Participating in a mob carries a risk similar to that of reveling in being part of the majority (or “the people,” or the righteous). The risk is that the mob or the majority can turn against you. It happened to some Red Guards in Mao’s time, and it is occasionally happening in America too, arguably more and more often on the left as on the right, among the Trumpians and the woke.
Consider the story of Ray Epps (“A Trump Backer’s Downfall as the Target of a Jan. 6 Conspiracy Theory,” New York Times, July 13, 2022) and its latest twist. Mr. Epps was a business owner in Arizona and a fan of Donald Trump, whose self-serving lies about the stolen election he believed. At the last minute, he decided to travel to the January 6, 2021 demonstration at the Capitol. During a pro-Trump rally the preceding night , he was videotaped encouraging people to peacefully march to the Capitol the next day. It is reported that some in the mob already accused him of being a federal agent. He did go to the Capitol on January 6, also showing the direction to some demonstrators. He interposed between the police and a demonstrator, telling him that the cops were only doing their job. He left before the violence started.
After January 6, Trump’s followers tried to shift the blame for the violence on antifa demonstrators, and then on federal agents provocateurs. They saw the videotape of January 5. The New York Times explained what followed:
The problems began for Mr. Epps almost as soon as Revolver News published its first article about him in October. Suddenly, there were emailed death threats; trespassers on his property demanding “answers” about Jan. 6; and acquaintances, fellow members of his church, even family members who disowned him, he said.
NBC (“Pro-Trump Protester Ray Epps Seeks Retractation of Conspiracy Theory from Tucker Carlson,” NBC News, March 23, 2023) further explains:
The video gained significant attention among some prominent conservatives in Congress. In addition to being spread by Fox News, the Epps conspiracy theory was featured in right-wing outlets such as One America News and Carlson’s Jan. 6 documentary series “Patriot Purge.”
Quoting the New York Times again:
Eventually, Mr. Trump joined the fray, mentioning Mr. Epps at one of his political rallies and lending fuel to a viral Twitter hashtag, #WhoIsRayEpps.
Epps was being witch-hunted by his own mob. Under threats and intimidation, banned from righteous populist company, he and his wife sold their house and the family business, and fled incognito to a mobile home in the foothills of the Rockies.
The latest twist is that Epps is threatening to sue Fox News and Tucker Carlson if the latter does not publicly retract his “false and defamatory statements.” I don’t personally condone antidefamation laws, which make some people scared to speak and others more gullible (if he has not sued, it must be true!). But it is easy to understand Mr. Epps’s anger at being betrayed by the political mob he followed; and to sympathize with his plight.
A related fact illustrates the dismal state of politics, the gullibility of large part of the public, and the immorality of media enablers. Former Playboy model Karen McDougal had previously sued Fox News after host Tucker Carlson opined that she had extorted presidential candidate Trump into indirectly paying $150,000 to prevent her from revealing an affair between them. In September 2020, U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled in favor of Fox News by accepting the argument that Carlson should not be known for reporting facts, as her decision suggests:
Fox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect. … This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” … Fox persuasively argues … that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes. … Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as “exaggeration,” “non-literal commentary,” or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same—the statements are not actionable.
One could claim that all this only proves the existence of a conspiracy to hide Mr. Epps’s status as a FBI agent provocateur. This is not totally impossible, but very unlikely. Which illustrates again the shaky epistemological status of conspiracy theorizing.
READER COMMENTS
Jon Murphy
Mar 27 2023 at 2:16pm
It’s amazing to me how crazy people get with their conspiracy theories. I do sympathize with Mr Epps as I have a family member who has cut me out of their life because of their perception that I was involved in a conspricy. I just cannot imagine cutting someone out of your life over increasingly absurd claims.
What’s strange is that even intelligent people fall for conspiracy theories. I have seen highly intellgient people buy into some of the most absurd conspiracies such as:
-Inflation is a corporate conspiracy
-The anti-racist school choice movement is actually itself secretly a racist movement
-Adam Smith’s anti-mercantilist rheotric is actually a cover for his mercantilist beliefs
Just to name a few.
