I am not sure of the statistics around contemporary police infiltration, but as a historian there are certainly plenty of examples of double agents and false informers and agents provocateurs causing crimes from the "golden age" of anarchism and revolutionary politics in late 19th/early 20th century Europe. I am reminded in particular of the famous case of Yevno Azef, a Russian revolutionary and secret police agent who managed to use his unique role to profit from and advance his career in both institutions, having his police superior assassinated while getting his revolutionary superior arrested and gaining power and making money in both without ever making it particularly clear to which side (if any) his deepest loyalties lay.
It seems much more likely from history and human nature alike that people who "know better" (and therefore have no even delusional belief that these factional politics are benefiting the common good) forced to take part in factional politics they despise would learn to cynically use these factions for their own individual private interest than that they would be able to find hitherto-unknown ways to bend these factions to the genuine common good.
Perhaps, then, this is a good place/juncture to introduce the notion of a Belief System that is less prone or vulnerable to the formation of “delusions" in fanaticism, often the progenitor of factionalism. My own thought is analyses with fact-based specificities derived from on-ground reality, not so much theories, where concrete, tangible antecedents and their consequences are viewed over a substantial passage of time (my thought is 5 to 10 years minimum, for any sort of outcome research studies), would be a more constructive approach. At a minimum, this approach helps the analyst sort out the FACTS and identify the myriad ISSUE(S) buried and layered and cross-layered on each other.
Samuel Moyn makes a similar argument to Aristotle about the liberal attempt to ‘humanize war’ to avoid atrocities. He argues that its effect has been to normalize and justify war rather than humanize it. He argues that the atrocities of war should not be denied in order to limit war. See Moyn, Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Re-Invented War. I understand the criticism of supposed ‘humane war’ but not sure that ‘inhumane war’ is the right response. Common good just war criteria much more effective in limiting war than using executive will to make war ‘humane.’ Moyn does not even consider just war an option with his own liberal convictions, if I recall correctly.
I am not sure of the statistics around contemporary police infiltration, but as a historian there are certainly plenty of examples of double agents and false informers and agents provocateurs causing crimes from the "golden age" of anarchism and revolutionary politics in late 19th/early 20th century Europe. I am reminded in particular of the famous case of Yevno Azef, a Russian revolutionary and secret police agent who managed to use his unique role to profit from and advance his career in both institutions, having his police superior assassinated while getting his revolutionary superior arrested and gaining power and making money in both without ever making it particularly clear to which side (if any) his deepest loyalties lay.
It seems much more likely from history and human nature alike that people who "know better" (and therefore have no even delusional belief that these factional politics are benefiting the common good) forced to take part in factional politics they despise would learn to cynically use these factions for their own individual private interest than that they would be able to find hitherto-unknown ways to bend these factions to the genuine common good.
Fascinating stuff. Thanks for this!
Please see reply to Captain Peabody above.
Perhaps, then, this is a good place/juncture to introduce the notion of a Belief System that is less prone or vulnerable to the formation of “delusions" in fanaticism, often the progenitor of factionalism. My own thought is analyses with fact-based specificities derived from on-ground reality, not so much theories, where concrete, tangible antecedents and their consequences are viewed over a substantial passage of time (my thought is 5 to 10 years minimum, for any sort of outcome research studies), would be a more constructive approach. At a minimum, this approach helps the analyst sort out the FACTS and identify the myriad ISSUE(S) buried and layered and cross-layered on each other.
cc: Adrian Vermeule
Samuel Moyn makes a similar argument to Aristotle about the liberal attempt to ‘humanize war’ to avoid atrocities. He argues that its effect has been to normalize and justify war rather than humanize it. He argues that the atrocities of war should not be denied in order to limit war. See Moyn, Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Re-Invented War. I understand the criticism of supposed ‘humane war’ but not sure that ‘inhumane war’ is the right response. Common good just war criteria much more effective in limiting war than using executive will to make war ‘humane.’ Moyn does not even consider just war an option with his own liberal convictions, if I recall correctly.
Agree, and I hope Moyn didn’t get his argument from a Star Trek episode that said the same thing