Yes, cryptography assumes that decryption is hard to do, but enough ciphers have been broken, so that we should take any unproven assumptions with a good helping of NaCl. Even if something is claimed to be provably secure, you should always check what was proven: resistance to what kind of attack is now guaranteed and under what assumptions. It's quite possible to break a provably secure cipher using a different kind of attack. For example, one-time pad is provably secure, if you never reuse it. If you reuse OTP, then your cipher can be broken (it actually happened). Also, without additional protection you may be able to change encrypted text even without being able to read it.
Please, check the statements that you post as facts.
The languages we know affect what thoughts we can think. While it is very zen to say that words hide meaning, empirical evidence seems to indicate that we cannot conceive of ideas that we do not have language to express.
I conceive of such ideas all the time. I would share them with you, but I do not have language to express them
The idea of Wikileaks (i.e. the ability to anonymously expose government secrets) is valid and needs to survive. Currently Wikileaks is the only working instance of that idea. We cannot kill it simply because it is a bad implementation. In the years to come, there may be others and one of them may work better.
No, it isn't. CRYPTOME is a much older and very respected instance.
PURGE COMPLETE.