If you hold any even remotely “extreme” point of view it is only a matter of time before someone tries to censure you by labeling you a “conspiracy theorist”.
Someone did that to me recently, responding to one of my posts in defense of Wikileaks. I hastily deleted the trackback/backlink after reading the intellectual diarrhea that was his argument.
Firstly: I didn’t mention any conspiracy, or allude to any conspiracy at all. As if that is not significant enough, it’s entirely possible that there is no “New World Order” Illuminati behind the holocaust that is American Empire or the attempts to censor Wikileaks.
It doesn’t require a dedicated, focused cabal to do this sort of thing. All that’s necessary is that the actors involved, in however disjointed and dysfunctional manner is possible, act in their own best interests under color of law to conceal mistakes, missteps, and where they occur, crimes. It works like this in a nutshell:
The most powerful government in the world hates the fact that wikileaks is exposing its crimes. Some members of this government (and others), without any real authority to do so, make vague threats pertaining to wikileaks and anyone assisting wikileaks. The corporations that rely on this government for corporate welfare, spectrum rights, credit monopoly, etc., play an extremely conservative hand ceasing to offer anything that could even remotely be construed as “assistance” to wikileaks. DNS drops them. Mastercard stops sending them money. Paypal stops letting them receive money. Amazon drops them from their s3 servers. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Consider what happened to Wikileaks in the immediate aftermath:
- EveryDNS dropped support for Wikileaks, effectively removing the main site from the web.
- Mastercard stopped customers from giving funds to Wikileaks
- Paypal closed their account
- Amazon ended mirroring or hosting the site content on their web servers
- The Swiss Bank froze their legal defense fund
All they had to do was make some threats and the corporations fucking crumbled, caved in to their demands.
You cannot say that you’re not a “yes man” and simultaneously reject the openness that something like Wikileaks provides.
We know that Wikileaks has revealed evidence of crimes which were previously held under lock and key, labeled confidential, swept under the proverbial rug. Without whistleblowers like Wikileaks, these injustices would never have seen the light of day, would never have been revealed for the crimes they are. And there is evidence to back this up. Prior to the digital age, the record of States and their agents selflessly admitting to their own misdeeds is atrocious to say the least.
You might call for a watchdog, an overseer, an audit of some sort. But what is that? Another layer of bureaucracy, impenetrable to the public at-large and impervious to the real scrutiny that comes when the words and deeds of public servants are made public?
I don’t believe in democracy. I don’t believe in government. But insofar as you do believe in these institutions, how can you possibly endorse or defend the actions taken by your representatives and agent , without knowing the nature of these actions in the first place.
You can say that you do. But you can’t.
Saying that you do is just rationalization for abandoning your moral compass, while assuming that those who act on your behalf are in-fact acting on your behalf and in the interest of humanity as a whole (fuck your iPads and Happy Meals and $3/gallon gasoline if it comes at the expense of humanity, right?), without any transparency, without any way of validating your beliefs, and hence, your argument is a null program, a proof without premises.