In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy
Theorists" ... to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the "Official"
Narrative
Conspiracy Theorists USED TO Be Accepted as Normal
Democracy and free market capitalism were founded on conspiracy theories.
The Magna
Carta, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and
other founding Western documents were based on conspiracy theories. Greek democracy and free
market capitalism were also based on conspiracy theories.
But those were the bad old days …Things have now changed.
The CIA Coined the Term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967
That all changed in the 1960s.
Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term
“conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such
theories.
The dispatch was marked “psych” – short for “psychological operations” or disinformation – and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.
The dispatch was marked “psych” – short for “psychological operations” or disinformation – and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.
The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of
Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.
The dispatch states:
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S.
government, including our organization.
***
The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering
and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit
the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is
supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the
[conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where
discussion is active addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite
contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official
investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as
humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation,
and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the
opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be
deliberately generated by … propagandists. Urge them to use their
influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the
attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly
appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this
guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our
ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded
to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically
interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and
inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
***
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any
particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming,
the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which
the Commission did not consider.
***
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore
others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of
individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and
hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) …
***
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested
would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since
informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.
***
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual
pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they
also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question
with a flat decision one way or the other.
***
f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush
job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the
degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely
due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already
appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit
their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten
people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ….
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging
reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should
still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which
the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to
add to their account the idea that, checking back with the
report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
Here are screenshots of part of the memo:
Summarizing the tactics which the CIA dispatch recommended:
- Claim
that it would be impossible for so many people would keep quiet about such
a big conspiracy
- Have people friendly to the CIA attack
the claims, and point back to “official” reports
- Claim
that eyewitness testimony is unreliable
- Claim
that this is all old news, as “no significant new evidence has emerged”
- Ignore
conspiracy claims unless discussion about them is already too active
- Claim
that it’s irresponsible to speculate
- Accuse
theorists of being wedded to and infatuated with their theories
- Accuse
theorists of being politically motivated
- Accuse
theorists of having financial interests in promoting conspiracy theories
In other words, the CIA’s clandestine services unit created
the arguments for attacking conspiracy theories as unreliable in the 1960s as
part of its psychological warfare operations.
But Aren’t Conspiracy Theories – In Fact – Nuts?
Forget Western history and CIA dispatches … aren’t
conspiracy theorists nutty?
In fact, conspiracies are so common that judges are trained
to look at conspiracy allegations as just another legal claim to be
disproven or proven based on the specific evidence:
Federal and all 50 state’s codes include
specific statutes addressing conspiracy, and providing the punishment for
people who commit conspiracies.
But let’s examine what the people trained to weigh evidence
and reach conclusions think about “conspiracies”. Let’s look at what
American judges think.
Searching Westlaw, one of the 2 primary legal research
networks which attorneys and judges use to research the law, I searched for
court decisions including the word “Conspiracy”. This is such a common term in
lawsuits that it overwhelmed Westlaw.
Specifically, I got the following message:
“Your query has been intercepted because it may retrieve a
large number of documents.”
From experience, I know that this means that there were
potentially millions or many hundreds of thousands of cases which use the term.
There were so many cases, that Westlaw could not even start processing the
request.
So I searched again, using the phrase “Guilty of
Conspiracy”. I hoped that this would not only narrow my search sufficiently
that Westlaw could handle it, but would give me cases where the judge actually
found the defendant guilty of a conspiracy. This pulled up exactly 10,000 cases
— which is the maximum number of results which Westlaw can give at one time. In
other words, there were more than 10,000 cases using the phrase “Guilty of
Conspiracy” (maybe there’s a way to change my settings to get more than 10,000
results, but I haven’t found it yet).
Moreover, as any attorney can confirm, usually only appeal
court decisions are published in the Westlaw database. In other words, trial
court decisions are rarely published; the only decisions normally published are
those of the courts which hear appeals of the trial. Because only a very small
fraction of the cases which go to trial are appealed, this logically means that
the number of guilty verdicts in conspiracy cases at trial must be much, much
larger than 10,000.
Moreover, “Guilty of Conspiracy” is only one of many
possible search phrases to use to find cases where the defendant was found
guilty of a lawsuit for conspiracy.
Searching on Google, I got 3,170,000 results (as of yesterday) under the term “Guilty of Conspiracy”, 669,000 results for the search term “Convictions for Conspiracy”, and 743,000 results for “Convicted for Conspiracy”.
Searching on Google, I got 3,170,000 results (as of yesterday) under the term “Guilty of Conspiracy”, 669,000 results for the search term “Convictions for Conspiracy”, and 743,000 results for “Convicted for Conspiracy”.
Of course, many types of conspiracies are called other
things altogether. For example, a long-accepted legal doctrine makes it illegal
for two or more companies to conspire to fix prices, which is called “Price
Fixing” (1,180,000 results).
Given the above, I would extrapolate that there have been
hundreds of thousands of convictions for criminal or civil conspiracy in the
United States.
Finally, many crimes go unreported or unsolved, and the
perpetrators are never caught. Therefore, the actual number of conspiracies
committed in the U.S. must be even higher.
In other words, conspiracies are committed all the time in
the U.S., and many of the conspirators are caught and found guilty by American
courts. Remember, Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was a conspiracy theory.
Indeed, conspiracy is a very well-recognized crime in
American law, taught to every first-year law school student as part of their
basic curriculum. Telling a judge that someone has a “conspiracy theory”
would be like telling him that someone is claiming that he trespassed on their
property, or committed assault, or stole his car. It is a fundamental legal
concept.