Heck, I even saw a person who is well credentialed and holds a position at a major university claim that the complete lack of evidence of their thesis only means that their thesis is probabilistic rather than certain.
I do wonder why so many of the Left and Right have become obsessed with conspiracy theories to the point where they abandon the obvious to support them.
Johnson85
Mar 30 2023 at 4:10pm
It’s not exactly a crazy conspiracy theory to think Epps was working with the FBI. Unless you think everything to come out of the Whitmer kidnapping cases is fake, it seems pretty clear the FBI will utilize informants and they will at least encourage if not plan and instigate illegal activities.
Epps is on tape doing more to instigate lawbreaking than a lot of people that have been arrested and held without bail.
The obvious conclusions would be that either (1) it’s just a normal combination of randomness/incompetence/arbitrariness in the criminal justice system. (2) Epps got favorable treatment b/c he was able to give incriminating evidence on somebody the DOJ cared more about, (3) he was given favorable treatment b/c of being an FBI informant or (4) he was protected for some other reason, like having a relative that is high ranking gov’t official.
People closer to the situation may have more information and be able to make a better assessment of the odds of what has happened, but based on the video evidence I’ve seen, I don’t see anything to make the FBI informant explanation crazy. Most people aren’t going to have the inclination or resources to do a deep dive on the guy. Just looking through social media carefully enough to see whether there are obvious signs that his social media presence is think and something that could be cooked up to go with a cover is more time than most people are going to want to invest in it.
Jon Murphy
Mar 30 2023 at 4:55pm
My comment was more broad, but the Epps case is quite insane to my ears. I mean, just look at the chain of reasoning you have to lay out to make it even just possible. You introduce so many “what ifs” and “supposes” that the likelihood of them all being true, or even half, rapidly approaches 0. Not to mention a good amount of the “supposes” rely on irrelevant events.
Jon Murphy
Mar 30 2023 at 4:58pm
One thing that is still missing, and why an Epps conspiracy is insane, is the answer to the question “why.” No one here as attempted to answer that question.
Monte
Mar 30 2023 at 9:27pm
That’s because the reason is obvious. Since 9/11, the FBI has employed counter-terrorism techniques previously used to expose Muslim extremist plots on white supremacists, or “extreme MAGA republicans”, whom Biden has repeatedly called “the most lethal threat to the U.S.”
FBI entrapment has a long history. Several prosecutions have hinged on informants actively promoting a plot before turning alleged perpetrators over to the government to be tried on conspiracy charges. The FBI has frequently overstepped its boundaries by urging people to participate in plots and subsequently charging them with crimes they might otherwise have never committed.
I’m surprised this didn’t occur to you.
Jon Murphy
Mar 31 2023 at 8:07am
That’s not an answer. That’s a vague handwaving away of the question.
No one denies FBI entrapment. But we still need a motive here. Vague “everybody knows” statements don’t get us anywhere; they’re invoked more as reason for lack of thought rather than insight.
Monte
Mar 31 2023 at 10:40am
Talk about handwaving away the obvious. A motive? Hmmm? Why would our government want to impeach Trump or prevent him from being elected president again, and how might it accomplish this? Humor me by giving this some thought and coming with with a few reasons on your own. I’ll even give you a hint (and please consider the issues being addressed, rather than just dismissing the article out of hand because of the source):
FBI Involvement in Capital Riot Not “A Crazy Conspiracy Theory”
Further, if the FBI and Epps weren’t involved in instigating the January 6 riot, FBI director Christopher Wray and Jill Sanborn, in their congressional testimony, could have easily put to rest any suspicions by answering the question. Instead, their refusal to do so only adds legitimacy to the theory.
