AshleyMills.com

I posted this on the wikileaks forum, but didn't receive any response. I'm replicating it here just for the sake of it. Note that when I speak of assassination I mean figuratively as well as literally.

--

I visited The National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis recently. It is built on the hotel where Dr Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated. He was in Memphis assisting a campaign to help impoverished and downtrodden garbage workers obtain better working conditions when he was shot.

The museum had a significant impact on me in several ways, but the manner in which it is pertinent here concerns: his assassination, its impact on the morale of that movement, and the lessons that can be learnt from this.

--

Julian Assange has been chosen by the majority of media outlets as a figurehead of Wikileaks. No matter what you think of this, and notwithstanding the grossly unsubtle point that Julian Assange is not the only member of Wikileaks, the impact of his probable assassination should not be under-estimated.

Clearly the organization is attempting to mitigate this event by instantiating various insurance policies and employing appropriate security measures.

But this is not enough.

In addition to mitigation, the movement should work towards ameliorating the deleterious effects of its inevitable happening.

Ideally, it could be argued, that the assassination of one member of a movement should have *no* affect on the morale of that movement. But this is however untenable; the members of every movement are human (despite the proclamations of their oppressors), and so when a figurehead is destroyed, so are some of the heartstrings upon which the figurehead had chanced to tug.

What can be done about this? Can a movement, can this movement, take steps to counter such an attack?

I believe it can, and I believe the first step is to accept that Julian Assange is probably going to be assassinated, so that when it happens, it will come as less of a shock. Have in mind what your reactions shall be upon that day, and follow them through.

When it happens, let preparation grant only a glancing blow.

--

It is easy to write this, and it is even easier to preach that people should attach themselves more to the message than to the messenger. It can even be said, that as a mantra with which to inculcate oneself, such a message is a useful ally.

But this is not enough.

Great movements have always had great speakers and this movement is no exception. Is it not only the message which is of so great importance. The message finds its equal in the manner in which it is delivered.

Dr Martin Luther King Jr was one of the greatest orators of contemporary history. When he was killed the movement lost along with the man, his capacity to capture and excite, in those who heard him, those tenuous fibres which lead us to inspiration.

Do not let this happen here.

The means by which I propose this to address this problem may at first sound ridiculous, but ridiculous or not, it may also be possible.

My answer lies in replication.

So that the loss of one figurehead cannot derail the movement, can there not be many figureheads?

Now I do not mean, simply multiple individuals that all claim to be the figurehead, no, they must be oratory equals. And they must, and this is essential, not differ significantly in the content and delivery of their messages.

At first this may seem impossible. But I would ask you: is it not possible to be moved by actor who plays a character whose origins are borne in reality? Is it not possible for the impressionist to capture certain ephemeral qualities of the impressioned? Such that in the mind of the observer the spark of recognition is ignited? I think it is.

Imagine the simultaneous delivery of speeches worldwide, all possessed of the same oratory force and conveying the same message, all representing the same organization. Imagine if this were possible. What would be required to make this possible?

My proposal is as follows: The movement selects by evaluation and democratic process from amongst its own ranks those who possess the greatest capacity for public speaking. These people (under the prior assumption that they and the figurehead are willing) are trained to emulate any figurehead the media choose to latch onto (starting with Julian Assange). The aim is to replace any single individual that the media and authorities begin to focus on, with a collective of ideally indistinguishable individuals that are essentially interchangeable when it comes to public speaking. When the members of the collective are sufficiently trained, the media would receive a rotation of its members so that no single individual could become the focus of attention and thus be at risk from a devastating assassination.

Loss of life should never be trivialized and is always a tradgedy. But this Hydra, if constructed correctly should be immune to any individual assassination. Such that the movement it figureheads would benefit from a greater degree of robustness. Having the attention focused on multiple individuals should also help to guard against the dangers posed by individual egos, megalomaniacal tendencies, etc.

The figurehead would be subject to two requirements:

1. The movement must be able to decide its members and be able to change them.
2. The movement must be able to decide its message and be able to change it.

Members of the movement who are not part of the limited figurehead collective would retain their own individuality, and convey their own messages with their own voices as usual and as they do today. Should any of them however rise as oratory stars and attract significant attention from the media or authorities, then the strategy would be applied again to turn them into a Hydra (should they agree).

What do you think?

Ashley