Ellsberg: “EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange made against me

[Vekseid]

An article written by his son and signed by him: http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/public-accuracy-press-release#more-451

...

As part of their attempt to blacken WikiLeaks and Assange, pundit commentary over the weekend has tried to portray Assange’s exposure of classified materials as very different from — and far less laudable than — what Daniel Ellsberg did in releasing the Pentagon Papers in 1971. Ellsberg strongly rejects the mantra “Pentagon Papers good; WikiLeaks material bad.” He continues: “That’s just a cover for people who don’t want to admit that they oppose any and all exposure of even the most misguided, secretive foreign policy. The truth is that EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”

...

Meanwhile, it's not enough that the rape charges against Assange appear to be entirely groundless, one of the women actually has CIA ties.

Sweden still hasn't charged him with a crime.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-rape-allegations-freedom-of-speech

Many women in both Sweden and Britain will wonder at the unusual zeal with which Julian Assange is being pursued for rape allegations (Report, 8 December). Women in Sweden don't fare better than we do in Britain when it comes to rape. Though Sweden has the highest per capita number of reported rapes in Europe and these have quadrupled in the last 20 years, conviction rates have decreased. On 23 April 2010 Carina Hägg and Nalin Pekgul (respectively MP and chairwoman of Social Democratic Women in Sweden) wrote in the Göteborgs-Posten that "up to 90% of all reported rapes never get to court. In 2006 six people were convicted of rape though almost 4,000 people were reported". They endorsed Amnesty International's call for an independent inquiry to examine the rape cases that had been closed and the quality of the original investigations.

Assange, who it seems has no criminal convictions, was refused bail in England despite sureties of more than £120,000. Yet bail following rape allegations is routine. For two years we have been supporting a woman who suffered rape and domestic violence from a man previously convicted after attempting to murder an ex-partner and her children – he was granted bail while police investigated.

There is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women's safety. In the south of the US, the lynching of black men was often justified on grounds that they had raped or even looked at a white woman. Women don't take kindly to our demand for safety being misused, while rape continues to be neglected at best or protected at worst.

I think we're approaching another of those 'Emperor has no clothes' moments.

[Revolverman]

Is anyone truly surprised the Rape charges were utter bullshit? I'm surprised they didn't try to jump up some child molestation charges since that really gets people up in arms.

[Jude]

Not so much utter bullshit as manipulation of extremist feminist rape laws.  It's certainly not an unusual tactic to take someone in by charging them with something that would never stick in court in order to keep them until you decide what exactly you're going to do.

As far as the CIA connection goes, it's important that anyone who's formulating an opinion on this situation actually click the article and read it.  The connection isn't as insidious and outright damning as the summation of it is.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think that it's a case of he said/she said. I think that if Assange truly was willing to do the 'right thing' and unleash the papers like he did, he should be ready to expect some consequences. There is an abundant level of expectation when a reporter does the 'right thing' and exposes a scandal or publishes papers. It is ridiculous to assume that you can 'publish and be damned' attitude and put those things out there, assume there will be consequences.

Several of the folks listed on that webpage paid the price for their honesty and integrity.  To assume that he could simply go on living his life without a change is foolish and possibly a bit arrogant on the behalf of Assange.

As for the rape charges, I'm getting the feeling that the authorities want to hear and investigate HIS side of things. He bolted from the country fairly quick, and that isn't seen as the action of an innocent man.

[Zeitgeist]

Isn't there a problem with equating Ellsberg's 'Pentagon Papers' and Assange's Wikileaks dump?

The way I see it, the 'Pentagon Papers' were leaked to uncover and reveal a specific issue, problems relating to the decision making in regards to the Vietnam War. The Wikileaks dump was indiscriminate, and had no particular cause behind it under than the naive belief that everything our government(s) do should be completely transparent, all of the time. As if there is no room for decorum, subtlety and etiquette.

I can't say whether or not he broke any laws, but whoever gave him the information certainly did in my opinion. And I think it's doubtful one Army Private was behind it all.

No, I think it's incredibly naive to think this Assange is anything but an opportunist. He is not a 'whistle blower'.

[Callie Del Noire]

Isn't there a problem with equating Ellsberg's 'Pentagon Papers' and Assange's Wikileaks dump?

The way I see it, the 'Pentagon Papers' were leaked to uncover and reveal a specific issue, problems relating to the decision making in regards to the Vietnam War. The Wikileaks dump was indiscriminate, and had no particular cause behind it under than the naive belief that everything our government(s) do should be completely transparent, all of the time. As if there is no room for decorum, subtlety and etiquette.

