(np) (political) the Big O institutes a new Cointelpro?

Mon Feb 1 11:17:46 CST 2010

I think you are reacting to the phrase "cognitive infiltration" rather
than what Sunstein et al. actually suggested.  They say, in what you
quoted, that "cognitive infiltration" is a mix of (3), (4) and (5),
all of which are variants on the idea that the remedy for speech you
don't like is more speech (contra (1) or (2)). Is this sort of policy
response likely to get at the psychological reasons that conspiracy
theories are attractive to people?  I doubt it.  But if you
substituted the phrase "official rebutall" for "cognitive
infiltration" would the paper bother anyone?  That I doubt too.

To say that Sunstein's mindset is skewed away from another problem
that seems more severe to you is like blaming him for not addressing
genocide in Darfur.  This article -- written when he was an academic,
not in government -- is not about that problem.  Sunstein is now
running OIRA, which has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, so one
can tell that he sees other problems in the world that deserve more
attention than this one.

I will admit my own bias here: I was a student of Sunstein's, and I
think he's terrific.  Do I think this is his best work?  Hardly.  But
the vice here is that it's inconsequential, not that it's sinister.

On 1/26/10, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 25, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Robert Mahnke wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why the paper is "truly pernicious."  From a first
> glance (thanks for the pointer), it's kinda fun, and doesn't bear much
> resemblance to the description below (in the sentence that starts, "In
> 2008").  While the phrase "cognitive infiltration" sounds sinister, the
> explanation of what it means (on page 14) -- counterspeech, either by the
> government or by formally hiring credible private parties, and informally
> enlisting private parties -- is something else entirely.  Maybe the phrase
> itself is bait for conspiracy theorists?
> >
> You may want  to read it more carefully. I am on page 14 0f 25 and it has
> taken a turn that seems to justify the criticism.
> "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)."
>
> But I found the entire epistemological setup of the argument to be juvenile
> and to disregard the key reasons for the the specific conspiracy theories it
> addresses. That is it ignores the abuse of power of J Edgar Hoover and the
> CIA and the mishandling of the Kennedy assassination and 9-11. For anyone
> who wants truthful accurate information, it ignores the many ways the
> government demands mistrust by engaging in deceit. Sunstein thinks it is a
> big problem that 16 %of Americans believe in a 9-11 conspiracy but did not
> mention the 70 percent who came to believe, largely by listening to
> presidential speeches that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attack. His mindset
> is entirely skewed away from the problem of Government leaders' problematic
> urge to hide their own errors and direct blame for criminal acts to others,
> even to those who have no connection to the problem.
>
> At any rate Sunsteins solution is the essence of stupid. To presume that you
> will defuse conspiracy theories and public mistrust of government  by
> engaging in a secret conspiracy to undermine those theories is seriously
> flawed. It didn't build public trust to find that  former Generals and
> reporters  speaking about Iraq were not independent  voices but were paid by
>  the government. Why should these plans fare better?
>
> The tone of the paper reminds me of the thinking of the Bush administration
> and even anticipates  shoring up the cred of the Bushies.
>
>
> "
>
>
>
> >
> > On 1/22/10, Michael Bailey <michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.alternet.org/story/145229/obama_confidant%27s_spine-chilling_proposal_to_%27cognitively_infiltrate%27_conspiracy_theorist_groups
> >
> > "Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants.
> > Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court,
> > Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and
> > Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for
> > "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and
> > statistical programs."  In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein
> > co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government
> > employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to
> > "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as
> > other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems
> > "false conspiracy theories" about the government.  This would be
> > designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and
> > undermine the credibility of conspiracists.  The paper's abstract can
> > be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.
> >
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585
> >
> > ....
> >
> > "This isn't an instance where some government official wrote a bizarre
> > paper in college 30 years ago about matters unrelated to his official
> > powers; this was written 18 months ago, at a time when the ascendancy
> > of Sunstein's close friend to the Presidency looked likely, in exactly
> > the area he now oversees.  Additionally, the government-controlled
> > messaging that Sunstein desires has been a prominent feature of U.S.
> > Government actions over the last decade, including in some recently
> > revealed practices of the current administration, and the mindset in
> > which it is grounded explains a great deal about our political class.
> > All of that makes Sunstein's paper worth examining in greater detail.
> >
> >
> >
> > sheesh - do we really need to spend tax money to quash rumors of
> > government malfeasance???
> >
> > while it's still legal, let me just say this:      Tuskegee Experiment,
> > Cointelpro, Downing Street Memo, Gulf of Tonkin, the Maine,
> > BCCI, Election 2000, Salvador Allende, Mohammad Mossadegh,
> > Watergate, Operation Paperclip, Iran-freakin'-Contra, Whitewater,
> Troopergate,
> > Monicagate, Monkeygate (monkey can subvert Diebold voting machine),
> > Coingate (Ohio scandal)...
> >
> > ...the Business Plot (attempted coup in 1931), Enron, General Motors
> > Streetcar Conspiracy, Yellowcake forgery...
> > (okay, now I'm just quoting wikipedia:
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracies_(political)
> )
> >
> > and, aw, heck:  Chemtrails!  Area 51!  Shakespeare's plays weren't
> > written by Shakespeare at all, but by another man with the same
> > name...
> >
> >
> >
> > OTOH, maybe I could get a job infiltrating those groups...hmmm, I
> > could be the Hector Zuniga of the 9-11 truthiness movement...
> > something to consider - I hear the benefits are pretty okay...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - "Releasing all we can, protecting what we must" - slogan of the
> > National Declassification Center
> >
> >
>
>