This is not a personal attack on these member, but there is strong reason for us to believe that certain members may be some sort of government
infiltrate/plant to raise doubt and ridicule conspiracy theories. I have refrained from revealing the suspected member's username for fear of the
thread being misinterpreted as a personal attack on this member.
There is a member with 4000+ posts, the last 800 of which have all entirely been posted in the 9/11 section. All of the posts from this member are
aimed at supporting the official 9/11 story as well as (sometimes irrationally) ridiculing and raising doubt about the alternative theories and
suspicions that have been raised over 9/11, even when presented with reasonable and suggestive evidence. I don't know if all 4000+ of this members
posts were made in the 9/11 section (because it only shows the past 800), but given that this member has only posted in that one section since
september of last year it may be likely that this user has only ever posted in that section to raise doubt about 9/11 theories. It is strange that
such a person would come to a forum which discusses conspiracy theories, in my opinion this user would be better suited if he were to join a forum
which discusses and affirms, with no suspicion, only the official version of events of 9/11, but instead this user comes here and puts forth an
unusual, extreme effort to seemingly try to change minds and raise doubts about alternative 9/11 theories.
In 2008 a then Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein
co-authored a 30 page paper on conspiracy theories which aims at describing how conspiracy
theories come about, how they are potentially dangerous to government, and recommends methods on how the government can undermine these theories. In
the beginning of the paper the author(s) create a list of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true, later in the paper though, they use words
like "kook" and "quasi beliefs" to describe people that believe in conspiracy theories, so, there is a inherent bias and contradiction in this report,
at first they are affirming that certain conspiracies in the past were true, but then they seem to imply and suppose that any conspiracy theory in the
present must be false.
So what do they suggest be done about the conspiracy theories? Cognitive inflitration and cognitive diversity
3. Cognitive infiltration
Rather than taking the continued existence of the hard core as a constraint, and addressing itself solely to the third-party mass audience, government
might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories, arguments and rhetoric that are produced by the
hard core and reinforce it in turn. One promising tactic is cognitive infiltration of extremist groups.
Informational and reputational cascades, group polarization, and selection effects suggest that the generation of ever-more-extreme views within these
groups can be dampened or reversed by the introduction of cognitive diversity. We suggest a role for government efforts, and agents, in introducing
such diversity. 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.
In one variant, government agents would openly proclaim, or at least make no effort to conceal, their institutional affiliations. A recent
newspaper story recounts that Arabic-speaking Muslim officials from the State Department have participated in dialogues at radical Islamist chat rooms
and websites in order to ventilate arguments not usually heard among the groups that cluster around those sites, with some success. In another
variant, government officials would participate anonymously or even with false identities.
Many of you may be well aware of the amount of ridicule and debunking going on in certain forums, especially the aliens & ufo's section, and
especially as well as the 9/11 section. That report above was written in 2008, one of the co-authors of that paper, Cass Sunstein, who is now the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under president Obama.
Mr. Sunstein has been in a direct position to implement
such policies and tactics as outlined in the external text and I am suggesting that this is exactly what is going on in these forums now
My recommendation for spotting these potential government infiltrates is to be aware and keep note of users who seem to only make posts that are aimed
towards debunking and raising doubt, and who particularly seem to have a sort of bias against the topics discussed. If these users were not interested
in or do not believe in the conspiracy subjects, why would they go so far out of their way to post for months and years raising doubt and debunking of
topics they don't even acknowledge or believe in? I suggest there may be another reason for SOME of these users for being on this forum, perhaps as
was mentioned in the paper
, cognitive infiltration and diversity to suppress ideas and to prevent ideas from spreading and becoming even more
popular and considered.
I do not suggest or believe that all of the doubters and debunkers on this forum are government infiltrates, I leave open the possibility that some of
these members may simply enjoy the challenge of spotting truly phony and erroneous information for the sake of exercising their intellect, but, this
is one of the more popular conspiracy forums and I think it would be foolish to assume that our government is not aware of it's existence and has not
taken measures to counter the theories and opinions being produced here.
So to summarize, you may be able to spot potential government infiltrates on this forum by observing their post behavior and noting whether or not the
user tends to lean overwhelmingly towards debunking, skepticism and raising doubt. This is confirmed that they use tactics like this in online social
media overseas in middle eastern countries to try and influence more pro-western opinions, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were doing it here as
Source for external text: papers.ssrn.com...
edit on 25-2-2012 by RadioactiveRob because: fixed