What I mean by economicism is the fact of reducing society simply to its economic aspect, forgetting all the other aspects such as cultural, religious, etc. Very similar to what is happening today.

Confusion arises from my point of view from the fact that economic interests are not generally mentioned in connection with religious/spiritual interests nowadays. The authorities (governments and organisations) of our time have nothing obvious in this sense that can be questioned straightforward by the people, as they do not use official religious terminology. The very act of separating the religious from the secular, then produced legislation texts and do not contain any morals (but it forces to assume/interpret them behind them). This can be seen as a blessing and a curse alike. It depends, I am afraid.

It is therefore difficult to question something that offers so little in this respect. If we take the attackers of authority, such as Julian Assange, his persecution and imprisonment is not based on the fact that he has shaken revolutionary, generally common religious faith, but that he has published state secrets that "jeopardise national/international security". The highest authority then is state authority, which can be perceived to be secular.

He is portrayed by his accusers as someone who has betrayed national secrets as well as risking single lives of the individual people named in the leaking papers. In short, he has not jeopardised people's spiritual integrity, but their physical integrity, according to those who accuse him. They argue in terms of "security architectures", as I interpret it.

US-law says:

"Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, councels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal."

Now, the confusion sets in when one asks "who is the United States?" in this case. As well as "what is the offense?". Is national security inevitably linked to the economy? Isn't economics seen as something that can be used both to put a nation in danger and to move it out of it? Aren't economics based on foreign relationships? In order to maintain those relationships, is it important to be seen as a nation of integrity? And if so, if the integrity is seen as being disturbed (offended) and therefore formulated as an indictment, is not a court needed to judge the case and to give a final decision whether it was needed that documents must have had to be leaked or not and whether the whistleblowers are guilty of what they are accused of, or not (or partly)? Now, the task of the court then must be to find out if

• Assange committed an offense
• and who in particular is meant by "US" in this particular case; and if it not could also be the reverse, that by the "US" also the peoples themselves are meant and could be offended since they want to expect the authorities who represent them to act integre.

If we don't want to let court happen, I am afraid that we lost trust in the bodies of government and its extended bodies. That is more than tragic.