I can't say whether or not he broke any laws, but whoever gave him the information certainly did in my opinion. And I think it's doubtful one Army Private was behind it all.

No, I think it's incredibly naive to think this Assange is anything but an opportunist. He is not a 'whistle blower'.

I agree, but I'm betting he doesn't see himself that way. Right now he's being 'put down by THE man.' and he's going to play that card to the hilt. I really don't see him measuring up to the moral bravery of any of the folks on that list. He did it for press for his sight and like you said the misguided thought that everyone everywhere must be able to know everything about everyone at anytime.

Privacy, personal or group, (aside from possibly his own) doesn't exist.

[Vekseid]

Not so much utter bullshit as manipulation of extremist feminist rape laws.  It's certainly not an unusual tactic to take someone in by charging them with something that would never stick in court in order to keep them until you decide what exactly you're going to do.

As far as the CIA connection goes, it's important that anyone who's formulating an opinion on this situation actually click the article and read it.  The connection isn't as insidious and outright damning as the summation of it is.

It's more amusing than anything. "Oh great, this is going to fly with the left." It's not enough that she threw a party for him after the incident, stuff like that begs the question "Okay, so why did she come forth?"

Isn't there a problem with equating Ellsberg's 'Pentagon Papers' and Assange's Wikileaks dump?

The way I see it, the 'Pentagon Papers' were leaked to uncover and reveal a specific issue, problems relating to the decision making in regards to the Vietnam War. The Wikileaks dump was indiscriminate, and had no particular cause behind it under than the naive belief that everything our government(s) do should be completely transparent, all of the time. As if there is no room for decorum, subtlety and etiquette.

Revealing the extent of government corruption and malfeasance is the claimed goal.

Wikileaks has a history of indiscriminately releasing information. A year and a half ago they released the 'secret rituals' of about a half dozen college frats/sororities. A year later and Assange was bitching about why people didn't pick stuff like that up on their own.

I can't say whether or not he broke any laws, but whoever gave him the information certainly did in my opinion. And I think it's doubtful one Army Private was behind it all.

Assange is not a US citizen and therefore is not subject to US law in any fashion. Nor could he be - the freedom of the press is in the first amendment. It would be extremely difficult to get Lieberman's douchebaggery to stick without filling the court with clones of Clarence Thomas.

As I mentioned in Trieste's thread, Assange got much of his initial information by sponsoring web proxies and Tor exit nodes. His lack of ethics is not exactly in a great deal of dispute. Even the government admits that Bradley Manning is the sole suspect in the cable releases, however. This is, largely, a result of overclassification and network integration on the government's part.

It's not like the government doesn't realize its fault in this.

No, I think it's incredibly naive to think this Assange is anything but an opportunist. He is not a 'whistle blower'.

I think it's incredibly naive to reduce the man to one word, personally. He's part of the old 'information wants to be free' guard. And most of the media is ignoring his own skill set and resources.

[Vekseid]

This is to say nothing of the fact that Wikileaks has offered to have the Pentagon help redact what gets released, and the government has refused.

Thus, the Department of Defense will not negotiate some "minimized" or "sanitized" version of a release by WikiLeaks of additional U.S. Government classified documents. The Department demands that nothing further be released by WikiLeaks, that all of the U.S. Government classified documents that WikiLeaks has obtained be returned immediately, and that WikiLeaks remove and destroy all of these records from its databases.

Wikileaks is not a United States organization. Wikileaks is a foreign organization. It has no need to give any sort of respect to the United States Government. It chose to, even though it did not have to, and was spurned. It would be difficult for the United States Government to even claim that WikiLeaks was operating outside of the law even if it was an American organization, as it is doubtful if that portion of the law would hold up to constitutional review.

Wikileaks, act least recently, is acting in a far more mature and respectable fashion than the US Government is. If you look at the documents from China, for example, you will note that identities have been carefully redacted.

I can't say I find all of the releases to be terribly relevant - but that is a problem from two angles.

One, from the US Government's end, a lot of material was classified that should not be. At the very least, some sort of delayed review could have been presented. If everything is classified, then nothing is, and then you get mass releases like this, most of which are little more than putting egg on a lot of people's faces, not often those of the US.

