Started By
Message
locked post

1984 may be arriving 30 years late....

Posted on 1/31/14 at 10:29 am
Posted by cwill
Member since Jan 2005
54752 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 10:29 am
Yesterday I had a friend send me an article by Cass Sundstein in Bloomberg titled "How to Spot a Paranoid Libertarian". Basically, he lumps Snowden, Assange and Greenwald into a group they don't all inhabit and then dismisses them as conspiracy nuts. It's also, for him, a take down of libertarianism. See Aticle Here.

Today I found 2010 article by Greenwald on Sunstein which provides the following:

quote:

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.

Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false “conspiracy theories,” which they define to mean: “an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.” Sunstein’s 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger, and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story‘s Daniel Tencer.


quote:

Initially, note how similar Sunstein’s proposal is to multiple, controversial stealth efforts by the Bush administration to secretly influence and shape our political debates. The Bush Pentagon employed teams of former Generals to pose as “independent analysts” in the media while secretly coordinating their talking points and messaging about wars and detention policies with the Pentagon. Bush officials secretly paid supposedly “independent” voices, such as Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher, to advocate pro-Bush policies while failing to disclose their contracts. In Iraq, the Bush Pentagon hired a company, Lincoln Park, which paid newspapers to plant pro-U.S. articles while pretending it came from Iraqi citizens. In response to all of this, Democrats typically accused the Bush administration of engaging in government-sponsored propaganda — and when it was done domestically, suggested this was illegal propaganda. Indeed, there is a very strong case to make that what Sunstein is advocating is itself illegal under long-standing statutes prohibiting government ”propaganda” within the U.S., aimed at American citizens:


quote:

Sunstein’s response to these criticisms is easy to find in what he writes, and is as telling as the proposal itself. He acknowledges that some “conspiracy theories” previously dismissed as insane and fringe have turned out to be entirely true (his examples: the CIA really did secretly administer LSD in “mind control” experiments; the DOD really did plot the commission of terrorist acts inside the U.S. with the intent to blame Castro; the Nixon White House really did bug the DNC headquarters). Given that history, how could it possibly be justified for the U.S. Government to institute covert programs designed to undermine anti-government “conspiracy theories,” discredit government critics, and increase faith and trust in government pronouncements? Because, says Sunstein, such powers are warranted only when wielded by truly well-intentioned government officials who want to spread The Truth and Do Good — i.e., when used by people like Cass Sunstein and Barack Obama:Sunstein’s response to these criticisms is easy to find in what he writes, and is as telling as the proposal itself. He acknowledges that some “conspiracy theories” previously dismissed as insane and fringe have turned out to be entirely true (his examples: the CIA really did secretly administer LSD in “mind control” experiments; the DOD really did plot the commission of terrorist acts inside the U.S. with the intent to blame Castro; the Nixon White House really did bug the DNC headquarters). Given that history, how could it possibly be justified for the U.S. Government to institute covert programs designed to undermine anti-government “conspiracy theories,” discredit government critics, and increase faith and trust in government pronouncements? Because, says Sunstein, such powers are warranted only when wielded by truly well-intentioned government officials who want to spread The Truth and Do Good — i.e., when used by people like Cass Sunstein and Barack Obama:


LINK

How short-sighted and shockingly evil...and to be so open about it speaks to the arrogance of government today. Our gov has been out of control since 9/11 (I won't argue with those that say before). But since 9/11, in the span of about 15 years the security state has mushroomed under 2 administrations, unabated with only a tiny minority of voices saying "Hey! Stop!"

The arrogance and lying...I caught Nancy Pelosi on the Daily Show last night and the way she avoided answering Stewart (who usually throws up softballs for Democrats) about the ACA rollout failures and her pretending not to know about former aids becoming wealthy as lobbyists was so sickening. Who really believes she doesn't know?? /rant.
This post was edited on 1/31/14 at 10:36 am
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
28719 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:41 am to
quote:

Yesterday I had a friend send me an article by Cass Sundstein in Bloomberg titled "How to Spot a Paranoid Libertarian". Basically, he lumps Snowden, Assange and Greenwald into a group they don't all inhabit and then dismisses them as conspiracy nuts. It's also, for him, a take down of libertarianism. See Aticle Here.


quote:

It can be found on the political right, in familiar objections to gun control, progressive taxation, environmental protection and health-care reform. It can also be found on the left, in familiar objections to religious displays at public institutions and to efforts to reduce the risk of terrorism. Whether on the right or the left, paranoid libertarianism (which should of course be distinguished from libertarianism as such) is marked by five defining characteristics.

