Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Obama staffer wants ‘cognitive infiltration’ of 9/11 conspiracy groups (15 posts)

  1. truthmover
    Administrator

    http://rawstory.com/2010/01/obama-staffer-infiltra...

    In a 2008 academic paper, President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated "cognitive infiltration" of groups that advocate "conspiracy theories" like the ones surrounding 9/11.

    Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, co-wrote an academic article entitled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures," in which he argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine" those groups.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  2. truthmod
    Administrator

    HA HA HA. I was just going to post this. Hilarious.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  3. JohnA
    Member

    He wrote “Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech”

    Sunstein proposes what he calls a "New Deal" for speech, a reformulation which abandons the prevailing "marketplace of ideas" model of free expression, in favor of a Madisonian conception based on deliberative democracy.

    ok. so?

    well - it is his opinion...

    In general, government cannot regulate speech of any sort on the basis of (1) its own disagreement with the ideas that have been expressed, (2) its perception of the government's (as opposed to the public's) self- interest, (3) its fear that people will be persuaded or influenced by ideas, and (4) its desire to ensure that people are not offended by the ideas that speech contains (p. 155).

    so how can someone with this position advocate governmental interference in the 9/11 Truth movement?

    i'm scratching my head.

    He explains, "I certainly do not mean to argue that large national bureaucracies should be overseeing our system of free expression for 'political correctness' or for good content" (p. 35).

    so exactly what does this man stand for?

    But by using tax and subsidy mechanisms to provide more "serious," "quality" programming and reporting in the media, or by making judgments over what art, literature, or (even) hate speech contributes to public discussion and what does not, government will ultimately be in the oversight business.

    it appears that this man speaks with forked tongue

    Posted 14 years ago #
  4. truthmover
    Administrator

    Read the paper. Here are some relevant excerpts.


    Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law.


    As we shall see, an understanding of conspiracy theories has broad implications for the spread of information and beliefs; many erroneous judgments are a product of the same forces that produce conspiracy theories, and if we are able to see how to counteract such theories, we will have some clues about how to correct widespread errors more generally.


    We bracket the most difficult questions here and suggest more intuitively that a conspiracy theory can generally be counted as such if it is an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role. This account seems to capture the essence of the most prominent and influential conspiracy theories. Consider, for example, the view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; that doctors deliberately manufactured the AIDS virus; that the 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile; that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud; that the Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy; that Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed by federal agents; that the plane crash that killed Democrat Paul Wellstone was engineered by Republican politicians; that the moon landing was staged and never actually occurred.


    Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials (though the plan never went into effect).13 In 1947, space aliens did, in fact, land in Roswell, New Mexico, and the government covered it all up. (Well, maybe not.) Our focus throughout is on false conspiracy theories, not true ones.


    What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).


    We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They do so by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.


    After 9/11, one complex of conspiracy theories involved American Airlines Flight 77, which hijackers crashed into the Pentagon. Some theorists claimed that no plane had hit the Pentagon; even after the Department of Defense released video frames showing Flight 77 approaching the building and a later explosion cloud, theorists pointed out that the actual moment of impact was absent from the video, in order to keep alive their claim that the plane had never hit the building. (In reality the moment of impact was not captured because the video had a low number of frames per second.62) Moreover, even those conspiracists who were persuaded that the Flight 77 conspiracy theories were wrong folded that view into a larger conspiracy theory. The problem with the theory that no plane hit the Pentagon, they said, is that the theory was too transparently false, disproved by multiple witnesses and much physical evidence. Thus the theory must have been a straw man initially planted by the government, in order to discredit other conspiracy theories and theorists by association.


    We suggest a role for government efforts, and agents, in introducing such diversity. Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.


    Infiltration of any kind poses well-known risks: perhaps agents will be asked to perform criminal acts to prove their bona fides, or (less plausibly) will themselves become persuaded by the conspiratorial views they are supposed to be undermining; perhaps agents will be unmasked and harmed by the infiltrated group.


    Some conspiracy theories create serious risks. They do not merely undermine democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If government can dispel such theories, it should do so. One problem is that its efforts might be counterproductive, because efforts to rebut conspiracy theories also legitimate them. We have suggested, however, that government can minimize this effect by rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy- minded groups and informationally isolated social networks.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  5. JohnA
    Member

    weak. very weak on multiple levels.

    how does one make the leap from conspiracy theories to violence? for a 'constitutional expert' on the '1st amendment' - he sounds an awful lot like he is suggesting that 'ideas' themselves can be dangerous.

