Some striking passages from chap 3, "Conspiracy Denial in the Social Sciences" (76-106):
The intellectual basis for abandoning the conspiratorial concerns
of the Founders was developed in the 1940s and 1950s
by two European philosophers: Karl Popper and Leo Strauss.
It would be only a modest exaggeration to say that Popper and
to some extent Strauss blamed conspiracy theory for totalitarianism
in Europe, World War II, and the Holocaust. Popper
is largely responsible for the mistaken idea that conspiracy
theories are modern variants of ancient superstitions and
nineteenth-century social prejudices, and that, thus rooted
in irrationality and paranoia, are the seeds of authoritarian
political movements [1 pp. 94–97]. For his part, Strauss did
not use the term “conspiracy theory,” but he advocated state
political propaganda and covert actions to protect a society’s
traditional beliefs and ongoing illusions about its origins and
virtues from unrestrained inquiries or, in other words, conspiratorial
theorizing [2 pp. 146–173]. Strauss’ thinking differed
from much of Popper’s analysis but saw scientific criticism
of official accounts of important historical events as a
precursor to totalitarianism because it undermines respect
for the nation’s laws and traditional beliefs; it ushers in,
with philosophy and science, the view that nothing is true;
and it unleashes tyrannical impulses in the political class as
top leaders compete for popular support. [3] Although Popper
and Strauss arrived by diff erent routes, they agreed that
conspiracy theories can fuel totalitarian political movements
that threaten respect for human dignity, popular sovereignty,
and the rule of law. [4]
...
Strauss assumes that all but the most primitive societies are stratified into an
elite and mass; that the elites are simply smarter, stronger,
braver, and better than are the masses; and that the decisive
factor in social organization is how the elites are controlled
and managed. For the most part, he thinks the latter depends
on the elites’ reverence, or lack thereof, for the established
laws and traditions. Elites who revere their societies’ values
and norms will be magnanimous, restrained, and caring.
When traditional beliefs erode, the elites become gangsters
and eventually one gangster rises through guile and brutality
to the top, thus establishing tyranny. Therefore, whereas
Popper envisions as the endpoint of societal development a
totally open society without superstition, Strauss says such
a society is not possible in the long run because it would
eventually become totalitarian or, in Strauss’ terms, “tyrannical.”
Democracy and respect for human dignity depend on
“salutary myths” and “noble lies” that must be propagated by
a special class of philosophical elites who are dedicated to
guarding the society’s values and traditions.
Strauss never defines what he means by “noble lies”
beyond referring to Plato’s The Republic, which is where
the term originates. But this was certainly no oversight on
Strauss’ part, for it leaves the matter open, which is to say,
unlimited. For Plato, noble lies included myths and stories
about the society’s origins, rigged lotteries for choosing
marriage partners, infanticide, and other actions to create a
strong people willing and able to defend themselves in a hostile
world. This short list would seem to imply support for
many antidemocratic elite conspiracies, including assassinating
political leaders, framing dissidents, fomenting mass
fear, demonizing rival societies, and letting enemy attacks
succeed so that the masses are galvanized to deal with a gathering
threat. [3] The upshot for modern democracies is that
political leaders must conspire to manipulate mass opinion
and reinforce patriotism, reverence for the Founders,
religious faith and piety, and generally “love of one’s own.”
Like science and philosophy, conspiracy theories (or “dastardly
truths”) are corrosive of political cohesion and the rule
of (traditional) law because they undermine authority and
raise doubts about foundational stories extolling the societies’
founders and rules.
...
They may also wish to consider that the theory they are embracing—
the conspiracy-denying theory of Karl Popper—is blind to
the possibility that a segment of U.S. political elites, perhaps
under the infl uence of Leo Strauss or a living Straussian, is
conspiring to manipulate American democracy to make it
more authoritarian for the sake of preserving a remnant of
American democracy in a hostile world.
...
In effect, Strauss believed state
political crimes, insofar as they reinforce the society’s values
and myths, are necessary and beneficial because without
them, liberal democracies are doomed to become totalitarian
or to be conquered by totalitarian regimes.
...
On the basis of an innovative analysis of classical political
philosophy, Strauss challenged modern belief in the civilizing
effect of science. He concluded that the ancient philosophers
had realized that a society based on philosophy alone
eventually transformed into tyranny. [3] The truth discovered
by philosophy is that there are no gods, the universe is
eternal rather than created, and life according to nature is for
the strong to rule the weak. If this truth is shared with people
who are not philosophers, social order will be destroyed
because non-philosophers will no longer revere their society
as unique and exemplary and will become lawless and politically
opportunistic. Elites will abandon restraint in their
competition with each other, and the masses will turn to elite
demagogues who promise them equality of power, wealth,
and status. The result will be rule by the will of the tyrant
rather than by the laws of the land.
...
Strauss concluded that Western culture could be
preserved only by somehow insulating biblical beliefs from
scientific criticism.
...
Strauss did not speak openly of all that would be
condoned by his point of view, but SCADs to shore up hatred
against the enemy would seem to be acceptable. The key consideration
would be the ability to avoid detection. Just about
anything would be allowed if it could be kept secret.
