On Sat, 17 Aug 2013, CryptoFreak wrote: > There's definately a chance it could become corrupt.
A *chance*? It's *already corrupt by definition: do you undeerstand what is required to organize and run a political (read: Organized Crime) party? > But I think the big difference between the Wikileaks Party and other, > more traditional parties, is that the WLP is focused on more than just > grabbing power. The whole organization is about speaking truth to power, > destroying secrets, informing the populace, and holding those in power > accountable. That a little different than most others. Where have I heard that before I wonder? Whigs? Republicans? Democrats (Obama as recently as 2008 even)? > Of course that could all be hyperbole just like Obama's promises of change but > we don't know yet. While I agree that a cryptoanarchist poses a bigger threat > to the power structure than a political party does, could this not be a good > forward step? It *could*. But I doubt it. //Alif -- Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. An American Spring is coming: one way or another.
