Robert Manne has a lengthy essay in the March edition of The Monthly on how Wikileaks evolved from the Julian Assange's association with the first famous public act of hacktivisim in 1989 and the 1990s cypherpunks, a hackers information-sharing revolution that fought US government oppression of cryptography technology. The essay also goes into detail on the political philosophies of Julian Assange, which can be best summed up, in Manne's words, as "anti-establishment but genuinely beyond Left and Right."

Assange is often accused of being secretive himself, or vague at best, about what he is trying to achieve by leaking the secrets of both illegitimate and legitimate governments. But Assange has already revealed all on why's he doing this.

The Manne essay includes many excellent quotes from Julian Assange's past essays, interviews and emails, that tell you more about what Assange is trying to achieve with Wikileaks, the revolution he has mounted, his war against the war industry, his repeated calls for an uprising against government secrecy deceit, than ten thousand articles written about him by journalists who are more interested in the sex scandal angle and who've never bothered to go back to see what Assange himself has had to say; the ultimate, world-changing, mission he has so clearly spelled out over the past four years.

Julian Assange :

"The more secretive or unjust an organisation is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in the leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimisation of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive 'secrecy tax') and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold on to power as the environment demands adaptation.

"Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance."

"Mankind has successfully adapted changes as monumental as electricity and the engine. It can also adapt to a world where state-sponsored violence against the communications of consenting adults is not only unlawful but physically impossible. As knowledge flows across nations it is time to sum the great freedoms of every nation and not subtract them. It is time for the world as an international collective of communicating peoples to arise and say 'here I am'."

It's not really that complicated. And it's already proving to be an enormously effective way of fermenting & inspiring great change in the world.

But Assange's mission, as outlined in his statements above, has clearly only just begun.

Look at what has already resulted from the release of just over 2% of the CableGate documents. Three months ago, most of the Middle East was regarded by "experts" as moderately stable. There has been a revolution almost every fortnight since, and dictators and self-appointed royal leaders have already fallen from power, or about to lose power, due to mostly non-violent acts of public dissent and street-clogging demands for democracy, freedom and reform.

If Assange makes the US embassies cables available at the current rate of release, it will take until 2017 before all they're all out there.

Robert Manne Kisses John Howard Goodbye

There's already been a few John Howard eulogies published, but this one from Robert Manne, published today in the latest issue of The Monthly, will set the standard for the so-called "Lefties" that many on the Liberal side of politics and commentary are expecting to dance all over Howard's political grave. They're probably going to be bitterly disappointed.

Manne's comments are mostly respectful, honest and throws some early perspective on The Howard legacy. I'd certainly agree with Manne that the darker days of Howard's reign will shock future generations, while his success as a steady hand on the economic tiller will mostly be forgotten. That happens with all prime ministers and presidents. Howard will be no exception.

Howard was right to stare down many conservative Australians to bring about effective gun control. It is hard to believe that the absence of urban massacre since Port Arthur is an accident. Despite very serious intelligence and political error in the lead-up to the East Timor independence plebiscite, the role his Government played in the creation of an independent East Timor represents Howard's finest hour.

The greatest mistake in the first half of the Howard years was the attack he launched against what American neo-conservatives had labelled political correctness. The country's racist past was increasingly denied. The ambitions for reconciliation with the indigenous population and for the creation of a multicultural society were abandoned. The bitterness of so many indigenous people and the daily experience of marginalisation faced by Australian Muslims are the consequences.

The Keating government bequeathed to Howard a dangerous legacy in the policy of mandatory detention of asylum-seekers.

After losing East Timor, Indonesia secretly encouraged boats of asylum-seekers fleeing from the regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban to sail on to Australian territory. The cruelty with which the Howard Government treated these people will astonish Australians in the future

... Our support for the invasion of Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision ever made by any Australian government.

Manne also writes that "Only when (the Rudd era) opens will the meaning of the Howard years become clear."

A growing number of commenters on the blogs of Piers Akerman, Andrew Bolt and various opinionists for The Australian are gloating loudly about how the careers of conservative commentators will be over once Rudd wins and Howard is gone.

Hardly. The Akermans, Bolts and Tim Blairs will thrive on the change of government, as Rudd moves to implement his new policies and some will inevitably fail, or fail to live up to the hype. But how long will their readers put up with "I told you so!" and "Lookit what they done now!" as insightful commentary?

The fans of a losing cricket or football team of the final test or grand final don't mind getting together after a horror defeat to drown their sorrows, complain about the refs or rip to shreds the players who they know were capable of better. But even the most die-hard supporters only want to do that once or twice. They don't keep getting together to bitch about the defeat. They mostly move on, and look forward to the next season.

If a Rudd government manages to shake off the darkest days of the Howard era, and injects Australian society with new energy and optimism, the bitterness, endless whining and sniping of the Akermans, Bolts, Shanahans and Blairs will lose them a fat chunk of their audience. They risk becoming what they so despise today : the kind of commentators who can't stop complaining and fail to see the nation as it is, and the positive ways a federal government can change the nation for the better.