Sunday, January 5, 2014

Just Ask An Native American About It



Cass Sunstein long ago wrote piece on conspiracy theories that I was immediately interested in reading after finding a short description of it on infowars (a misleading one).  Obama’s former “Information Czar” was in charge of regulating all sorts of diverse functions which have fallen under the oversight of the Federal Government , so many that it is likely his job was more theoretical and advisory than managerial.  A part of his credentials for this post is presumably his mildly (I hope) influential paper titled Conspiracy Theories that was composed for The University of Chicago Law School.  It had an effect on the vernacular, bringing the “echo chamber” description of conspiracy culture into vogue, but the influence on the actual field of conspiracy theory is negligible.  The reason for this is stated in his definition of axioms defining his field of discussion as conspiracy theories targeting “powerful” people that are also false and harmful:
                 
           ‘Our focus throughout is on false conspiracy theories, not true ones.  Our ultimate goal is to explore how public officials might undermine such theories , and as a general rule, true accounts should not be undermined… Within the set of false conspiracy theories we limit our focus to potentially harmful theories.  Not all conspiracy theories are harmful, consider the false conspiracy theory held by many of the younger member of our society, [spoiler alert] that a secret group of elves, working in a remote location under the leader ship of the mysterious “Santa Claus,” make and distribute presents on Christmas Eve.’

                We may question Cass’s parenting skills, but it's certain he makes an ideological weapon of choice to whatever government he wishes to offer his services.  Assuming the opposite scope to his in truth value, the true conspiracy theory may be combated in the same way as the false, although he admits that one “should not” do so “in general.”  Since the goal of tainting an unwelcome theory is the same either way, what a government should do with his excellent advice is quite irrelevant.  To illustrate. Let us make the thought experiment of Cass as a servant of a different ruling power: Great Britian under King George III.  What would his response have been upon receiving this missive:

            ‘When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands… a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…  That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...  prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…  but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

            That's quite the conspiracy you’ve got there Jefferson, I can the Czar exclaiming!  Then he would go on to lecture Franklin on his credulity in assigning so much importance to the desires of powerful men rather than the vagaries of fate.  We’re taking it for granted that he kept his position and did not obey the “general rule” that true conspiracy theories out not to be contradicted,  perhaps to save his head.  It would be futile to respond that he has far too much irrational faith in the ability of randomness and chaos to shape events rather than the goals of the powerful men.  This point of view is ruled out axiomatically despite the evidence, essentially making his analysis of this specific conspiracy useless as far as gaining knowledge is concerned.  That is not his function, rather he is to be used without volition as a tarnishing brush.  That does not stop us from learning from the lessons of the paper, it just limits how much we can learn. 
           
         For instance, let us examine the first option he would pose to George III for damage control: simply ignore them.  This is a convenient position for one who doesn’t care about the truth of a charge since he obviously can’t argue from his true axiomatic line of reasoning publicly.  Also, due to the “echo chamber” effect, it is usually pointless to advance a defense of the government.  No matter what one says, there will always be another voice “echoing” the charge back again, bouncing off the conspiracy theorists forums on the docks and appearing to give validity to the crazed speculations.  In essence, the conspiracy theorists are a “sealed” social unit who will reinforce each other’s paranoia no matter how delusional it becomes.  The description sounds familiar, indeed it applies to the rebel colonies and plenty of other social units that do not come under the description of “false, harmful conspiracy theorists.”  It appears to be an observation pertaining to all human social units, to one degree or another.  Still, it does no good to echo the “echo chamber” back into Cass’s face, because he cannot be swayed by empirical arguments and must hold to the party line.  This makes the “echo chamber,” as he uses it, mostly useless for discussing the real topic, giving no more information about conspiracy theorists than any other people.  It is however a fine ideological dart to throw around without having to explicitly deny anything.  For these reasons the first option is likely the best one for George to avoid any public accounting of him or other guilty parties.

            In second place comes holding a press conference in response to the charges.  It is taken for granted that the response is a denial.  If there be whistleblowers they must be crushed, discredited, or disembowled.  The only considerations for Cass are the psychological flaws of the soon-to-be founding fathers, who fail to place chaos at the pinnacle of causation where it belongs:

            “Conspiracy theorists display the characteristic features of a 'degenerating research program' in which contrary evidence is explained away by adding epicycles and resisting falsification of key tenets…  [They] also believe that there are conspirators deliberately attempting to plant evidence that would falsify the conspiracy theory…  The self-sealing quality of conspiracy theories creates serious problems for government.  Direct attempts to dispel the theory can usually be folded into the theory itself as just one more play by powerful machinators to cover their tracks.”