Walt Cody
Mar 27 2023 at 2:48pm
I don’t make a case one way or another for or against Mr Epps, but the actual footage shows him (and listens to him) urging the otherwise reluctant people around him to go past the barriers and into the capitol building. At that point, his urging seems like purposeful incitement to break the law and someone in the crowd points at him snd yells out the warning, “Fed!” His phone shows he emailed a relative and boasted of his leading role in the capitol breach. I have no idea if he was a plant or an over-enthusiastic Trump chump, but I do know that while hundreds of people who did nothing more provocative than amble briefly around the rotunda have been prosecuted and some held in jail pre-trial for over a year, that Epps, who was questioned behind closed doors with no charges levied, seems like an anomaly from which one might conclude he was possibly a federal informant or plant. I have no idea if that conclusion is accurate, but it’s not illogical either and Carlson has reached no conclusion either but merely showed the undeniable footage and asked the question.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 27 2023 at 2:59pm
Walt: Skepticism is good, but can you share some credible sources on that? As I wrote below (before seeing your comment), everything is possible if one thinks that only dark forces (as opposed to incentives and the logic of human action) are necessary to explain events.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 27 2023 at 3:08pm
Walt: Conspiracy theories are made of a firehose of lies, each of which can only be disproves by spending much time and other resources. Think about the “hoax” of Sandy Hook. One fact you report should be easy to check: “His phone shows he emailed a relative and boasted of his leading role in the capitol breach.” Can you quote the text of this email as obtained from a credible source?
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 27 2023 at 2:53pm
Jon: One hypothesis for the temptation to explain strange events with conspiracies would be, I think, consistent with Hayek’s theory of the Great Society vs. the tribe. Over a few hundred thousand years of evolution, mankind has been “wired,” culturally if not biologically, to explain strange events with dark forces. Even the ancient Greeks believed in conspiracies among the gods. Classical Greek rationalism was a glorious attempt to escape this epistemological cul-de-sac. The Enlightenment continued the tradition. But it is obviously still a work in progress. Perhaps recent times mark a reversal, a disturbing possibility.
Jon Murphy
Mar 27 2023 at 4:29pm
That makes sense. I mean, even I will talk about the whims of fate directing Man!
Andre
Mar 27 2023 at 7:11pm
Video and textual evidence requested:
1. Videos of Ray Epps (about 1 min total, five segments spliced together past the series of photos):
https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/
2. Fuller clip of that first segment (38 seconds): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erafzh-YahE (shows that he said “peacefully” – not that that exonerates people these days…)
3. Ray Epps interview transcript (discussion re: his text message on pp.60-61):
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23558376-20220121_ray-epps
Looks like A) he isn’t on film inciting the crowd that day but the day before, though he is directing them to the capitol on Jan 6 and B) he clearly boasts, after having witnessed the barricades fall and police get attacked, that he helped “orchestrate” what happened.
I think a very large part of what folks are upset about is the lack of consistency in the justice system. This guy even got praised as being cooperative. While some folks waived into the Capitol by the cops were prosecuted. (Never mind what happened, mostly with impunity/no consequence, the previous summer/fall.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 28 2023 at 12:20pm
Andre: Many thanks for taking the time to give us all these useful links, including the text of Epps’s text to his nephew in the evidence provided by the Senate Committee. You must admit that this text was ambiguous and that Epps’s candid explanation is not far fetched. The LONG Revolver New piece looks convincing just as conspiracy theories do. There is some dissonance, however, such as: (1) FBI conspirators don’t mind risking jail; (2) over 700 criminal trials later, including that of Oath Keeper’s Rhodes, none of that federal conspiracy transpired from what must be thousands of testimonies under oath. It’s like if incentives and prisoner dilemmas did not matter; it’s like if men were either angels or demons. I think that my interpretation is much more incentive-compatible and realistic.
Like auditors do, I randomly picked two New York Times quotes in the Revolver News report, and did a quick Google search. I confirmed one, but could not find the other.
Given a free press, we are pretty sure that if some of the Revolver News claims are true, they will be confirmed by more credible sources; in fact, they should by now have been confirmed by some mainstream Pulitzer-Prize chasing journalist. But we must keep our eyes open.
David Henderson
Mar 28 2023 at 2:46pm
I’m not disagreeing with your point. I think you’re probably right.
