Conspiracy theories, online Government spooks, and Cass Sunstein Plus BC crooks

[Diogenes]

Conspiracy theories, online government spooks, and Cass Sunstein – Part 1
By Peter Ewart
Thursday, January 21, 2010 03:46 AM

 
By Peter Ewart
 
An increasingly common tactic of governments and establishment pundits in the U.S., Canada, and other countries these days is to refer to the opposition to their policies as being motivated by “conspiracy theories” of one kind or another.
 
By so doing, these governments and pundits are attempting to lump together legitimate opposition and sound theories with that of “kooks” and “cranks,” and thus diminish the credibility of the opposition in the eyes of the public.
 
Even more than that, government officials are proposing, and in some cases, taking action against those who put forward what these officials term “conspiracy theories,” especially ones which are being circulated via the internet.
 
At the very least, such governmental action is anti-democratic, and, some say, fascistic. Yet, the apologists for such repressive and invasive activity cloak themselves as “democrats” and even “civil libertarians.” Indeed, it is one of the great paradoxes of our times, that those who claim to be the biggest advocates of “freedom” and “liberty” are often the ones most eager to crush it.
 
A disturbing example of this sort of attitude is Cass Sunstein, a close confidant of U.S. President Barack Obama, “leading legal scholar” and current head of the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
 
According to him, “such [conspiracy] theories can…have pernicious effects from the government’s point of view, either by inducing unjustifiably widespread public skepticism about the government’s assertions, or by dampening public mobilization and participation in government-led efforts, or both.”
 
It is not effective, Sunstein says, for government to simply provide “credible public information” to dispel “false conspiracy theories.” That technique, he says, does not work.
 
Thus, in an academic paper published in 2009 Sunstein advocates “breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories” by having undercover government agents infiltrate chat rooms, online social networks, and even “real-space groups” “to undermine percolating conspiracy theories” by planting doubts about “their factual premises, causal logic, or implications for action, political or otherwise.” They could also “sow uncertainty and distrust” within these groups.
 
He also advocates that the government should enlist so-called “independent experts” to challenge “conspiracy theories,” although “the price of credibility is that the government cannot be seen to control these independent experts.” That being said, the government can “supply the independent experts” with information and “prod them into action” from “behind the scenes.”
 
What is a “conspiracy theory”? According to Sunstein’s definition in his paper, it is “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who attempt to conceal their role (at least until their aims are accomplished).”
 
By this definition, of course, any group of citizens who criticize or mount opposition to government policy, or the activities of big business, or any other powerful force in society can be claimed to be following a “conspiracy theory.” It would, of course, be up to high government officials like Sunstein to judge as to which fit the category of being “false” and “harmful”.
 
Indeed, what are some examples of “false” ones? According to Sunstein, these include the claim that “9/11 was the work of the U.S. or Israeli governments” or that these governments at least knew of the attacks but “consciously failed to act”, that “the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy”, that “the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud,” that “the Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy,” and so on.
 
People who believe these and other “conspiracy theories”, Sunstein says, “suffer from a ‘crippled epistemology’, in the sense that they know very few things, and what they know is wrong.” The term “crippled epistemology” is, of course, academic jargon for saying that people are as dumb as posts. Such a situation requires a “benevolent” government, presumably with the help of “brilliant” intellectuals, such as Sunstein, to “persuade” people who follow conspiracy theories as to what is really the “truth”, or, as Sunstein so ominously puts it in his paper, to “silence them” if necessary.
 
It is interesting to note that by Sunstein’s definition, the 17th Century Italian astronomer, Galileo, would be classified as an “extremist” for putting forward the idea that the earth revolved around the sun – a belief that challenged the prevailing thinking of the time, as well as the religious authorities.
 
Emile Zola, the great 19th Century French writer, would also be in that category for claiming correctly that French officials conspired against Alfred Dreyfus as part of an anti-semitic frameup.
 
Indeed, George Washington himself, the father of the American nation, would certainly be classified as an “extremist” by British colonial authorities because he believed that American colonists were getting a raw deal.
 
Interestingly enough, Sunstein does admit in his paper that some “conspiracy theories” have been proven to be true, such as the bugging of the hotel room used by the Democratic National Committee that was discovered in the Watergate scandal, the CIA administering LSD to unknowing psychiatric patients (including ones in Canada), or more recently, “the Bush administration suggest[ing] that Saddam Hussein had conspired with Al Qaeda to support the 9/11 attacks.”
 
