Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas with Cass R. Sunstein

page: 1
10

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Morning all, or evening to you northerners


I came across this video on the tube of yous last night and almost dismissed it and continued my search for something ground breaking, like "Real UFO Spotted in NY" or something along those lines...you know, the stuff that is 99.9999999999% hoaxed. So, anyway, I decided to give it a go, thinking that it's good top know thy enemy.

In fact, it turned out to be nothing short of amazing to get this insiders perspective and to be honest, pretty moderate world view.

I actually hadn't heard of Cass prior to this video but after doing a quick search on ATS to see if this particular video had been posted, it seems he is well-enough known round these parts and might not be a popular fellow.

When you get a chance watch the video in it's entirety and let me know what you think.





posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Mr. Sunstein is an extremely dangerous variety of psychopath.

He has been on a wild tirade for years.

100% NWO-Global-Authoritarian-Totalitarian agenda.

Just visualize a complete government based on his views !!!



In his latest foray in defense of the many lies of the state, former Obama administration bureaucrat Cass Sunstein compares disbelief to a destructive contagion. He insists there is a “close relationship between conspiracy theories and social networks, especially close-knit or isolated ones” and after a particular “belief begins to spread, a lot of people within the network might accept it as well, on the theory that a spreading belief cannot possibly be wrong.”


Sunstein, who once proposed the state “cognitively infiltrate” anti-government groups, cites a number of examples, ranging from the alleged assassination of Osama bin Laden to Roswell and Santa Claus. Inclusion of the latter two examples adequately make Sunstein’s point. Mistrust of government produced narratives, many provided without sufficient evidence, is naïve, child-like and, in the case of misgivings about vaccines, downright dangerous.

Cass Sunstein: Truth is a Disease






posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Thanks for your input xuenchen


I totally agree that what he's written about, prima facie, appears to be targeting people like us, however, out of interest, did you watch the video?

The reason I ask is that when you see him discuss these ideas he makes clear that it applies to all groups; for instance a group of three Democrats have an opinion on something and their opinion might be essentially the same thing but after they discuss their ideas their opinions become strengthened as they reinforce each others initial ideas. Likewise for a group of Republicans.

What he goes on to state is that this differs significantly if the initial group of Democrats or Republicans is now only one and you replace the other two with those from the other side. The initial viewpoint and final viewpoint is less radicalised (or radicalized for those in the U.S.) than if the whole group began with the same or similar ideas or viewpoints.

This can apply to political think tanks and conspiracy theorists or even religious groups...really...any group.

To me, it appears that he is coming from a purely academic point of view and isn't necessarily the big bogeyman he is made out to be; he may be but watch the video and let me know if your opinion has changed somewhat.

Thank you again for taking part in the thread and yes, again, when you read what has been published, it does sound alarming but I think perhaps he may have been misinterpreted by some of the alternative media.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: comfortablynumb

Yes I skimmed the video.

And I would say he is was attempting to cast the illusion that all his wild theories are somehow intertwined in all "groups".

And that is what sells books to all "groups".

He has some brilliant promotional advisors indeed.

He has been in the book business for 20 years at least.

His "official" status in government has been limited.

He is more of a lawyer/professor.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Sunstein is an ardent supporter of FDR's so-called 2nd Bill of Rights which is really just a means of destroying our 1st Bill of Rights. I wrote the following about FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights that Sunstein is so fond of:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms of the nation.

Useful – capable of being used advantageously, serviceable
Remunerative – likely to be well remunerated or profitable

In other words, this is supposed to guarantee you a good job that pays you well. I wonder how gets to define just exactly what a “good” job is and what defines “good” pay. I'll bet it's your friendly, neighborhood government. Did anyone writing this stop to think for just one second that there is nothing now that prevents anyone from going out and finding themselves just exactly this type of job now if they really want it? There are numerous laws on the books preventing employers from arbitrary and capricious discrimination based on factors not related to one's likelihood of being able to perform the necessary tasks of the job.
Also, this sounds really good, but does anyone reading this think for one second that this actually means that you are guaranteed your dream job just because this document says it's now your right to simply have a job? Of course not, you're only guaranteed a “useful” job that will be “remunerative,” whatever that is determined to have to be. That means you might still wind up being the lowly floor clerk at Walmart or a factory floor worker at an assembly line plant or just a janitor cleaning out toilets if that's all your skills prepare you to be. Heck, if working in the farms of the nation is part of the language, your “useful” and “remunerative” job might now be to do one of those jobs that “Americans won't do.” The New Amerikan Kommisars might just assign you to pick lettuce! But, no one can argue that it isn't “useful” or “remunerative.”

(to be cont.)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing and recreation.

