HistoryLeaks

I don’t have a full essay in my head about Wikileaks, but I do have a little blog post in me. Something called so historical, even if it is not, bears a little bit of thought on whether or not it is.

Largely, I’m in favor of Wikileaks and the recent leaks that have provoked such historical emotions. Embarrassment is one of the worst reasons to keep a secret. And furthermore, anyone who argues that the truth ought to remain hidden should really think about whom this would benefit. Regardless of your opinion of Julian Assange or Wikileaks’ philosophy, what is really in question is the documents themselves. Arguing that you, either as American citizen or citizen of the world, would prefer to be lied to about government activities and opinions around the world, displays such a head-in-the-sand attitude that if I kicked you in the ass, you’d probably break your neck. Lies have utility. But the truth’s utility is greater. Considering that lies’ utility hasn’t gotten us anything other than a generally rotten foreign policy and two long wars, I think it’s time to give truth a shot.

Furthermore, look at the amount of these cables that seem related to ensuring the stability Western investment abroad–not lives, infrastructure, or ecosystems. That benefits investors, not you and me. And if you think that investors should lie to improve their profits, then you are on the side of Bank of America, Enron, BP, and every capitalist that has even stolen, lied, and assaulted their employees to benefit themselves. So, bear that in mind.

But all that aside, let us look at the historicity of this event. Much is made of Assange, because every story needs its central character, and because that makes Wikileaks easier to assault. There is a head of that snake, which the Canadians could assassinate, or who could be brought up on charges, or about whom jingoistic jerks could make any number of threats to make themselves feel awesome. There’s also Bradley Manning, who allegedly leaked the documents originally, and who will almost certainly be brought up on charges.

But I think the emphasis on these two characters is misplaced. Certainly, these documents would not be leaked to Wikileaks if each of them had not taken the steps that they have taken, at least according to the narrative of this event. But does that mean that in an alternate, Assange/Manning-free dimension, these documents would still be secret?

I say that they would still be released. This is obviously a broken hypothesis, because unless we could prove that other dimensions exist, peak into them, and then come back into our realm without tearing time-space, there is no way to prove or disprove it. And yet, this is what proves it for me. Because there is no way to prove what would happen without the presence of these two actors, the question is mute. But what this means is that transitively, we cannot prove the positive causality of these actors actions, either. The basis of causality is “for every action an equal and opposite reaction”. But what if without the action, the reaction was still there? Schrodinger’s Cat begs us withhold judgement on causality until we find out for sure. Naturally, at first glance these two are (allegedly) “responsible”. But to attribute a unique historical causality to these events, imbued by wills of these two people, would require additional, and impossible, proof in the negative. IF Assange and Manning are historically necessary for the exposure of these documents, THEN their absence would result in these documents never being exposed in such a way. Regardless of what is likely, what is plausible, or what is “close enough”, there is no way to say for sure. In another dimension, literally ANYTHING could happen. The cat could be both dead and alive.

I don’t strictly believe in the will, and I also don’t strictly believe in fate. Both are ways of explaining causality. The former links historical causality to direct human action. The latter links historical causality to a lack of direct human action. Clearly, human action plays a role in all historical occurrences we call “events”. But to what extent? Solely and directly? Or only tangentially and haphazardly? We can say neither with assurance. I love the Final Destination series for this reason. The plot of these films implies a strong role for the tangential and haphazard in controlling events. There is a “fate” (again, a characterization for the purpose of telling a story) that would see these attractive young people dead. But, Fate could not murder them if the scissors had not been placed at such an angle, if a desire to drink tea hadn’t led to a spill of liquid on a wood floor, which you live over because you hate carpet, and if the mouse hadn’t run past your leg, leading your cat to tangle your steps at the exact moment… and so on. Human action is not irrelevant, it is just so much smaller than the larger network of “Fate”, which is the culmination of all the abstract, obscure, and eventually murderous effects of human action that we would ordinarily consider irrelevant and unrelated. And this is the horror aspect of the film–the horror is not that we can’t control our fate, but that EVERYTHING we do controls our fate, from leaving a toothbrush at a certain angle, to taking the car rather than the bus, to sitting facing the sun rather than away. Your life is always at risk, and everything you do minimizes or increases that risk. THE WORLD IS OUT TO GET YOU, simply by being the world. Death is stalking you simply by you being mortal. And who could prove any different, without visiting another world exactly similar except for a few small differences, to see if that world is out to get you any less?

So, if Assange/Manning didn’t exist would these documents still be exposed? Yes, because while these two individuals may have had the dedication to certain anarchistic and populist goals, this is a world of 6 billion people. The chance that others, given the same opportunity, would have done the same, is great. 3 million Americans had access to these documents–the surprising thing is not that they leaked. It is surprising that they didn’t leak sooner. Secrets are meant to be shared. You can quote me on that. The motivations that would lead someone to keep information to themselves is exactly the same as the motivations that would lead someone to share that information. It is entropy. As secrets pile up, they will eventually spill. Secrets are created, just as higher energy systems will develop from humble beginnings, but only to eventually return to earth. As I said, there are 6 billion people out there. The real irrational attribution of historical will is to assume that you alone, puny human, are strong enough to keep a secret. Harriet the Spy learned this lesson. Why didn’t the State Department? All it takes is a few anarchistic hackers, and all of your brilliant powers of international intrigue are posted on a website.

What is historical here? The status quo. Someone tried to build a big tower, and then it fell down. It’s happened before, and it will happen again. This is what humans do. We can remark on the particular humans that seemed to have affected this particular collapse, but we can’t praise them or blame them. We can only acknowledge them as equal variables in the massive human equation, outliers perhaps, until they return to the center and click into place in the algorithm. So if you want to blame anyone, blame yourself. We’re all equally human, and we’re all part of the system that kept the secrets, and part of the system that leaked the secrets. To call anyone more deserving of blame, or blameless, is to take a view of history that blames the bullets for the wounds they cause. Persecute them if you will. Try and keep all pointy sticks and cats out of your path. But the minute the point of a blade finds you, it doesn’t matter how many you dodged in the past.

And yet, we all keep trying to dodge. Every single day.