    Make no mistake about it. That is, in fact, what he is suggesting - quelling 'dangerous ideas.'

    I find it interesting that none of his writing addresses the issue of transparency and honesty in government. LOL

    John Dean, former legal counsel to Richard Nixon, called the Bush administration the 'most' secretive administration in US History. well - conspiracy theories are the side product of givernmental lies and secrecy.

    shouldn't the cure to this illness require HONESTY and TRANSPARENCY - not MORE SUBTERFUGE and LIES?

    ah - yes - having SPIES infiltrate chat rooms - essentially lying about who they are - will solve the problem. that will gain the public's trust.

    brilliant!!!

    I can't believe a legal mind of his caliber could write such a thing.

    smells familiar- doesn't it? smells like John Yu creating legal opinions to suit the policies of his bosses - doesn't it.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  6. truthmover
    Administrator

    If I'm reading the paper correctly, it seems to suggest that people who believe in conspiracy theories are likely to have their beliefs strengthened by official attempts to counter those theories. Yet it argues that ignoring them is not the answer.

    The conclusion I've drawn is that the paper is not asserting that any attempt be made to convert those who hold alternative views, but to prevent new people from embracing those views by attacking 'conspiracy theory' as a whole. And suggesting that conspiracy theories are dangerous is the first step. As you say, 'dangerous ideas.'

    Not really a new insight or approach.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  7. JohnA
    Member

    well - i can actually understand - to a certain extent - his point. if we take this out of the realm of 9/11 Truth and apply his logic to - for example - the Birther Movement - or the Global Warming Skeptics - it makes a little bit of sense. it is certainly true that FACTS mean nothing to some people.

    but - again - i think his reasoning fails on three levels:

    1 - He fails to address the ORIGINS of the recent uptick in these theories. People have INDEED gone a little crazy lately. Gee - i wonder why? WMDs in Iraq? The collapse of our economy? Hurricane Katrina? Torture? Lie after lie after lie after lie after lie?

    These theories did not spawn in a vacuum.

    2 - Creating secret police who disrupt 'conspiracy theory groups' will be playing a veeeery dangerous game in that they will be giving people a GREAT reason to be paranoid - and will create the paradoxical illusion of a COVER-UP, and will in fact INSPIRE people to believe the theory is true.

    It was, in fact, Nixon's attempted cover-up that sank his boat. Employing internet goon squads to disrupt freedom of speech is surely a recipe for growing bigger and better conspiracy theories. LOL!

    3 - It shows an obscene disregard for freedom of speech. Who exactly will decide what constitutes a 'conspiracy theory?' Woorward and Bernstein were accused of being conspiracy theorists. They just happened to also be correct. Could a policy of disruption such as he outlines ever be used for the purposes of political expediency - regardless of what may or may not actually be true?

    Empower the government to do THIS - and where exactly is the line drawn?

    Posted 14 years ago #
  8. mark
    Member

    The article admits that some of us point out that the "no planes" meme was created by the government as a straw man (citing Jim Hoffman's website as an example). Of course, the fact that it was Donald Rumsfeld who first unveiled this claim wasn't mentioned in the article.

    it is tiring to read article after article that links public awareness of the JFK assassination with the lunatic claims (pun intended) that the moon landings never happened, but that's the M.O. of the anti-conspiracy world. Rule by ridicule.

    The State Department has been running a "debunker" website for years, but they generally focus on the false claims for conspiracy instead of the best evidence. I doubt they will ever mention Paul Thompson's Complete 9/11 Timeline or Mike Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon when "debunking" 9/11 claims.

    Both the government apologists and the conspiracy theorists see these issues as binary -- either one supports the official story or one supports the conspiracy view. But a broader understanding shows there are more points of view than two -- sometimes the best evidence is in between these two points. With "conspiracy theories," putting the most outlandish claims out for public consumption can blur these distinctions. Mission accomplished.

    http://www.oilempire.us/fake-debate.html Fake Debates

    http://www.oilempire.us/state.html Identifying Misinformation: State Department’s Rosetta Stone to 9/11 disinformation promotes 9/11 conspiracy hoaxes, ignores “Crossing the Rubicon” and other quality investigations [an expanded version of an original article written for Michael Ruppert's From the Wilderness]

    Posted 14 years ago #
  9. JohnA
    Member

    An excellent editorial on this subject:

    The creepy mindset behind Cass Sunstein's creepy proposal

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/...

    excerpt:

    It is this history of government deceit and wrongdoing that renders Sunstein's desire to use covert propaganda to "undermine" anti-government speech so repugnant. The reason conspiracy theories resonate so much is precisely because people have learned -- rationally -- to distrust government actions and statements. Sunstein's proposed covert propaganda scheme is a perfect illustration of why that is. In other words, the reason people don't trust the Government and why "conspiracy theories" are so pervasive is precisely because government is typically filled with people like Cass Sunstein, who think that systematic deceit and government-sponsored manipulation are justified by their own Goodness and Superior Wisdom.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  10. truthmod
    Administrator

    When academics/elites write these kinds of papers, do they assume that the masses will never read them--a la Mike Ruppert's "You don't read"? Cass Sunstein is clearly not a naive guy, did he really assume that this article would never make it's way into the hands of the conspiracy theorists (and reasonable people in general), who would use it to justify their skepticism of the government?

    And the article is two years old, why didn't anyone uncover it until now??

    Maybe we should start a journal called "Fascists in Power" where we keep track of what these guys write.

    The assumptions in the article are so transparent. The authors act like there are certain unassailable truths that they and the reader obviously share, without any backup evidence. They can then share a laugh as the in-club at those who have views outside of these boundaries.

    Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court

    It looks like this story hasn't been covered by any corporate media, besides Salon.

    Here's another article by Sunstein:

    'She Said What?' 'He Did That?' Believing False Rumors
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id...

    Posted 14 years ago #
  11. JohnA
    Member

    The last sentence of that abstract is extremely disturbing:

    These points have significant implications for freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas, especially in the age of the Internet; they demonstrate that the exchange of information may not produce convergence on truth and that damaging false reports will often be widely credited. A chilling effect on false rumors can be highly desirable; the goal should be to produce optimal chill, rather than no chill at all.

    The goal should be to produce optimal chill?

    sooo... the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs = the Ministry of Truth?

    Posted 14 years ago #
  12. JohnA
    Member

    Ok – I’m all worked up and my creative juices are flowing. I’m Curious about how this works.

    I understand Sunstein’s concerns about ‘false rumors’

    For example – lets say I was to question whether Cass Sunstein is a transvestite. If I pose this in the form of a question, could it be said that I am spreading malicious rumors?

    For example: Is Cass Sunstein a transvestite?

    It’s a question that, in MY opinion, is a legitimate one! Would his proposed ‘optimal chill’ also apply to questions? Who would decide what questions are legitimate?

    If I were to phrase this question like FoxNews would, and say: “Some people ask if Cass Sunstein’s legal arguments are being shaded by his own personal preference for pretty pretty lace panties” would I be protected under the law – or would I become a target?

    They say J. Edgar Hoover was a transvestite.

    They say Hermann Goring was a transvestite.

    Anyone see a TREND here?

    Are we ALLOWED to extrapolate fromthis - and speculate about the nature of fascism - and why so many of its proponents have a preponderance to favor pink panties?

    Not that there is anything wrong with that!!! What a grown man like Cass Sunstein wears in his own home is CERTAINLY none of my business. I’m just saying!!

    He’s a brilliant man. I’m sure he will understand the question.

    Now – theoretically – we could ask this question. I believe it is indeed covered under the first amendment.

    In fact – one could go as far as to say that a virtual army of 1st amendment activists and 9/11 Truth activists could carry this question to the furthest corners of the globe. But would it be fair?

    I would say no.

    I would say that every American concerned about their first amendment rights should FIGHT to protect Sunstein’s RIGHT to dress however he pleases – because if we all start spreading rumors at the same time – disrupting message boards and infiltrating public forums and “producing an opitimal chill” effect in the marketplace of ideas, we would in fact be holding up a mirror to Sunstein’s very own tactics… not to mention his lacy bras and pretty unmentionables, if they do in fact exist.

    I’m no legal expert – but I don’t need to be a master chef to smell the pot roast burning in the kitchen – and my amateur opinion is that Sunstein’s oh-so-brilliant ideas will embarrass this administration – and himself –because – frankly – people tend to get a little ‘uppity’ when they sense they are being manipulated. And I’m sure if he read this he would understand the feeling.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  13. mark
    Member

    The 9/11 "truth" movement is a textbook example of official manipulation of conspiracy movements.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  14. mark
    Member

    Lisa Pease has a good commentary on this at:

    http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2010/01/su...

    Posted 14 years ago #
  15. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Here is a critique by Joseph Green, who is a friend of mine: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Critique-of-an-ap...

    Posted 14 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.