Obviously, many conspiracy allegations are false (if you see
a judge at a dinner party, ask him to tell you some of the crazy conspiracy
allegations which were made in his court). Obviously, people will either win or
lose in court depending on whether or not they can prove their claim with the
available evidence. But not all allegations of trespass, assault, or theft are
true, either.
Proving a claim of conspiracy is no different from proving
any other legal claim, and the mere label “conspiracy” is taken no less
seriously by judges.
It’s not only Madoff. The heads of Enron were
found guilty of conspiracy, as was the head of Adelphia.
Numerous lower-level government officials have been found guilty of conspiracy.
See this, this, this, this and this.
Time Magazine’s financial columnist Justin Fox writes:
Some financial market conspiracies are real …
Most good investigative reporters are conspiracy theorists,
by the way.
And what about the NSA and the tech companies that have
cooperated with them?
But Our Leaders Wouldn’t Do That
While people might admit that corporate executives and
low-level government officials might have engaged in conspiracies – they may be
strongly opposed to considering that the wealthiest or most powerful might
possibly have done so.
But powerful insiders have long admitted to conspiracies.
For example, Obama’s Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Cass Sunstein, wrote:
Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition,
have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic
National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at
the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency
did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an
effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods,
a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and
to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials ….
But Someone Would Have Spilled the Beans
A common defense to people trying sidetrack investigations
into potential conspiracies is to say that “someone would have spilled the
beans” if there were really a conspiracy.
It is a commonplace that “you can’t keep secrets in
Washington” or “in a democracy, no matter how sensitive the secret, you’re
likely to read it the next day in the New York Times.” These truisms are flatly
false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading
journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of
course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn’t in a fully totalitarian
society. But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak
to the American public.
This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.
This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.
History proves Ellsberg right. For example:
- One hundred and thirty
thousand (130,000) people from the U.S., UK and Canada worked on
the Manhattan Project. But it was kept secret for years
- A BBC
documentary shows that:
There was “a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of
right-wing American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling
President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans.
The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in
America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s
Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of
Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression”
Moreover, “the
tycoons told General Butler the American people would accept the new government
because they controlled all the newspapers.” Have you ever heard of
this conspiracy before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the
conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with
media consolidation?
- 7 out of the 8
giant, money center banks went bankrupt in the 1980′s during the “Latin American Crisis”,
and the government’s response was to cover up their insolvency. That’s a cover
up lasting several decades
- Banks
have been involved in systematic criminal behavior, and
have manipulated every single market
- Governments
have been covering up nuclear
meltdowns for fifty years to protect the nuclear industry.
Governments have colluded to cover up the severity of numerous other
environmental accidents. For many years, Texas officials intentionally
under-reported the amount of radiation in drinking water to avoid having
to report violations
- The
government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this.) But the public didn’t learn about it
until many years later. Indeed, the the New York Times delayed the storyso that it would not affect
the outcome of the 2004 presidential election
- The
decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA
director George Tenet said that the White House wanted
to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications
for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who
sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war
before 9/11. And top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime
change one month after Bush took office. Dick Cheney apparently even made
Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11. And it has now been shown that a handful of people were
responsible for willfully ignoring the evidence that Iraq lacked weapons
of mass destruction. These facts have only been publicly disclosed
recently. Indeed, Tom Brokaw said, “All wars are based on
propaganda.” A concerted effort to produce propaganda is a conspiracy
Moreover, high-level government officials and insiders
have admitted to dramatic conspiracies after the fact,
including:
The admissions did not occur until many decades after
the events.
These examples show that it is possible to keep conspiracies
secret for a long time, without anyone “spilling the beans”.
In addition, to anyone who knows how covert military
operations work, it is obvious that segmentation on a “need-to-know basis”,
along with deference to command hierarchy, means that a couple of top dogs can
call the shots and most people helping won’t even know the big
picture at the time they are participating.
Moreover, those who think that co-conspirators will brag
about their deeds forget that people in the military or intelligence or who
have huge sums of money on the line can be very disciplined. They are not
likely to go to the bar and spill the beans like a down-on-their-luck,
second-rate alcoholic robber might do.
Finally, people who carry out covert operations may do so
for ideological reasons — believing that the “ends justify the means”. Never
underestimate the conviction of an ideologue.
Conclusion
The bottom line is that some conspiracy claims are nutty and
some are true. Each has to be judged on its own facts.
Humans have a tendency to try to explain random events
through seeing patterns … that’s how our brains our wired. Therefore, we have
to test our theories of connection and causality against the cold, hard facts.
On the other hand, the old saying by Lord Acton is true:
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt
absolutely.
Those who operate without checks and balances – and without
the disinfectant sunlight of public scrutiny and accountability – tend to act
in their own best interests … and the little guy gets hurt.
The early Greeks knew it, as did those who forced the king
to sign the Magna Carta, the Founding Fathers and the father of modern
economics. We should remember this important tradition of Western civilization.
Postscript: The ridicule of all conspiracy
theories is really just an attempt to diffuse criticism of the powerful.
The wealthy are not worse than other people … but they
are not necessarily
better either. Powerful leaders may not be bad people … or
they could be sociopaths.
We must judge each by his or her actions, and not by
preconceived stereotypes that they are all saints acting in our best interest
or all scheming criminals.
And see ...
- White House
- New York
Times
- Freedom
of Information Act
- Testimony
- Great
Depression
- Iraq
- Tom Brokaw
- ETC
- B+
- Time Magazine
- CRAP
- Enron
- national
security
- Google
- Reality
- George Washington's
blog
- 323,678
- 201
Trending Articles
WTF Chart Of The Day - Mapping Jihadi Arrests Across
Europe
According to , the EU saw a total of 1,002 arrests for
terrorism offenses in 2016. The number of people arrested…