I do, however, strongly disagree with this statement you made:
Mainstream journalist, maybe. Pulitzer-Prize chasing journalist, highly unlikely. I don’t know if you have followed who gets Pulitzer Prizes lately, Pierre, but the odds that the prize would go to someone who uncovers an FBI role in January 6 are close to zero.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 28 2023 at 11:18pm
David: I have not followed the Pulitzer prices, and I am sure you are right. Your comment puts this issue in better perspective. However, if the probability of a Pulitzer-chasing journalist investigating the FBI is close to zero, it is not zero and adds to the probability that he will become famous without a Pulitzer if he reveals a wide government conspiracy that is believed by perhaps 20% or 30% of the American electorate. But I think I am adding nothing to what you said.
MarkW
Mar 28 2023 at 9:53am
On balance, I don’t think Mr Epps was a federal plant/resource (and I have to admit I haven’t followed it at all closely), but it’s not actually a crazy conspiracy theory. The FBI has a history of running right up to the edge of entrapment in various high-profile cases including some domestic terror cases and the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot. I wish I thought it was crazy that some Feds could have incited/guided/encouraged Jan 6 protestors, but the FBIs behavior suggests this is not at all beyond the realm of possibility.
Jon Murphy
Mar 28 2023 at 11:14am
That’s the frustrating thing about conspiracy theories: there’s always a nugget of truth to them.
Greg Jaxon
Mar 28 2023 at 7:17pm
If the theory dates to a witness present in the heat of the moment, then either Epps or the witness (who cried “Fed”) might be part of the psyop.
Keep in mind what the full theory claims: that a military psychological ops unit was on site. If its medium range goals include general agitprop, and it anticipated the charge of entrapment, then was it merely caught in sloppy tradecraft or is it sucessfully sowing internal divisions?
You may cry ‘Occam,’ but the Pentagon’s budget surely supports levels of complexity comparable to an average movie plot.
Ostensibly the psyop has taken the form of ‘a long con,’ entrapping a few thousand genuine marchers. The livestream I was watching gave ample evidence of separate agendas between the generally conservative marchers and a provocative category of advance actors.
While I accept Mr. Lemieux’s reliance on Invisible Hand ‘explanations,’ his model of modern national security states has not yet advanced into the 1970s (e.g., Prouty’s The Secret Team). In the half century since, such models of “A” deep state have embraced a sort of market anarchy sens legal order and now feature multiple teams, multiple agendas, and utterly dark yet immense black budgets.
There are indeed important epistemological issues with the formation of any substantive narrative about what might be attempted by market actors given a corrupted political class and its arrogated powers to coerce. It is usually foolhardy to suggest that a Central Planner anticipates, or even optimally exploits every opportunity that events present. That isn’t the politically savvy view at all.
For the moment, Mr. Epps’s choice of the very upscale–and Team Clinton-connected–law firm of Perkins Coie as advocate, and the most prominent counter-narrator, Mr. Carlson, as plaintiff suggests that deep pockets, if not deep states are at work, as much as the Epps family’s alleged feelings of betrayal. I’d submit that betrayal at all levels is the coin of the realm and that Epps has picked his side. I note that he’s not in jail, and that it has been hard to collect the usual habeus corpus evidence that every accused insurrectionist is properly incarcerated.
We believe Karl Marx was ‘crazy’ to claim that the Invisible Hand was really the covert conspiratorial hand of the capitalist robber barons. But then he was given a century of leeway to advance socialist states culminating in some of our modern superpowers. Please consider the epistemological implications of the legal requirement of ‘plausible deniability’ underwriting every covert act ‘authorized’ per the NSC’s charter in the 1947 Nat’l Sec Act. Your peace of mind is in their budget. As we move into the new era of deep fake videography and AI-woven narratives, we probably need a new refutation of the Cartesian Evil Genius hypothesis. Mr. Lemieux’s surface readings simply don’t cut wax anymore.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 28 2023 at 11:27pm
Greg: Leviathan is certainly dangerous and, in most ways, more than in the 1970s. But free speech is also better protected or at least as well protected. So I suspect the prisoner dilemma is not less, and probably more, of a threat to serious illegal conspiracies by government agents. (Especially if Trump ends up indicted and condemned.)
