo's anyone can.
Not exactly the point of it .... but that's seemingly the net effect of it. :D

So therefore he is doing everyone a favour by doing this?
Indeed he is (IMO) .... but not quite in the way that one would be inclined to believe.

As tactics (and strategy) it is, in fact, quite brilliant.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Actually I think Rlent is trying to make a case that Assange is doing the "right thing" .....
Sorry, that wasn't the point of the original post at all ... the point was simply to get others to understand what he is doing.

I'll address the rest of your post when I get back from getting my ears lowered .....
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
I happen to agree to a point but the issue for me and many like me are a few facts surrounding the way things are handled, one of them is that this is external and only focuses on the US opposed to any EU member, which is equally as secretive if not more and equally corrupt in both actions and reason.

The other fact that seems to be a bit of an issue is that Assange used systems within the US to launch his attack and when the US companies decided to sever their relationship with him, a further attack came from outside.


I agree.

I don't see Assange as a "Robin Hood" type.

IMO If all he was after was to cut "the conspiritors twine" he should have stopped at the first releases of the leaks.

Something is still not right here :confused:
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
You guys are missing the bigger picture.

I don't see Assange as a "Robin Hood" type.
"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you" - John 14:16-17

IMO If all he was after was to cut "the conspiritors twine" he should have stopped at the first releases of the leaks.
You need to read it again for a conceptual understanding.

Something is still not right here
... that is at least a start .... ;)
 
Last edited:

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Assange is attempting to hamstring the authoritarian persons & organizations within the government in the same way the government hamstrings suspected criminals: eavesdropping. Because without the ability to communicate freely, the plans, goals, and programs come to a crashing halt. All that survives unhindered is what can be said openly, without fear of censure.
Is that what it says?:confused:
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
On closer reading, Assange defines the government itself as authoritarian, which is historically accurate. It requires secret communications, because the citizens would rebel if the true nature of the government were known.
I think he gives us too much credit - can we consider the government and it's activities as important as, say, our favorite tv programs? Doesn't appear so, to me. [Present company excepted.]
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Replace 'the government' with the United States and you may have a closer representation of the truth.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Here's the deal, and what the analysis at RLENT's link points out so well. Ultimately, Assange and Wikileaks is not about leaking information, per se, it's about fighting conspiracies.

He has two core assumptions, at least according to the analysis, and it's essentially true, albeit not quite the whole "real game". First is that authoritarian organizations need secrecy to succeed and thrive. Second is that secrecy is a barrier to effective communication. He believes that demonstrating leaks to an authoritarian organization will cause it to increase its secrecy. Pushed far enough, that secrecy makes the organization cumbersome and inflexible, sometimes dysfunctional, allowing opponents to easily get inside its OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act). When secrecy is tightened, the number of people who are aware of the secrets must be limited, preventing effective authoritarian conspiracies.

Because the authoritarian organization can longer effectively keep its conspiracies a secret, the end result is that the organization must choose between curbing its authoritarian tendencies or collapse.

And that's what Assange is after, collapse of authoritarian governments. He may say that these leaks will results in a more open government, free of lies, corruption and conspiracies, and a lot of people, including the media, believe it. But he knows better, and a more free and open government is not what he's after.

He's been anti-authority and pro-anarchist for the purposes of anti-authoritarianism for the goal of Utopia for 20 years or more, dating back to his Usenet and hacker days. He believes that society can exist and thrive without authority, and if he can remove much or all of that authority, then all authority will collapse under its own weight of secrets. He's also been anti-United States for probably as long, not because he has any particular beef with the United States exactly, but because the United States is the most powerful, most influential authoritarian organization around, the one with the most secrets and the most conspiracies (because you need those secrets and conspiracies to thrive, and the US has certainly done that). His goal is to remove that authority. Simply, to bring down the United States.

As a hacker (who eventually pled guilty to several charges of breaking into computer networks when he was in his teens) he had his principles, and still maintains them. He and a couple of other guys formed a hacker group called the International Subversives, for which Assanged wrote the rules, rules that most hackers already lived by: Don’t damage computer systems you break into, don’t alter any information in those systems other than the logs to erase your tracks, and share all information obtained from those systems.

In other words, don't do any damage or destroy information, but break in and get the information they don't want you to have, and then make it public. It's a set of rules and principles that should sound familiar today, because it's exactly what Assange and Wikileaks is all about.

In his Usenet days he used several user names, but two main ones. One was Cue Ball, because he viewed himself as the one who starts the game by breaking things up. Everything that gets done on the table, from start to finish, is done with the Cue Ball. That's Assange, in control breaking things up and putting them away. And no matter who wins, it's the Cue Ball that wins the game.

