![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ghoststrider.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWikiLeaks backlash: The first global cyber war has begun, claim hackers | Media | The Observer
In a lot of science fiction, there is, in the story's past, many decades or even centuries or millennia before its subjective present, some sort of conflict that destroys the old order, and from its ashes rise a new one. We usually think of post-apoaclyptic fiction, ala Fallout, but this is not always the case; BattleTech had its "Second Soviet Civil War" which helped spurred the creation of a world government, and that can hardly be considered post-apocalyptic fiction. (Maybe apocalyptic, in some eyes.) Star Trek had World War III--in fact, lots of fiction had some sort of World War III--Halo had various conflicts on Earth and its intrasystem colonies...although this is a rather sparse list of examples, you get the drill. (In order to not distract myself, I'm not opening any new tabs to look for more.)
I've always wondered if we would have such a conflict, or some sort of event, in real life, that would fundamentally alter our progression into the future. Some have looked to the War on Terror or the iPhone as such moments, and while they are no doubt significant and important, I've looked to something more radical, more revolutionary, more fundamentally drastic. And since we're still not going to have AI during my lifetime, no matter what Ray Kurzweil says, I'm looking to human actions for such a sign.
Reading the above article, I felt what I was looking for for so long. Granted, a lot of it is no doubt The Guardian's own overhyping of the situation; they are, after all, a left-wing newspaper, and the Assange/WikiLeaks situation is seen as something of a left-wing rallying point (at least from where I'm sitting.) But I have no reason to doubt that the underpinnings of this article are, in fact, true. And when you read phrases like "seemed to be the first sustained clash between the established order and the organic, grassroots culture of the net," and "No one seems certain where the febrile cyber conflict will lead, only that it has just begun," you can't help but think that "Wow, something really big is going on. Something radical. Something that will change all of human society, perhaps forever."
I've been saying for the past two years now, almost three, that what's going on with the global recession and our economic woes is really the beginnings of the downfall of the old order. We've seen central banks around the world, and particularly in America, scurrying to protect the finances of their commercial backers while debasing the public currency, while governments bail out their corporate friends at the citizenry's expense and establish more rules that prevent those from the underclass from ever realizing their full potential and getting a chance to challenge the old dogs on a level playing field. Yet for all of this, what have they gotten? Barely anything. Although they've staved off a worse collapse (jury's still out on that one, though), their "success" is only fleeting. Already holes are appearing in the "jobless recovery," self-evident just from its name. There is no certainty we're out of the woods, and it appears that our "leaders" are just careening from one crisis to another. Moreover, although they've engaged in plenty of media massaging (and no, that's not a typo, I really mean that they're massaging the media) in order to improve their PR, it hasn't really worked. Certainly a great number of people have bought their message, but an even greater number haven't, and are either just skeptical or outright opposed to it.
This article, for me at least, crystallized and helped me realized exactly what is going on here. This conflict is not between libertarians and socialists, doves and hawks, Democrats and Republicans, or any other two groups. It is between two forces: centralization vs. decentralization. The former is the old way of doing things, with massive corporations buying huge amounts of influence with a central government, that increasingly micromanages not only its subnational units but also its own citizenry, infecting all aspects of life that can be arranged from a central authority. The latter is the new way of doing things, and is best exemplified by the "dooacracy" of Burning Man, the open source movement, Wikis, micromanufacturing, peer-to-peer services (of all kinds, not just file downloading), and DIY methods to all sorts of problems. While the 20th century was a period of centralization, the 21st century appears to be a period of decentralization, not only politically, but also socially, economically, culturally, and maybe even spiritually (goodbye to the Catholic Church? At the risk of offending my more devout friends, I surely hope so!)
This is only natural; as information has been spread, it is impossible to keep it all contained in one location. We've seen this most in the media sphere; in the past, large news organizations acted as the gatekeepers to information; only what they wanted to print or broadcast ended up in the public discussion. Through various means, power holders and the "elite" could keep the public in the dark. But with the rise of blogs, cheap recording equipment, and citizen journalism, no longer can anyone keep anyone in the dark. Wikileaks is a prime example; the original attempt at shutting it down only made it more resilient, spreading its information out farther, and now, as the article notes, it is effectively immune to attack. Unless every government and major corporation unite in a flawless, coordinated "strike" against the Wikileaks data, it will survive, somewhere. And potentially even then.
As for this war, I know not how long it shall last. It may be six weeks. It may be six months. It may even last six decades. But I do know, if it is not stopped in its infancy, our society will be changed irrevocably. With the power structures holding up the current regime already suffering structural integrity failure simply by how they're built, the application of some force will cause it to crumble into dust. It's possible that this First Global Cyber War will banish the state--or at least its heavily intrusive variant--into the annals of history for good, as people find new ways to work around the state and their corporate parasites shoving products into their faces 24/7. We're already seeing that those entities are not responding well to the hackers, as the shut down of Senate.gov, PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard's websites have shown. And if, god forbid, they gathered enough computers together and took down, say, the DoD network, we'll know who's won. (If the Chinese don't jump in.)
Looking at this, I can't help but feel that we're at a turning point. We're seeing the public itself, and its right to know, openly challenging the system of suppression and dominance we've been forced to live under for the past several decades. We're seeing the beginnings of an event that will forever change our history, and may one day be recorded in the history books paralleling the Battle of Marathon, the collapse of the Roman Empire, the invention of electricity, or the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe.
May we live in interesting times.
