The document raises several interesting political, legal, and moral questions around Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. It discusses the differences between anarchism and libertarianism in the context of how Assange describes himself. It also examines the First Amendment and legal issues around espionage and sedition. Broader questions are raised about recognizing and managing subtle forms of coercion in society. The document ultimately questions how to discern the actions of true and false prophets, or how any individual may be cooperating with the spirit.

1. Assange is, indeed, familiar with the Federalist papers, even
self-describes as a libertarian and denies being an anarchist.
His apologetics evoke some interesting political questions
regarding the different variations of and distinctions between
anarchists and libertarians?
In a broader context, beyond that particular quote, Assange's
tactics raise some interesting legal questions regarding the
1st Amendment, espionage and sedition? And what is legal is
not always dispositive of what is moral! So, what are the
relevant moral questions?
In an even wider context, in threads such as this, we will
encounter questions regarding the use of various coercive
forces in different ways, levels and frequencies. Coercion can
present very subtly in our lives and probably needs to be more
broadly conceived by most folks so it can be more readily
recognized and then prudently managed? That is why I am
grateful for the voices of prophetic protest and the lives of
prophetic witness that challenge all forms of coercion!
Finally, this raises what may perhaps be the most interesting
questions of all --- those involved in distinguishing between
true and false prophets, or maybe less dualistically, in
establishing criteria to discern how and to what extent any of
us are cooperating with the Spirit, at any given time, in any
given way?
1