From Wikileaks side, so much of the material being trivial hurts them, too, as it makes it harder to pick out stuff that is actually damning. They haven't released a single percent of those documents, yet, so 'indiscriminant' is not an appropriate term for these most recent releases. They're picking out newsworthy bits and releasing them in bundles with silly stuff. It would be better, certainly, if they picked out the newsworthy bits and put a ten-year hold on the rest.

But the Government has its own culpability in this mess, and it's clear that this is how the rest of the world is considering it, in private if not in public.

[Zeitgeist]

Revealing the extent of government corruption and malfeasance is the claimed goal.

Wikileaks has a history of indiscriminately releasing information. A year and a half ago they released the 'secret rituals' of about a half dozen college frats/sororities. A year later and Assange was bitching about why people didn't pick stuff like that up on their own.

Seems like to me he's throw the whole mess against the wall and hopes something will stick, rather than calling attention to a particular grievance. I'd have more respect for the effort if it was to uncover or reveal a particular incident.

Assange is not a US citizen and therefore is not subject to US law in any fashion. Nor could he be - the freedom of the press is in the first amendment. It would be extremely difficult to get Lieberman's douchebaggery to stick without filling the court with clones of Clarence Thomas.

I didn't suggest he broke US laws, or that he is a US citizen. Perhaps he broke international laws, but I can't say as I'm no expert in that area. Lieberman isn't alone, Feinstein, a stalwart California liberal Democrat has been calling for his head also.

As I mentioned in Trieste's thread, Assange got much of his initial information by sponsoring web proxies and Tor exit nodes. His lack of ethics is not exactly in a great deal of dispute. Even the government admits that Bradley Manning is the sole suspect in the cable releases, however. This is, largely, a result of overclassification and network integration on the government's part.

I'm unconvinced the leak started and stopped with Manning and Assange. It would be to the government's best interest to say it was only Manning and that they have him in custody. It stretches credulity one low ranking enlisted serviceman would have both this level of access and able to get away with siphoning off this amount of information.

I think it's incredibly naive to reduce the man to one word, personally. He's part of the old 'information wants to be free' guard. And most of the media is ignoring his own skill set and resources.

Sure, he's a bit more nuanced than one word, but in my opinion he's undeserving of any kind of positive platitudes.

[Vekseid]

Seems like to me he's throw the whole mess against the wall and hopes something will stick, rather than calling attention to a particular grievance. I'd have more respect for the effort if it was to uncover or reveal a particular incident.

Most people would prefer the dross to be cut. Wikileaks has begun to realize this (with the slow releases), but most of it should simply held and released after it's dated for historical purposes.

Openleaks, launching on Monday, is supposedly planning on having a 'less reckless' policy. We'll see.

I didn't suggest he broke US laws, or that he is a US citizen. Perhaps he broke international laws, but I can't say as I'm no expert in that area. Lieberman isn't alone, Feinstein, a stalwart California liberal Democrat has been calling for his head also.

I'm not aware of any international law restricting any sort of disclosure whatsoever. Most of it doesn't focus on individual actions. The idea of nations is starting to get fuzzy, anyway.

I think the people calling for his head ought to be careful what they wish for.

I'm unconvinced the leak started and stopped with Manning and Assange. It would be to the government's best interest to say it was only Manning and that they have him in custody. It stretches credulity one low ranking enlisted serviceman would have both this level of access and able to get away with siphoning off this amount of information.

...are you familiar with SIPRNET?

Regardless, the military isn't blaming everything on him - he's only a person of interest in the Afghan war logs, for example.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm not aware of any international law restricting any sort of disclosure whatsoever. Most of it doesn't focus on individual actions. The idea of nations is starting to get fuzzy, anyway.

I think the people calling for his head ought to be careful what they wish for.

Lieberman and Feinstien aren't known for moderating their impulses or even thinking them through. You can't expect them to do so now. I find it amazing that that the Democrats scream for tighter measures like what they are calling for, then wring their hands and lament when the republicans do the same.

...are you familiar with SIPRNET?

Regardless, the military isn't blaming everything on him - he's only a person of interest in the Afghan war logs, for example.

I am. I've used it, briefly and in a very restricted manner. The thing is the private HAD to have some greater level of access to do his job. It was clear that he used his access to move his agenda up a bit further and grant himself even better access.

[Vekseid]

Lieberman is a textbook narcissist, the only party he has any loyalty to is himself. John Ensign and Scott Brown are cosponsoring his law, anyway. It's not just democrats, obviously.