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 28 2023 at 1:58pm
Mark: What you say is worth considering. However, wouldn’t it apply more to the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover or the feds in general before Nixon?
zeke5123
Mar 29 2023 at 11:16am
You haven’t been paying attention if you think the problems of the FBI stopped with J Edgar Hoover. Read the facts of the Whitmer case which happened a couple of years ago. While that one was very salacious, Glenn Greenwald has provided numerous examples of Muslims being effectively radicalized by the FBI and then arrested so the FBI could say they got the terrorist.
Moreover, even in some of the J6 trials it appears the FBI had numerous informants and plants. Indeed, recently apparently DOJ failed to tell defense attorneys this info despite the fact the defense continued to speak with these informants. Government Disclosed Jan. 6 Activities of 5 Confidential FBI Sources: Defense Lawyer (theepochtimes.com)
Also, if you follow the twitter files it does appear that the FBI actively interfered in the last election by trying to prebunk a story the FBI knew was true (i.e., the Hunter Biden laptop).
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 29 2023 at 1:23pm
Zeke: We must, of course, mistrust Leviathan. However, Leviathan is made of individual agents, and any theory of Leviathan’s actions must be incentive-compatible. And if one has a good argument, one must be able to cite other sources than the Epoch Times. In the 700 or so January-6th trial, why, as far as I know, hasn’t any defense lawyer succeeded raising a reasonable doubt based on FBI provocation?
Jon Murphy
Mar 29 2023 at 4:10pm
I think this is the key question. Even with the Whitamore case, and other cases of FBI abuse, they have been widely reported in the media (mainstream and other). The Whitamore store broke extremely quickly.
If we are to take all these “suppose” and “perhaps” and “maybe” and “well, could be” statements seriously, we need a reasonable story as to why the press has been dead silent this whole time, why absolutely zero evidence has come to light.
Monte
Mar 28 2023 at 2:58pm
I was reluctant to weigh in on this, but there’s no question the FBI, DOJ, CDC, and a host of other government agencies and officials have lost credibility in recent years and will be hard pressed to regain the public’s trust and confidence anytime soon.
Pierre may, or may not, be right about Ray Epps and the FBI being blameless here (I disagree), but the appearance of culpability would suggest otherwise. Perception has a strong influence on reality. Kahneman won the Nobel based on identifying cognitive biases that systematically influence the way we create subjective social reality in contrast to objective reality. And it is on subjective social reality that we tend to act. Epps and the FBI are certainly to blame for giving the appearance of culpability.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 29 2023 at 1:26pm
Monte: Strange theory, if I read you well. We are interested in truth, not in the appearance of truth.
Monte
Mar 29 2023 at 3:47pm
That may be, Pierre, but until the facts are known, we can only go by appearances. That Ray Epps texted his nephew, “I orchestrated it” is indisputable. And FBI director Wray has been less than forthcoming in his responses before the house select committee. Yet, you’re asking us to believe, absent the facts, that Epps was merely a victim of circumstance and the FBI is above reproach?
Jon Murphy
Mar 29 2023 at 3:56pm
Strange reading of Pierre’s post. He says no such thing.
Monte
Mar 29 2023 at 8:03pm
Pierre stated that Epps was a victim “betrayed by the political mob that he followed” and that it was “very unlikely” he was an “FBI agent provocateur.” In other words, Epps was a victim of his own doing, if we’re to believe the NYT and NBC. Following that to its logical conclusion, it is implied that the FBI isn’t culpable or guilty. In other words, blameless, or above reproach.
Jon Murphy
Mar 29 2023 at 10:02pm
No, that is an unreasonable interpretation.
Monte
Mar 29 2023 at 11:57pm
Right. It’s unreasonable to assume Epps and the FBI were in cahoots and that people respond to, or make judgements based on, the appearance of guilt. My theory is strange and I’m misunderstanding Kahneman’s work as stated. I think I’ve got it.
Jon Murphy
Mar 30 2023 at 6:42am
Yes, and sarcasm doesn’t help your case.
Monte
Mar 30 2023 at 3:14pm
Begging the courts indulgence. All of my objections were over-ruled and my case summarily dismissed. The only thing left to me was sarcasm. A little latitude, please.
