Conspiracy as Governance

Conspiracy as Governance
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
me @ iq.org
By Julian Assange, December 3, 2006
Original in: http://estaticos.elmundo.es/documentos/2010/12/01/conspiracies.pdf


Conspiracy, Conspire: make secret plans jointly to commit
a harmful act; working together to bring about a particular
result, typically to someone’s detriment.

The best party is but a kind of conspiracy against the rest
of the nation. (Lord Halifax)

Security gives way to conspiracy.
(Julius Caesar, act 2, sc. 3.
The soothsayer’s message, but Caesar is too busy to look at it)


Introduction

To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we
have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must
think beyond those who have gone before us and discover technological changes
that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not.
We must understand the key generative structure of bad governance1
We must develop a way of thinking about this structure that is strong enough
to carry us through the mire of competing political moralities and into a position
of clarity.

Most importantly, we must use these insights to inspire within us and others
a course of ennobling and effective action to replace the structures that lead to
bad governance with something better.

----------------------------------

1 Everytime we witness an act that we feel to be unjust and do not act we become a party to injustice. Those who are repeatedly passive in the face of injustice soon find their character corroded into servility. Most witnessed acts of injustice are associated with bad governance, since when governance is good, unanswered injustice is rare. By the progressive diminution of a people’s character, the impact of reported, but unanswered injustice is far greater than it may initially seem. Modern communications states through their scale, homogeneity and excesses provide their populace with an unprecidented deluge of witnessed, but seemingly unanswerable injustices.
------------------------------------------


Conspiracy as governance in authoritarian regimes

Where details are known as to the inner workings of authoritarian regimes, we
see conspiratorial interactions among the political elite, not merely for preferment
or favor within the regime, but as the primary planning methodology
behind maintaining or strengthening authoritarian power.

Authoritarian regimes create forces which oppose them by pushing against a
people’s will to truth, love and self-realization. Plans which assist authoritarian
rule, once discovered, induce further resistance. Hence such schemes are concealed
by successful authoritarian powers until resistance is futile or outweighed
by the efficiencies of naked power. This collaborative secrecy, working to the
detriment of a population, is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial.

Thus it happens in matters of state; for knowing afar off (which
it is only given a prudent man to do) the evils that are brewing,
they are easily cured. But when, for want of such knowledge, they
are allowed to grow until everyone can recognize them, there is no
longer any remedy to be found.

(The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli [1469-1527])


Terrorist conspiracies as connected graphs

Pre and post 9/11 the Maryland Procurement Office2 and others have funded
mathematicians to look at terrorist conspiracies as connected graphs (no mathematical
background is needed to follow this article).

We extend this understanding of terrorist organizations and turn it on the
likes of its paymasters; transforming it into a knife to dissect the conspiracies
used to maintain authoritarian power structures.

We will use connected graphs as a way to apply our spatial reasoning abilities
to political relationships. These graphs are very easy to visualize. First take
some nails (“conspirators”) and hammer them into a board at random. Then
take twine (“communication”) and loop it from nail to nail without breaking.
Call the twine connecting two nails a link. Unbroken twine means it is possible
to travel from any nail to any other nail via twine and intermediary nails.
Mathematicians say that this type of graph is connected.

Information flows from conspirator to conspirator. Not every conspirator
trusts or knows every other conspirator even though all are connected. Some
are on the fringe of the conspiracy, others are central and communicate with
many conspirators and others still may know only two conspirators but be a
bridge between important sections or groupings of the conspiracy.


Separating a conspiracy

If all conspirators are assassinated or all the links between them are destroyed,
then a conspiracy no longer exists. This is usually requires more resources than
2National Security Agency light cover for academic funding, google for grant code
“MDA904”

we can deploy, so we ask our first question: What is the minimum number
of links that must be cut to separate the conspiracy into two groups of equal
number? (divide and conquer). The answer depends on the structure of the
conspiracy. Sometimes there are no alternative paths for conspiratorial information
to flow between conspirators, othertimes there are many. This is a useful
and interesting characteristic of a conspiracy. For instance, by assassinating one
“bridge” conspirator, it may be possible to split a conspiracy. But we want to
say something about all conspiracies.


Some conspirators dance closer than others

Conspirators are often discerning, for some trust and depend each other, while
others say little. Important information flows frequently through some links,
trivial information through others. So we expand our simple connected graph
model to include not only links, but their “importance”.

Return to our board-and-nails analogy. Imagine a thick heavy cord between
some nails and fine light thread between others. Call the importance, thickness
or heaviness of a link its weight. Between conspirators that never communicate
the weight is zero. The “importance” of communication passing through a
link is difficult to evaluate apriori, since its true value depends on the outcome
of the conspiracy. We simply say that the “importance” of communication
contributes to the weight of a link in the most obvious way; the weight of a
link is proportional to the amount of important communication flowing across
it. Questions about conspiracies in general won’t require us to know the weight
of any link, since that changes from conspiracy to conspiracy.