            Unfortunately, the odds of amelioration are low, although a possible mitigating factor that is not mentioned is transparency.  Conspiracies are criminal acts and must be shielded from discovery, thus a government that hides its involvement in the act or conducts a classified investigation naturally draws suspicion unto itself.  Smoke=fire, and the American Patriots are not “irrational” per-se to draw that conclusion, or any conclusion based on wrong information.  Their beliefs are irrational from the point of view of those who have superior knowledge (this is discussed in the paper using the Justified True Belief definition), if the Crown of England is innocent of conspiracy, but from the perspective of ignorance the “extreme” view that there is a cover-up going on makes sense.  Again, there is little we can use of this view that is not already self-evident, in this case limited by definition to a certain scope.  The formulation is useful to the propaganda aims of England though, imparting a aura of paternal annoyance at a naïve child, who would see the error of his ways if only the veil of secrecy so necessary to a sovereign could be parted.  Those poor Yankees with their “crippled epistemology,” apparently that of empirical induction if we are to take their little bit of hemp paper seriously.  It harkens us back to the child, if we will, so fervently faithful that Santa will carry-out his conspiracy once again this year, while the older siblings and parents smile in the background with lips necessarily sealed.  Why shouldn’t he believe in Santa?  Everyone else does?
            Alas, for this bairn of mother England is not just deluded, but dangerous, by definition; he is also a threat in quite the same way as a rattle-snake that “fears you more than you fear it.”  The child thinks it has grown into a man and wants independence now, clearly unacceptable to the imperial interest.  Sadly, the Crown must turn to the third and desperate option remaining and do exactly what the colonists are expecting in their sealed echo-chamber, of paranoiac, crippled epistemology: George must call up the conspirators and attempt to plant evidence that would falsify the conspiracy theory.  This might entail taking covert advantage of “conspiracy cascades,” the method through which beliefs are spread among the ignorant masses.  It starts with one confident person (Andrew) who is a good liar or actually believes in the declaration; he states his belief in the charges, in the hearing of another member, Barnes.  To the text:
“[Barnes] now knows Andrew’s judgment; she should certainly go along with Andrew’s account if she independently agrees with him.  But if her independent judgment is otherwise, she would –if she trusts Andrew no more or less than herself- be indifferent about what to do, and she might simply flip a coin.  [Assuming the coin agrees with Andrew] now turn to a third person, Charleton… unless Charleton thinks his own information is better than theirs he should follow their lead.  If he does, Charleton is in a cascade.”
Thus, with the flip of a coin, all the certainty that King George is a bumbling fool who exists at the whims of random forces is thrown out the window in favor of the wild theory that the Monarch is pursuing some rational self-interest.  We need not reflect that this sort of  “cascade” probably exists in some form in all information systems and media, if we limit our scope to the confines comfortable to a professional sophist.  We need only to disrupt the cascade through installing agents apparently friendly to the rebels.  At that crucial “coin-flip” moment the agent can come in with an innocuous suggestion of some fact that might cause us to doubt ‘Andrew’s” expertise.  With a little luck the cascade can be turned on its head and headed back into the imperial fold.  Of course, it’s much more complicated than all that and sophisticated studies of wedge-issue along with professional data-mining can now be used to isolate “group polarization,” that bosom friend of extremism.  I quote:
“For purposes of understanding the spread of conspiracy theories, it is especially important to note that group polarization is particularly likely, and particularly pronounced, when people have a shared sense of identity and are connected by bonds of solidarity.  These are circumstances in which arguments by outsiders, unconnected with the group, will lack credibility, and fail to have much of an effect in reducing polarization.”
Thus, secrecy is necessary and covert penetration into the group.  The main fear “with the tactic of anonymous participation, conversely, is that if the tactic becomes known, any true member of the relevant group who raises doubts may be suspected of government involvement.” It’s kind of like telling the kid about the Tooth Fairy; they might have their doubts about Santa too.  Cass does not advocate lying to the groups or planting false theories, as Alex Jones and friends seem to think, but for the reasons already mentioned this is not a practical comfort.  Suffice to say, what a government should do with these psychological warfare tactics and what they will do may be quite distinct.  These ideas of social control are hardly new and the novel aspect is in the guidelines to which they are applied.  Machiavelli had plenty to tell the Medici family about dividing and conquering and Cass merely follows in the footsteps of the master.  

Machiavelli, in his eagerness to find favor with the hostile Medicis, was writing for his life and made no pretensions whatsoever that a Prince would survive without pretensions.  In those times, as today, it was not enough to foil the conspiratorial plots, one had to birth and hatch one’s own more rapidly and with less warning than the enemy.  It has long been recognized, from Machiavelli to Madison, that the greatest danger to the well-stocked and thick-walled city is a secret door opened in the night.  Students of Greek history all, the fratricidal lessons learned in the democratic/oligarchic struggles of Athens were a profound factor in early American distrust of actual democracy.  Who knows?  If Alcibiades had just lost a couple more horse-races, he might have conquered Syracuse instead of going over to the Spartan side under duress.  One wants ones friends with them at the front lines, but you can’t leave too many enemies behind.  But the street-smarts of Machiavelli’s Principe is translated into the bland semantics that seem to be Cass’s particular genius.  Behaviorism is a tough school to write within and the Czar is apt enough to find a backdoor through which to discuss beliefs without truth value in the Justified True Belief theory of knowledge.  I’ll let that pass though, due to my crippled epistemology, no doubt.

