Dens, Leaks, English Monarchs and Southern States.

Transition, Transformation and Radical Thinking. 

There are some changes in Ecuador that may bring in a new leader. 

Is there going to be a new strategy and response to the Wikileaks questions? Is the new government going to continue sticking it to the British by harboring the Whistle Blower? Rafael Corera is clearly an outlier. He is an eccentric. He loves the attention that he received from serving up the west with a fair measure of their own medicine. He probably falls into the same category as Ceaser Chavez and the current Nicholas Maduro, as well as Christina Fernandez Of Argentina, and naturally their great mentor of Cuba. 

So there is a southern front but it is weakened and threatened by some of the overtures from the new U.S administration which is using Mexico (the gateway into the U.S) to find a new way of dealing with the southern states. Memories of Reagan are still fresh the minds of historians and so is U.S involvement and support of paramilitary groups. 

The drug wars are important and may be used in the U.S as they were in China (opium wars) where they were responsible at least in part for wearing down the existing aristocracy (the middle class in the U.S can be equated to the monarchs of the day in China). 

The additional strain exists in trade as the current head of state begins to think about a rethink of the agreements that favor business between the Americas and Canada. 

Does the U.K still care given their current state of challenges with like Brexit? 

Also how does the case against the whistleblower stand given the amount of unsolicited support that he has received from none other that POTUS himself? Should the words of the president be seen as a pardon of sorts or should be separate between the case against him in the U.S and the charges that are set against him in Europe and Australia? How can you judge fairly someone who had been praised by the fountain of Honor? 

Russia has probably won the Hegemony wars that have characterized the post cold war era. At least her footprint in the middle east will prove difficult to replace. 

Does Edward Snowden have have enough room to play and does he know enough to sink the current administration? Did he already exhaust those who were listening with enough info? 

If he is still an enemy of state, is it fair to separate between his acts and those of the wikileaks founder? 

The business of intelligence has changed and now instead of favoring states, in the conventional sense the system favors corporations. And now we are seeing more of those that have stood at the helm of these groups come to the forefront of leadership so that the are negotiating for their countries yes but also for their businesses and personal interests across continents. 

This is resulting in a more important fourth estate as well as a fifth which given its freedom has found itself benefiting from the machinery its more constrained neighbor. The whistleblowers found the Information but had to depend of the larger media companies for distribution and to some extent protection. 

So instead of focusing too deeply on traditional states, we will find ourselves paying close attention to commodities and the men that manage and control access to these commodities. 

While still benefitting from the work and sacrifice of the whistleblower he will become increasingly isolated unless he is able to find a territory whose devotion to truth exceeds its concern for its global agreements. 

African Tech Roundup.

Who did more to make Donald Trump the First Citizen of America? Julian Assange and his not so subtle disdain for Hillary Clinton or Facebook and it's algorithms (with the claim of filtering content to suit the subscribers)? 

Wow great question. 

I think to understand the question you need to go back to 2008 and the message of change and hope that was introduced and harnessed by Barrack Hussein Obama. Then you need to step back a little further to the Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Mickail Gorbachev. 

All three were important transitional figures who were dealing with forces beyond the control of their traditional governments. The needs of business and the globe were coming to the surface and it was becoming increasingly clear that the Colonial Powers would have to fade in the background. The cold war and almost over and possibilities for business were going to begin to come to the fore. The British were facing an exhaustion that was draining their traditional revenue sources and soon they were about to engage a foreign force on a long disputed Island. The Americans were over extended and were still reeling after the pressure of Vietnam and a loss of confidence driven in part by President Nixon and the Watergate Scandal. You could argue that this was the start of a trend that would favor Journalists and whistleblowers and in a sense place patriots on one end of a skirmish in a direct confrontation with traditional politicians. 

The world was also becoming much smaller and the control that governments had over Information and the monopoly long enjoyed over truth and education was ending. Kingmakers were vanishing and becoming less important and spin doctors were beginning to feel less relevant. The idea that one man however brilliant was in charge of Foreign policy in U.S-China Relations for so long should have Troubled us but we instead preferred the experts fighting on our behalf an someone else taking the blame. Which is really what democracy is about. We do everything we can to place one man in office and then go crazy when he or she makes an error. 

So this is what in my view the FBs of this world represent. It is an attempt to use media and business and data as a filters and to regain the older monopolies around Information. By use of algorithms these spaces can give users the illusion that they have a voice while harvesting tonnes of personal private pieces of information about them which can be dished out an internals in psychological damaging ways. So we can let the machines do the work that educators and propagandists were doing ages ago. It is much more simple now to watch and participate in an engagement and feel as though you area making a difference when really all you are doing is being dulled over. Those of the faith used to complain about the need of followers to get access to the word of God. These days though you do not need to burn the book you need only create a migraine of versions through which you can conceal the truth. In a sense it is the saturation of information that could be the curse of this age. 

Assange in my view has been placed in a corner and finds himself stuck in a fight between powers that are feeling increasingly less significant in an time of reduced Nationalism. His views are probably skewed because he is under attack. It is also important to realize that if the Americans want you they can get you. There are bound to be several losers in this fight. Larger economies were still going to win even if the forces of globalization were asserting themselves because many of these economies already has massive presence globally with some of their multinational companies and the massive investments they had in education. Sometimes it has proven useful to release certain bits of information at appointed periods of time to 'test the waters' not in order to make any significant changes but to further develop and create more intrusive systems. The furor has died down and the world has moved on to the next news item. 

Some have made changes but we were all probably silly to trust the Internet in the first place even when we knew that it was created by the Defense Department in the U.S. 

So there was really nothing impartial about FB. The democrats knew that they needed the youth to win the W.H. They knew that they needed Silicon Valley and it's revenue to and enthusiasm to progress. They knew that the dynamics around popular votes and electoral colleges would still matter and more importantly the need to draw out of hiding disillusioned voters. Then there was the issue of the Undocumented not so much in the power of their votes but in their effect on business by providing cheap labor. The election process and the tyranny of numbers and the troubling facts that favor immigrants were challenges for another day. 

What Trump has attempted to do is use the same vein of change and align himself with an agenda that favors business. What he will Ty and do with the business Obama has done with the Law. 

We saw a few conflicts between traditional giants like FB, Google and Yahoo and Apple as they attempted to push back against the intelligence community but that is a space that is still in contention. 

Now here is a question for you. 

How would you feel as an American (John Stuart) when one of your most popular Saturday night shows was replaced by a South African mixed race host whose first jokes include references to Nazi Germany and Apartheid?