Friday, December 23, 2016

The CIA Coined the Term "Conspiracy Theory" in the 1960's!

The CIA coined the term "conspiracy theory" to discredit those who are uncovering the truth in the JFK assassination and others back in the 1960's, says David Icke. 

The Targeting of Conspiracy Research - The David Icke Videocast
Published on Dec 23, 2016
To have David's Videocast sent to you in full every week, Click here
All David's Books Now Available Here 
Social Media

Disband the CIA – Now!
By Servando Gonzalez
December 23, 2016
Currently, the same people who created “Remember the Maine,” “Remember Pearl Harbor,” “Remember he Gulf of Tonkin” and “Remember 9/11,” have pulled another rabbit out of their magician’s hat: “Remember the Russians.” Seemingly, they want to kill two birds with the same stone: stealing the election from Trump and begin the new Cold War they have been craving. Obviously, they are still under the wrong assumption that we are nothing but a bunch of idiots.
The ongoing disinformation campaign has been orchestrated by the CFR’s globalist conspirators using their beloved CIA[1] to launch a disinformation PsyOp accusing the Russians of messing in the recent election in an effort to undermine the nomination of President-Elect Donald Trump. Nevertheless, the CIA’s role in the charade has given us the best opportunity to get rid once and for all of this treacherous organization.
It is difficult, however, to understand the CIA’s current behavior without taking a look at the true reason why it was created and who created it.
After the disaster at the Bay of Pigs[2] President Kennedy in private cursed “CIA bastards” for luring him into the debacle and told a friend he wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.”[3] Then, he fired CFR agent and CIA Director Allen Dulles. Soon after, it was the CIA, in close collaboration with their agent Castro, the ones who splintered Kennedy into a thousand pieces.[4]
The CIA was the illegitimate child of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), a spy agency fully under the control of the CFR globalist conspirators.[5] A spate of books has been written about the OSS’s heroic actions during WWII. The truth, however, is quite different. The OSS’s three main successes were serving East Europe to Joe Stalin on a silver platter, creating the Rat Lines to allow Nazi war criminals escape from justice, and assassinating General George Patton.[6]
Of the many books about the CIA, written by both apologists and critics, only a few authors have found the true key to decipher the mystery behind this secretive organization. One of them is Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), and the other is Ralph W. McGehee, a retired CIA officer.
In his excellent study of the CIA, The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World, Prouty explains how a group of CIA officers managed, through the administration of selective information to the President and other government leaders, to virtually control the U.S. Government. According to Prouty, “The CIA is a great, monstrous machine with tremendous and terrible power.”
Prouty’s book was initially published in New York by Prentice Hall in 1973, but the book was practically censored and disappeared from the bookstores. Then, new editions were printed in 1992 and 1997. In the Preface of the second edition of his book, published in 1992, Prouty affirms:
I was the first author to point out that the CIA’s most important ‘Cover Story’ is that of an ‘Intelligence’ agency.” Of course the CIA does make use of ‘intelligence’ and ‘intelligence gathering,’ but that is largely a front for its primary interest, ‘Fun and Games.’ Its allies, and its method of operation, are the principal subjects of this book.
In the Preface to the 1997 edition of his book, Prouty expanded even more on the subject,
The CIA is the center of a vast, and amorphous mechanism that specializes in Covert Operations ... or as Allen Dulles always called it, “Peacetime Operations.” In this sense, the CIA is the willing tool of a higher level High Cabal, that may include representatives and highly skilled agents of the CIA and other instrumentality’s of the government, certain cells of the business and professional world and, almost always, foreign participation. It is this ultimate Secret Team, its allies, and its method of operation that are the principal subject of this book.
Contrary to other authors and perhaps conscious of the principle that in intelligence and espionage things are seldom what they seem, Prouty was not fooled by misleading appearances. At the very end of his book, he clearly states that, though the CIA is very powerful, “. . . in the majority of cases, the power behind it is big business, big banks, big law firms and big money. The Agency exists to be used by them.”
Moreover, in an article Prouty wrote for the February 1986 issue of Freedom magazine, he clarifies even more the issue.
The CIA is the best friend of the top executives of America’s biggest business, and it works for them at home and abroad. It is always successful in the highest echelons of government and finance. ... Translated into everyday terms, [William] Casey’s CIA, as was Allen Dulles’ CIA, is one of the true bastions of power as a servant of the American and transnational business and financial community.
The other author who cut to the chase was Ralph W. McGehee, a former CIA officer. In the Introduction to his book Deadly Deceits: My 25 Years in the CIA, McGehee states
... the CIA is the covert action arm of the Presidency. Most of its money, manpower, and energy go into covert operations that, as we have seen over the years, include backing dictators and overthrowing democratically-elected governments. The CIA is not an intelligence agency. In fact it is an anti-intelligence agency, producing only the information wanted by policymakers to support their plans and suppressing information that does not support those plans. As the covert action arm of the President, the CIA uses disinformation, much of it aimed at the U.S. public, to mold opinion. It employs the gamut of disinformation techniques from forging documents to planting and discovering “communist” weapons caches. But the major weapon in its arsenal of disinformation is the “intelligence” it feeds to policymakers.[7]
