Democrats still in denial; WikiLeaks

I’ll have some non-political posts late tonight, but the following stories are encouraging:

Democratic South finally falls

Some of the discussions here have been about how the Republicans need to be more clearly the “party for white people” — it looks like this has now happened in the South, though much later than predicted in 1965 and 1994.

Pay no attention to those 63 Tea Party Victories in the congress

Good article about the flimsiness of the straws the Democrats are grasping at to reassure themselves they really did OK in this month’s election.

Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels

Of course the leakers and the NY Times are treasonous, but having stipulated that, what do the leaks say about the Obama administration that we didn’t already know? And what, if anything, will change because of the leaks?


About Polymath

Discoverable with effort
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Democrats still in denial; WikiLeaks

  1. Alvis Velthomer says:

    The thing about Wikileaks is that it makes me realize how much our intelligence and secret-keeping sucks. I wonder why Wikileaks never got a hold of any of China’s secrets. Maybe because the people who hold onto China’s secrets have an emotional investment in the future of China, whereas the people who hold onto America’s secrets see America as a mere corporation and don’t give a damn about the country.

    I heard that the guy who leaked the previous round of secrets was a some pissed off homosexual in the Pentagon who wanted DADT repealed. Really? We will jeapordize the lives of American soldiers because some glitter boy is upset with politics? This is why the left always wins. It has no restraint, it has no morals. The right has to fight with a muzzle (see how the extreme left is never demonized in the same way the extreme right or ethnonationalism is).

    Here is my maxim about the “Right” in the West:
    Today’s “right” was yesterday’s left. And today’s left will be tomorrow’s “right”.

    Really, the only issue that the “right” has been holding ground on is economics, and I feel that will soon cave in once demographic overrun takes place nationally (it has already happened in California, where any “right” is now non-existent”).

  2. Alvis Velthomer says:

    As to more clearly becoming the “party for white people”, they would be implicitly the “party for white people” if the people who actually controlled policy for the GOP were against open borders and for immigration restrictionism. However, there cannot ever be an explicit call to “white interests” in today’s political climate, because “white interests” are associated by the media and entertainment as being in conjunction with the swastika and white hoods.

    Also, lots of whites (especially coastal ones) pride themselves on seeing the “wrong kind of white people” as being the source of everything wrong with the country. They have no problem demonizing and denigrating “the wrong kind of white people” and white people who are concerned about ethnocentric national interests are a sort of “secular satanists” for today’s Western elite and mainstream. How many movies have there been neo-nazis as the main villains despite them having absolutely no power or influence? Meanwhile, communists and misanthrope-leftists can smash and burn property and they will never get demonized. I always found that amusing that “right wing” demonstations tend to be orderly and clean, whereas left-wing ones tend to be chaotic and dirty, yet the right-wing ones almost always get negative coverage.

  3. Alvis, very good comments, I can’t disagree with anything you say.

  4. FortitudineVincimus says:

    I think there are two reasons America’s taking the bashing here:

    1. We don’t execute traitors. In China, you are shot for much, much less. And in Russia, you’ll probably just wish they shot you instead.

    2. Ethical chaos. The stupid pea-brains that leaked documents to Wikileaks are practically teenagers who have totally not thought through the consequences of their actions, and are less concerned with putting the lives of their brothers in the field on the line, whether they are innocent or guilty of harming civilians unnecessarily, than they are with fulfilling their private sense of what’s right and wrong.

  5. FV, I agree, but leaking is not always wrong. It can be a responsible way to fight corruption, if you know what you are doing and have been blocked from working within the system. In America now, though, if you really want to fight corruption you should not leak to the leftist bastards at the NY Times but to a sympathetic Congressman on the relevant committee, in our system there will usually be one. The exception is corruption both parties participate in.

    But if it is something military you want to leak about, Congress is the only responsible place to leak to.

  6. Anonymous Crab says:

    Glitter boy? Oh, I get it, because gay people must wear glitter, or something! Oh, that was really funny. Do you have equally hilarious nicknames for black people?

    As far as treason, I’m not sure that anything in what’s been leaked rises to that level, but I don’t see any problem in prosecuting leakers for disclosure of classified information, which (at a glance) seems to allow for ten years in prison, presumably per release.

  7. Crab, I’m not familiar enough with the content of the new leaks to say they are treasonous, but previous NY Times stories blowing the secrecy on legal operations that were effectively fighting al Qaeda qualify in my book as “aid and comfort to the enemy” which is treason. (They pretended the operations were illegal as a cheap justification but that was just a lie.) You are right that the disclosure of classified information is already enough to put the leakers in jail for a long time; but I don’t know if the NY Times can be prosecuted for pulling something off WikiLeaks.

    In my opinion the existence of WikiLeaks is a good thing, but good things can be abused.

