Histrionics is a word that's used to refer to the
representation on stage of events that may or may not have happened in history
as represented.
The word is now used to refer to the unfolding of historical
events simply as a chronological succession of happenings without mentioning
the motivations, idiosyncrasies or character of the players involved. Also
ignored is the possibility that other extraneous factors might have played a
role in precipitating the historical events.
One such piece of histrionics came under the title: “We lost
a war: Russia 's
interference in our election was much more than simple mischief-making,”
published on March 19, 2017 in the New York Daily News. It was written by
professor of history Timothy Snyder who should not be judged one way or the
other for what he did or neglected to do, given that he is pioneering the study
of “cyberwars,” a new phenomenon that will take the contribution of many other
commentators before its parameters will have been established.
In fact, Snyder has a sentence in the first paragraph of his
article showing how he has tried to transition from the rules of traditional
history to those of what's now taking shape. Here is that sentence: “The war
followed the new rules of the 21st century, but its goal was the usual one of
political change.” He is hinting in essence that because the goal has not
changed, he does not have to elaborate on it. What's left to do, therefore, is
work on deciphering the new rules of the game. And so, he set out to do just
that.
But shortly thereafter, something happened to the process of
writing the article; it might have alerted someone else to the reality that
something wasn't kosher. What took place was that Snyder mentioned an information
manual that was discussing what the Russians call the “psychosphere.” He
explains that the manual describes what they consider to be “the experience of
being an American citizen in 2016.” And this is precisely the moment when
Snyder should have realized that not only did the rules of the game change, but
so did the goal. Had he been aware of this, he would have spent time
pinpointing that goal and discussing it.
Having quoted the 19th century general, Carl von Clausewitz,
who said that the goal of war was to “compel our enemy to do our will,” Snyder
should have remarked that in the cyberwars of the 21st century, no enemy is met
on the battlefield or in cyberspace. On the contrary, your effort is directed
at the population of the opponent with the goal of befriending as many people
as possible. The intent is to win the hearts and minds, thus neutralize the
effort of their government, which you suspect is laboring to alter your way of
life.
Having overlooked this aspect of the cyberwar, Snyder failed
to understand why the American people were the pushovers that they proved to
be. He complained about that situation in this manner: “It is hard to believe
that the top Russian leadership thought it could swing the election. Why should
the U.S. prove an easier
mark than, say, Ukraine ,
where Russia
tried but failed to hack the presidential election in 2014?” Yes indeed, why?
Instead of coming close to answering that question, Snyder
went off on a tangent that took him on a journey to nowhere. As a result, he
neglected to probe the peculiarities of the American scene in favor of
describing what he believes are three schools of thought operating on the
Russian scene. This led him to the conclusion that “we are all standing on
uncertain ground now; including the Russians … It seems that, in our own age,
winning a cyber war can be confusing”.
But what about that earlier question? Why did the Americans
succumb so easily to a cyber attack that failed in a place like Ukraine ? There
can be only one answer to that question. It is that the Americans – both
ordinary and elites – have been stripped of the ability to do critical
thinking. They were trained to let someone else do the thinking for them, a
condition that could have come about as a result of being bombarded with
contradictory information day after day around the clock.
Children that grow up in a culture which says you're a
no-good anti-semite because you say A instead of B, and you're a no-good
anti-semite because you say B instead of A, have the natural common sense they
are born with, shredded to pieces and replaced with nothing but vacuum.
By the time these children reach adulthood, they would have
developed the kind of logic that cannot differentiate between refraining from
mischief-making because it is the right thing to do; and refraining from
mischief-making because they might get caught and punished.