Adequate – 1. able to satisfy a requirement, suitable 2. barely satisfactory or sufficient

Wow! I'm being guaranteed the right to earn enough to have all the food, clothing and recreation I want. I can go take big vacations in Hawaii, eat lobster like Michelle Obama, wear those designer clothes … It's my right!
NOT SO FAST!! Take a closer look. The word that really sinks all your hopes and dreams here is the word “adequate.” Adequate is the key to this one and sets up “remunerative” from the previous so-called right to really be a lot less impressive. Yes, having adequate means that your requirement is satisfied, but if you look at the second definition, it can also mean that your requirement is satisfied minimally. And, if you want a hint at how our new overlords mean to govern us, look at Michelle Obama's school lunch regime. Your children are already being accustomed to the barely adequate in their daily school lunch needs. Yes, the school lunch caloric intake is adequate, just.
So, if that's an idea of the adequate food you will have a right to, then just imagine what your similar adequate clothing and recreation will be.

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

Return – A profit or yield as from labor or investments
Decent – 1. characterized by conformity to recognized standards of propriety and morality 2. free from indelicacy, or modest 3. meeting accepted standards, adequate

This is where things start to get a little more scary. Most people know farmers of differing sizes from small family farmers who mainly farm as a hobby in addition to other sources of income to large family farms and ranches that are pretty big businesses. Look at the definition of “return.” notice we can't refer to the results of the farmer's produce as a “profit;” instead, it must be termed a “return” as though the farmer does not set the price for his goods himself or as though the market he will operate in will be strictly controlled, even moreso than today.
Now, aslo notice that the famer's rate of return is one that will allow him and his family to live “decently.” In other words, they will live adequately or modestly as you look at the definitions for decent. It wouldn't do to have anyone getting wealthy because they are working hard to produce a lot of goods that other people need. That would simply be “indecent.” Therefore, farmers will only be allowed to realize a rate of “return” that lets them live modestly so that they can't rub it in to anyone else I guess. But thank goodness they have a right to that! And this further raises the question – would they even be allowed to own the land they farm anymore?

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

Trade – the business of buying and selling commodities; commerce
Atmosphere – environment or surroundings regarded as having a psychological, physical or other influence
Freedom – the condition of being free of restraints
Unfair – not just or evenhanded; biased

This is another fun one. As a businessman, you have the right to trade in an “atmosphere,” which is simply an environment of psychological influence, of freedom from unfair competition. You don't actually have the right to trade free of unfair competition. You just have the right to an atmosphere that makes you believe that you are trading freely and fairly. When you read these things, words and their definitions are EVERYTHING!

The right of every family to a decent home.

Home – 1. a place where one lives, residence 2. the physical structures within which one lives, as a house or apartment 3. a dwelling place together with the family or social unit that occupies it; household

We covered the definition of “decent” when talked about the farmers up above. A lot of people will read this an start picturing the classic American dream of a house with a white, picket fence. Notice that I listed the first three definitions of “home” to drive home point here. “House” and “home” are at no point synonymous. A “house” is a structure where the “home” is the place the family makes their permanent residence.
Since it is far more likely that we are looking at a government interested in only providing the “adequate” portion of “decent,” then you are far more likely to be looking at lots of Soviet-style housing blocks or, if you prefer, lots of inner-city style housing projects which jam families into tiny apartment units. Those would fit the definite of “adequate,” modest and “decent.”

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

Medical – 1. of or pertaining to the practice of medicine 2. requiring medical as distinct from surgical treatment
Opportunity – 1. a favorable or advantageous combination of circumstances; suitable occasion or time 2. A chance for progress or advancement
Achieve – 1. to do or finish with success 2. to attain or get with effort
Enjoy – 1. To receive pleasure from; relish 2. to have the use or benefit of

The ugly word “adequate” rears its ugly head here again. You only have the right to the bare minimum of health care needed. Oh, my bad, let me re-phrase that. It's not “health” care. That's “medical” care, and there is an important distinction according to my dictionary. “Medical” care apparently doesn't include surgical



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: comfortablynumb
And I would say he is was attempting to cast the illusion that all his wild theories are somehow intertwined in all "groups".

You may be right there...my gut feeling says he might have been portrayed in an (possibly) unfair light.


originally posted by: xuenchen
His "official" status in government has been limited.
He is more of a lawyer/professor.

That's what I thought and he certainly does come across more as an academic than a political type...if that makes sense. I'm still not entirely sure of what I think but I welcome the ideas with an open mind. I mean group-think isn't a completely new idea but I think how he approached it may well be.

Thank you again for participating! I don't create many threads but love it when people get involved



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: comfortablynumb

Ok, so I watched the video and I am impressed with his ability to tread lightly on big issues, but he is softly, subtlety steering based on his own Federalist views. Also, his approach is classic Goldie Locks and the Three Bears. He appeared giddy in citing Justice Roberts' statements about decision making or non-decision making, as if he was the only one who gets it.

