Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
got this from my cincy bud Karl...
Obama staffer wants ‘cognitive infiltration’ of 9/11 conspiracy groups
By Daniel Tencer
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 -- 10:48 pm
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.
As head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein is in charge of "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs," according to the White House Web site.
Sunstein's article, published in the Journal of Political Philosphy in 2008 and recently uncovered by blogger Marc Estrin, states that "our primary claim is that conspiracy theories typically stem not from irrationality or mental illness of any kind but from a 'crippled epistemology,' in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources."
By "crippled epistemology" Sunstein means that people who believe in conspiracy theories have a limited number of sources of information that they trust. Therefore, Sunstein argued in the article, it would not work to simply refute the conspiracy theories in public -- the very sources that conspiracy theorists believe would have to be infiltrated.
Sunstein, whose article focuses largely on the 9/11 conspiracy theories, suggests that the government "enlist nongovernmental officials in the effort to rebut the theories. It might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts."
Download a PDF of the article here.
Sunstein argued that "government might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories." He suggested that "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."
"We expect such tactics from undercover cops, or FBI," Estrin writes at the Rag Blog, expressing surprise that "a high-level presidential advisor" would support such a strategy.
Estrin notes that Sunstein advocates in his article for the infiltration of "extremist" groups so that it undermines the groups' confidence to the extent that "new recruits will be suspect and participants in the group’s virtual networks will doubt each other’s bona fides."
Sunstein has been the target of numerous "conspiracy theories" himself, mostly from the right wing political echo chamber, with conservative talking heads claiming he favors enacting "a second Bill of Rights" that would do away with the Second Amendment. Sunstein's recent book, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, was criticized by some on the right as "a blueprint for online censorship."
Sunstein "wants to hold blogs and web hosting services accountable for the remarks of commenters on websites while altering libel laws to make it easier to sue for spreading 'rumors,'" wrote Ed Lasky at American Thinker.
nice. i'm pretty sure most of us know that they've been doing this all along, but
hey, it just goes to show that they are worried about the truth community and that
is a good thing! ha ha! if we weren't on to something huge, why would they care?
i also read it as an admission of guilt for the same reason. guilty guilty guilty.
strikes me as a wee bit odd after 7/eight years of 'getting away with it' why care now?
nice to know they see us as an obstacle to their big lie(s). like a twisted compliment!
ps to the infiltraitors, truth doesn't go away no matter how hard you try! doh!
(it is always sensible to assume that the guilty ones are 'listening', i'm sure most of us do.)
thanks, Karl, this is a nice thing to pass on to all our fellow truthers, eh? sandy
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.
Add discovery channel to the history channel as propaganda central. All day I am watching a marathon of phony docs on discovery. I just heard Gary Mack on one say something like no shooters could possibly have fired from the triple overpass because too many people were up there (I wonder why he focuses on that location to debunk? probably because it WAS a firing location). Then he claims there is no hard evidence that anyone other than Oswald did any shooting. He is outright lying here.History Channel: Propaganda central
Thoth II said:Add discovery channel to the history channel as propaganda central. All day I am watching a marathon of phony docs on discovery. I just heard Gary Mack on one say something like no shooters could possibly have fired from the triple overpass because too many people were up there (I wonder why he focuses on that location to debunk? probably because it WAS a firing location). Then he claims there is no hard evidence that anyone other than Oswald did any shooting. He is outright lying here.History Channel: Propaganda central
History and Discovery channels, disgusting lies parading as legit documentaries.
what are the TOOLS trying to tell us with this one? and do we count as people who use the internet for malicious purposes? i bet we qualify in their warped mugs. or might they pull a cyber attack of their own and then say 'we told you so'.
i think i got this from clg.
egads! it's hard to keep track of who is against who any more.
and no, i meant to say TOOLS, and i was referring to the article i sent
where it says,
Blair, speaking to the House Intelligence Committee, said U.S. tools
are not yet up to the task to fully protect against such an attack.