    I agree that “glitter boy” was pretty snarky, but that guy deserves to be called a lot worse. I am always amused that people get so offended by labels with no logical function other than so signify that the speaker doesn’t like the person he is speaking about. You shouldn’t get offended at mere dislike, if they’re not actually insulting you by calling you stupid or evil or crazy or ugly etc. For example, why should a Japanese person get offended at being called a “Jap”? Semantically it just means Japanese and there’s nothing bad about it except what the speaker is unspokenly presuming which the listener need not agree with. Even worse than being offended by childish name-calling is being shamed by it — the white males who let themselves be made to feel guilty over being white males are pathetic wimps.

  8. OK, here is an interesting revelation from the WikiLeaks dump — apparently Obama’s advisers actually believed the Arab propaganda that the Israel-Palestinian conflict was the source of all the problems in the Middle East and the Saudis yelled at him “no you idiot Iran is the big concern” or words to that effect.

  9. Anonymous Crab says:

    Would you be offended if someone referred to you as a “Papist?” I mean, semantically, it just means you follow the teachings of the Pope, right? And even though 99.9% of the time, the word is used in a derogatory sense, maybe the person referring to you is somehow unaware of that fact and doesn’t mean anything negative about it? That’s likely to be the case, right?

    Pretty sure “Jap” is the same thing; the histories of terms, and the way we’ve used them, matters.

    I don’t get the leap from not wanting to use offensive terms to refer to people and being ashamed of or guilty for being a white male.

    Separately, I’m iffy on prosecuting for publication, especially when there are multiple publishers, especially in the internet age when the NYT has effectively no greater or lesser reach than this blog. (Obviously, initially, at the instant of publication of something new, they have far more reach, and the capacity to handle far more hits — if this blog were the sole source of these leaks, presumably Drudge’s links to it would quickly overwhelm — but within a day or so, the content would be reposted to hundreds or thousands of other sites, making, in the long run, you and the NYT equal in reach.)

  10. Crab, there are differences between being criticized, offended, and insulted.

    If someone calls me a Papist, meaning it negatively, all he is saying is “I don’t like Catholics”. The word itself is just a signal for that but it’s the kind of jibe that requires no response, it’s self-refuting and makes him look bad, not me. I can’t be offended by people who are too childish for me to care about; and if I were offended, it would be exactly the type of offense I would take at someone saying “I don’t like you” or “I loathe you”, it’s not the word that bothers me. The same is true if he calls me something like a “dirty rotten Papist” — since he doesn’t expect to be understood as saying I am literally covered in filth, it’s just a way for him to say “I REALLY don’t like you”.

    If some Muslim calls me an evil infidel kaffir, that still doesn’t require a response since he is obviously deriving those descriptors from the fact that I am a Christian and not a Muslim and I don’t need to deny that; it is more offensive because “evil” is both negative and factually wrong, but in this context it is a statement of opinion based on his view that Christians are evil, and it again reflects badly on him rather than me. It is also potentially threatening depending on his attitude towards jihad, but it’s not the kind of thing I could sue him over and the right response is to shrug it off.

    If someone calls me an embezzler or child molester or plagiarist or some other false and damaging statement of fact, then I am insulted and may rightfully sue him or seek other forms of reparation; but even there it is not the words themselves that are offensive, it is the falsity of the accusation. That is the only kind of verbal attack that requires a response (I could respond to the other ones if I wanted to attack their premises that being a Catholic is a bad thing, but I don’t need to since they have not actually said anything which should make someone change their opinion of me).

    Many of the progressives’ techniques for getting people to vote for what they want involve appealing to guilt, shame, or moral vanity by various rhetorical and psychological tricks. The demonization of white males is one of them. When you actually parse everything they’ve said and try to turn it into a logical argument, you eventually run into an assertion that whites, or males, or white males, simply because of their status as such, owe something to non-whites or females and should feel bad if they don’t assent to the proposed policy. Most people never reach the point of parsing it out like this, they just get vague feelings of guilt (that they owe something) or shame (that they are not part of the cool favored group) or moral vanity (because they are by assenting proving their superiority to the benighted whites or males who don’t recognize this). It’s simply a tricky use of words which do not in themselves denote anything bad to make people feel bad, which can’t work when seen through, in the same way that “you’re a Papist” has no sting when you translate it to “I don’t like Catholics”.

  11. Crab, prosecuting for republishing something found in a public place like WikiLeaks is generally untenable; though an exception may be made in time of war when you are talking about current troop movements or something like that where there is an imminent danger. But if the leaker told the NY Times where on WikiLeaks to find this when they would otherwise have had to guess the URL because nothing pointed to it, then it wasn’t really public and they share the guilt.

