Domscheit-Berg remarks that he has mixed feelings about #HBGary. He says that had Assange not threatened Bank of America, Anonymous would not have needed to out the corrupt firm.
In matters concerning Wikileaks, Domscheit-Berg's management style is that of a classic passive aggressive. What I mean to say is that it's delusional and naive to think that if one plays nice to powerful interests, no one will be threatened.
In reality, real power (the kind at work here) does not relinquish itself easily.
Real power in an anarchical state of nature, only relinquishes power when it becomes convinced that the exchange is beneficial to its own self-interest and survival.
Domscheit-Berg omits that Assange, a private citizen, was threatened with illegal murder by US government leadership in the main stream media, just prior to his Bank of America statements.
The subsequent theater of sophistry in the main stream media and the secret war on private individuals by both government and private interests only evidence that those interests intend on crushing Assange and Wikileaks, and neutralizing any supporters.
These forces aren't looking for a reason beyond the fact that Wikileaks threatens their own ownership of power, their own entrenched interests, and in some cases the survival of their institutional models.
In fact, during Domscheit-Berg's tenure, Wikileaks published documents that outlined a US government strategy to discredit and neutralize the Web site.
Domscheit-Berg accuses Assange of playing politics. I hear there is a place, where politics do not exist. I'm told this magical fairy land is built on an ancient unicorn burial ground.
Well, I assert that Domscheit-Berg's book is a political act, as well as marketing vehicle for his own self-interest, dressed up in the language of an apologist for the public interest, or his version of self-interest rightly understood. I also contend that the US State Department's foreign policy outlined in the cables are political acts. This blog entry is a political act too.
The issue at hand, is not whether institutions or players are self-interested. The issue is how does one execute a strategy that ensures the revival and survival of a truly free press, and an informed public, in the face of a gargantuan military industrial and media complex.
It's a testament to Assange that Wikileaks has lasted as long as it has, and that the institution has managed to publish what it has published in the face of constant attack and murderous tabloid coverage.
I only hope that the bastards out to get Assange and Wikileaks fall on their own words and swords.