(i was using the word tools as a bit of an insult) :)
i get frustrated also with 'truthers' who won't budge on an opinion
no matter what, and i'm not sure what you're referring to exactly but
i for one don't like how we split ourselves apart over disagreements,
when there is no way on earth that we will all agree on all points, no
matter how fiercely we believe or don't believe them. but....it's been
my opinion for ages now that the criminals had that in mind, for sure.
i don't know who gary mack is but i'm behind on some conversations.
Allow me to start. This is my first attempt to join an organized forum on 9/11. Or any other "conspiracy" related group for that matter.
There have been so many good people doing incredibly well thought researches. It's all mind blowing and staggering in effort. I can't expect, nor wish to make any name for myself in this. Nor even come up with a of lot new material.
In fact the only pieces of any conspiracy puzzle I've ever put together was the stand down of Secret Service in 1975. This led to the two feeble attempts on President Ford's life which THEN resulted in George H.W. Bush being put in charge of CIA starting Jan., 1 of the next year 1976. Ending all CIA cooperation with Senate and HSCA.
Not much but I have never seen this discussed elsewhere. It may have happened and probably doesn't really matter. Not a large piece of the pie.
But what i do have to offer are the thoughts of a relative newbie. That said what I notice is all the flack we researchers and hobbyists get when mentioning these ideas anywhere. Doesn't matter what the scenario is Liberal, Moderate or Conservative. I'm a Liberal but my Democratic Party friends practically burn my ears off every time.
That being so I feel like offering a few suggestions and in return maybe others can add their two cents.
1. Don't waste a lot of time trying to convince hostile idiots. Even Bill Maher has become a tool. Cenk Uygyr from The Young Turks is hesitant though not vvehemently opposed to these ideas. Rachel Maddow is a peach but this subject would cost her the job she has at MSNBC.
2. Work with only the most obvious smoking guns with newbies. Like WTC 7, Hani Hanjour being an idiot pilot, lack of Pentagon videos, Norman Minneta's testimony etc. Maybe you can come up with better and easier examples.
The hostile idiots will usually come back at you with some redundant, obfuscating, nonsensical rebuttal. Time after time. This is why we shouldn't waste time. they can only make me mad and offer no helpful input other than to sharpen our claws. Occasionally they may even hit you in an area where you aren't well equipped. Then after feeling that they have struck at your heart will try and devalue everything you say based upon one tiny discrepancy. Either real or imagined in their fictional view. With this kind of attitude it is like they would convict you for an overdue library book while letting a serial killer run free. Metaphorically speaking that is.
Democrats are especially prone to this. Which is odd as the obfuscation/smear attitude is right out of the GOP/Karl Rove playbook. A few of the more viral Dems aren't much more teachable than the nut case tea baggers. Even Chomsky is kind of stupid in this regards. And he should know better.
Again, I'm a newbie at reaching out but for what it's worth it seems to me that the less politically motivated types seem to be more responsive. THis is where I'm finding friends. Righties are all fools and many Liberals think they already know everything. In general the righties are worse and the lefties correct about 2/3rds of the time not including matters of 9/11 or JFK type theories of course.
That's all for now.
SEE LOMOVARMAN: search the web on this one, i believe this
non person or person is a fraud. i'll put my foot in my mouth if wrong, but with a little help from my i.t. specialist, we found that:
this person/computer has joined tons of groups in the past few days,
possibly all of the .ning variety, uses various photos and always says
n/a instead of male/female, uses Afghanistan as address in all of them
and shows as ALWAYS BEING ONLINE on all groups. i think some of the
groups were even womens' groups.
i thought 'he' was a normal person, duh, and sent 'him' a comment
last night which i believe was blocked, then i removed it after becoming
suspicious, and look, it no longer even says 'he' joined the group on
main page. i would consider this person/computer a fraud and
possibly worse. Lomovarman, if you want to dispute this go right ahead.
i'm listening. all he/it posts are ads for drugs and casinos. i smell a rat.