Here's an amazon review I wrote for Griffin's latest book:
Esoteric Doublespeak in Sunstein's Missive
David Ray Griffin's latest book is not only important, with logic that cuts as precisely as nanothermitic charges through steel, it's clever. Behind his eminently reasonable, philosophical language, Griffin embeds humor, but you've got to search for it, just as Griffin searches for a coherent "esoteric" meaning behind Cass Sunstein's incoherent mess of a paper. It's the kind of humor that hurts, because even if Griffin's deconstruction of Sunstein's self-contradictions, logical fallacies, and absurdist policy recommendations provokes laughter, the implications of his target's message are disconcerting, to say the least.
While Griffin's approach to Sunstein's "esoteric" meaning is tongue-in-cheek, there's more truth to it than Griffin lets on. Sunstein's paper on the "causes and cures" of 9/11 "conspiracy theories", does in fact hide an esoteric meaning, but it's not the one Griffin uses to get across his main thesis: that Sunstein is defending a position that is indefensible, necessarily leading to vague definitions, unstated premises, and a raft of internal contradictions (for example, Sunstein states that the American government is well-motivated, that conspiracy theorists are unjustified in believing bad things about it, and yet he promotes a government conspiracy using illegal tactics). The hidden meaning has everything to do with the roots of fascism.
Griffin quotes Shadia Drury's reading of the neocon godfather, Leo Strauss. Strauss "believed that political philosophy need to contain two levels: an esoteric core, in which the truth is stated in a way that will be grasped only be the wise few, and an exoteric coating, consisting of "noble illusions" required by the masses." In other words - doublespeak - language that is designed to be read and understood by "insiders", but which will placate the masses - bad intentions behind a mask of sanity and humanitarianism.
It's clear when reading Sunstein's own words that he doesn't truly believe everything he writes. He IS writing for insiders, using cryptic language with a very definite purpose. But what is he saying? Griffin makes some astute observations about Sunstein's paper, in which he states that 9/11 conspiracy theories are potentially harmful, created and supported by "extremists", and must be cured using government deception.
For example, by recommending that the government pay third parties to provide support for the government's party line (secretly, of course, so as not to give the conspiracy theorists more fuel for their dissent), Sunstein is obviously implying that the truth is NOT on the his (the government's) side. If it were, the government would not need to create the IMAGE of widespread academic acceptance of their theories by secretly paying "third parties" (really extensions of the government). Sunstein even slipped up in his draft version of the paper, including "Popular Mechanics" in the list of third parties used by the government to catapult their propaganda.
Why would such a respected legal scholar make such obvious logical errors, and suggest such obviously illegal measures to combat this "threat" to the government? It's clear, reading Griffin's book, that Sunstein KNOWS his position is indefensible, which makes it all the more clear that he is writing as a propagandist, one who knows the game and is playing his part in the machinery of political psychopathy. Psychopaths, after all, are very persuasive, even if their arguments are flawed from the core. They use rhetorical techniques such as those exposed by Griffin to spellbind their readers, and loaded language that, as psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski reveals, is readily understood by other psychopaths. It's how doublespeak works.
When Sunstein speaks of "crippled epistemologies", he's speaking to two groups. To the first, the uninitiated, he's relying on their inability to think critically, to escape their own prison of acceptable choices and limited information. This is the group cynically exploited by political psychopaths. THEY are the epistemic cripples, kept so by the control of information provided to them. Sunstein uses these tactics expertly (although to a trained philosopher like Griffin, his attempts seem childish), like the reversive blockade (the big lie). Simply state something as truth enough times (without any evidence or argumentation, of course), and people will believe it. Sunstein does this repeatedly, saying the 9/11 conspiracy theories are false, unjustified, and demonstrably false while offering no evidence that this is the case. But he's a respected scholar, so we've got to believe him, right?
The second group can see through this. They know the "mark", the game, and the stakes. They know 9/11 was a maneuver to cement control and institute a fascistic (pathocratic) form of government, and they know the dangers 9/11 conspiracy theories pose to their ambition. And they know that using COINTELPRO-like tactics is par for the course, standard operating procedure.
When he speaks of the "dangers" posed by the movement, it's clear to insiders what he's suggesting: infiltrators should be the "truthers" as "extremists" by provoking illegal actions, which will then be blamed on the truthers themselves. That's "homegrown terrorism". When he speaks of a time when extreme measures may be justified, against the ideals of an open society, he is promoting a closed society.
By "undermining democratic debate" he means the debate between forced options. 9/11 truth undermines the forced options on which pathocrats rely: Left vs. Right. Further, "Pax Americana" = American war and terror; "vigorous countermisinformation" = vigorous misinformation; "biased assimilators" = people who can tell a lie when they see one; "counterspeech" = more lies; "cognitive diversity" = government-inspired cognitive limitation; and so on.
Luckily, Sunstein's piece is so transparent, and Griffin's analysis goes a long way in defusing the dangers posed by its cunning doublespeak. However, without an understanding of ponerology, there's no guarantee Sunstein's vision will not come to fruition.