The first is a wildly exaggerated sense of risks -- a belief that if government is engaging in certain action (such as surveillance or gun control), it will inevitably use its authority so as to jeopardize civil liberties and perhaps democracy itself. In practice, of course, the risk might be real. But paranoid libertarians are convinced of its reality whether or not they have good reason for their conviction.

The second characteristic is a presumption of bad faith on the part of government officials -- a belief that their motivations must be distrusted. If, for example, officials at a state university sponsor a Christian prayer at a graduation ceremony, the problem is that they don’t believe in religious liberty at all (and thus seek to eliminate it). If officials are seeking to impose new restrictions on those who seek to purchase guns, the “real” reason is that they seek to ban gun ownership (and thus to disarm the citizenry).

The third characteristic is a sense of past, present or future victimization. Paranoid libertarians tend to believe that as individuals or as members of specified groups, they are being targeted by the government, or will be targeted imminently, or will be targeted as soon as officials have the opportunity to target them. Any evidence of victimization, however speculative or remote, is taken as vindication, and is sometimes even welcome. (Of course, some people, such as Snowden, are being targeted, because they appear to have committed crimes.)

The fourth characteristic is an indifference to trade-offs -- a belief that liberty, as paranoid libertarians understand it, is the overriding if not the only value, and that it is unreasonable and weak to see relevant considerations on both sides. Wilentz emphasizes what he regards as the national-security benefits of some forms of surveillance; paranoid libertarians tend to see such arguments as a sham. Similarly, paranoid libertarians tend to dismiss the benefits of other measures that they despise, including gun control and environmental regulation.

The fifth and final characteristic is passionate enthusiasm for slippery-slope arguments. The fear is that if government is allowed to take an apparently modest step today, it will take far less modest steps tomorrow, and on the next day, freedom itself will be in terrible trouble. Modest and apparently reasonable steps must be resisted as if they were the incarnation of tyranny itself.


I think he just described a great many posters on this board

quote:

How short-sighted and shockingly evil...and to be so open about it speaks to the arrogance of government today. Our gov has been out of control since 9/11 (I won't argue with those that say before). But since 9/11, in the span of about 15 years the security state has mushroomed under 2 administrations, unabated with only a tiny minority of voices saying "Hey! Stop!"


See the above passage
Posted by cwill
Member since Jan 2005
54752 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:44 am to
I think he's a gov propagandist who wrote a paper advocating that the gov propagandize and put out false info in order to cow the people. Looks like it has worked on you...or do you just think it's OK when a guy you like is at the controls?

He's clearly trying to discredit any critique of the NSA....an NSA that has verifiably spied on its own people without a warrant.
This post was edited on 1/31/14 at 11:46 am
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
28719 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:51 am to
quote:

I think he's a gov propagandist who wrote a paper advocating that the gov propagandize and put out false info in order to cow the people.


I guess this is the abstract

quote:

Abstract: 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. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.


LINK

Is there supposed to be something nefarious within the body of this paper?

I really am not familiar with Sunstein's work. Don't have much of an opinion on him either way.

quote:

an NSA that has verifiably spied on its own people without a warrant.


That's pretty general. There are many instances where NSA can get USP info without a warrant. It's spelled out by law.
Posted by cwill
Member since Jan 2005
54752 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 11:56 am to
quote:

Is there supposed to be something nefarious within the body of this paper?


Seriously? The government infiltrating chat-rooms, groups that haven't done anything other than put forth a conspiracy theory, in order to alter their thoughts? And who gets to decide what is a conspiracy theory and then unleash the gov't thought infiltrators? The government...and clearly Sunstein thinks that this whole NSA thing is just a crazy paranoid libertarian conspiracy theory. So...
Posted by CherryGarciaMan
Sugar Magnolia
Member since Aug 2012
2497 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 12:07 pm to
I wish more people in the media would share the sentiment of the people.

The problem (tackled extremely well in the book "Coming Apart) stems from American isolationism. I'm not talking about foreign policy, but the similar circles in which we travel. The "elite media" is just that. They are centered in DC and NY, and have all attended the same schools and learned from the same professors. They have no idea what the "avg" American goes through on a daily basis. The group-think mentality of our press is the basis for the continual downfall of our nation, and when Greenwald speaks truth to power, the mock him.

