Secrets are gold to the world’s aristocracy. Information disparity is in many ways more important to them than income disparity. That’s why they are all very, very mad at Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. The anger is not about some specific leak; it’s about the invasion of their privileged domains.
In fact, as only the Chinese aristocracy seems happy to admit, this whole damned internet thing sometimes seems like little more an impudent invasion of their private information counting houses. If something’s not done, the whole world will get above its raisin’.
Now, the global swells don’t need their secrets to be particularly important. The value is in the accrual of secrets, not in their substance. Secret information about the peculiar dining habits of Ambassador Cranky is nearly as fulfilling as intelligence about the location of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.
More than half of the diplomatic documents released by Wikileaks weren’t even classified. Only 6 percent were classified as “secret.” Two-and-a-half million people already had access to Siprnet (Secret Internal Protocol Router Network) where they were stored.
I know, I know, I’m painting with an outrageously broad brush here. If we knew where Osama Bin Laden was, we might want to keep it a secret until we’d nabbed him. We don’t need to publish the president’s codes to the briefcased Buttons That Can Blow Up the World.
Still, the usual justifications for general government secrecy are little more than rhetorical reminders of the elite’s privilege: “We must be able to talk frankly.” “Knowledge of this (or that) would alarm the public.”
Once there was a King who called his court together for an emergency meeting. A new secret was needed, something to reinforce the great knowledge divide between the royalty and their subjects. “What’ll it be?” he asked the assembled advisors. “Your Highness,” one answered, “We are out of secrets.” “How could that be?” asked the King. The advisor, his voice trembling slightly, answered, “Our old secrets are worn out. They’re all common knowledge now. Perhaps our only remaining secret is we have no secrets at all.” At that, the King smiled. “That will do as well as any, as long as we keep it secret” he said. And he was right.
There are many kinds of secrets, and some I suppose are necessary, practically and morally. But there are others kept out of nasty habit, kept to divide in-groups from out-groups. These kinds of secrets are almost always either destructive or, if we’re lucky, simply irrelevant.
Discerning the difference is critical in a democracy. We too often see efforts of the powerful and paranoid to protect secrets that don’t even make a damn. In fact, if you use a classic definition of information – a difference that makes a difference – these kinds of secrets don’t even qualify as information.
The Medieval Church’s monopoly on literacy was long used as a method of control. It’s an obvious fact of history that no one disputes today. Many, however, fail to see that the weapon is still used by the powerful to safeguard their standing.
Blanket condemnations from political and media elite (Mike Huckabee suggested execution) of those involved in the Wikileaks diplomatic revelations don’t help. As noted, most of the documents involved weren’t even secret. They were already available to millions on the net. The baying aristocrats sound like the grumpy old man down the street yelling at innocent kids from his window, “Get off of my grass.”

And what the "braying old men" apparently don't understand waving a stick won't drive the "kids" out of the yard. It reinforces the motivation for the kids to spend time in the yard and in our digital world, the kids can instantly replicate the yard while the bumbling old man spits venom and waves his stick above his head.
If there wasn't enough reasons to can all of our current politicians, a complete lack of understanding about the realities of our digital world seems a great reason to issue pink slips.
Great article Glenn!! I enjoyed reading your thoughts about the "invasion of the aristocracy’s privileged domains”.
Do you think there is a Julian Assange who can shed some light on the Texas aristocracy? Is there a Tex-WikiLeak that can amplify the outrage (cause some action) outlined in Senator Shapleigh's Texas on the Brink that shows our state being ranked highest in BAD and lowest in GOOD because of the aristocratic exploitation of the masses?
six week outrage cycle.