Esoteric Doublespeak in Sunstein's Missive
David Ray Griffin's latest book is not only important, with logic that cuts as precisely as nanothermitic charges through steel, it's clever. Behind his eminently reasonable, philosophical language, Griffin embeds humor, but you've got to search for it, just as Griffin searches for a coherent "esoteric" meaning behind Cass Sunstein's incoherent mess of a paper. It's the kind of humor that hurts, because even if Griffin's deconstruction of Sunstein's self-contradictions, logical fallacies, and absurdist policy recommendations provokes laughter, the implications of his target's message are disconcerting, to say the least.
While Griffin's approach to Sunstein's "esoteric" meaning is tongue-in-cheek, there's more truth to it than Griffin lets on. Sunstein's paper on the "causes and cures" of 9/11 "conspiracy theories", does in fact hide an esoteric meaning, but it's not the one Griffin uses to get across his main thesis: that Sunstein is defending a position that is indefensible, necessarily leading to vague definitions, unstated premises, and a raft of internal contradictions (for example, Sunstein states that the American government is well-motivated, that conspiracy theorists are unjustified in believing bad things about it, and yet he promotes a government conspiracy using illegal tactics). The hidden meaning has everything to do with the roots of fascism.
Griffin quotes Shadia Drury's reading of the neocon godfather, Leo Strauss. Strauss "believed that political philosophy need to contain two levels: an esoteric core, in which the truth is stated in a way that will be grasped only be the wise few, and an exoteric coating, consisting of "noble illusions" required by the masses." In other words - doublespeak - language that is designed to be read and understood by "insiders", but which will placate the masses - bad intentions behind a mask of sanity and humanitarianism.
It's clear when reading Sunstein's own words that he doesn't truly believe everything he writes. He IS writing for insiders, using cryptic language with a very definite purpose. But what is he saying? Griffin makes some astute observations about Sunstein's paper, in which he states that 9/11 conspiracy theories are potentially harmful, created and supported by "extremists", and must be cured using government deception.
For example, by recommending that the government pay third parties to provide support for the government's party line (secretly, of course, so as not to give the conspiracy theorists more fuel for their dissent), Sunstein is obviously implying that the truth is NOT on the his (the government's) side. If it were, the government would not need to create the IMAGE of widespread academic acceptance of their theories by secretly paying "third parties" (really extensions of the government). Sunstein even slipped up in his draft version of the paper, including "Popular Mechanics" in the list of third parties used by the government to catapult their propaganda.
Why would such a respected legal scholar make such obvious logical errors, and suggest such obviously illegal measures to combat this "threat" to the government? It's clear, reading Griffin's book, that Sunstein KNOWS his position is indefensible, which makes it all the more clear that he is writing as a propagandist, one who knows the game and is playing his part in the machinery of political psychopathy. Psychopaths, after all, are very persuasive, even if their arguments are flawed from the core. They use rhetorical techniques such as those exposed by Griffin to spellbind their readers, and loaded language that, as psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski reveals, is readily understood by other psychopaths. It's how doublespeak works.
When Sunstein speaks of "crippled epistemologies", he's speaking to two groups. To the first, the uninitiated, he's relying on their inability to think critically, to escape their own prison of acceptable choices and limited information. This is the group cynically exploited by political psychopaths. THEY are the epistemic cripples, kept so by the control of information provided to them. Sunstein uses these tactics expertly (although to a trained philosopher like Griffin, his attempts seem childish), like the reversive blockade (the big lie). Simply state something as truth enough times (without any evidence or argumentation, of course), and people will believe it. Sunstein does this repeatedly, saying the 9/11 conspiracy theories are false, unjustified, and demonstrably false while offering no evidence that this is the case. But he's a respected scholar, so we've got to believe him, right?
The second group can see through this. They know the "mark", the game, and the stakes. They know 9/11 was a maneuver to cement control and institute a fascistic (pathocratic) form of government, and they know the dangers 9/11 conspiracy theories pose to their ambition. And they know that using COINTELPRO-like tactics is par for the course, standard operating procedure.
When he speaks of the "dangers" posed by the movement, it's clear to insiders what he's suggesting: infiltrators should be the "truthers" as "extremists" by provoking illegal actions, which will then be blamed on the truthers themselves. That's "homegrown terrorism". When he speaks of a time when extreme measures may be justified, against the ideals of an open society, he is promoting a closed society.
By "undermining democratic debate" he means the debate between forced options. 9/11 truth undermines the forced options on which pathocrats rely: Left vs. Right. Further, "Pax Americana" = American war and terror; "vigorous countermisinformation" = vigorous misinformation; "biased assimilators" = people who can tell a lie when they see one; "counterspeech" = more lies; "cognitive diversity" = government-inspired cognitive limitation; and so on.
Luckily, Sunstein's piece is so transparent, and Griffin's analysis goes a long way in defusing the dangers posed by its cunning doublespeak. However, without an understanding of ponerology, there's no guarantee Sunstein's vision will not come to fruition.