"First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win"-Ghandi

We are in the mocking stages of transforming our nation.
Posted by CherryGarciaMan
Sugar Magnolia
Member since Aug 2012
2497 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 12:09 pm to
quote:

cwill


Ignore Decatur.

He is in the mocking stage as well.
Posted by Jbird
In Bidenville with EthanL
Member since Oct 2012
73411 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 12:10 pm to
Using Angry Birds to track motha frickas!
This post was edited on 1/31/14 at 12:11 pm
Posted by UncleFestersLegs
Member since Nov 2010
10804 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 12:14 pm to
quote:

I really am not familiar with Sunstein's work. Don't have much of an opinion on him either way.


Enjoy
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
28719 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 12:15 pm to
quote:

Seriously? The government infiltrating chat-rooms, groups that haven't done anything other than put forth a conspiracy theory, in order to alter their thoughts? And who gets to decide what is a conspiracy theory and then unleash the gov't thought infiltrators?


Dunno what all he is talking about. I'd have to read the paper.

quote:

and clearly Sunstein thinks that this whole NSA thing is just a crazy paranoid libertarian conspiracy theory. So...


I do know that Sunstein was on a recent NSA panel that recommended taking Sec 215 related data storage out of NSA hands. But I'm sure he has an opinion on this that greatly differs from Assange, Greenwald, Snowden, et al.
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
28719 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 12:23 pm to
quote:

Using Angry Birds to track motha frickas!


Hey, at least AQAP now knows that playing Candy Crush could get them the drone

Nice to see Snowden, Greenwald, et al making the world safer for AQAP
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
28719 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 12:25 pm to
quote:

Enjoy


Another Greenwald article. Joy.
Posted by Jbird
In Bidenville with EthanL
Member since Oct 2012
73411 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 12:28 pm to
You are all in on this bullshite, congrats.
Posted by WildTchoupitoulas
Member since Jan 2010
44071 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 12:31 pm to
quote:

Who really believes she [Pelosi] doesn't know??

[Raises hand]

I'm not assuming Pelosi knows anything until I get evidence to the contrary.

Posted by cwill
Member since Jan 2005
54752 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 1:12 pm to
quote:

do know that Sunstein was on a recent NSA panel that recommended taking Sec 215 related data storage out of NSA hands.


So he had a hand in crafting obamas solution that wasn't a solution to the domestic spying on all citizens? Makes sense considering the 1984ish quality of it.
Posted by UncleFestersLegs
Member since Nov 2010
10804 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 1:19 pm to
quote:

Another Greenwald article. Joy.


There are links to the original publications. Surely you can manage.
Posted by RCDfan1950
United States
Member since Feb 2007
34857 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 1:20 pm to
quote:

proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites


Shame on me. And I apologize up front for such a shameful insinuation. But as soon as I read this...I thought of some names who consistently post on this forum, pushin the Party propaganda; as well as some who so blatantly got intellectually whacked, that the finally gave it up!

Cass Sunstein could come on here, and he'd get the same. He knows it. So does Obama. It won't be their failure to enact their mis-guided/perverted vision that will be their undoing...it will their success in doing so that DISPROVES the Ideology they serve. Egalitarian version.

All is 'equal'...in the Singularity. That's where they are headed...and where we will part ways.

To each their own.

Posted by AUin02
Member since Jan 2012
4279 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 1:23 pm to
quote:

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.

Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.”






quote:

Decatur




Well I'll be, fancy you being in here so quick and all.













Hope the pay is good shill.
Posted by RCDfan1950
United States
Member since Feb 2007
34857 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 1:34 pm to
quote:

[Raises hand] I'm not assuming Pelosi knows anything until I get evidence to the contrary.


That HAS to be from the movie "Brazil", WT. One of my favorites; a satirical masterpiece. Hysterically funny and profound!

Posted by WildTchoupitoulas
Member since Jan 2010
44071 posts
Posted on 1/31/14 at 1:52 pm to
quote:

That HAS to be from the movie "Brazil"

Yep, every time I see a picture of Pelosi, that's the image that comes to mind.

Awesome film. I need to re-watch it.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram