On Infiltrating Wrong Thinkers – Harvard Paper:

Them Truthers need infiltratin’. See, I TOLD folks if they didn’t speak out when they came for the animal activists (violators of the Animal Enterprise “Terrorism” Act), they’d come for their own brand of trouble-maker next.

The paper referenced below urges the infilitration of Truthers and any other conspiracy theorists, cause everybody knows there’s no such thing as a conspiracy. It’s a mythical creature, like a dragon. Like one of those great and terrible dragons that destroys whole kingdoms, devouring all that is innocent and good in them, especially virgins. Anybody who accepts conspiracy theories and, thereby, questions their own government, not just those who actively sound the alarm, not just those who sign petitions (thereby making themselves inelligible to work in the White House), but even those who only tell pollsters they have suspicions, need to be brought under the watchful eye of our protective federal law enforcement agencies. ”[T]he paper by Sunstein and Vermeule specifically mentioned as the targets of its advocated ’infiltration,' the 16% of Americans who responded to a Scripps-Howard Poll in 2006 that it was either very likely or somewhat likely that ’the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.’ Funny this was from Harvard; I’d have thought Yale. Maybe their rivalry is a fiction like that between Democrats and Republicans. And, of course, it’s “Twin Towers plus One.”

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract...

Abstract:
Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.

I am not sure what you mean by not being able to load the banner. The banners linked to on this page are all active, and there is code included:
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/action/

The link you posted is to a RSS feed validator–but you are trying to load a single page, not a feed. I think that is the problem.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greenisthenewred.com%2Fblog%2Faction%2F

I sent your take action page to everyone on my e-mail list. Now no one is taking me seroiusly because these instructions do not work. Please update & correct these errors. Also, providing a clear contact area would be helpful, thanks!

are you going to do a piece on the green-red scare job done on Van Jones ?

I know he is pretty lighton, but he is a big scalp.

go for it

cheers

-N

I hate to say this but it’s just going to get worse. Pretty soon if anyone just speaks negatively about an animal enterprise, it could theoretically hurt their profits so therefore they could be charged under the AETA.

Dear Ms. Wilson,

I have received your e-mail and similar ones from others, and want to respond to clarify a few points, although I know that you and others may ignore or dismiss my views.

I first want to underscore our mission as a company. At Novartis, we are dedicated to research and development that seeks new medicines to alleviate patient suffering, which I know well from my personal experience and from years as a physician treating patients. In the context of our work, we have committed to a global approach to animal welfare that follows the highest quality and most stringent global standards. Within our company, we have put in place what we call a 3-R program, which aims at replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in experiments. Unfortunately, today, also due to regulatory requirements worldwide, there is no equivalent substitute for some animal testing. At Novartis, 60 experts control the adherence to our very high standards, and we are determined to also apply clear quality standards to our suppliers, much as we do in the field of clinical research or manufacturing.

You may have been misinformed and perhaps did not know that Novartis has not worked with Huntington Life Sciences for some time. Moreover, we are also engaged in an ongoing open dialogue with animal welfare organizations who are interested in a constructive exchange.

Needless to say, we strongly condemn the use of violence and terrorist tactics – for whatever rationale – as a substitute for meaningful, productive dialogue. As the author of the e-mail received, you should be aware that willingly or not you are associating yourself with criminal activity, such as extortion and blackmail.

Anybody who by his or her actions ultimately tries to stop medical progress and access to better, potentially life-saving medicines for millions of patients and for animals, who benefit from our animal health products, should be ashamed.

Daniel Vasella