Sometime commenter and we hope still friend of this blog zunguzungu has an extended analysis of Julian Assange’s stated motives for building WikiLeaks (and on twitter) (which Joe Lieberman may have got kicked off Amazon’s servers). It was well worth my time to read the whole thing, but in brief Assange sees the US government, or large parts of it, as a conspiracy that depends on the secrecy and integrity of its communications to function. Leaking therefore need not disclose any particularly valuable piece of information to render the conspiracy vulnerable.
You destroy the conspiracy, in other words, by making it so paranoid of itself that it can no longer conspire….
zunguzungu points out that Theodore Roosevelt might have approved. Of WikiLeaks, that is; not of Lieberman.
The Edge of the American West 
35 comments
December 2, 2010 at 10:06 am
ari
That is some strong Title-Fu.
December 2, 2010 at 10:25 am
eric
Maybe the old man still has it in him.
December 2, 2010 at 10:32 am
zunguzungu
When the re-constituted Bull Moose Party runs the re-constituted Zombie Teddy Roosevelt for president, we’ll need all the friends we can gather. Stay close.
December 2, 2010 at 10:35 am
zunguzungu
Have you seen Morris’ “Colonel Roosevelt” yet, by the way? All sorts of fun, though watching TR go off the rails in the teens is a bittersweet mix of hilarious and sad. But Morris’ last image of Roosevelt (on Roosevelt island, which I won’t ruin for you if you haven’t gotten to it) left me a bit choked up.
December 2, 2010 at 10:39 am
politicalfootball
A really excellent and thought-provoking post from zunguzungu.
One of the thoughts it provoked in me was: Why am I reading this on a blog, and not in the New York Times? Assange is an important public figure with some radical ideas and the resources to bring them to fruition, and yet the media haven’t expended much effort to tell us who this guy is, beyond the tabloid style nonsense of this dishy profile in the Times.
December 2, 2010 at 10:55 am
zunguzungu
@politicalfootball, Once I stopped marveling at my own brilliance, this question occurred to me as well. I originally read about Assange’s essays on Rei Tereda’s blog, but once I started trying to figure out why no one had paid any attention to those essays, it became clear that a few journalists *had* noticed their existence but just hadn’t cared much to explore it in any depth. For example, Raffi Khatchadourian wrote this in his new yorker profile:
“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.”
Which is not wrong, exactly, but that’s a paragraph in an eleven page piece that emphasizes — above all, and to the exclusion of exactly this sort of analysis — Assange as a story, a character. Lots of fun descriptive detail instead of taking him seriously.
Steve Coll’s New Yorker piece is sort of the same thing:
“In 2006, as he prepared to launch a digital enterprise devoted to the exposure of secrets, he wrote a sort of manifesto about the structure of official conspiracy and its effects on human welfare. He quoted Shakespeare, Machiavelli, and Lord Halifax; the writing veers between lucidity and opaqueness. Its tone, familiar from science fiction, echoes the purifying language of purges and revolutions: “We must understand the key generative structure of bad government. We must develop a way of thinking about this structure that is strong enough to carry us through the mire of competing political moralities and into a position of clarity.”
Doesn’t even scratch the surface of the ideas behind the essays, but paints a pretty picture. And beyond the politics-as-entertainment problem, I think there’s also the fact that those essays were essentially blog posts, not “real” writing. Any surprise that print journalists didn’t take something written on the internet as seriously as a blogger would?
December 2, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Doctor Science
zunguzungu:
I’m putting together an Obsidian Wings blog post about Assange’s philosophy (inspired/based on your post, of course), and I’m not sure I understand him. Or maybe I understand him, and I think he’s incorrect.
I don’t see secrecy is necessary for illegitimacy, or for evil.
For instance, the Project for a New American Century was a forthright, open collaboration for imperialistic warmonging. If conspiracies require secrecy, it was no conspiracy. And then there are injustices like racism, overt or structural. People’s actions can match up to promote injustice without there ever been overt, or even conscious, collaboration: it’s a conspiracy of *culture*, not secrecy.
To what degree am I not understand Assange’s point?
December 2, 2010 at 1:58 pm
zunguzungu
@Doctor Science
I wonder if part of it might be the difference between a necessary connection and a correlation that is sometimes (but not always) true? Given that bad governance creates resistance, one of the ways that an authoritarian government will sidestep that resistance is by hiding what it does. In such a situation, leaking what is secret will impede the conspiracy’s ability to function, therefore not as a general necessary so much as something that is true in this particular case.
There’s also the difference between activities that are presumed to be illegitimate in pretty much all cases and things (like ProjectNAC or Jim Crow) which are deemed by some people to be illegitim ate, but which have powerful people backing them as well.
There’s also the how-networks-think aspect of his strategy, which emphasizes that the chilling effect you have on the conspiracy is the important thing: the PNAC might have been relatively out in the open, but if (purely, hypothetically, you understand) we posit that the PNAC was merely the visible, out-in-the-open tip of a vast invisible network of warmongers, then leaking secret emails exchanged between *those* people (who would say things to each other that would make the network “think” better, but which would not be politic to have widely known) would do a great deal to degrade the capacity of the larger network to function.