Jon Murphy
Mar 30 2023 at 4:57pm
You could try answering my objections. It’s possible, maybe even plausible, I made a mistake. I am human, after all. Sarcasm indicates you have no response.
Monte
Mar 30 2023 at 9:53pm
I thought I made some valid points, all of which you dismissed as either strange, unreasonable, or impossible. Ok.
Sarcasm can mean a lot of things. I prefer to think of it as the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence (Oscar Wilde). But we’ll call it a poor attempt at humor on my part.
Jon Murphy
Mar 31 2023 at 8:12am
Yes, you made an argument with a valiant attempt to support it with a sound argument, but the problem is the points were not as valid as you thought. I attempted (perhaps incorrectly, perhaps not) to point out why they were not valid. Since you abandonded your defense of them, I can only assume (without further evidence) that you don’t have a defense to provide.
If you disagreed with my points and could refute them or point out where I was misunderstanding/making a mistake, that’d be excellent. But no such attempt was made.
Monte
Mar 31 2023 at 11:05am
I disagree. I stated the facts as they are known and responded with my opinion as to whether or not they smack of a conspiracy, which I think warrant further investigation. While my points may not prove there was a conspiracy, your counterpoints fail, IMO, to prove there wasn’t.
Jon Murphy
Mar 29 2023 at 4:00pm
I agree with Pierre. Your theory is strange. First off, its a misunderstanding of Kahneman’s work. Second, if we take your explanation as correct, your conclusion is impossible. If “it is on subjective social reality that we tend to act” then one cannot conclude that ” Epps and the FBI are certainly to blame for giving the appearance of culpability” because their behavior is irrelevant; what matters is the subject’s perception.
Jon Murphy
Mar 29 2023 at 4:07pm
To make my point clearer:
Imagine a situation where a house is on fire. I am walking by and shout “Fire! Fire!” and then start giggling. I have a tick where I giggle in high stress and uncomfortable situations.
There are multiple ways of interpreting that scene. One would be the correct way: my nervous tick kicked in. Another would be that I was delighting in the fire and may have even started it.
It would be incorrect to say I am blamable for appearing like I am responsible for the fire; such a claim would be nothing more than mere supposition contrary to the facts.
People can suppose whatever they want. But unchecked supposition and victim blaming (eg “Epps looks like he could be responsible”) is not reasonable. In fact, it is an impossible conclusion to reach because there are multiple explanations that could lead to the same observation.
In short: your explanation is unreasonable and impossible given the theory you provide.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 30 2023 at 11:32am
Jon: Would you say that my formalization below is what you are saying?
Jon Murphy
Mar 31 2023 at 8:12am
I think so.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 30 2023 at 11:30am
Monte: I wonder if the underlying problem is not the following. Many people seem to confuse, on the one hand, the fact that individual preferences are subjective and, on the other hand, the claim that there is no objective reality. An individual’s preferences between beer and wine are subjective; but the relative price of wine and beer that results from all individual choices is objective reality. (So is, at least in the short term, the income that you combine with your preferences to make your choice.) It is incorrect to think that prices are subjective (“appearances”) until proven “right.” In the epistemological realm, some evaluations of truth may be subjective (one wants so much Trump or the FBI to be great that he or it must be), but this does not mean that there is no truth and that it is not worth looking for.
Monte
Mar 30 2023 at 3:06pm
Pierre,
I like your example, and it was not my intention to suggest objective reality shouldn’t ultimately prevail on people to choose judiciously. My point is that we can’t help passing judgement based on first impressions, that cognitive bias causing us to favor information which aligns with our own beliefs or hypotheses, and to disregard information that conflicts with these beliefs.
Knowing this, the evidence presented that conflicts with my belief Epps and the FBI worked together to instigate a riot is presently insufficient for me to change my opinion. I need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
zeke5123
Mar 29 2023 at 11:16am
What odds are you willing to give on Epps not being a plant or FBI informant?
Jon Murphy
Mar 29 2023 at 4:11pm
Is this a serious offer to bet?
Comments are closed.