3-Dec-10 News -- Iran/Arab relations roiled by Wikileaks

[Higgenbotham]

... doesn't GenDyn speak to group trends rather than individuals...

Yes, John is pointing out ... characterization of the Gen X archetype ...

I'm questioning the value of analyzing individual intent from the GenDyn perspective. It seems a bit like finding yourself in the path of a tornado and pondering which direction a sparrow caught in it would like to fly.

The problem with Assange is common in day to day and historical experience.

There are 3 cases I could point to:
I. A problem employee has been brought to a Plant Manager's attention.
2. Patrick Henry has been brought to King George's attention.
3. Assange is being brought to various people's attention.

In all 3 cases, a person who is affected would ask 2 questions:
1. What does this guy want?
2. Is he representative of a group?

Let's just take the example of the more day to day problem employee. If the problem employee has destructive intent only and does not represent the intent of a group of people, then he simply needs to be gotten rid of.

If the problem employee has a certain positive value that is not being met and that employee's concerns are representative of other employees, then a much different response is required.

In the case of Assange, I am also asking those 2 questions. If Assange wants to destroy corporations and governments for no good reason as his primary objective, then it seems likely to me that others will stay away from him, he will find no support and his site will be shut down. On the other hand, if Assange is communicating (exemplifying) higher values such as liberty, honor and integrity and that is resonating with groups of Nomads, going after Assange is meaningless. Trying to shut his site down won't work as we are seeing because groups of Nomads are putting up mirror sites around the world.

This circles back to what ridgel said: "If Assange is killed he will be remembered as a martyr to a military industrial complex that wasted the wealth of a once-great nation. If he lives his actions will be remembered as a triumph of truth and the human spirit over the faceless "team-player" bureaucracy..."

[gerald]

This wikileaks thing is very interesting -- it may have a completely different meaning then what is thought of by most.
Question, if you are Assange what do you have to gain from this?, -- notoriety, most likely death or imprisonment, and maybe the knowledge that you have impacted society?, -- for a selfish person - one who cares about himself in some fashion - it seems like a bad move. However, if you are working toward a greater goal, (and think you have the knowledge of real "reality" and how things work) one's life may not be important, in fact one's life may be expendable and of no consequence. How so? Most of us are wrapped up in what we perceive as " reality", but suppose the world in which we live in, is an illusion of lies, deceit, manipulation and the suppression of the truth,-- for the benefit of the few. Could it be that these revelations are a crack in the dam of this illusion, so that we may learn the truth? And thereby transform global society into one that is more open and truthful? After all, how can a society, as a whole, make intelligent decisions, if only a few know the "truth", and if "the few" use this knowledge, to manipulate and control society for the benefit of "the few"?. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Guest]

He was born to parents involved in a traveling acting company. When he was around 8 y.o. his mother married a musician and member of a notorious cult, eastern mysticism, tantric yoga, LSD, strange psychiatric experiments, and who knows what else. When he was 11 y.o. his mother fled and they lived in hiding, here and there, pretty much until he went to college. Why he's doing all of this? Partly genetic, partly paranoia, partly narcissism, partly anger at authority, no one really knows, including himself.

I see this as part of a larger struggle we're all facing with information technology destroying privacy of every kind. Its affecting entities and individuals of every shape and size. From the military that's having trouble keeping informants identites secret to the college girl whose improprieties are open for the world to see on Monday morning on facebook.

[Tom Acre]

Above "Guest" is me.

[Higgenbotham]

It seems to me that Assange is making mistakes. I don't believe he should be releasing the names of the facilities that are vulnerable to terrorists. He should probably leave the military and the diplomats out of it unless he has something specific that falls into the category of wrongdoing or lies.

I don't think his background is conducive to properly running an organization like this. He needs to take the advice of someone who has been in government and corporations and seen corruption from the inside.

Yet, despite that, his message is resonating and he is receiving support as groups of hackers are going after companies who have taken the side of the goverment. Overall, it seems like feelings are very strong on both sides and opinions are very divided. Does it remind anyone of any previous Fourth Turning issues? When I think of Assange I think of, "Give me liberty or give me death." But he's no Patrick Henry based on what I know anyway. Patrick Henry was a Nomad though. As was George Washington.

[John]

Dear Gerald,

> This wikileaks thing is very interesting -- it may have a
> completely different meaning then what is thought of by most.

> Question, if you are Assange what do you have to gain from this?,
> -- notoriety, most likely death or imprisonment, and maybe the
> knowledge that you have impacted society?, -- for a selfish person
> - one who cares about himself in some fashion - it seems like a
> bad move. However, if you are working toward a greater goal, (and
> think you have the knowledge of real "reality" and how things
> work) one's life may not be important, in fact one's life may be
> expendable and of no consequence.

I have an opinion on this because I'm in something of the same
situation. People ask me what I have to gain from all I put into this
web site except a lot of grief.

I always give two answers -- obsession and an altruistic desire to
help people prepare for what's coming.

Some people have implied that I want to change the world, although
that's usually expressed in an accusatory manner -- do I want to start
a war, or start a stock market crash? I always respond to such
questions or accusations by saying that I have no such influence at
all, and Generational Dyanmics itself says that I can't possibly have
that kind of influence.

So I see what I'm doing as having a fairly narrow sphere of influence,
and as I said before, I see Daniel Ellsberg as having a similarly
narrow view of his objectives.

But I see Assange as very different -- as having the same kind of
megalomania as Obama and Hitler. All of three of these people are in
the Nomad archetype, all three of them were undoubtedly surprised when
they unexpectedly fell into positions of wide influence, and all three
of them reacted by believing that they had the power to change the
entire world, through their own personal actions and personalities.
One of them committed suicide surrounded by disaster, and the other
two are now in the process of learning very harsh lessons about how
their megalomania may not have been fully justified.

I'm working with the hypothesis that this only happens with people in
the Nomad archetype, and only in the Crisis era. I'm trying to think
of any examples from the 60s-90s. The closest I've come is that
Boomers believed that they changed the world in the 1960s, but that
was through generational action, not through one person's personal
actions.

John