Skip to content or view screen version

Obama staffer wants ‘cognitive infiltration’ of 9/11 conspiracy groups

Daniel Tencer | 15.01.2010 23:52 | Other Press | Repression | Terror War | Sheffield | World

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:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

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.

Daniel Tencer
- Homepage: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24406.htm

Comments

Hide the following 5 comments

i suppose, but

16.01.2010 09:33

not too bad an article really, although I would say that American attempts to undermine groups/individuals/organisations is nothing new. for example, the US governments stance on 'democratically' elected states that they 'dont like' is more often than not an excercise in undermining them, causing revolts, coup's and other wise engaging in 'undermining' operations. the whole invasion of iraq was one big undermining exercise, to seize control.

so nothing new really...same old american imperialist, protectionist attitudes.......but thanks for posting.

harold of free enterprise


911 was an outside job

16.01.2010 18:17

The only reason the US government would send agents into '911 Truth' groups is to give them a laugh at the paranoid rubbish they spout.

Rod


9/11: The facts speak for themselves

17.01.2010 00:03

@ Rod. Infiltrating 9/11 Truth groups "to give them a laugh at the paranoid rubbish they spout."

Absurd.

The following article is from a grass roots 9/11 truth activist who has done lots of work with the families who lost relatives on 9/11 and the victims of the toxic dust.

9/11: The facts speak for themselves
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/10/411669.html

Some of the professional organisations that exist:

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
 http://ae911truth.org

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
 http://stj911.com

8 months ago members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice had a peer-reviewed paper 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe' published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal. According to one of the scientists involved Professor Steven E Jones "in short, the paper explodes the official story that 'no evidence' exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings." It can be read at  http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM.

In 2008, several of these authors published three articles challenging the official reports in US scientific journals, The Open Civil Engineering Journal  http://bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM, The Environmentalist  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4, and The Journal of Engineering Mechanics  http://ascelibrary.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=JENMDT&Volume=134&Issue=10#DISCUSSIONS%20AND%20CLOSURES. Dozens of other papers making similar challenges have been published in the sister publication of the Scholars group, The Journal of 9/11 Studies  http://journalof911studies.com

LTA


Rod is right

18.01.2010 11:46

9/11 was an outside job.

Architects and Engineers has struggled for years to get 1000 members, and only did so only by relaxing the rules of entry. Out of how many architects and engineers in the world, say 10 million, A&E for 9/11 truth has barely 1000. As for that so called scientific paper, it is a bloody joke and anyone with any scientific credibility knows it is. It is based on four samples (so statistically speaking it should go straight in the bin), four samples that all conveniently come from 'truthers', it fails to adequately test for paint chips, it burns the so called suspicious chips in air rather than an inert gas. The list of poor this paper is, is endless. It is published in a vanity journal, not a proper peer reviewed publication - when the editor in Chief of the journal (who, if it was a legitimate academic journal would have herself chosen the peers to review the paper), found out about the paper, she resigned as she was not consulted on the publication. The journal is a 'pay and display' journal and a complete joke. Nine years on and the so called 'truthers' have brought nothing to the table, not a shred of evidence, only piss poor science and internet hearsay.

Skeptic


LTA makes a better case

18.01.2010 21:52

LTA points us towards articles in peer reviewed journals. This to me is responsible argumentation (regardless of right or wrong), whereas allegations of 'paranoid rubbish' or 'piss poor science' without reference to anything is (to me) the epitome of internet hearsay.

robertson