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/10 01:35 (UTC)Apocalypse in general. Those Christians who believe in immanent apocalypse would have to be a subset of Christians who believe in Apocalypse.
As in 'those people who eat with forks' is a subset of 'people', though I wouldn't go attack someone claiming that there is a negative connection between people and eating with forks, I think that might be a little over the top.
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/10 01:37 (UTC)Your comment wasn't about an apocalypse in general. Your comment was about the belief "that the apocalypse is going to happen in their lifetime." Since you seem to be interested in logical fallacies, the one you exhibit here is the fallacy of the moving goalposts.
Every major belief system in western thought since and including the Hellenistic period has generally endorsed the belief in an apocalypse in general.
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/10 01:41 (UTC)I'm describing the reason I said 'christians' in my comment about those who believe apocalypse is eminent.
You're still attacking something nobody said, how's it going? You winning?
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/10 01:43 (UTC)No, we're not. I'm talking about your original comment. You're evading this via the fallacy of the moving goalposts.
"I'm describing the reason I said 'christians' in my comment about those who believe apocalypse is eminent."
And I'm pointing out why this was incorrect.
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/10 01:46 (UTC)No I'm not. Point it out.
And I'm pointing out why this was incorrect.
No you're not. You're trying to claim that there's less christians than some other group that believe in eminent apocalypse.
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/10 01:51 (UTC)Yes, you are plainly are. Your initial comment concerned the belief "that the apocalypse is going to happen in their lifetime." When this comment was responded to, you moved the goalpost to being about an "Apocalypse in general." This was pointed out at the time and the comments are still there so anyone can confirm their content.
"You're trying to claim that there's less christians than some other group that believe in eminent apocalypse."
No, I'm not, I'm claiming that There is of course a negative connection between Christianity and assuming immanent apocalypse, canonized in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians where the local Christian community was chastised for such assumptions. This was pointed out repeatedly and the comments are still there so anyone can confirm their content.
Reading Rainbow.
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/10 01:55 (UTC)Yes, I said there are christians who believe that the apocalypse is going to happen in their lifetime.
When this comment was responded to, you moved the goalpost to being about an "Apocalypse in general."
I did not do any such thing. You seemed to take issue with the idea that there are christians who believe in the apocalypse happening during their lifetime.
I explained why I said 'christians' who believe in the apocalypse during their lifetime as opposed to say 'fruit puddings' who believe in the apocalypse during their lifetime.
I'm claiming that There is of course a negative connection between Christianity and assuming immanent apocalypse
Right, and how's that going? fun times? Winning? Who's arguing against you? I bet they're a big meanie.
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/10 03:56 (UTC)somemany Christians out there who haven't read that Epistle, aren't that "knowledgeable" about the Bible and the more arcane elements of Christian theology, and do believe that the apocalypse will happen in their lifetime. I mean, seriously, have you already forgotten the Left Behind series? That was all over this! (And you can't call them non-Christians, either; as long as they believe that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior and died for their sins and now sits in Heaven at the right hand of God the Father, they're Christian. Maybe not your flavor of Christian, but they're Christian.)(no subject)
Date: 17/12/10 04:04 (UTC)It's quite possible, but I don't know the science on this offhand.
"I mean, seriously, have you already forgotten the Left Behind series?"
I've tried, but alas with little luck.
"That was all over this!"
It's in Lord of the Rings too I think.
"And you can't call them non-Christians, either; as long as they believe that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior and died for their sins and now sits in Heaven at the right hand of God the Father, they're Christian."
No, that's not sufficient for Christianicity. But I'm not sure why any of this is relevant, since you seem to agree with my claim about the position of Christianity and simply want to observe that many people aren't familiar with the teachings of Christianity. But I've never disputed the latter point and it doesn't seem to challenge anything I've said.
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/10 04:14 (UTC)I'm telling you that many Christians do believe this. Ergo, your assertion is incorrect.
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/10 04:16 (UTC)I'm telling you that many Christians do believe this. Ergo, your assertion is incorrect."
No, that argument doesn't follow. Similarly, being an idiot isn't entailed in being left-handed, even though many left-handed people are idiots.
If only I'd had great foresight, I might made this point in my very first comment and saved us all this trouble.
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/10 04:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/12/10 04:44 (UTC)Of course it doesn't follow from anything, it's not a conclusion.
"Beliefs do not equal genetics and vice-versa."
No one said they did.
Are you really this confused about it, or is this part of your trolling?
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/10 22:30 (UTC)In other words, you brought it up, it's part of your trolling. But again, non-inflammatory trolling, not a problem. Just annoying.
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/10 22:39 (UTC)It doesn't seem like you understand what any of these words mean. I don't mean to be rude, but is English your second language? I am trying to figure this out.
Left-handedness is being used as an analogy for Christianity here. Analogies are not substitutes for each other, nor do they function by their being a correlation between them. Rather, analogies are used to identify similar logical relations between judgments. For example, here is a common question in tests of literacy: cat is to animal as purple is to colour. Now, if you complained that there's no correlation between being purple and being a cat, you'd be entirely confused about what is being said here. The point is that the logical relation between cat and animal is the same as that between purple and colour (i.e. member to class), which is what the analogy highlights. I understand that if you're not comfortable with the language, this sort of thing would seem very obscure to you. But I would recommend asking for clarification when you encounter these sorts of issues, rather than flying off the handle (especially if you're inclined, as evidently you are, to make moderation threats in an embarrassing attempt to bolster your position in a conversation).
If this idea of an analogy remains obscure to you, I can recommend some reading on the matter or try to explain further.