Czar Wars & Trolls
Cass Sunstein Advocates “Cognitive Infiltration” of Groups
My point about groups being infiltrated by trolls has taken another turn. Apparently, Cass Sunstein, the Regulatory Czar, had suggested, in a 2008 paper, that government agents, or allied groups, infiltrate and undermine groups that spread “conspiracy theories.”
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.(Emphasis mine)
Now, while the particular article focuses on “truthers,” we have seen this before, have we not? Also, isn’t it ironic that Mr. Sunstein discusses infiltrating a group, that among it’s members, was former fellow Czar Van Jones?
I think we also might consider that most of what we discuss on Conservative blogs and forums would be classified by the left as “conspiracy theories.” ClimateGate, the “Czars,” the lack of transparency, the public option being a trojan horse for single payer, the Porkulus money going to places that don’t exist…are all well documented, but because the left has to discredit them, they will be categorized as “conspiracies.”
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.
Crippled epistemology? I wonder if Mr. Sunstein realizes that many of us regularly watch MSM news shows, visit sites and feeds from MSM newspapers, and visit left leaning web sites (or am I being redundant)? I can’t be alone in that. After all, how can one fight an ideological battle when one does not know what the opposition thinks and believes?
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.”
Hmm. Using deceit to undermine online groups…I guess they would not be visiting the HuffPo or the Kossacks, would they?
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.”
Discourage, undermine, and discredit…seems similar to the Alinsky Method, doesn’t it? I’ve received comments here that I know were from trolls posing as conservatives. It will get worse, especially since the left will grow increasingly desperate. They are facing more organized and effective resistance. They won’t stand for that.
My guess is that they will try to fragment us based on single issues, pitting Libertarians against Conservatives, and so on.
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.”
There we go. We quote the guy, and he’s the victim?
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.
Now, let’s take a look at how this might play out. For example, let’s say I write an article about an administration official or Congressman. I use quotes and videos to document what the official stands for or is suggesting, and it doesn’t look to good for the official. The lefties then have someone post a false or inflammatory comment. Then, the public official might sue me, or has my web host shut me down. Voila! Dissent eliminated.
So what might the consequences of this be? Bloggers might limit, or turn off comments, and thereby conversation on issues, for the fear of being sued. Forget hosting a forum at all. The lefties will infiltrate and lay waste to those completely. I’ve seen that happen without the fear of being sued. As time wears on, web hosts might not host blogs at all, rather than face penalties or harassment from the government or lefty groups.
The left would be perfectly happy with that. We are a thorn in their side. We have that pesky habit of resisting them, and posting quotes from liberals. In the end, the chilling effect on free speech would be most effective.
But it doesn’t end there. Remember that Mark Lloyd denied writing what he had written and saying what he said? Well friends, forget that this is all documented in audio clips, videos, articles and books. You might just get sued anyway. Remember, for the left, the idea is NEVER to have a free exchange of ideas; it’s to silence anyone who disagrees with them. If they have to file thousands of frivolous lawsuits or complaints to make bloggers stop, or ruin them…so be it. The end goal is the elimination of dissent.
Think I’m exaggerating? Ask Sarah Palin. How many frivolous complaints and lawsuits were filed against her when she was still governor? All were thrown out, but the amount of money spent to fight them was massive. That’s the idea, they don’t have to win; they just have to wear you down to the point that you just throw in the towel.
All the while, they’ll deny limiting free speech. They won’t jail anyone. They won’t make anyone disappear, but they will use more subtle means to silence bloggers, or anyone else that disagrees with them. And all the while, they’ll couch their fascism in kind terms. That is what is makes it difficult to define. Always remember that totalitarians never announce themselves, or their true intent. They never tell you the real agenda, and they will use terms like “civility, openness, and balance” to justify their censorship.
Related posts:
- Czar Wars Profile: Cass Sunstein As time wears on, we find out more and more…
- Czar Wars Profile: Kenneth Feinberg We’ve been warning the public for some time that…
- Czar Wars: Mark Lloyd Denies What He Has Said Or Written Mark Lloyd, the FCC’s “Diversity Czar,” was caught in some…
- Czar Wars: Kevin Jennings, This is What He Thinks Your Children Should be Reading This is NOT a family friendly post. Do not let…
- Czar Wars Update: Jennings Situation Heats Up I received this comment on the last post. Things we…
——————————
© Matt Ross
Originally posted at Conservative Hideout 2.0
Link to this page
Category: Government
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
This is a really good article, apart from the overtly partisan point-scoring.
I agree with the author on every point, but why predicate so much of it on the fictitious left-right divide.