Crypto-anarchism rethunk

I’ve talked about crypto-anarchism before but none of you were paying any attention so I’ll have to go over it again.

Quiet in the back row!  *throws chalk*  This will be on the test.  Yes, I’m talking to you, Jenkins!  Put that Mad magazine away before I stick it up your nose.  You can read the Crock O’dull Dummee, Too satire in your own time.

So, back when the internet was young, some fellows got a little carried away and thought that it might be used in some Utopian way to make the world a better place.  Most just thought it would one day be possible to download Miss Venezuela’s swimsuit picture in mere minutes, but others, like a white-haired Australian wanker named Julian Assange, were even more optimistic.

As an Australian wanker myself, I know one when I see one.  But I like the guy.  Further, too little has been said about the tragedy of his life.  It is no wonder he is eternally paranoid, having been brought up in, and fled from, an abusive cult called The Family.

His anarchist idea was this: at the moment (the 1990s), governments and big companies are repressing the will of the people and of individuals through their use of ‘conspiracies’.  He uses this term to mean their ability to keep secrets within their organizations to enhance their own power vis-à-vis the ordinary person.

The internet could help to achieve freedom, he argued on obscure back-channels of the early net, by allowing ordinary people working within these conspiratorial institutions to anonymously leak information on to the internet.  In this way, the big boys would have to limit how many people within their organizations are able to have access to conspiratorial information, thus limiting communication and hobbling their attempts to keep us under the boot heel of their coordinated tyranny.

Now, anyone can talk big on the internet.



However, Julian Assange went one step further.  He actually created such a site, WikiLeaks, and began collecting and publishing an increasingly vast array of secret material from governments, businesses and other organizations.

Like most people, I had a random look at the US State Department communications that were leaked, pretty much at random, and found a case where they were remonstrating with a Middle Eastern country for surreptitiously supplying rockets to Hezbollah.  The Middle Eastern country was denying it, even though they’d been caught red-handed.  And that was it.  I thought, why bother leaking this?  It’s just the State Department doing exactly what we thought they were doing.  It wasn’t a scandal, it was just business as usual.  Indeed, many people wondered, why did he leak everything?  Why not just leak evidence of wrongdoing, instead of drowning the juicy stuff in mundane, everyday noise?

The answer to this lies in that bit I wrote before the barking dogs clip.  The idea of WikiLeaks is not to expose badness, it is to expose everything, thus limiting the power of organizations to keep secrets or to coordinate broadly.  This is a key point that is often missed, and indeed Julian himself tried to hide the truth by deleting those old threads where, in his youth, he discussed just this (others on the board had saved them and later, with delicious ironing, leaked them.  Read that link I posted.  Here it is again.  It’s a leftie magazine from Australia and the author is an annoying sociologist, but this is a great article.)

To some extent, the idea has worked.  Apparently the emails released were at a level of secrecy such that they went to many thousands of people.  Given that the whole lot can be downloaded and shared in a jiffy, that is a leak waiting to happen.  The US State Department will now be more cautious about its internal communications, thus limiting its ability to coordinate.  Which was the point of the exposé.  And no doubt other organizations are also being slowed down and hamstrung by the growing possibility of megaleaks.,d_placeholder_euli9k,h_1440,w_2560,x_0,y_0/dpr_2.0/c_limit,w_740/fl_lossy,q_auto/v1510881887/171114-ackerman-wikileaks-tease_c6gaiq

Up until now I’ve been skeptical about the whole project.  Initially WikiLeaks was popular because it revealed government corruption (Tunisia et al), military blunders (the helicopter attack on a wedding party in Iraq), and various other scandals.  But since it has become clear that the site intends to leak everything, innocent people, or people who were at least less guilty than the big boys, have been compromised.  Field agents, snouts, people like that.  And Julian’s attitude to them appears to be somewhat psychopathic, if this article can be believed, and I’m not 100% sure it can be.

There are other sites out there similar to WikiLeaks but which are more cautious, and leak harmful information carefully and with redactions in order to protect small players.  Most people would agree that such sites are doing God’s work.  Sure, WikiLeaks is the most famous player in the field, but is it the best?  Is it just giving the others a bad name, being a cowboy, and lessening the overall impact that internet exposure might have upon governance?

But since Julian got arrested by some of his many enemies, I’ve rethought the whole issue.  A few things have come together in my mind, based on books I’ve read and earlier posts I’ve written:

It was probably a bit of a wank for Julian to claim victimization by the big boys back in the 1990s.  Things were good – the economy was beginning a long boom, the Cold War had ended, the world was becoming more peaceful, conventional and nuclear forces were being scaled back, democracy and the rule of law were spreading . . .  things were not perfect, but everything appeared to be getting gradually better.