  12. Nice comment from Instapundit reader David Shimm:

    Why is it that Wikileaks has been able to publish all kinds of classified State Dept. documents, but Obama’s Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard Law transcripts still remain confidential? Maybe we should have a university registrar’s office consult with the US government to assure that secrets remain secret? I’m just wondering, that’s all.

    Glenn then observes:

    In my experience, university registrars are formidable and competent. Apparently the same can’t be said for the folks entrusted with our national secrets.

    He has a point, but the real answer is that, as Alvis said, the left has no restraint and no morals, therefore illegal leaks from the left will be more common than illegal leaks from the right. If the leaker was indeed a gay soldier dissatisfied with the DADT policy this counts as a “leak from the left”. I don’t know enough to say whether there is good evidence in the leaks of the agenda of the leaker.

  13. FortitudineVincimus says:

    I don’t get why all of sudden we’re eager to listen to what Arab leaders say, if it’s to bomb Iran, when before we were bashing them for playing both sides of the fence as regards islamic fanatacism.

    What’s it going to be??

  14. Alvis Velthomer says:

    All I am curious about is, why the hell is our government so damn incompetent and filled with traitors from the bottom to the top? However, though I suppose it has been that way for decades, with many back in FDR’s administration being closet communists or simply sympathetic toward it.

    Also, to AnonymousCrab, I am sorry if you were offended by my choice of words. Perhaps a more apt term would have been “traitorous activist”.

  15. FV, the point is not that we should do what they want, it’s that we didn’t even KNOW what they wanted because we believed their ridiculous propaganda.

  16. Alvis, because public service attracts both public-spirited people and corrupt lazy people, and we stopped weeding out the corrupt lazy ones once the system had declined to a certain level of mediocrity. The fundamental issue is that most of the people who work for the government (not counting the military as part of the government for this discussion) do so because they could not do better in the private sector, in other words they have problems of intellect, work ethic, or character.

  17. rebelliousvanilla says:

    OMG, that’s offensive!!! Glitter boy!

  18. FortitudineVincimus says:

    “We should just turn the Middle East into a big glass crater for all I care…”

  19. FortitudineVincimus says:

  20. FV, you’re getting off topic — see my latest on the Koran-burning thread

  21. Anonymous Crab says:

    The way they’re dribbling out the cables, it may be a loooong time before there’s any evidence one way or the other on whether anything here rises to the level of treason, or if it’s just all mildly embarrassing crap, like most of what’s been released so far.

    I did see late last night something about Iran, where the cable used information from an un-named but easily identifiable Iranian source — it was along the lines of “the source is from a prominent family from the so-and-so area, is the two-time Iranian national fencing champion and a past president & vice president of the Iranian Fencing Association” — stuff that could easily get the guy killed. I don’t know if that rises to treason or if it has to relate to an actual American operative and not just a foreign source, but either way, that’s bad.

  22. The leaks so far tend to support my view that the US is inept and blundering rather than secretly pulling the strings of the European governments. I don’t know why, at this point, any European politician would fear the influence of the US government. (They might well fear the political and economic damage we would unintentionally cause as side effects of our policies, but not that we could hurt them specifically on purpose.)

  23. Alvis Velthomer says:

    There was actually an interesting theory by Michael Savage (a usually politically incorrect radio host) regarding the last Wikileaks leaks. He believes that they may have been authorized by Obama in order to discredit Hillary Clinton, who is rumored to might challenge Obama in 2012 (I have heard several rumors about Clinton’s plans to run against Obama in 2012). If this indeed true, it shows the extent to which Obama is a sociopath.

    Unfortunately, I do not have much hope in the Republicans in 2012 to nominate someone decent, and even if they do. I know the left will run a third-party candidate to detract votes from the anti-Obama vote (there are rumors that Bloomberg might run for this very reason).

  24. Alvis Velthomer says:

    Also, Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, has called for Hillary Clinton to resign. I am not sure of Julian Assange’s personal politics. But he is most likely an internationalist leftist, or a borderless anarchist or libertarian.

  25. Alvis, I agree that the left will yet again promote a 3rd party candidate whom they hope will take more votes away from the Republican than from the Democrat, but it won’t work this time. Bloomberg is indeed a likely stooge for this. I also expect Hillary to resign and run against Obama in the Primary.

    Assange’s precise politics are irrelevant. It appears that anti-Americanism is more important to him than left-right issues. In my opinion the leaks are not very damaging, they provide pretexts and excuses for other nations to oppose us, but they don’t reveal anything really sinister or scary, just incompetence. For example:

    Rumor Confirmed: Obama Traded Missile Shield for Russian Help With Iran That Never Appeared

    Here’s another relevant post from the same blog:

    Then & Now: NYT On Publishing Illegally Obtained WikiLeaks Reports and Illegally Obtained ClimateGate Data

    I dislike Assange for a variety of reasons, mostly because he won’t admit his agenda, but I approve of the existence of a secure anonymous site for publicizing dangerous data. I think the benefits of such a resource outweigh the costs, but of course we are free to prosecute anyone falling under US jurisdiction who uses Wikileaks to damage our national security, and we are also free to retaliate against those outside US jurisdiction who do that, by diplomatic and economic restrictions for example. There is a danger that disinformation may also be leaked there which is hard to refute without compromising our security, but since there has always been an abundance of journalists willing to publish disinformation that should have been seen as transparently from foreign intelligence agencies, the additional damage from Wikileaks in that respect is small.

