In a 2008 academic paper, President Barack Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated “cognitive infiltration” of groups that advocate “conspiracy theories” like the ones surrounding 9/11.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, co-wrote an academic article entitled “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures,” in which he argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine” those groups.

As head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein is in charge of “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs,” according to the White House Web site. (Read more from rawstory.com)

This has been on my mind ever since I heard Aaron Russo suggest the elites were behind Women’s Suffrage because they wanted to change America from a country in which half the people worked and paid taxes to a country where everyone worked and paid taxes. As it typical they hi-jacked a legitimate movement for their own purposes.

I was interested to see this report from thedailybell.com. They quote some news then offer analysis along the same lines as Aaron Russo:

At a time when the world is short of causes for celebration, here is a candidate: within the next few months women will cross the 50% threshold and become the majority of the American workforce. Women already make up the majority of university graduates in the OECD countries and the majority of professional workers in several rich countries, including the United States. Women run many of the world’s great companies, from PepsiCo in America to Areva in France. Women’s economic empowerment is arguably the biggest social change of our times. Just a generation ago, women were largely confined to repetitive, menial jobs. They were routinely subjected to casual sexism and were expected to abandon their careers when they married and had children. Today they are running some of the organisations that once treated them as second-class citizens. Millions of women have been given more control over their own lives. And millions of brains have been put to more productive use. Societies that try to resist this trend-most notably the Arab countries, but also Japan and some southern European countries-will pay a heavy price in the form of wasted talent and frustrated citizens. – Economist

Dominant Social Theme: Hurray for women …

Free-Market Analysis: The liberation of women is in our opinion another dominant social theme, one of the longest running of the power elite’s promotions. The real push for women to become part of the work force happened in the 20th century. Not surprisingly, this was the century that saw the imposition of full-fledged central banking around the world. At the beginning of the 20th century, it was still culturally a problem for women to work, but the power elite promotion was launched to make women “modern” and it is still ongoing.

If you want to implement global governance, you need to break down the family unit as much as possible. Nothing can stand in the way of the state. From the power elite’s standpoint, getting women into the workplace in the name of “equality” solved a lot of problems at once. It left children parentless during much of the day, so that the state itself could take over childcare. And without the firm guidance of the full family, many children, especially girls, became much more promiscuous at an early age which also contributed to a fracturing of private culture.

. . . . But the real reason, in our opinion, that woman’s liberation is a power-elite promotion, and a very long-running one, has to do with central banking. The erosion of fiat money earning meant inevitably that to keep up there would have to be more than one wage earner in the household. Woman’s liberation was promoted, in our opinion, as a way of making it culturally acceptable for women to work – so as to conceal the degradation of the currency.

“While America slept on Wednesday April 25 we woke up to find headlines about how Michelle Obama likes to sneak out and eat at fun restaurants. Not so well covered by the media was the passage of the Hate Crimes bill re-introduced and passed in committee by John Conyers. (D-MI) What does it mean?

. . . .

The ‘hate crimes bill’ is an affront to states sovereignty and if misinterpreted by any level of law enforcement will quickly become a ‘thought policing’ bill to wrest even more freedoms from the average citizen by essentially demanding that special groups get special justice.” (Read more from canadafreepress.com)

“All violent crimes should be vigorously prosecuted – but this novel legal approach violates several core principles and holds a number of dangers.

1) It violates the ‘equal protection of the laws’ by protecting some victims more than others. This is a principle which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and is even carved above the entrance to the Supreme Court (‘Equal Justice Under Law’). Do we somehow care less about a victim who is violently assaulted because of a robbery or personal dispute than we do about a victim who is assaulted because they belong in a federally protected category?

2) It punishes thoughts and not just actions. Advocates of the bill deny this because it only authorizes prosecution of someone who ‘willfully causes bodily injury’ or ‘attempts to cause bodily injury.’ But such acts are already crimes under state law. What converts the acts targeted by this bill into a federal offense are the thoughts or opinions of the perpetrator alone. Since every violent crime manifests some sort of ‘hate,’ it makes more sense to think of this as a ‘thought crimes’ law.

3) It constitutes a major federal power grab from states and localities. A version of this bill in an earlier Congress was dubbed the ‘Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act.’ It might better be known as the ‘Local Law Enforcement Usurpation Act.’ In fact, it would even allow prosecution of an individual who had already been prosecuted and acquitted for the same act at the state level-which violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.” (Read more from conservativeunderground.com)