The other screen name, and his primary hacker name, was Mendax, from Splendide Mendax. Mendax means untruthful, deceitful, and liar, and spendide means excellence and brilliant, noble and glorious. So Spendide Mendax was gloriously untruthful, and he saw (and sees) himself as being noble in his deceit, excelling at it in glorious fashion, with the ends absolutely justifying the means.

He has a greater purpose for himself and (in his view) all of mankind, and if it takes lies and deceit to get there, so be it. If the exposing of leaks and damage to conspiracies cost a few lives along the way to a greater good where no lives will be lost because (in his Utopian view) there will be no conspiratorial authority to cause them, he's fine with that.

So whatever of his stuff you may read, or whatever you see him say in an interview, keep in mind that sitting there underneath it all at the foundation is Cue Ball and Mendax.
 

pjjjjj

Veteran Expediter
....... In his Usenet days he used several user names, but two main ones. One was Cue Ball, because he viewed himself as the one who starts the game by breaking things up. Everything that gets done on the table, from start to finish, is done with the Cue Ball. That's Assange, in control breaking things up and putting them away. And no matter who wins, it's the Cue Ball that wins the game.

The other screen name, and his primary hacker name, was Mendax, from Splendide Mendax. Mendax means untruthful, deceitful, and liar, and spendide means excellence and brilliant, noble and glorious. So Spendide Mendax was gloriously untruthful, and he saw (and sees) himself as being noble in his deceit, excelling at it in glorious fashion, with the ends absolutely justifying the means.

He has a greater purpose for himself and (in his view) all of mankind, and if it takes lies and deceit to get there, so be it. If the exposing of leaks and damage to conspiracies cost a few lives along the way to a greater good where no lives will be lost because (in his Utopian view) there will be no conspiratorial authority to cause them, he's fine with that.

So whatever of his stuff you may read, or whatever you see him say in an interview, keep in mind that sitting there underneath it all at the foundation is Cue Ball and Mendax.

What are you basing your analysis of his chosen hacker names? Unless he has indicated his personal meanings for his choices, I can't see how you can gather this. Everyone's nick has a special meaning for themselves, and it may not always be obvious to others. It's possible for others to come up with a completely different 'possible' explanation of what those nicks could possibly 'mean'.

Also, I believe that many of us were significantly different in our teen years.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
What are you basing your analysis of his chosen hacker names?
Armchair pop psychology ? :D

Seriously, it's a very good question ....

Unless he has indicated his personal meanings for his choices, I can't see how you can gather this.
Sounds like a quite reasonable premise to me .... :rolleyes:

What I'm wondering is there any real definitive evidence for the statements contained in the "analysis" you are referring to ?

And no, paraphrasing someone's opinion off of the comments section of something on Slashdot.org does not count as "real definitive evidence" .......

BTW, I read, in their entirety, the articles that Assange wrote which are located here:

Julian Assange: Conspiracies

.... before I ever posted the link to the analysis in the first post in this thread.

While there is some elements of truth in what Turtle posted, I also believe that it contains a number of (incorrect) conclusions, for which I have not seen any evidence whatsoever.

I'm sure if there is actually some real evidence for those conclusions, Turtle will probably post the links to it in short order - barring that, I remain unconvinced.

Everyone's nick has a special meaning for themselves, and it may not always be obvious to others. It's possible for others to come up with a completely different 'possible' explanation of what those nicks could possibly 'mean'.
Yup ... and what someone did 20 or more years ago may have no relevance to what their are doing currently.

Back in the day (the 60's) Jerry Rubin was a radical youth protester who, with Abbie Hoffman, organized the Youth International Party (aka the Yippies), and was one of the "Chicago Eight" ....

After he had a chance to live a little and grow up, he became a successful entrepreneur and business man in the 80's .... or as he would have put it 20 years earlier:

a Capitalist Pig ..... :D:

"In the 1980s he embarked on a debating tour with Abbie Hoffman titled "Yippie versus Yuppie." Rubin's argument in the debates was that activism was hard work, and that the abuse of drugs, sex, and private property had made the counter-culture "a scary society in itself", and that "wealth creation is the real American revolution ....." - Wikipedia

Never underestimate the power of living Life to alter a person's views .... and conduct ...

