One of the questions no one in the media plans to ask is why the FBI was so deeply involved in the Twitter disinformation campaigns? The word “disinformation” is the correct word in this case. Twitter was actively trying to provide the public with false information about a wide range of issues. One tool they used was silencing those who contradicted official narratives. They would instruct the Twitter censorship team to take down posts and ban particular users.
Presumably, the FBI was not just involved with Twitter, but with all of the big social media companies. Of course, this was just part of what the FBI has been doing to undermine the normal functioning of society. Victor Davis Hanson took a stab at cataloging some of their activity. He does not get into their plots to entrap people in various capers like the Gretchen Whitmer case. Then there is their involvement in the January 6 protests at the Capitol.
This is a massive effort, but to what end? Paul Gottfried suggests the primary motivation is power politics. “I’m still trying to figure out where the close alliance between surveillance agencies and the woke Left, which has been evident since at least the Obama Administration, may lead. I have no doubt this friendship is based more on power considerations than ideological affinity.” The assumption here is that the FBI does not really believe the crazy things they are saying.
Gottfried’s position is the standard conservative position that has been the default for more than half a century when dealing with the Left. Conservatives assume that there is no way these people believe what they are saying. Instead, they are motivated by a more sensible reason like money or power. Conservatives tend to be practical people, so they assume people are motivated by practical reasons. They cannot accept that these people genuinely believe what they are saying.
What if the FBI is as woke as it appears? What if the people at the top of the military, the people pushing the DIE agenda throughout the ranks, really are as antiwhite and generally insane as they sound? Talk to anyone in the services and they will tell you that the officer corps makes corporate America look old fashioned. Every FBI agent is sent to the ADL for brainwashing, so the selection pressure strongly favors the sorts of people who believe in the woke conspiracy theories.
It is entirely possible that these organizations, in fact the entirety of the managerial class, has been taken over by true believers. This does not mean all of them believe this stuff, just that there is a critical mass of believers. The 80/20 rule, also known as the Pareto principle, is as close as we have to an axiom in this area. Across all human organizations we see that there is a “vita few” that exert an extraordinary amount of influence over the whole.
What if the managerial class, having become self-aware at the end of the Cold War, has simply landed on what we call wokeness as its binding agent? What if adherence to one of these illogical and unnatural fads is simply the way people inside signal their status and commitment to others? Many, if not most, do not honestly believe this stuff, but as social animals they do what they believe is necessary to be in the group and enhance their status opportunities in the group.
In other words, the conservatives are right in that there are plenty of people cynically playing along, but know this stuff is insane. They do it for all the reasons ambitious people do things. They want to increase their status. The wrinkle here is they operate from the assumption that everyone else does believe this stuff, or at least enough important people believe it that it is best to play along. Even though a majority of the members do not believe, the whole acts as if they do believe.
What this suggests is that even if the conservatives are right and most people in the managerial class do not believe this woke lunacy, they act as if they do because they believe their fellows do believe it. That means no amount of facts and reason could change their minds, because they assume that everyone around them is genuinely woke on the latest things. In fact, knowing the truth, so to speak, makes life more dangerous for them in their social milieu.
This would explain the fanaticism of these people. If they were cocksure of their beliefs, they would have little reason to proselytize. The obviousness of their claims would be enough, so there would be no need for enforcement. On the other hand, if these people are riddled with doubt, but sure most around them are true believers, then stamping out all contrary opinion and the people who present those contrary opinions is the most rational way of defending themselves within the group.
The “group belief” option seems to comport with observation. The people policing the borders for dissent always frame their actions in terms of self-defense. The Twitter censors were “protecting” fellow believers from “misinformation” and “stochastic violence” on the platform. When what others think you believe determines membership in the whole, it is not a big leap from there to believing that anything that causes doubt or questions belief is a threat to your existence….