At first glance, Cass Sunstein appears to be just another rabidly neoliberal policy wonk. His writing - from academic papers to books to a regular Bloomberg column - seems fairly intelligent and thoroughly considered. As a strong advocate for government transparency, he may even come off as a servant of the public good. But Cass Sunstein is an American trancewar architect. He shapes the postindustrial propaganda used by the power elite to subvert our population's conscious awareness so as to manipulate our thinking and behavior without our knowledge. That's his job.
I very much doubt that Sunstein's conscious intentions are malevolent, but such manipulation can be extremely damaging to the trust on which adequate social cognition necessarily relies. And since this guy was recently appointed to "The Pentagon’s increasingly eclectic Defense Innovation Advisory Board" it seems like a good idea to take a look at the perspective he brings to the table. This perspective, after all, will be well-represented in whatever narrative yarns are spun by .mil's public relations machine as the US military catches up with the 21st Century over the next few years.
Does questioning the official story amount to erroneous thinking?
Sunstein first came to my attention after co-authoring a paper in 2008 with Adrian Vermeule titled Conspiracy Theories. This seemingly trivial legal theory paper notes that incorrect perspectives "typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences", and suggests that understanding such incorrect theories could offer "some clues about how to correct widespread errors" (in thinking).
This paper insightfully applies ideas from psychology to communication dynamics in our digitally-networked social ecology. It also elaborates some SPIN mechanics - perhaps accidentally. These same mechanics produce a similar class of thinking errors throughout our entire psychosocial ecology as preoccupy this paper's authors. But while Sunstein and Vermeule do not acknowledge that the powers that be are just as susceptible to stuff like biases and epistemological insularity as everybody else is, their consideration of the role played by 'availability cascades' in the manufacture of public opinion is useful for understanding some procedures underlying the trancewar:
"Informational and reputational cascades can occur without any particular triggering event. But a distinctive kind of cascade arises when such an event is highly salient or cognitively “available.” In the context of many risks, such as those associated with terrorism, nuclear power, and abandoned hazardous waste dumps, a particular event initiates a cascade, and it stands as a trigger or a symbol justifying public concern, whether or not that concern is warranted. Availability cascades occur through the interaction between a salient event and social influences, both informational and reputational. Often political actors, both self-interested and altruistic, work hard to produce such cascades. Conspiracy theories are often driven through the same mechanisms. A particular event becomes available, and conspiracy theories are invoked both in explaining it and using it as a symbol for broader social forces, casting doubt on accepted wisdom in many domains. There are clear links between cascades and the well established phenomenon of group polarization, by which members of a deliberating group typically end up in a more extreme position in line with their tendencies before deliberation began. "
(quotes from: "Conspiracy Theories")
Ever hear of cognitive infiltration?
Following the publication of this paper, Sunstein began advising the executive branch of the US federal government to escalate and modernize the trancewar - in part by transforming a practice called 'cognitive infiltration' into public policy. Essentially, Sunstein proposed that anyone who did not see things the way they were told to see things should be considered crazy, and their views should be actively combated by a variety of (ethically grey, at best) governmental psy-ops.
In 2010, Glenn Greenwald called the proposal 'spine-chilling':
"[Sunstein] 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."
What's scarier than a high tech army? A high tech army aided by a world-class propagandist.
Personally, I consider most of what makes it into mainstream news to be theater, directed by financial puppeteers, which tells the story of the world as people like Sunstein believe we should see it. I consider most so-called conspiracy theories to be a different manner of theater - one which tells stories that may soon enter public awareness. Both kinds of theatrics are useful - the former because it tells me what plans are being made for me by people who use physical violence and psychological warfare on a massive scale to get their way, and the latter because it articulates widespread but officially unsanctioned attempts to make sense of the world as people are experiencing it. Both types of theater are like religions that I don't quite buy, but would nonetheless be foolish to ignore.
Now that Sunstein has joined the ranks of the Pentagon's new rock star advisory board, I imagine we will begin to see more stuff in the news about how the US military is attempting to become more transparent - as well as an increase in weird unilateral action taken by the Pentagon or US intelligence agencies (particularly on the web) alongside extremely sophisticated PR campaigns. If Sunstein's recent writing is any indication of what to expect, the public narrative will (a) basically tell average people what they want to believe, while (b) employing fallacious logic to gloss over extremely important parts of whatever the real story happens to be.
Do you suppose that we are properly equipped to read between the lines?