Also, I believe that many of us were significantly different in our teen years.
Indeed. ;)
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
What are you basing your analysis of his chosen hacker names? Unless he has indicated his personal meanings for his choices, I can't see how you can gather this.
I used to be a hacker myself, and ran in the same circles as Assange, tho I did not actually know him other than for his posts on Usenet. Hacker names and how they come about is well known to other hackers. Hackers are proud of how they come up with their names, and pick and choose names for very specific meanings. Assange made no secret of his names and how he came up with them. Nor did anyone else.

Everyone's nick has a special meaning for themselves, and it may not always be obvious to others.
True, but if becomes very obvious when the explain their nick and how they came up with it.

It's possible for others to come up with a completely different 'possible' explanation of what those nicks could possibly 'mean'.
Very true. Irrelevant in this case, but true, nonetheless.

Also, I believe that many of us were significantly different in our teen years.
Also true. But Assange hasn't changed his mentality, rules or convictions since he was in his teens. His present day actions make that clear. He's grown up a lot, but he's still doing, essentially, the same things.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Armchair pop psychology ? :D

Seriously, it's a very good question ....
Armchair pop psychology? Hardly. Question answered above.

What I'm wondering is there any real definitive evidence for the statements contained in the "analysis" you are referring to ?
Other than my own observations and experiences with the same group of hackers that Assange interacted with on Usenet, no, there's no real definitive evidence for any of my opinions. Just like your analysis lacks real definitive evidence.

And no, paraphrasing someone's opinion off of the comments section of something on Slashdot.org does not count as "real definitive evidence" .......
Ahhh, don't be too sure where that opinion originated, and by whom. I'm very active on /. but the opinion didn't originate there in that thread, or even on /., regardless.

While there is some elements of truth in what Turtle posted, I also believe that it contains a number of (incorrect) conclusions, for which I have not seen any evidence whatsoever.
That's the beauty of reaching a conclusion based on an opinion, there is no need to produce real definitive evidence, for if there were real, definitive evidence, it would be a stone cold fact, not an opinion. And I thank you to please quit demanding evidence of my opinions, since we both know that's a demand that cannot be met by anyone.

I'm sure if there is actually some real evidence for those conclusions, Turtle will probably post the links to it in short order - barring that, I remain unconvinced.
I know what I know, and offer it up only for your consideration, not to convince you of anything, because I know your mind is already made up and it would take a direct admission to the contrary by Assange himself to change it. I honestly have no idea if Google went back and archived the early days of Usenet. All Usenet posts, except for binaries, were once archived on Altavista, but those archives were dropped a number of years ago. If the archives still exist, then Assange's posts are still in there. I would have thought that someone, somewhere would have dug through them and brought some of them out of the attic by now, so maybe they are not archived any longer. But if they are, they contain real, definitive evidence. Lacking that, find some computer geek who was active on Usenet in it's early days, between about 86 and 93, they'll remember.


Yup ... and what someone did 20 or more years ago may have no relevance to what their are doing currently.
Then again, it might very well have some relevance. We are all the sum of our experiences. The fact that Assange is doing what he does today, and it almost exactly mirrors what he did and the rules he lived by as a hacker should at least give one pause before so lightly dismissing the notion.

Never underestimate the power of living Life to alter a person's views .... and conduct ...

Indeed. ;)
Knowing a bit about your history, I'd say you are a shining example of that.

But I think Assange isn't. :D
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
You're breaking the rules you (and many others) hold so dear. :confused:
I casually mention something, in a nondescript manner, which reveals nothing, in order to show admiration and respect for RLENT, and now I'm breaking the rules? Really?


Hmmmmmm Interesting but not as revealing as I would have hoped. :confused:
Because of the hacking (which wasn't as bad as some have done), and those who I associated with, I'm not going to fully "out" myself here. There's a limit to public self-incrimination and I don't want to go there. As for RLENT, I'm not going to out him, either. He's talked a bit about his past on here (nothing OMG! bad), but that's for him to do, not me. My comment was based on the fact that RLENT's life today, and the man he is today, is a far cry from what it was in his teens and 20's. And it's almost certainly for the better.
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
I casually mention something, in a nondescript manner, which reveals nothing, in order to show admiration and respect for RLENT, and now I'm breaking the rules? Really?
None that I can tell either.


Because of the hacking (which wasn't as bad as some have done), and those who I associated with, I'm not going to fully "out" myself here. There's a limit to public self-incrimination and I don't want to go there. As for RLENT, I'm not going to out him, either. He's talked a bit about his past on here (nothing OMG! bad), but that's for him to do, not me. My comment was based on the fact that RLENT's life today, and the man he is today, is a far cry from what it was in his teens and 20's. And it's almost certainly for the better.
After I thought about it I was going to go back and delete my post, was just trying to be funny. Back fired.
 
Top