Passing forward in time from Greece , but not yet to the time of the Founders, we may analyze another real-world example from U.S. American history and imagine what they might have done given Machiavelli’s guidance.  Too bad for the Haudenoshaunee that they knew not a word of Italian (or is it Latin?) for they might have avoided the traps of their enemies with some conspiracy theorizing.  Although any of the coastal tribes could have easily repelled the first touching of civilizations they did not, apparently willing to submit the growing tensions to “natural causes” rather than a conspiratorial invasion of a hostile race.  Cass would certainly have applauded their wisdom in not sticking to the extremist views, the bugbear of their solidarity and communal identity.  For many, these qualities were soon gone completely (with extinction) or nearly so. 

Still, the Haudenoshaunee Federation was easily powerful enough to crush the white-man’s power and end the threat at least for a while.  The English made use of option #2 and forged treaties, denying any intention of destroying their peace, offering trade and gifts and disease, and generally buying time.  The Indians felt secure in their possessions until it was too late, after all they had an empire.  They were adept at beating the white man at his own technological game and had farms and houses that the whites envied.  Most importantly they were blood of the land, bound to their powerful comrades with old ties, even more able to subjugate the other native peoples with their new arms, and most importantly, tactically supreme in the endless “wastes” that surrounded them.  The French and English had to live under the threat of a pre-dawn ambush by thousands of braves who could cross impossible distances on foot in the night. 

According to the local lore of the Onondagada, Syracuse (NY) was taken by a singularly devious conspiracy, though perhaps only temporarily.  The story is apocryphal, but so it goes:  The valleys were too swampy and filled with mosquito to hold during the steamy hot Summer and so the people lived on the hills in the breeze.  When the breeze got sharp in the Winter they would pack it up to the valley where they could stay cozy and slide around on the ice, but then one year the Yankees had occupied the hills and so they were weakened by malaria in the valley all Summer.  The Patriot army was pissed because they tried to mark a militia across Onondaga Hill Park (as it was called back then) and were ambushed and routed badly.  The retaliation was harsh after the revolution.  If that story may not be literally true, you’ll discover it’s true enough in any city when deciding to buy a house on the hill or not. 

By the time the Five Nations were at their peak they had made enemies and grabbed territory all around, but without damaging the French all that much.  The French had plenty of allies to lead them into the forest, Huron, Algonquin, Lenape, Mahican, ect.  When the colonists turned on them it was no longer a beneficial fight with the English against just France and their brave allies.  The alliances shifted and the trap closed.
I wonder, had they a book -on-tape copy of Principe would that have changed anything?  All that was really needed was to cut French lines of supply and convert the weaker tribes instead of just taking their land, assuming that would be at all possible in those days.  The Golden Rule of the Prince is to appear good as much as possible, for the purpose of using others against your enemies.  The British and their love of trade mastered the principle in their own way.  They were fine allies for the Nations, but they were also way overextended.  The key was with the colonists, if they had defeated the French first the formation of the U.S. would have been checked and the Western line held for some time.  That failure may have had something to do with Georgie’s annoyance with them and their suspicions that he wanted to weaken their power, which he did. If the American Indians do remember their past then it's understandable that the Grandmothers, the Keepers of the Seed, are concerned about a trangenic patent colonization in the realm of DNA that could rob them of their land and their seeds in one fell swoop.  The stakes have never been higher nor the alleged conspiracy more sinister.

This case here, with budding America playing the democrat to the English oligarch and opening the gates to the French so to speak, is just another sordid example of how intertwined politics get with conspiracies.  I believe that some theories are correct and some are not, but it’s hard to know which.  I’m skeptical of the official truth in a lot more cases than I think I know the truth.  Cass hits on a lot of good ideas in his own way, I could see his insights being valuable to someone in power for sure.   

I would go into the legal side of it, but it’s a little bit like parsing The Watchtower.  The truth and the moral and legal actions of leadership are too vital to the subject to gloss over.  Why watch the Cass movie when you could read the Machiaveli book?  But how indeed do we think we know the truth?  How does anyone know the whole truth?  If there is a massive conspiracy of schizophrenic proportions then I think it’s sort of pointless to battle too much over specifics, to “polarize” as they say.  Subversive theories are dangerous, but they can also be useful to state actors.  A police-state welcomes these divisions in society and seeks to nurture the extremist element, subtly putting the struggle more and more into the battlefield where they can try out their new toys.  I define extremism, at unhealthy levels, as being unable to apply the principles you apply to yourselves to other humans.  If we dig deep into the Conspiracy we may find that we are all in on it too.

No comments:

Post a Comment