[Callie Del Noire]

Lieberman is a textbook narcissist, the only party he has any loyalty to is himself. John Ensign and Scott Brown are cosponsoring his law, anyway. It's not just democrats, obviously.

True.. but I always find it funny that these PARTICULAR Democrats (and unaffiliated) always wring their hands years down the line when things turn out 'bad' because of their rush to put a law into action without thinking (or letting the special interests 'help' them think)

[Kate]

He is australian and I think he is a hero.

Concerning ethics - that is highly subjective - to some its unethical to hide the truth.
even if he broke a law - and i dont think he did, if he exposes abuse or more fundamental issues concerning governments being unetical systematically - i think the ends justify the means and more some.

unfortunately the current political stance by the australian head of state sided with a hard-line american government stance.

Australia's stance with america on most hot political issues is disapointing, for some reasons australia looks to us as what it feels it wants to be and beleives they are friends they are not really. the us has time and time again broken agreemetns with australia, and the ansus treaty also doesnt really mean much it has a clause ".. if its in america's interest" effectively that means "we will help you australia ... as long as we were going to do it anyway regardless".

the stuff about it jeapodising peoples lives if the information is free - it could easily be said that more could be in jeapody if such things stay secret - and such abuses of secrecy (depending on the content of other documents) stay acceptable in our culture.


One big problem with things being "justified as secret" is that someone other than you is making the decision on what you shouldnt know.

[Callie Del Noire]

He is australian and I think he is a hero.

Concerning ethics - that is highly subjective - to some its unethical to hide the truth.
even if he broke a law - and i dont think he did, if he exposes abuse or more fundamental issues concerning governments being unetical systematically - i think the ends justify the means and more some.

I disagree with him being a hero. Do I think he's done anything illegal? No. I don't see how my country can prosecute him for revealing information another party gave him. He didn't receive the material in the US, and he's not a citizen. The thing is he's not a hero, he didn't do like Ellsberg did and specifically point out a conspiracy going on within the government, he didn't step up and say 'this is wrong'. He took a bunch of confidential documents and tossed them into the worldwide web and shouted 'oh look what we got to show how the US really thinks of everyone!' Which isn't true. A lot of confidential communications between various DIPLOMATS doesn't show how we think of people. It simply impedes the ability of other states to trust our diplomats to keep things in confidence. Trust, as I said before, is the currency that diplomacy works with. If you can't be trusted to keep things confidential, people won't deal with you. Without people to talk to, you can't build trust between people and nations.

Australia's stance with america on most hot political issues is disapointing, for some reasons australia looks to us as what it feels it wants to be and beleives they are friends they are not really. the us has time and time again broken agreemetns with australia, and the ansus treaty also doesnt really mean much it has a clause ".. if its in america's interest" effectively that means "we will help you australia ... as long as we were going to do it anyway regardless".

the stuff about it jeapodising peoples lives if the information is free - it could easily be said that more could be in jeapody if such things stay secret - and such abuses of secrecy (depending on the content of other documents) stay acceptable in our culture.

I'm sorry that the current diplomatic relations between your country and mine are not too good on your side of things. I honestly don't know how much of that is the fault of the government and how much of it is perception. The Australians I met while in the Navy were great folks, and I enjoyed my 10 days in Australia and Tasmania greatly.

Do you think that the Australian government will want to trust a diplomatic corp who can't be relied upon to keep things discreet between governments?

One big problem with things being "justified as secret" is that someone other than you is making the decision on what you shouldnt know.

Following your comments, it would have been a BAD thing for President Nixon to go to China secretly meet with them like he did. Nixon, a hard core anti-communist president, went to China to start up a diplomatic process with them. Something that even he wouldn't have been able to do if there had been this 'information must be free' outlook that you think is best.

Secrecy has to part of the diplomatic process, and the way that some information is handled inside and outside government. Could you honestly expect to achieve any measure of success with antagonistic governments like North Korea if everything is out there for everyone to see? No.

Do you need to know what the opening demands an antagonistic government makes in a treaty negotiation? Or how about the frequencies that we use for listening to terrorists? Or the time windows of our spy satellites over specific areas? Or what frequencies our radios work and how we encypher them?

There is a limit to 'need to know' for a reason. Assange and his friends don't see any limits on privacy. None. Not that between governments, not secrets a business might wish to keep and definitely NOT what right (or expectation of) to privacy for the average man on the street. Of course, I'm sure that it fully applies to THEM though.