All in all he is a learned educator of his own opinions, and wise in the ways he craftily massages issues to garner interest and seek debate. Although, he also liked repeating that an opposition may have a reasonable stance, but still be wrong, and there is nothing wrong with unanimous rejection of such valid reason, based upon consensus of legality, and in fact, we should encourage consensus. However, his Liberal vs. Conservative intro about like-minded allowances of extremism seems to contradict his logic there...or does it? Sounds to me he wants new proposed legislation debate, but consensus of law as basis of ruling, prior to lawmaking, and by law to enforce afterwards. Good luck with that.


edit on 23-4-2014 by Boscov because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-4-2014 by Boscov because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Sunstein is an ardent supporter of FDR's so-called 2nd Bill of Rights which is really just a means of destroying our 1st Bill of Rights. I wrote the following about FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights that Sunstein is so fond of:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms of the nation.

Also, this sounds really good, but does anyone reading this think for one second that this actually means that you are guaranteed your dream job just because this document says it's now your right to simply have a job? Of course not, you're only guaranteed a “useful” job that will be “remunerative,” whatever that is determined to have to be.


Firstly, wow and thank you for your respone! I've read all of your points (both posts) and will reply to each as best I can.

You're correct with regards to Sunstein being an ardent supporter of FDR's "so-called" 2nd Bill of Rights. It came across to me, and don't forget I am an Australian so my knowledge of American Law and society won't be nearly as good as someone who lives in the country, however it does appear, as stated, that he is an ardent supporter of FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights and yes, it is no guarantee of a job; it is no guarantee in that it won't be upheld by the courts; it is however an ideal and something that the politicians need to address so to ensure the best possible outcome for the people; that is, make policy which makes an attempt to reduce unemployment, etc.

Whether or not this is being done is another question altogether as Sunstein seems to be looking at these ideals much as an academic would and less like a policy maker; that is not to say that he doesn't have practical ideas, as he was put into government to attempt to implement practical change.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ketsuko

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing and recreation.

Wow! I'm being guaranteed the right to earn enough to have all the food, clothing and recreation I want. I can go take big vacations in Hawaii, eat lobster like Michelle Obama, wear those designer clothes … It's my right!
NOT SO FAST!!


This, I guess as mentioned in my previous reply, isn't ever going to be guaranteed (at least not in the near future) as it isn't going to be upheld in the courts. These rights are more an ideal which, in the context of the bill, should be embraced by congress and something policy makers should be aiming for, all the while knowing it will never be achieved for every American citizen; much like the saying, "if you aim for the stars, you might reach the moon" (there are other variations out there like it, but it was the first to come to mind).


originally posted by: ketsuko
- The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

- The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

- The right of every family to a decent home.

- The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.


I so wanted to keep your writing in here but for the sake of brevity I decided to list the key points. From your reply I can see that you have a keen understanding of the English language and have drilled into each key word and explained it based on agreed definitions, however I also think (to be honest, not entirely sure) that context is important and don't get me wrong, you certainly added context from your interpretations, all I am saying is that there may be other ways to interpret the terminology used. Unless of course, as these rights were penned by legal scholars, who word such things to carefully much like a master sculptor would painstakingly carve each millimetre just so, they have meant every word as interpreted by precise definitions, then, well...not much to say there.

In saying that, I still do consider the above to be more of the same ideals as mentioned before and not things that are legally binding in the court system.

Either way, thank you for taking so much time to pen your responses and while I have my take on this, I most certainly see yours.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   
this guy is not good. (cass)

www.glennbeck.com...

more if you want....

www.glennbeck.com...
edit on 30290441130pm2014 by tsingtao because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: tsingtao

sunstien sees himself as the slavemaster for all the idiots who buy into his communist ideas -

soft-sell them to the cognitive impaired -

this man says it's all right to kill babies up to 2 years old - "if you decide you don't want them" -

he also sells the idea of poisoning water systems - for de-population - and sterilization purposes.

If you think he is all right - you really need to check yourself -

his wife is samantha powers - who is from Ireland - and who replaced susan rice after her ludicrous lies about benghazi in the UN position.

Wake up and smell the communist decaying flesh of humans on this earth.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Mr. Sunstein is an extremely dangerous variety of psychopath.

Behaves much like a sociopath IMO.

I wonder if dogs and children naturally shy away from him.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Mr. Sunstein is an ardent advocate of tow of Obama's guiding principles:
Never let a "crisis" go to (political) waste; and,
Tell your audience what they want to hear, regardless of your intentions.

Sunstein is a long-time advocate of enforced government thought police. Cass Sunstein, Regulatory czar, has proposed bans on hunting and eating meat. He believes animals have a right to an attorney and to sue you in court. He advocates a ”Fairness Doctrine” for the Internet, and believes: “ There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day.”





new topics
top topics
 
10

log in

join