Monday, November 29, 2010

Wikileaks pisses off Hillary Clinton...and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...and Sarah Palin.

Now, let's say that I were an average American citizen, who—let's say—wants to hold democratically elected (directly or [usually very...] indirectly) figures in its government accountable for their habitual excesses and deceptions.
Let's say that I've noticed it's difficult to do this, as my government—like most governments—is a bloated, cynical, bureaucratic, militarist nightmare. So much so that it apparently has no center of gravity morally or even strategically.
Let's suppose that, furthermore, control over media—and, therefore, over public discourse—in the United States is monopolized by a handful of multinational corporations, all of whom in effect collude with governments in order to maximize the financial and political benefits that accrue to a fraction of 1 percent of the world's population—a tiny, wealthy elite with the greatest interest in maintaining the status quo, with all of its injustices and irrationalities.
Let's pretend for a moment that all of the preceding is true.

Wouldn't I be likely to conclude that a single piece of information that manages to piss off Hillary Clinton and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Sarah Palin...well, wouldn't I be likely to conclude that such a release of information is a good thing?


Shane said...

Bang on CFT, a long-shot trifecta. Refreshing to read this after reading the drivel coming from David Brooks on the subject, lamenting that the leaks are a threat as "order is tenuously maintained by brave soldiers but also by talkative leaders and diplomat". Tear down the wall!

cft said...


I figure, what better illustrates the 'emperor has no clothes' effect than the fact that this whining issues from these three ostensibly disparate sources? (And notice the eerily similar facial expressions and hand gestures on display in these pictures!)

No secret that any combination of the US, England, China, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea share a stake in maintaining can possibly be one that is necessary for anyone's 'security'. Even a professional sophist like David Brooks will have a hard time making a convincing case to the contrary.

Such secrets are, by definition, evidence of a mutually-reinforcing industry that deals habitually in the propagation of misinformation. If so-called 'fiscal conservatives' were genuinely concerned about 'big government', they'd start slashing the budgets of the enormous bureaucracies attached to the Departments of Defense and State.

Instead, these supposed 'patriots' are among the likeliest demagogues to insist that American citizens are best kept ignorant of 'embarrassing' truths about the government that 'serves' them. I wonder how many 'Tea Party' types are jumping on the masochistic "Keep Me Ignorant" bandwagon?

Most of them are scared of anything remotely resembling the truth, especially when it's staring them in the face.

- cft