I am now an American Express Cardholder because of Wikileaks

Boycott Paypal and Amazon, too. It’s a first step. Of course, there needs to be a public campaign so that the boycott is known. They are unlikely to reverse themselves at this time because to do so would get them labelled as “anti-patriotic” by the authoritarians.

It’s unfortunate that the internet was developed in the 80s and 90s. If it had been developed in the 30s and 40s, then the democracy would have created a public utility instead of subsidizing private profits.

I’m definitely avoiding Amazon/Visa/Mastercard (never used Paypal much). Still trying to wrap my head around three things:
1) Corporations acting at the behest of the government to punish a private actor, whom the government can’t/won’t prosecute through the justice system
2) Corporations supposedly in competition with each other, allowing themselves to be seen acting in concert with each other as an oligopoly, not even for pricing power, but to coerce an individual they don’t like.
3) Many individuals, including writers I thought I respected, reflecting on this and concluding that the main story is, Julian Assange is icky.

Yeah, I knew we weren’t free, but this episode really hammers that home.

Those of us who are doing this will probably get labeled “domestic extremists,” to use the language so beloved of the DHS…

People and corporations that are doing this are anti-free-speech, anti-free-press (which is simply an extension of free speech), and anti-freedom-of-association, or, in short, anti-American. Don’t let them distort the usage of the English language.

Is there some place where we can examine their books?

Maybe some whistleblower will leak it to Wikileaks for publication, otherwise, don’t hold your breath.

My money is going to help Wikileaks publish things. That’s what I need to know.

Wow. You sound like someone who donates to a televangelist.

“My money is going to do God’s work. That’s what I need to know.”

Oh well, it’s your money. I’m not as trusting.

God, I relish the chance to see this debate played out once again.

1) Corporations acting at the behest of the government to punish a private actor, whom the government can’t/won’t prosecute through the justice system
2) Corporations supposedly in competition with each other, allowing themselves to be seen acting in concert with each other as an oligopoly, not even for pricing power, but to coerce an individual they don’t like.

It’s a sort of crypto-monarchal system that gestated in the late ’90s and burst forth under W. It obtains almost everywhere and is acknowledged practically nowhere.

It’s what passes for a constitutional system in the West now, the “War on Terror” having ripped the old consitutional arrangements to shreds.

It certainly was operating when the Microsoft anti-trust action was uncermoniously squashed–though the state Attorneys General wanted to press on with the case, and had absolutely the constitutional authority to do so, the Bush administration stopped them. It didn’t pass a law, institute an emergency measure, obtain an injuction…no. It simply…stopped them. And that was that.

It’s a sort of crypto-monarchal system that gestated in the late ’90s and burst forth under W. It obtains almost everywhere and is acknowledged practically nowhere.

It’s what passes for a constitutional system in the West now, the “War on Terror” having ripped the old consitutional arrangements to shreds.

Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. — John Acton

The Cold War acted as a brake on the u.s. gov’t.’s actions. With its end, decision makers in the u.s. have stopped attempting to provide a moral and legal counterweight to the former soviet union’s actions. They now feel free to behave immorally and illegally and say, “Who will stop us?” “We’re going to invade and occupy a country that does not threaten us — who will stop us?” “We’re going to kidnap and torture prisoners and hold them without charge indefinitely — who will stop us?” “We’re going to wiretap all communications in the u.s. and any communications around the world that go over wires we control — who will stop us?” “We’re going to spend trillions of dollars rescuing the banks that committed massive financial fraud — who will stop us?” “We’re going to evict people from their homes when we don’t even have records proving that we hold the titles to them — who will stop us?”

The Wau Holland Foundation, a group associated with the hacker group the Computer Chaos Club, remains one of the main conduits for Wikileaks donations.

Chairman Winfried Motzkus explains that donations are still flowing, though they are not being used for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s personal legal battle against allegations of sexual assault in Sweden.

And where does Mr. Motzkus get his information? Does he have access to WikiLeaks books or is he just repeating something he was told? Does he receive any of the money? His group is “one of the main conduits.” What are the others?

If WikiLeaks was a conservative organization, would people be so trusting of the information?

Where can you use AmEx? Might as well just go back to using cash. They really should break up that duopoly (I mean MC/Visa, not the RepulsicanDemoncraps.)

@myiq2xu

Is Wikileaks a “liberal” organization? Seems to me it’s mostly an anti-state organization. Nobody seemed terribly concerned with it when it was publishing documents indicating corruption in Asian and African countries. But when it releases documents relating to the seedy underbelly of the American empire…well, whoa, boy look the fuck out.

Your arguments (here and at the Confluence) could be taken as suggesting that you are an Imperialist. Is this true?

Can you document every penny of everything you’ve ever donated to? Ever donated to the Democratic Party? That puts you in Koch company right there, my friend. So who’s allying with right-wing billionaires? Donated to the Clintons? I assume you know of their friendship with Saudi royalty and shady, billionaire business friends.

Finally, your Mossad conspiracy is a little weak given that only 2,000 of 250,000 cables have been published. But that’s ok, everyone’s got a little reactionary in them…maybe you have more than most, but we’re all loving liberals so you’re welcome in the big tent.

Best of the Season to All of You–

And I took time just before Thanksgiving to Move My Money too. Out of Bank of America and into a credit union. Credit Unions are certainly closer to the people they serve, but I have been reading they too are being pressed by bed loans made by a few “corporate credit unions”–those formed by large companies. How dependent or independent they are from their corporate namesakes I do not know, but there is concern in some quarters about the viability of some credit unions because of this. Like banks, CU’s have to contribute to a reserve which is similar to FDIC for banks. Reserves contributions have increased proportional to the number of members who lent money badly and need help now.