But the situation is different now.  As described in The Bell Curve, and later in Coming Apart, we are now dominated by an elite caste of high-IQ people in the upper echelons of government agencies, NGOs, the judiciary, corporations, universities, think tanks, and even the military and police.  This caste, though clever, all think alike, and seem utterly beholden to the modern SJW zeitgeist for some bizarre psychological reasons that I do not understand.  This aristocracy are supported by a swarm of medium-IQ GoodWhites who ape their masters, and by PoCs who are in it for the gibs and revenge.

The high-IQ dissenters such as Steve Sailer and Charles Murray are treated as heretics, while the medium and low-IQ lumpens who oppose their programme are, as you know, dismissed as rednecks, Nazis and deplorables.

Today, it is not so tinfoilish to declare that there is a conspiracy among these elites to find an excuse to invade every other country, to promote high, unselective immigration, to oppose traditional marriage, family and religion, and to undermine traditional culture.  There is a such a conspiracy.  It is undeclared and somewhat unconscious, but as the new elites think alike, it happens almost organically.  My readers have seen the mass deplatformings, and know that it is only a few initial shots in what will undoubtedly turn into a massacre of any dissenting thought still hosted on mainstream platforms.

Would WikiLeaks-style mass leakage limit their power and plotting?


Here, the advantages of unfocused and unconsidered blanket leaking become evident.  If carefully thought out, the thinkers-out are likely to be members of the same, elite caste that would tend to conclude that internal emails between Gillette bigwigs discussing how bad men are bad and how they don’t want them as customers, especially the white ones, is the sort of thing that ought not be leaked for some sophistic web of seemingly plausible reasons they’ll have no trouble conjuring up with their massively high linguistic IQ; while the shocking news that a Trump company once made a loss will be considered publishable material of the highest priority.

Take out the middle man – publish all, blindly – and this problem is eliminated.

As to that problem of the low-level operatives getting doxxed . . . well, is that a bad thing?  If people knew that cooperating with US intervention in their country might eventually get their name published worldwide, people would be more hesitant about taking the Benjamins.  If corporate brownnoses knew the same, they might be less enthusiastic about doing the drudgery of their overlords, whether it be as writers for anti-male advertisements, office drones carrying out mass deplatformings, or NYC Schools apparatchiks carrying out the latest round of anti-white shoah.  Oh, and if you think it’s distasteful to mention the Holocaust when talking about the harassing of white education employees, you might want to read this.

I think the white-haired wanker might have been right all along: publish and be damned, because none of them are friends of ours.  And now he shall be made a martyr to the cause.  I guess Trump could pardon him, but I don’t think our Don is cognitively deft enough to realize the abstract benefits of doing so, nor does he seem to be any longer listening to anyone who is.

I’ve been wondering for a while whether the current attacks on our society can possibly be countered.  Well, perhaps this is the way.  What do you reckon?

Finally, what about us in this blog neighbourhood?  We are far more vulnerable to a WL style attack than our enemies are.  All our communications are online, barely encrypted, and freely available to anyone who might want to snoop.  That’s now fine for me as I’ve reached the point of anti-fragility, but for others it is risky enough for them to avoid it altogether.  This is WikiLeaks’ philosophy working in reverse: the ability of the SJW mob to doxx us shitlords limits our own organizing crowd-thinking ability.

First, remember the principle of Zero Fucks Given.  Look at bloggers like Tim Neuman, Aaron Clarey and Adam Piggot – they’ve been writing without apology under their own names for years and always get away with it.  When the odd shitstorm blows up, they shrugs it off.  More of us need to nurture such an attitude.

Second, as others have said, we need to know people in meat-space.  We need to talk off-line, locally, regionally, quietly, calmly and discretely.  As Z-Man says, we can’t vote ourselves out of this.  But nor should we shoot ourselves out of it.

Could leaks – truth – be the answer?


  1. luisman · August 10

    A publisher like Wikileaks can draw conclusion out of their data only based on their own expertise and experience. What seems like a nothingburger to them, may be the needed final piece of evidence for someone from a totally different walk of life, for sth. that has nothing to do with the original goals of the investigation/leak. And unredacted details in a leak may lead to other leaks later, which may open up a different can of worms.

    I’m all for individual privacy, but believe government secrets will always be abused and used against their own people.


  2. Pingback: Let’s have a look at BBC World News | SovietMen
  3. philebersole · September 12

    Excellent article! Thanks for this. The link to the 2011 article also contained a lot of information new to me.

    You and your readers might be interested in these links to Julian Assange’s old blog and to essays in which he outlines his philosophy and strategy..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s