Dirty tricks would also be justified for discrediting scientists,
historians, journalists, independent investigators, and
others who formulated conspiracy theories that discredited
or cast doubt on beliefs important to the democratic society’s
existence in a hostile world, a world in which liberal democracies
are faced with powerful, totalitarian enemies. In this
context, formulating and popularizing conspiracy theories
that undermine popular confidence in the nation’s leaders,
institutions, and traditions would border on treason. Hence
the state could reasonably resort to targeting domestic conspiracy-theory
groups and networks with Sunstein and Vermeule’s
program of “cognitive infiltration.”
...
However, the possibility remains that American militarism
has been maintained by SCADs, or more generally the
policies advocated by Strauss. If the system followed the
Platonic model of guardians, the requisite actions would be
assigned to covert operatives by an inner circle of national
security elites. The operatives would have developed their
skills in covert operations overseas. The tactics might
include, for example, political assassination, false-flag terrorism,
election theft, military provocation, and contrived
economic crises. [21, 22] In theory, national security elites
would stage, facilitate, or execute events that discipline politics
and policy by changing either the lineup of top policymakers
or the perceived constellation of major problems and
threats facing the social order. Their objectives would be to
foster social panic and militarism in the American mass public
and belligerency in U.S. foreign policy. [21]
Of course, the source of American neoconservative militarism
in the post-WWII era is an empirical question that
poses serious difficulties for observation because of extensive
government secrecy. There is also the potential for the object
of inquiry to turn on its observers and not simply elude detection
but deploy violence or other forms of force. Nevertheless,
experience shows that at least some access to this milieu
occasionally opens up, as it did with the Watergate hearings,
Nixon’s audiotapes, the Church Committee, and other inquiries.
Consequently, the failure of all major research and theoretical
traditions in U.S. social science to investigate the possibility
of strategic interventions by national security elites
and covert operatives into U.S. domestic politics can be reasonably
attributed to powerful norms in academia, as in the
broader society, against speculating about possible mischief
in high office. Indeed, it is likely that the CIA propaganda program
to instantiate the conspiracy-theory concept in America’s
civic culture was directed as much toward intellectuals
as ordinary citizens. Of course, there is no reason to believe
that the CIA program that was discovered by a Freedom of
Information Act request is the only such CIA program that
has been, or is, shaping U.S. culture.
...
Today in the United States, intelligence agencies are generally
prohibited from carrying out covert actions against
American citizens, but this prohibition is not always honored.
When violations of the prohibition come to light, as
with the warrantless wiretaps of the Bush-Cheney administration,
they are dismissed as isolated mistakes of judgment
by overzealous officials. In actuality, however, U.S. military
and intelligence elites actively manipulate domestic affairs
as a matter of policy.
...
To the extent that national security elites
are influencing national political priorities by manipulating
the constellation of issues confronting the nation, all of the
theories in the social sciences and their associated research
programs are studying downstream phenomena while the
real explanation of events resides earlier in time and higher
in America’s authoritative hierarchy. In other words, it is
quite possible that the social sciences are studying shadows
and that the people making the shadows are designing
them for effect. Of course, this was how Plato described the
situation of the citizens, except that in his story, which we
must assume was a noble lie, the philosophers were helping
citizens understand the shadows, not using the shadows for
social control.
And this from Chap 5, SCAD, very HMW:
LINGUISTIC THOUGHT CONTROL
The 1967 CIA propaganda program shows that the United
States government has been actively engaged in engineering
America’s civic culture and has been alarmingly effective at
doing so. It appears that one of its methods is to insert memes
into the culture through a global network of media contacts
and assets. The scholar most directly familiar with this propaganda
machine has compared it to a giant pipe organ, or
“Wurlitzer.” [23]
The possibility of cultural engineering in relation to 9/11,
the anthrax letter attacks, and other associated crimes should
be investigated. It should be assumed that covert cultural
operations involve inserting debilitating memes and perhaps
other forms of weaponized language into the discursive
arena to skew the search for meaning, agreement, and collective
action in the public sphere. These destructive memes
may have characteristics similar to those of the conspiracy-
theory label, which is normatively powerful but conceptually
fl awed and alien to America’s civic culture.
...
A SCAD approach to memes assumes further that the CIA
and other possibly participating agencies are formulating
memes well in advance of operations, and therefore SCAD
memes appear and are popularized very quickly before any
competing concepts are on the scene. The tendency in meme
analysis for marketing research is to track the life cycle
of memes from obscurity to popularity and then fadeout.
SCAD memes would be expected to become widely used very
quickly, block new memes from entry, and consequently have
a much longer longer shelf life than standard memes.
The rapidity with which the new language of the war on
terror appeared and took hold; the synergy between terms
and their mutual connections to WWII nomenclatures; and
above all the connections between many terms and the emergency
motif of “9/11” and “9-1-1”—any one of these factors
alone, but certainly all of them together—raise the possibility
that work on this linguistic construct began long before 9/11.
The decision had to be made that the core concept would be
the world-historic emergency before planning could be set
in motion around the September 11 date and downstream
terminology could be framed accordingly. In short, once we
recognize the centrality of 9/11 as a symbol and linguistic
core for what has materialized as a new paradigm of American
government (an endless emergency) and an American dominated
world order backed by military forces deployed
around the globe; once we recognize that NSC 68 put America
on the path of constructing U.S. civic culture to stand firm
against the threat of global thermonuclear warfare; once we
see that U.S. policy both domestically and internationally
has become subordinate to military plans and calculations
that envision the future, decades in advance, 9/11 itself is put
in a larger perspective, as is the hope and fate of American
democracy. It turns out that elite political crime, even treason,
may actually be official policy.
