Part 4 of @exiledsurfer interview of Daniel Domscheit-Berg , concerns Anonymous and HB Gary.
Domscheit-Berg remarks that he has mixed feelings about #HBGary. He says that had Assange not threatened Bank of America, Anonymous would not have needed to out the corrupt firm.
In matters concerning Wikileaks, Domscheit-Berg's management style is that of a classic passive aggressive. What I mean to say is that it's delusional and naive to think that if one plays nice to powerful interests, no one will be threatened.
In reality, real power (the kind at work here) does not relinquish itself easily.
Real power in an anarchical state of nature, only relinquishes power when it becomes convinced that the exchange is beneficial to its own self-interest and survival.
Domscheit-Berg omits that Assange, a private citizen, was threatened with illegal murder by US government leadership in the main stream media, just prior to his Bank of America statements.
The subsequent theater of sophistry in the main stream media and the secret war on private individuals by both government and private interests only evidence that those interests intend on crushing Assange and Wikileaks, and neutralizing any supporters.
These forces aren't looking for a reason beyond the fact that Wikileaks threatens their own ownership of power, their own entrenched interests, and in some cases the survival of their institutional models.
In fact, during Domscheit-Berg's tenure, Wikileaks published documents that outlined a US government strategy to discredit and neutralize the Web site.
Domscheit-Berg accuses Assange of playing politics. I hear there is a place, where politics do not exist. I'm told this magical fairy land is built on an ancient unicorn burial ground.
Well, I assert that Domscheit-Berg's book is a political act, as well as marketing vehicle for his own self-interest, dressed up in the language of an apologist for the public interest, or his version of self-interest rightly understood. I also contend that the US State Department's foreign policy outlined in the cables are political acts. This blog entry is a political act too.
The issue at hand, is not whether institutions or players are self-interested. The issue is how does one execute a strategy that ensures the revival and survival of a truly free press, and an informed public, in the face of a gargantuan military industrial and media complex.
It's a testament to Assange that Wikileaks has lasted as long as it has, and that the institution has managed to publish what it has published in the face of constant attack and murderous tabloid coverage.
I only hope that the bastards out to get Assange and Wikileaks fall on their own words and swords.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer
Domscheit bergs motivation
His book read like a lover scorned. It was a disgruntled employees moan that lasted some 300 pages. I dont believe there is a page where assange is not mentioned. Im just glad ive found somewhere that people agree and are not supporting this mans ad campaign by means of a supposedly " tell all" book.
New definition of Passive Aggression: DDB.
Interesting interview.
I found it especially interesting that DDB insisted on turning almost every response into an attack on Julian Assange.
The man makes no important statements on freedom of the press or upholding democracy through transparency, but instead chooses to spend his time criticising Assange and Wikileaks.
If he's not being paid by some underhanded corporation/government agency for his endless drivel, then he has to be one of the most butt-hurt people I've ever had the displeasure of observing.
passive aggression DDB
....i cant think of any words to improve on what you said....well done and hangin there julian coz the best they got to throw at you is you lack of personel hygenie lmao....even if its true....surely they have better things to try and discredit you with lol...
no political boundaries
Daniel Domsheit-Berg claims that open leaks operates without a political agenda, however, what he is saying is that his (open leaks) organizations sourced information gets forwarded to another outlet to be determined if the information is well-founded and corresponds accurately or in other words, to be determined by another outlet as to whether or not the information should be publicized. I guess my question would be....why bother? Isn't that a political statement in itself? Like buying bananas retail vs. wholesale.
Julian Assange has taken legitimate sourced information to a level that has no political boundaries.
I also hope that the bastards out to get Assange and Wikileaks fall on their own words and swords.
Well.said
Well said. DDB makes the same argument more generally about any daring publication -- he doesn't put it this way, but essentially he's blaming the person who provokes TPTB for incurring their wrath (or, in the case of HBGary, their incompetent flailing). He's also giving corporations like BoA and Hunton & Williams and HBGary an excuse to say "WikiLeaks made me do it!"
To me, that is the position of an irresponsible child, and so revelatory of DDB's own psychology. It's hard to imagine now how Assange put up with him for very long. He's also disingenuous about the reason for his suspension (he was talking, either directly or indirectly, to the media behind JA's back, exceptionally dangerous in an org like WL). He appears to have the politics of a wet noodle, if not worse -- he is so subservient to power that you really have to wonder.
I'm glad Anonymous spilled the beans on HBGary. Those documents are hilariously funny, and they give us some insight into how clueless American power-brokers are about WikiLeaks and how it works. That's valuable information, and DDB is useless if he can't see that.