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

[Joseph Tracy]

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
>