Ellsberg did a dangerous thing, stood up to a government and showed ACTUAL conspiracy and lies to Congress and the American people. Assange and his friends at Wikileaks simply released a huge pile of documents that did nothing to change the process and most likely made it harder for the American Government to conduct diplomatic actions through out the world.

Not to mention the fact that some of these disclosures will interrupt/disrupt investigations, talks, trust building and so on. How long will it be before the folks who DID get mentioned in the released documents are willing to trust the diplomats for fear of some future leak like this. 

[Dingo]

This matter reeks of something bigger even if Assange did rape the women. After all, what the leader or founder of an organization does personally, should not reflect an organization as a whole. So the whole rape charges are whether true or false, trumped up for some bigger purpose.

As for the whole purpose behind WikiLeaks I am of two minds. On one side I believe in true freedom of information. On the other side. There definitely are some things I don't want to know.

There is actually the BBC series Yes, Minister (and Yes, Prime Minister) which I loved, which perfectly explains how government works. Of course it's comedy, but when one watches it, one can only wonder if there's not a grain of truth hidden in it.

And when I read what some of the US Diplomats wrote about heads of state it actually became much more a reason why you don't want to know.

I have another example, which I'd like to share.

Suppose Diplomat Andersen meets up with President Bernard of Countria. They have a very nice chat. Shake hands, leave a good impression. Then in his report back to his own nation, Andersen writes that he thinks the President is an utter idiot with the mind of a monkey and the looks of a chimpansee. However his chat went pretty well.

Now this very personal report and not the finalized version is leaked to the press.

Of course the press is going to mention what Diplomat Andersen thinks of President Bernard. And that can cause diplomatic incidents. Or at the very least embarrassment from those involved.

But do we really want to know that Diplomat Andersen is in private a very disrespectful man. Or do we actually need to know ?

That's the whole issue that as far as I'm concerned WikiLeaks brings to question.

[Kate]

Do you think that the Australian government will want to trust a diplomatic corp who can't be relied upon to keep things discreet between governments?

THe need for secrecy itself is a sign of an immature aspiration.

Abe lincon vs nixon.

True leaders don't need less and less of them.

"Secrecy has to part of the diplomatic process" => I disagree.


"Could you honestly expect to achieve any measure of success with antagonistic governments like North Korea if everything is out there for everyone to see?"

Yes. "High North Korea, start showing signs your immobilising against the south and i will slap you so fking silly ... now I have vented ... lets talk agreements"


"Do you need to know what the opening demands an antagonistic government makes in a treaty negotiation?"

Need to know ? THat depends on my intention. If I knew the information my intention will chance. I shouldtn be deemed by another if I am needy or not, and even if I was deemed
not needy that doesnt mean I don't deserve to know. These people represent us...
knowing if they are doing so for large issues doesnt have to be assumed.

IDeally the problem is with the voters. Vote people in who adore transparency and hopefully people could get addicted to it.


"Assange and his friends don't see any limits on privacy." => I disagree

I have not heard mention these documents imply Mrs So and so has genital worts
or loves anal sex.

"Ellsberg did a dangerous thing, stood up to a government and showed ACTUAL conspiracy and lies to Congress and the American people. Assange and his friends at Wikileaks simply released a huge pile of documents that did nothing to change the process and most likely made it harder for the American Government to conduct diplomatic actions through out the world."

Releasing documents without interpreting them i think is a larger gift to the public.
It allows others to intepret them as they wish. What he effectively has done is say

"Look at these - What do they all mean ? - you make the decision"

Some are shameful for military / governments... knowing this helps people ask one question
"Is this working ? is this what we wanted ? Do we want something else ? How could this happen ? Can we readdress roles and responsibility accountability etc"

How long will it be before the folks who DID get mentioned in the released documents are willing to trust the diplomats for fear of some future leak like this.

Issues of trust are interesting. Do I trust a diplomat to serve my intentions ? No.
They serve their own unless thigns are transparent. Secrecy gives more optiosn for them to be selfish or not care about those they effect. I think secrecy causes more harm than good

If a diplomat was doing their job properly - any transparency on their actions wouldnt be shameful simply proof of their position. High ranking government roles. Employ people who follow the transparent process.

[Oniya]

Tell me something - if you were seeing a psychiatrist, would you think it was right for transcriptions of your sessions to be publicly disseminated?  Medical ethics say they cannot be.  Likewise with priests and confessionals, attorneys (or solicitors) and clients and conversations between husbands and wives - there is a certain expectation of privacy in these relationships.  Without that expectation of privacy, the free exchange of information that allows those relationships to function.