December 2, 2010 at 2:04 pm
zunguzungu
From the interview he did with time a few days ago (which has the advantage of being contemporary, rather than four years old):
Since 2006, we have been working along this philosophy that organizations which are abusive and need to be [in] the public eye. If their behavior is revealed to the public, they have one of two choices: one is to reform in such a way that they can be proud of their endeavors, and proud to display them to the public. Or the other is to lock down internally and to balkanize, and as a result, of course, cease to be as efficient as they were. To me, that is a very good outcome, because organizations can either be efficient, open and honest, or they can be closed, conspiratorial and inefficient.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034040,00.html#ixzz16zTNOcHt
December 2, 2010 at 2:24 pm
David
Doctor Science–
At a first glance, I think that Assange’s thesis as translated in the posts is just too simple to be correct.
Secrecy has the purpose of delaying release of information, not preventing release. WikiLeaks’ activities, therefore, affect activities that rely on late rather than early release of information–a small proportion of the “secrets” of government/conspiracies.
Further, the connections between different individuals aren’t particularly secret–we know, for example, that the Secretary of State talks to any rich person who shows up and also to any relatively high member of a government or company. The Chancellor of our UC campus talks to her.
Apparently Assange assumes that the very fact that certain people talk to one another means that they’re probably saying things that will annihilate their “agenda” — and their connection– if the content is released. This doesn’t seem logical and is frighteningly similar to paranoid conspiracy theories about the “homosexual agenda” that fill some of the stranger websites.
A further assumption is that there is some “secret” relating to the fact that government functionaries are in constant contact and consultation with every person that has money or power in the society. How otherwise would “public” figures stay in office? It is no secret that the content of their conversations relates to their mutual self interest. Disclosure of their conversations might be illuminating, but is unlikely to be deadly to their cooperation unless it involves actually illegal activities. Mostly that would seem unlikely since they can retain power and get rich legally without risking months in jail.
To the extent that the threat of disclosure helps powerful public and private persons stay away from frankly illegal plans we can thank the people who disclose. However, the notion that disclosure of written communications will cause a change in the behavior of the powerful is fantasy.
December 2, 2010 at 2:31 pm
politicalfootball
I would put a different question to zunguzungu, who is fast becoming Assange’s spokesperson:
What is the practical difference between Assange’s view and Brandeis’ “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”? Is Assange’s effort essentially anarchistic – analagous to the effort of a hacker who just wants to break systems down – or is he a muckraking journalist who wants to expose evil for Brandeis-ian reasons?
I also respectfully disagree with Dr. Science. The Project for a New American Century didn’t cause the war in Iraq. At most it inspired that war, and maybe provided salaries to some of the actual conspirators.
Do you disagree with my view that there was, in fact, a secret conspiracy, separate from the public arguments, to maneuver the country into war?
This, too, seems misguided:
And then there are injustices like racism, overt or structural. People’s actions can match up to promote injustice without there ever been overt, or even conscious, collaboration: it’s a conspiracy of *culture*, not secrecy.
It is no accident that Klansmen, even in the most sympathetic regions, wore hoods.
The accomplishment of the civil rights movement was largely informational: the movement arranged for more people to know, broadly, what was going on in the U.S. – practices that, once exposed to public view, had to be abhorred.
December 2, 2010 at 2:35 pm
politicalfootball
However, the notion that disclosure of written communications will cause a change in the behavior of the powerful is fantasy.
If so, it is a widely shared fantasy. I’m not aware of a critic of Assange (until you) who suggests that the behavior of the powerful won’t be changed by Assange’s activities. Assange’s supporters and critics are unanimous in this.
(Though it’s certainly possible that the correct response to Assange is, as you seem to suggest, indifference.)
December 2, 2010 at 2:43 pm
David
Politicalfootball:
You’ve hit on a really important point. Secrecy for the purposes of conspiracy is part of the conspirators being _weak_. They keep secrets (e.g., the KKK hoods) because they can’t act openly or they’re finished.
There are many other reasons for secrecy, such as absence of a final consensus, that are not symptomatic of conspiracy or weakness. As I wrote above, the idea that disclosure of secrets ipso facto opposes abuse of power and conspiracy is just too simple to be correct.
December 2, 2010 at 2:55 pm
David
Politicalfootball:
Ralph Nader changed the policy of powerful auto companies by inducing them to stop writing things down to make them harder to sue. Assange’s maximum effect on the behavior of the powerful is limited by this simple change. Another effect he could have is that some powerful person’s behavior might change enough to make sure that he goes to prison for rape or some other offense–assuming that his organization actually injures the members of a real secret abusive conspiracy.
December 2, 2010 at 2:58 pm
dana
This is really wonderful, zunguzungu.
December 2, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Don
Some of what I have seen leaked borders on treason. Others, foolishness, while much seems to fall in the classification of gossip by those who should know better.