    If I wanted to see America weakened I would welcome the release of these leaks; I find it hard to blame an anti-American like Assange for providing a platform for it, and I don’t think he has the responsibility to go through the huge trove and judge for himself which documents unnecessarily endanger innocent people. The responsibility belongs to the leaker. HOWEVER, I have no problem with a country Assange happens to be in compelling him to testify who leaked the data to him, if they have a bilateral agreement with the USA about such matters as many do. Although Assange could set things up so that even he doesn’t know who the leaker is, with proper encryption protocols, that would reduce the credibility of the leaked information. Still, that’s what I would do if I were him — in this case the leaked documents are self-validating because of there are so enormously many of them, more than any foreign disinformation campaign could create without making fatal mistakes.

  26. rebelliousvanilla says:

    Crab, considering that liberals mind the death of Americans less than the death of foreigners, they should all be tried for treason and barred from holding public office, right? 😛

  27. This story has “legs”, as they say. Here are 4 relevant new items:

    WikiLeaks Assange on the Most-Wanted List

    These Swedish sex charges sound phony to me. If they are phony, that also indicates that, as I suspected, Assange has not violated any U.S. law that would allow him to be extradited so they have to trump something up.

    Hunt WikiLeaks chief down like Osama bin Laden: Sarah Palin demands Assange is treated like Al Qaeda terrorist

    The legalities here are interesting. Technically, Wikileaks could be declared war upon by Congress in the same way al Qaeda was, and it’s certainly legal to try to kill the leader of an organization you are at war with. But there is no blanket permission for the executive branch to declare anyone they want to a war enemy without specific Congressional assent. Also, the extraterritoriality is a very serious problem — it only makes sense to do this if you can actually declare war on the country sheltering him, which is OK when it is Taliban Afghanistan sheltering Bin Laden after 9/11, but ridiculous in this case.

    If you read the story carefully, you will see that what Palin actually said is more reasonable than the way it is being reported. She criticizes our lack of action after the previous two big Wikileak dumps, but I’m not sure what we could have done besides beefing up our internal security to prevent another leak.

    Former WikiLeaks Activists to Launch New Whistleblowing Site

    The technological genie is out of the bottle — arresting Assange won’t stop similar leaks in the future. Another (legally irrelevant) point this story reinforces is that Assange has an unpleasant personality.

    Who is assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists?

    The legality of this is questionable if it was us, but certainly justified if it was Israel. (In my opinion, just because something is illegal doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be doing it, though the operatives have to understand that they will be left out to dry and denied if caught — someone who would risk life and limb might be willing to take that kind of risk as well. Similar considerations apply to torturing terrorists for information — some things which should not be made legal are nonetheless occasionally the right thing to do, as long as you take responsibility and accept the legal punishments if caught).

  28. rebelliousvanilla says:
    Polymath, check who supports the SD the most – 18 to 21 age group and under 30s people. Young Europeans, unlike young Americans aren’t as deranged.

  29. Polymath says:

    That answers my earlier question to you about Sweden, and I am happy to hear it, but I wonder then what this signifies:

    Swedish Mix It Up ad

    If this is supposed to appeal to Swedish young people (and it was produced by Swedish public television) someone is misjudging them.

  30. Polymath says:

    I agree with what FV just said on the Afghanistan thread that WikiLeaks is a good thing overall. It is doing good work on the Climate hoax insanity:

    More on the Wikileaks Climate Cables

  31. I’m not sure how you can declare war on WikiLeaks. I’d laugh if that happened though.

  32. Alvis Velthomer says:

    I am very curious about the future.

    Right now, the Republicans look like they have not learned a thing. Gingrich recently said that he would prefer amnesty over deportation. John Boehner (who is going to be the new speaker of the house) is trying to keep Ron Paul from becoming the head of monetary policy committee. The Republicans, at least at the federal level, seem will be back to their old ways under Bush.

    However, even if the Republicans were actually reactionaries, they don’t have the votes to override Obama’s veto power. So at best they will be obstructionists, and perhaps we might see them deny a bailout to one of the bankrupt big states (California, New York, Illinois), which should give us a preview of what to expect if the entire country does go bankrupt.

    We are living in some interesting times, in the Confucian curse sense.

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