Roland Dürre
Tuesday December 7th, 2010


By now, the Wikileak fuss has almost died down again. And the apocalypse predicted by some because secret documents have been sold out did not happen. Well, aren’t we used to waiting in vain for the predicted end of the world?

Wikileak, however, is not the only place on the internet where extraordinary things happen. Consequently, it makes sense to contemplate and reflect a little. It is time to reasonably balance values and develop your own judgement autonomously. That is what I tried to do. Regardless of some counter-arguments, I eventually came up with the following conclusion:

Yes – it is a good idea for us to have maximum transparency!

The Pros I found for giving weight to this statement will beat all my Cons:
We live in a world where powerful systems gain lives of their own on many levels in a way we never experienced before.

In order to promote their own interests, the great concerns, no matter which sector we are talking: energy, finance, food, media, pharmacy or resources, act ruthlessly. 
Tobacco concerns manage almost unbelievable margins. Car companies ignore the future needs and sell products which do not deserve the name “modern”. Interest groups and lobbyists dominate the market und ruin countries, the environment and people.

The way in which industry, media and society manipulate the consumer is no longer excusable. Originally, the goal of business was to satisfy the needs of people. Now, all that is left as a goal is maximum shareholder value.
Thus, an alliance of business and politics marches through the world looking for profit. And who gets to carry the burden? The majority – the poorest.

In the other dimensions of life, for instance in sports, it hardly looks better, either. The FIFA just demonstrated how lobbyism and probably also corruption win over rationality. It seems to be even worse with states and their governments and administrations. Just remember how artfully and unjust the last wars were initiated and justified. Or how politics and business have built a common network. And how unjust states have been made acceptable. Nor do the religions remain passive. Instead of helping, they play strange games on the backs of their people.

What we need is change. Both as people and society, we have to turn around and change our social basic beliefs. This, however, can only be achieved if we remember the basic virtues of enlightenment. And part of this process is to really find out what happens around us all over the planet. Only the highest possible degree of transparency will enable us to counter all the cliquishness of power behind closed doors.

(Translated by EG)

3 Kommentare zu “WIKILEAK I”

  1. Chris Wood (Tuesday December 7th, 2010)

    Very good Roland, but your hang to nostalgia is showing through! Industry did not start with the Bavarian constitution! The first “commercial” bakers did not set out to benefit mankind, but to feed themselves and their families. The same goes for the first service concerns. Often industry works to the benefit of mankind, but controls have always been needed. A “baker’s dozen” means 13, and derives from heavy penalties for giving short weight.
    The concept of “basic beliefs” is also rather dubious. We have a complex assortment of beliefs, rather than a basic set from which others are derived.

  2. rd (Tuesday December 7th, 2010)

    Hi Chris, vermute, dass die ersten Bäcker die Mütter oder Väter waren. Und die haben bestimmt für Ihre Gemeinschaft gebacken …

  3. Enno (Thursday December 9th, 2010)

    Ich finde Wikileaks eigentlich auch gut, ich frage mich aber, wie es uns nützt?

    Wer von euch verfolgt Wikileaks oder liest auf Wikileaks?

    Public-Private-Partnership-Verträge von 300 Seiten versteht doch kaum jemand. Vermutlich könnte ich es verstehen, aber die Zeit nehme ich mir dafür nicht.

    Also kurz eine Umfrage unter kritischen Lesern: Nutzt hier jemand Wikileaks direkt?
    Oder gehen Infos von Wikileaks nur über die Presse an die Öffentlichkeit?

Kommentar verfassen