Even though he makes this admission, this does not slow him down in the least in advocating action against “extremists” who advocate “conspiracy theories.”
 
In that regard, it is revealing to look at some of his own views, which many people would classify as “extremist,” especially in the Interior and Northern region of British Columbia.
 
For example, in the past, he has argued that animals, through lawyers, should be able to bring legal suits against human beings. Thus, presumably, according to Sunstein, that moose you took a shot at while hunting last Fall could mount a law suit against you, as could the relatives of that chicken you had for supper.
 
At one point, he also put forward the idea (later withdrawn) of imposing mandatory “electronic sidewalks” on the World Wide Web, which would require websites to provide links to “opposing views”. Thus, if you wrote anti-war articles on a website, you would have to also provide links to pro-war articles (and vice versa) or presumably be prosecuted. The same would be true about abortion and other contentious issues. Sunstein later admitted that such a proposal would be difficult to regulate and probably “unconstitutional.” Certainly, it flies in the face of freedom of speech.
 
It is disquieting to hear that various pundits and officials in the U.S. are actually speculating that President Obama may nominate Sunstein as a “leading legal light” to the Supreme Court of the country.   
 
While it is only fair to note that Sunstein wrote the paper a few months before he was appointed to his regulatory position with the U.S. government and that he has not put forward his ideas as policy – at least yet - questions should and are being raised by reporters and analysts, especially online, including Marc Estrin, who originally broke the story (see The Rag Blog, Jan. 11, 2010), Glenn Greenwald (see Salon.com, Jan. 15, 2010) and others. This is especially important given that other branches of the U.S. government and other governments in the world are carrying out precisely the kinds of activities that Sunstein advocates – a topic we will explore later.
 
So what does all of this have to do with Canada or the province of British Columbia or cities like Prince George? More than we might think, as will be discussed in the next article in this series: “Part 2 – Conspiracy theories, online spooks, and Cass Sunstein”.
 
Peter Ewart is a columnist, writer and community activist based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
 

[Diogenes]

Part 2 - Conspiracy theories, online government spooks, and Cass Sunstein
By Peter Ewart
Friday, January 22, 2010 03:46 AM

By Peter Ewart
 
In the first article in this series (see Part 1), we noted how various governments are using the blanket term “conspiracy theory” in attempts to denigrate and dismiss opposition.
 
Indeed, a top government official in the U.S., Cass Sunstein, has gone so far as to write a paper advocating that undercover government agents should “cognitively infiltrate” online chat rooms, social networks and other groups in order to undermine and disrupt what he terms “percolating conspiracy theories” with dirty tricks of various kinds.
 
He also proposed to enlist so-called “independent experts”, who are supported by the government behind the scenes, to carry out similar activity.
 
So what does that have to do with Canada or British Columbia or the city of Prince George?
 
Well, let’s imagine a “hypothetical” conspiracy theory. What if a political party, when in opposition, promised not to sell a publicly-owned provincial railway, but turned right around and did exactly that when it seized the reins of power? What if there was opposition to this sale which was causing political damage to the government? What if police who were on the trail of a drug conspiracy happened to bug the phones of some government aides to the Minister of Transportation and uncovered what they allege to be bribery and breach of trust in regards to the sale of the railway?
 
What if this same telephone bugging revealed that the government aides and the Minister had been involved in a scheme to call into rural talk shows and, as Sunstein might advocate, “undermine percolating conspiracy theories” about the sale? What if the police later swept in and raided government offices in the provincial legislature and charged the aides with breach of trust and other offences?
 
This “hypothetical” conspiracy theory certainly sounds like material for a potboiler of a Hollywood movie, full of mystery and intrigue, and exciting twists and turns.
 
Except it is not hypothetical, and it is not a movie. I am speaking, of course, about the ongoing BC Rail scandal which has gripped the province of British Columbia for the last 6 years and which will be coming to trial probably in the next few months. As transcripts of the police bugging appear to reveal, the editor of Opinion250, Ben Meisner, and his Prince George radio talk show at that time, were one of the targets of the phony call-in scheme by government officials.
 
Indeed, the whole BC Rail affair reeks of a number of conspiracies against the people of the province, the alleged activity of the government aides being only one small sliver. And it is not just a few journalists and so-called “conspiracy theorists” who believe this. For example, CP Rail, one of the leading bidders in the sale of BC Rail, alleged in a letter that there was a “lack of fairness” in the bidding process, and subsequently withdrew its bid. Clearly, there was something very smelly about the process.
 