I would submit that diplomats enter negotiations with the same expectation of privacy

[Zakharra]

THe need for secrecy itself is a sign of an immature aspiration.

Abe lincon vs nixon.

True leaders don't need less and less of them.

"Secrecy has to part of the diplomatic process" => I disagree.


Issues of trust are interesting. Do I trust a diplomat to serve my intentions ? No.
They serve their own unless thigns are transparent. Secrecy gives more optiosn for them to be selfish or not care about those they effect. I think secrecy causes more harm than good

If a diplomat was doing their job properly - any transparency on their actions wouldnt be shameful simply proof of their position. High ranking government roles. Employ people who follow the transparent process.

Honestly, that's a pretty stupid belief. There needs to be some secrecy in the diplomatic process, and especially in the military and espionage. Being too transparant weakens your hand a lot, and it gives the enemy more information about your intentions.

Any nation that ran as transparant as you seem to wish, would not last more than five years before being brought down.

[Kate]

For what you dream or intend or believe Zakharra, im sure secrecy is necessary.

A cornerstone of society to last more than 5 years.

[Silverfyre]

No offense, Kate, but I think you need to go back to your government and history classes and learn the basics before voicing an opinion that is based on optimistic assumptions about human nature and poltiics.  A society that gives forth all its information and exists in a state of complete transparency is not going to be around for very long in this world.  Human beings lie, it's a basic part of our nature.  Anyone who claims otherwise and seeks to say that their nation or society is completely honest is full of shit.

History proves that to be true time and time again.

[Kate]

Im sure the doubts of civillians governing themselves without squabbling so much nothing would be decided was thought of by kings
when the idea of democracy was proposed.

Yet even with this "flaw" of each having a voice and being represented - stuff gets done

What if even with the trapps and "flaws" of transparency - stuff could get done ?

[Silverfyre]

Im sure the doubts of civillians governing themselves without squabbling so much nothing would be decided was thought of by kings
when the idea of democracy was proposed.

Yet even with this "flaw" of each having a voice and being represented - stuff gets done

What if even with the trapps and "flaws" of transparency - stuff could get done ?

Show me evidence where this has happened and maybe I could agree with you.

[Zakharra]

For what you dream or intend or believe Zakharra, im sure secrecy is necessary.

A cornerstone of society to last more than 5 years.

I live in the real world, not a dreamland of fairtales.

Im sure the doubts of civillians governing themselves without squabbling so much nothing would be decided was thought of by kings
when the idea of democracy was proposed.

Yet even with this "flaw" of each having a voice and being represented - stuff gets done

What if even with the trapps and "flaws" of transparency - stuff could get done ?

And not one society has ever lasted except with some secrecy. In diplomacy you literally cannot say to the other person what you truly think of them or their group/nation. You have to be polite and try not to offend them.  Every single government has secrets in their diplomatic, military and and espionage circles. 

You cannot be completely transparent. That is a very stupid thing to do since you can bet the people you are talking to will not be transparent. They'll take your lack of secrets and ram them down your throat.

[Kate]

"Show me evidence where this has happened and maybe I could agree with you."
=> things shouldnt have to be proven elsewhere first before it is attempted.

" I live in the real world, not a dreamland of fairtales."
=> you live in the world as it currently believing what you beleive.

I lean towards entertaining what it could be and do not choose to believe the current system is the peak of the social model for humanity.

I beleive utopia is possible, i dont beleive utopia is an objective or a possibility with the current system.

" And not one society has ever lasted except with some secrecy. In diplomacy you literally cannot say to the other person what you truly think of them or their group/nation. You have to be polite and try not to offend them.  Every single government has secrets in their diplomatic, military and and espionage circles.   You cannot be completely transparent. That is a very stupid thing to do since you can bet the people you are talking to will not be transparent. They'll take your lack of secrets and ram them down your throat."

Not one society has lasted at all. All are in a state of flux and change. In diplomacy you dont HAVE to say what you truely think to anyone, you can however assume your role is transparent and act accordingly. Some people can be completely transparent. Those who are transparent among people who are not come over as more genuine - they can be trusted to be themselves what they are is played on the table - they are a known entity - people are drawn to it. lack of secrets is not a flaw - having them needing to maintain them assuming they stay so is a weakness