posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 05:32 PM
And so, I am compelled to add my thoughts on your excellent points.
I thought long and hard about the nature of the matter. I reflected deeply about the wellspring from which this phenomenon has sprung into the
forefront. The elements of the matter may be something we could debate but the exercise is necessary for me to understand more fully the perspective
you bring to the dialog.
The first matter of note, to my mind, is the interrelationship between the source, the message, the medium, and the intended audience. This cocktail
of elements provide the flavor of the conflict which we face.
The problem with gatekeeping as a 'naturally evolved' social construct is that it depends primarily on exclusive access to mediate, and or fully
control the flow of information. By its very nature, exclusivity of access, and authority to control are matters of trust. There are several
elements of trust which merit evaluation here.
In my day... long ago, we were exceedingly careful about the classification of information. It costs a lot of money to render certain information
'classified', it is not simply a matter of discipline. Most technocrats, and bureaucrats are trained to consider the matter of classification
independently; without consultation or oversight. Review happens in matters of years and in many cases, effectively - never.
We had to trust that the source of the information, primarily agents of the state, understood classification protocols, that the rationale for
invoking the special handling and restrictive concealment such information received had a direct and immediate reasonably measurable purpose. Any
discussion of the matter included considerations of "need to know," "operational security," "sensitive sources," "concealment of ways and
means," and in times of direct conflict, "tactical" or "strategic" advantage.
Intelligence, had flavors too; foreign, national, military, etc.
But in the last century or so, as our governance became increasingly focused on commerce, and the well-being of the commercial sector as a measure of
the health of the state, new pressures added new components to the mix. There were new secrets about 'technology" and not just the military kind.
Secrets were kept about economics, finance, corporate undertakings, and soon the ill-defined and mostly closeted relationships between transnational
corporate entities and our (or other) governments (acting as a member of the corporate community.)
It became clear that we were seeing business secrets being included within the genuine 'state' secrets, being afforded the same protections, and
diluting the protective efforts that could be hitherto focused on classic non-corporate intelligence.
Today the corporate and governmental are no longer separate... and certainly not separate in the manner of the civil and the governmental.
Gatekeepers' scope and breath, their reach, entered the personal 'civilian' world because we could no longer be restrained from common discussion.
The Internet, our latest virtual medium of communication, made it impossible to secure the new secrets..... then it became a problem.
You see, as citizens, we have no real interest in the systemic and mechanical maintenance of the information of government, it avails us nothing to
know that a certain consul in some other country might be willing to open discussions on diplomatic negotiations for regulating trade subsidies, if
the right motivation were provided. That is only of interest to the corporate citizen.... the same corporate citizen who is now the primary mover and
motivator of our 'elected' leadership. Secrets gained value that had little to do with patriotism, ideology, or humanitarianism. Secrets became
commercial opportunities. Those opportunities become threatened whenever the underlying paradigm of personal sovereignty (let alone national
sovereignty) intruded into the medium of information flow.
Trade, commercial code, and the policy of wealth distribution became the nexus of all power in the world of governance. We didn't choose this. We
didn't engineer it this way, it happened because the 'source' of secrets changed when the agents of the state became loyal to transnational
agendas. When the operation of multinational cartels and their many venues of intrusion into governance become the primary definers of what is a
'threat' and what people should know, we get this.... a world where you can learn little from the dwindling sources of information, where
disinformation is a science, and the psychology of masses is applied to people as if they were subjects of a larger economic royalty.
The cables we keep hearing about have relevance to the non-national secrets, most of them anyway. National secrets are channeled and much to the
chagrin of many diplomats, their secrets are not 'all that' in term of humanity's survival. After all these people, despite their so-called
credentials and questionably effective training, are just political appointees... people placed in positions of power by virtue of social standing.
These cables are, instead, a reflection of the theater these self-proclaimed elite have constructed in which they play roles and entertain each other
while performing their duties to the person who is chiefly responsible for the appointment in the first place.
Often we hear about the sensitivity of the secrets being revealed by the press... which are apparently not affected by the 'poison fruit' of
profiting from them. The outrage and emotion, grasping at straws regarding the importance of the revelation, the hypocrisy of supporting a 'free'
press while condemning the sources of their information, all have tragic comedic value. But all are motivated by the same thing.
Fear. Fear of the consequences of their actions, which were likely directed by the intended audience of the cables in the first place. Independent
thought is not a primary attribute of diplomats..., it evokes punishment more frequently than it reward.
There is a tremendous amount of effort being made to gain control of this information. For the most part they have succeeded... I suppose it was a
likely result, considering that the commercial value of entertainment news is contingent upon access to the establishments' information. They would
not risk exclusion by exercising the traditional function of the fourth estate.
It is a given that what we see is the result of selective releases... it is logical that those most prone to embarrassment will protest the loudest.
The efforts to bring all manner of legal vehicle into the fray are also telling of who that institution obeys, and to what degree. Sadly, the
occupants of those seats of power have become very political in the last eight or nine decades.
I suppose I have prevaricated enough.
Yes, information in the hands of the common man is counter to any singular entity's ability to impose it's 'order' on the world. Mankind is a
thinking, feeling, expressive, and driven creature. Any attempts to control it without it's consent will eventually fail. Silencing dissent, hiding
in the shadows, playing mind-games with the population all serve to increase how catastrophic the release of collective judgment will be.
People - all people - are equal. It is the single most important reality that all value systems must hang onto. Shame is the enemy of pride. From
that vantage point, the secrets of the proud social club which currently 'governs' don't merit national protection... and their shame is a reality
with which they should contend - without using our nation's laws as a weapon.