There are a number of other puzzling events that have taken place regarding the sale of BC Rail that also belong in a “mystery” or “conspiracy” movie, but might not make it because the Hollywood writers could well judge them too “unlikely” or “bizarre”, and would thus strain the “credulity” of the audience too much.
 
For example, let’s look at still another “hypothetical” scenario. A reporter writes a number of hard hitting articles for online publications about the controversial sale of the provincial railway, as well as the subsequent raid on provincial government offices and the upcoming breach of trust trial of two government aides. These articles embarrass the government.
 
One morning, the reporter comes into his office to find that it has been broken into. Although nothing is stolen (despite the fact there were many items of value in the office, including computers, printer, scanner, etc.), the reporter’s files are ransacked.
 
A cryptic “message” is left. The press kit for a fictional book written about a certain railway scandal and the subsequent police raid of government offices is removed from the reporter’s desk and precisely placed “on top of the broken acoustic tiles from [the] ceiling – where the criminal or criminals entered.”
 
To the reporter (and many others), it looks very much like a message, or better yet, a threat, being sent by powerful forces – a kind of “dirty trick” against another purveyor of “percolating conspiracies”.
 
This “scenario”, of course, was also not hypothetical, but very real. It happened to reporter Bill Tieleman in his Vancouver, BC, office and was reported by him on his blog and other news sites on December 3, 2007.
 
And then perhaps there is the biggest mystery of all. The leader of the Liberal Party opposition promised in the 2001 election that BC Rail would not be sold, and thus the people of the Interior of the province should vote for him. The Liberal Party was subsequently elected. Of course, within two years, the promise was reversed and the railway was auctioned off. Did leading Liberal Party officials know in 2001, or before, that, once in office, they were going to do the exact opposite of what they had promised?
 
According to a “leading legal scholar” like Cass Sunstein, posing a question such as that amounts to propagating a “conspiracy theory”, and thus government should have the right to “undermine” and “disrupt” online chat rooms, talk shows, or any other social venue that discusses such a question.
 
It appears though, from all that has happened in this particular affair, that government officials in BC have been one step ahead of Sunstein.
 
 
Now the BC Rail issue is only one example of where government officials, big business and other powerful forces appear to have conspired against their own citizens. Indeed, the way things go these days, a diligent researcher can practically foray out into his or her backyard, scratch around, and uncover some very real sort of conspiracy, whether it involve the White House in Washington, the Parliament buildings in Ottawa, the BC Legislature, or the boardroom of a multinational corporation.
 
Take the 2009 provincial election in this province. A big question coming out of that event has to do with what the government knew, both during and before the election campaign, about the huge deficit that was looming.
 
Furthermore, many analysts allege that the government must have been holding secret consultations about imposing the highly unpopular HST tax. It was only after the election was over that the people of the province learned about both the deficit and the new tax.
 
Was there a “conspiracy of silence” among many top government officials to keep these two issues under wraps while the election was proceeding?
 
And this is where things get so disturbing regarding what the “leading legal scholar” and top U.S. government official, Cass Sunstein, is advocating. According to his logic, concerns that people in Canada, the U.S., and other countries, have about issues like privatization of public enterprises, budget deficits, taxes, and so on, should simply be categorized as “conspiracy theories” by government.
 
Furthermore, that government should, with taxpayers’ money, mobilize overt and covert actions, as well as hire online undercover agents and so-called “independent experts”, etc. to “undermine” and “disrupt” such “theories”.
 
In the next installment in this series, Part 3, we will discuss why Sunstein may have written his paper and why the whole issue of “conspiracy theories” is coming to the fore at this time.
 

[Diogenes]

Part 3 - Conspiracy theories, government spooks and Cass Sunstein
.
By Peter Ewart
News 250 -  January 28, 2010

Previous installments in this series (see Part 1 and Part 2 ) discussed how Cass Sunstein, the well-known legal scholar and advisor to the U.S. president, has put forward proposals for governments to use undercover agents and “dirty tricks” to combat so-called “conspiracy theories” being generated by those he calls “extremists.”

Also discussed was how there are, in fact, very real conspiracies being carried out against the public interest whether they are hatched in the White House, Parliament buildings or boardrooms of multinational corporations.

Why is this the case? How is it that all these conspiracies are taking place? This is a legitimate question – after all, we are said to be living in a democracy where the people of the country are supposed to be in charge.