Conspiracies are cognitive devices. They are able to outthink
the same group of individuals acting alone

Conspiracies take information about the world in which they operate (the conspiratorial environment), pass through the conspirators and then act on the
result. We can see conspiracies as a type of device that has inputs (information
about the environment), a computational network (the conspirators and their
links to each other) and outputs (actions intending to change or maintain the
environment).


Deceiving conspiracies

Since a conspiracy is a type of cognitive device that acts on information acquired
from its environment, distorting or restricting these inputs means acts based on
them are likely to be misplaced. Programmers call this effect garbage in, garbage
out.

Usually the effect runs the other way; it is conspiracy that is the agent of
deception and information restriction. In the US, the programmer’s aphorism
is sometimes called “the Fox News effect”.



What does a conspiracy compute? It computes the next
action of the conspiracy

Now we ask the question: how effective is this device? Can we compare it to
itself at different times? Is the conspiracy growing stronger or is it weakening?
This question asks us to compare two values over time.


Can we find a value that describes the power of a conspiracy?

We could count the number of conspirators, but that would not capture the key
difference between a conspiracy and the individuals which comprise it. How do
they differ? In a conspiracy, individuals conspire, while when isolated they do
not. We can show most of this difference by adding up all the important communication
(weights) between all the conspirators. Call this total conspiratorial
power.


Total conspiratorial power

This number is an abstraction. The pattern of connections in a conspiracy is
usually unique. But by looking at a value that is independent of the arrangement
of connections between conspirators we can say something about conspiracies
in general.


If total conspiratorial power is zero, there is no conspiracy

If total conspiratorial power is zero, then clearly there is no information flow
between the conspirators and hence no conspiracy.

A substantial increase or decrease in total conspiratorial power almost always
means what we expect it to mean; an increase or decrease in the ability of the
conspiracy to think, act and adapt.


Separating weighted conspiracies

We now return to our earlier idea about cleaving a conspiracy into halves. Then
we looked at dividing a conspiracy into two groups of equal numbers by cutting
the links between conspirators. Now we see that a more interesting idea is to
split the total conspiratorial power in half. Since any isolated half can be viewed
as a conspiracy in its own right we can continue separating indefinitely.


Throttling weighted conspiracies

Instead of cutting links between conspirators so as to separate a weighted conspiracy
we can achieve a similar effect by throttling the conspiracy — constricting
(reducing the weight of) those high weight links which bridge regions of
equal total conspiratorial power.


Attacks on conspiratorial cognitive ability

A man in chains knows he should have acted sooner for his ability to influence
the actions of the state is near its end. To deal with powerful conspiratorial
actions we must think ahead and attack the process that leads to them since
the actions themselves can not be dealt with.

We can deceive or blind a conspiracy by distorting or restricting the information
available to it.

We can reduce total conspiratorial power via unstructured attacks on links
or through throttling and separating.

A conspiracy sufficiently engaged in this manner is no longer able to comprehend
its environment and plan robust action.


Traditional vs. modern conspiracies

Traditional attacks on conspiratorial power groupings, such as assassination,
cut many high weight links. The act of assassination — the targeting of visible
individuals, is the result of mental inclinations honed for the pre-literate societies in which our species evolved.

Literacy and the communications revolution have empowered conspirators
with new means to conspire, increasing the speed of accuracy of the their interactions and thereby the maximum size a conspiracy may achieve before it
breaks down.

Conspirators who have this technology are able to out conspire conspirators
without it. For the same costs they are able to achieve a higher total conspiratorial
power. That is why they adopt it.

For example, remembering Lord Halifax’s words, let us consider two closely
balanced and broadly conspiratorial power groupings, the US Democratic and
Republican parties.

Consider what would happen if one of these parties gave up their mobile
phones, fax and email correspondence — let alone the computer systems which
manage their subscribes, donors, budgets, polling, call centres and direct mail
campaigns?

They would immediately fall into an organizational stupor and lose to the
other.


An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think is powerless
to preserve itself against the opponents it induces

When we look at an authoritarian conspiracy as a whole, we see a system of
interacting organs, a beast with arteries and veins whose blood may be thickened
and slowed until it falls, stupefied; unable to sufficiently comprehend and control
the forces in its environment.

Later we will see how new technology and insights into the psychological
motivations of conspirators can give us practical methods for preventing or
reducing important communication between authoritarian conspirators, foment
strong resistance to authoritarian planning and create powerful incentives for
more humane forms of governance.