From WW II there was a poster prominent near the docks among other places.
“Loose Lips Sink Ships” As long as we are at war, some things need to be kept secret.
December 2, 2010 at 8:42 pm
joel hanes
We’re not at war in any existential sense.
Mostly our government uses secrecy to protect the lies it has already told us and wishes us to believe.
The Victory Gin ration has been increased again. We have always been at war with EastAsia.
December 3, 2010 at 9:01 am
dave
As Charles Tilly was fond of pointing out, government and organised crime have much in common. One might also invoke James C Scott, and indeed a whole host of academics who have pointed out similar things. Nice to see some non-violent direct action on the issue, though.
December 3, 2010 at 9:02 am
Norwegian Guy
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I got the impression that Theodore Roosevelt was an imperialist and militarist. Isn’t he the political idol of John McCain? I doubt very much that Theodore Roosevelt would have approved of WikiLeaks, proto-neocon as he was.
December 3, 2010 at 9:31 am
Pauly Shore
This place is almost as great as unfogged! You guys are fantastic! Smarter than me, sure, but then again, who isn’t? Wanna be my friend?
December 3, 2010 at 11:11 am
Pauly Shore
I love this blog! I love you people!
December 3, 2010 at 11:17 am
Pauly Shore
People say it’s slower around here than it used to be, but I say this is the best of all possible worlds! You people are fantastic! Friends, right?
December 3, 2010 at 1:07 pm
ben
Pauly Shore sure does get around.
December 3, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Pauly Shore
It’s an homage, ben! The joys of unfogged can be found everywhere! Happy Hanukkah!
December 3, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Doctor Science
I tried sending a trackback, but Typepad ated it. So: The culture of conspiracy, the conspiracy of culture, with reference to the discussion here.
December 6, 2010 at 11:36 am
student
The premise of Assange and his supporters seems to be that U.S. government is an “authoritarian conspiracy.” Is that correct? Is the U.S. an authoritarian regime? When I think of authoritarian regimes in history I think of, say, Franco or Portugal before 1974. Isn’t the U.S. somewhat different?
December 6, 2010 at 12:31 pm
David
QED–here is the change in the behavior of the powerful that I expected from WikiLeaking:
Arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder BBC News
Swiss Freeze WikiLeaks Bank Account New York Times
That is, the powerful have started to pay attention to Assange, to his detriment.
December 7, 2010 at 11:50 am
David
Perhaps now we start a betting pool.
Assange will be held for how long beore being released:
1 week
5 weeks
18 months
Guantanamo
December 7, 2010 at 12:19 pm
dave
‘student’ – read Tilly; when you’ve absorbed that mainstream perspective, you might like to try something more challenging, like Chomsky. It would be a shame after that if you ended up somewhere like Zizek, but hey, once you go down the rabbit-hole…
December 7, 2010 at 2:57 pm
David
dave:
Are some of the threads running from Tilly to Zizek you refer to related to anarchism and the idea that governments often serve the powerful?
December 10, 2010 at 3:58 pm
student
Dave, sorry for late response but was away from computer for several days. Why do you feel it necessary to cite the writings of others on such a basic question? Apparently you believe that the U.S. is an authoritarian society. I’d be interested in knowing why you believe this.
December 10, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Paula
OK, I’ll bite.
I’m a layman/non-academic, so I’ll leave the profs to answer the question directed at them.
My question for ‘student’ is: why do yo think it’s such a “basic” question? While there are elements of American society that are indeed open/democratic/pluralistic as opposed to authoritarian, there are definitely elements of it that smack of authoritarianism — the hubbub over Wikileaks being only the latest example of the state trying to shut down a line of inquiry that it believes violates the image it wants to project.
There are any variety of opinions on this because it’s a complex question that can be examined in a lot of different ways — through foreign policy, popular culture, government procedures, etc.
December 10, 2010 at 7:24 pm
ari
You can have my PhD if you want it, Paula. I’m pretty sure you’d put it to better use than I have.
December 10, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Ralph Hitchens
I doubt Assange will do any time, or serious time. And Obama (at least) won’t take any action against him. Manning is another story. I also suspect we may not see too many more giant dumps to Wikileak. They benefitted from the willingness of one (or at most a few) people to exploit the historic weakness of SIPRNet, DOD’s unwillingness to block i/o devices & ports. They will surely do so now.
For my part, I think the most significant Wikileaks contribution was the first big one — the release of that damning US Army attack helicopter video. I doubt I’m the only military veteran who has agonized about contemporary rules of engagement since viewing it.
December 11, 2010 at 2:54 pm
student
Paula, you’ve not convinced me that it’s not basic. Sure there are elements of our society that are authoritarian as there are elements of democracy and accountability. But are the Wikileaks people saying that? Aren’t they suggesting that U.S. is fundamentally an “authoritarian conspiracy”? Recall that they’ve got an anarchist perspective which posits that the state as such is evil and despotic. I don’t think you believe that to be true or that that is what we’ve got here.