The facts are very different. Today, it is well-known that the big banks and big business dominate governments, and monopolize the main sectors of the economy, to the extent that even their most slavish apologists must admit it. Indeed, on the individual level, some of these financial and corporate monopolies have such huge power it now dwarfs that of many nation states.

Even members of the U.S. Congress openly acknowledge this state of affairs. Dick Durbin, a leading U.S. senator, has put it bluntly: the big banks “own the U.S. Congress.”

This situation prevails not just in the U.S., but also in Canada, the province of British Columbia and other parts of the world.

The problem with monopoly is that it goes hand in hand with conspiracy, whether this be price fixing, predatory lending, corruption, or other practices. The Robber Barons were the monopolists of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries who were notorious for their ruthless, unprincipled activity and for their conspiracies against their non-monopoly competitors and the public good. They were so bad that governments back then were forced to take some measures against them, including various pieces of anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation.

Flash forward to 2010. Much of that legislation has been gutted or eliminated, as can be seen in the recent financial crisis on Wall Street. The 21st Century Robber Barons of today dominate government and the economy to an unprecedented degree. And with this domination comes numerous, ongoing, unrelenting conspiracies against the interests of the people, whether it be workers, professionals, small or non-monopoly businesses, or entire communities, regions and even countries.

This domination of government by monopolies has created an extremely dangerous situation whereby giant armament and war production conglomerates have a vested interest in provoking war and conflict throughout the world – these days especially in the Middle East. For example, U.S. armament companies played a big role in the conspiracy to launch wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, and they continue to beat the drum for military action against Iran and other countries.

As recent revelations in Britain are bringing to light for all to see, the launching of the Iraq War was a conspiracy hatched long before 9/11 and involved the highest levels of the American and British governments.

It is, of course, very interesting that a “legal scholar” like Cass Sunstein is proposing action against “conspiracy theorists” who are working to investigate and uncover government and corporate conspiracies, precisely at this time when the most heinous, and even treasonous, conspiracies are being launched at the highest levels.

But the problem is not just that monopolies dominate government. There is also a grave problem with the political process itself, and the two issues are interlinked.

The political parties in Parliament, Congress and the legislatures themselves are like monopolies, working together and conspiring like cartels to keep the citizenry out of the process except as “voting cattle.”

The party-dominated political process is such that we elect party-selected candidates on one day every four years. For the rest of those 1200 or 1400 days, we have an “elected dictatorship.” The people are kept outside the door in the cold. As the Little Richard song goes, “I hear you knockin’ but you can’t come in.”

The political process is such that, during an election campaign, a political party can make practically any sort of promise, yet, once elected, turn around and do the exact opposite, as happened in British Columbia with the sale of BC Rail and the imposition of the HST tax. A government can “prorogue” Parliament in the most anti-democratic way as the federal government in Canada has just done. Or, like the Republicans and Democrats jointly did in the U.S. last year, a government can bailout the billionaire bankers in spite of the fact that the American people were overwhelming against such an action.

Some would argue that this kind of behavior constitutes fraud and breach of trust. But the citizenry have no mechanisms to prohibit it, and it happens time and time again, whether the political party in power presents itself as “left wing” or “right wing”, “Republican” or “Democrat.”

Like the monopoly domination, such a political process breeds conspiracy. At all levels, it creates a political and governmental culture of extreme secrecy and lack of transparency, of “backroom deals” and “plain brown envelopes”. Government, in effect, becomes a captive to special interests and hostile to the vast majority of people.

Is it any wonder that many Americans have contempt for the U.S. Congress or that, as a recent report says, a growing number of Canadians are profoundly “disenchanted” with politics and feel “increasingly alienated from the political process and its institutions.”

It is one of the features of modern life that people want control over the political process and over their livelihoods. The monopolies, with their domination over government, and the established political parties, with their domination of the political process, stand in the way.

We need a new political process, one that has mechanisms to empower the citizenry and that ensures their control over government, as well as restricts the power of the monopolies.

In my opinion, if there is any lesson to be drawn from Cass Sunstein and the anti-democratic actions he is proposing, it is that.

(This article is the last in the series)

[Diogenes]

http://www.waterwarcrimes.com/internal-british-columbia-government-documents-prove-government-knew-it-was-breaking-the-law.html

 Wow!     
 John Carten isn't holding back Remember you saw it here first