But I wholly endorse the idea of leaving banks and credit card companies as much and as soon as you can. The commonly accepted wisdom is “money talks, bullshit walks”. But what happens when the Money Walks Away?

I used to work for a credit union. In California, there are two types:

1) those that are associated with a company or industry group,

2) and what are called community credit unions.

The latter are not associated with any particular industry, but are sort of like community banks. How they were able to accomplish this – and get the tax break that normal community banks don’t get – is beyond me. I don’t know if the situation in California is common elsewhere.

The usual kind of credit unions (case 1 above) often have the world “Federal” in their name, such as “Widget Brothers Federal Credit Union”. At our credit union, we voted to change our charter, and become a community credit union. We had to drop the word “Federal” from our name. The compelling economic reason was simply numbers – far more potential customers in our community than those remaining in our industry group.

Are credit unions safe? Your savings are protected with depositors insurance, analogous to FDIC insurance. My credit union had a lot of aerospace members, which meant an older, conservative demographic. The product mix and loan portfolio maintained by this credit union was likewise conservative and seemingly safe. They did a huge volume of auto loans, and whatever mortgages they made were mostly sold off, gone from the books.

And yet, there were cases of mismanagement and outright corruption, which were carefully and quietly swept under the rug, out of the public eye. Banking is really a confidence game, and if you don’t think your money is safe, the bank folds. Banks (or any conservative institution) are great places to learn about authoritarian structures and psychology. The software systems (especially at smaller outfits, like credit unions) are often antiquated, but banks in general are great places to pursue a career in security of all types, especially network security.

I don’t bank there any more. I use one of the name brand national banks, for a lot of reasons. Every banking service under the sun is offered by the big guys, whereas the little guys are a bit more limited in their offerings. Someday I’ll fine tune this choice and find a solid community bank that better fits my needs and isn’t so far up in the oligarchy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icqrx0OimSs&feature=related

Here’s a scene where Mr. “the law is the law” Potter calls for the for the fullest prosecution of Baily.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3sZy7IVRiw&feature=related

I guess “authoritarian supporter” is the new racist.

myiq2xu,

Over at The Confluence i suggested authoritarian tendencies, but if you’re going to concern troll you might expect a little trolling in return.

I asked if you’re an Imperialist. Would you care to answer? Do you think that the American Empire and its intrusions into the self-determination of other nations, whether violent or political, is good and right? Are you in favor of US lobbyists writing Spanish law?

Read up on that one, the law was going to pass until Spanish politicians decided that it just didn’t look good for them to openly enact a US written law. They wouldn’t have known if not for Wikileaks. The Spanish public wouldn’t have known if not for Wikileaks.

What this release is doing is exposing the sausage making. Those of us who follow foreign policy have long had a pretty good inkling of the details, but the State has reserved for itself plausible deniability. That’s gone now, and the reason that the US government is so upset is that it cannot behave – easily – as it was without secrecy. Not hard to argue that the behavior was good for neither the vast majority of Americans or citizens of the world.

So i’ll ask this way: are you in favor of the US government doing whatever the fuck it wants under a cloak of secrecy? We’re not talking about plans for the atom bomb here, we’re talking about political machinations done in the name of the American people. Are you in favor of US foreign policy being enacted in your name, without your input and in secret?

Or are you just mad that it was DoS documents and now Madame Secretary looks like she’s a spy? For the record, those of us who follow stuff like this assume that diplomats are doing at least some intelligence gathering and intelligence services regularly use the cover/protection of embassies and foreign service jobs. Name of the game, so Clinton isn’t any different than anyone else was or would be…i mean, she’s a craptacular Secretary of State but that’s what happens when you give a politician a diplomat’s job.

I see, you’re not even reading comments you reply to all the way through. So, i guess, never mind. And that being the case, it’s hard not to lough out loud at a guy who’s screen name indicates that he’s two times smarter than whoever he’s talking to.

What does the rule of law have to do with this? Is Wikileaks guilty of espionage? No, it’s guilty of publishing documents. If it was playing at espionage, it would have sold the lot to various intelligence services and made a quiet killing. If you’re talking about the accusations against Assange, then it’s a different matter entirely. If Julian Assange is guilty of rape, then he should deal with the Swedish consequences, and his guilt or innocence should be the province of the Swedish legal system.

That you’re so keen to tie Assange the person with Wikileaks the organization makes it appear that you’re trying to guide the direction of conversation. So i have to ask, why would you want guide the conversation in this direction? If you’re anti-authoritarian and not an imperialist, then why aren’t you focusing on what the actual documents say about authority and empire?

For those who have not seen this and are interested, here is another recent (Dec. 22nd) interview with Assange. It is about 24 minutes long:

Frost over the World – Julian Assange

The NYT finally speaks out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26sun3.html

The whistle-blowing Web site WikiLeaks has not been convicted of a crime. The Justice Department has not even pressed charges over its disclosure of confidential State Department communications. Nonetheless, the financial industry is trying to shut it down.

…

But a bank’s ability to block payments to a legal entity raises a troubling prospect. A handful of big banks could potentially bar any organization they disliked from the payments system, essentially cutting them off from the world economy.

Posting this in the hopes it doesn’t become troll fodder but a source of hope.

They see me trollin’…they be hatin’.