At the end of his book McGehee gets even closer to the source of the problem when he modifies his previous statement that the CIA is the covert arm of the President, and changes it to affirm that actually it is the covert action arm of the President’s policy advisers. And that simple modification makes a great difference, because in it resides the hidden truth of the matter. I am quoting below his statement in full:
The CIA is not now nor has it ever been a central intelligence agency. It is the covert action arm of the President’s foreign policy advisers. In that capacity it overthrows or supports foreign governments while reporting “intelligence” justifying those activities. It shapes its intelligence, even in such critical areas as Soviet nuclear weapon capability, to support presidential policy. Disinformation is a large part of its covert action responsibility, and the American people are the primary target audience of its lies.[8]
If you still don’t know it, most CIA Directors and foreign policy advisers of U.S. Presidents since WWII have been members of the treasonous Council on Foreign Relations.
So, it is obvious that both Prouty and McGehee were convinced that, far from being the ultimate culprit, the CIA is just a tool. But, whose tool? Unfortunately, neither Prouty nor McGehee name names. But it is obvious that both authors are talking about the people behind the curtains who control our lives, the ones Prouty calls “The Secret Team,” and others have called the Invisible Government of the United States of America.[9]
More recently, a few more authors are reaching the same conclusion. For example, Paul David Collins is convinced that,
The problematic intelligence organization seems to have been engaged in nefarious activity since its inception. What is the explanation for the Agency’s seemingly systemic corruption? Anti-government writers claim that CIA corruption stems from the fact that the Agency is an organ of a corrupt government. However, this contention is a gross oversimplification. While the Agency does have a government charter, it can only be considered a quasi-governmental organization. For the most part, the Agency is the enforcement arm of its “founding fathers.” While these “founding fathers” use national governments as their personal prostitutes, they inhabit a stratum that exists above governments. The “founding fathers” are the Power Elite.[9
Another author who pointed exactly to the right direction is Henry Makow. According to Makow,
Our main misconception about the CIA is that it serves U.S. interests. In fact, it has always been the instrument of a dynastic international banking and oil elite (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan) coordinated by the Royal Institute of International Affairs[10] in London and their U.S. branch, the Council on Foreign Relations.[11]
In an article entitled “Chinagate: The Third-Way Scandal,” author Richard Poe reaches a similar conclusion. According to Poe, “When the Cold War ended, the CIA took on a new job —helping U.S. corporations compete in the global marketplace.”[12]
Poe’s assertion, however, is not fully true. The CIA didn’t take a new job. Since its very creation — actually since its very conception in the minds of its true creators— the CIA’s real, secret job has never been protecting and advancing the interests of the American people but of the Invisible Government of the United States: Wall Street and international bankers, oil magnates, and CEOs of global corporations. The CIA’s job is not new, the only difference is that the Agency is now doing it more openly and that the corporations the CIA is helping in their fight to destroy their competitors are transnational, not American.
Since its very creation the CIA has never been an intelligence agency, but an elaborate hoax, a subterfuge and a cover to justify and disguise the existence of the conspirators’ secret military arm. It has also served as a sort of bullfighters’ red cape to distract the American people’s attention by focusing it on the puppet instead of the real source of the problem: the puppeteers who control the action behind the curtains.
On July 26, 1947, President Harry S. Truman signed into law the National Security Act establishing the National Security Council (NSC). It also created the Central Intelligence Agency as well as the Secretary of Defense, the Joints Chiefs of Staff and a separate Air Force branch of the military. This marked the official beginning of the Cold War, an artificial creation of the CFR conspirators.
The NSC was allegedly created to manage the bloated foreign policy, military and intelligence apparatus of the U.S. government. But the National Security Act, like most important U.S. Government documents, had not been written at the White House but at the Harold Pratt House in Manhattan, headquarters of the CFR. Given the fact that at the time some American presidents were not fully under the conspirators’ control, its true purpose was to create a shadow organization whose members, acting as blinders, controlled the presidents by controlling the information reaching them. It is not a coincidence that, since its creation, most National Security Council members, including the Presidents’ National Security Advisors, have been secret CFR agents.
The National Security Council included the President, the secretary of state, the new secretary of defense, the secretaries of the military departments, and the chairman of the new National Security Resources Board. According to the act, the responsibility of the NSC was:
To advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security so as to enable the military services and the other departments and agencies of the Government to cooperate more effectively in matters involving the national security.
The National Security Act gave the National Security Council just advisory, not executive powers, much less gave the newly created CIA authority to carry on covert operations abroad. But, just a few months later, on December 1947, NSC directive 4-A made the Director of Central Intelligence responsible for psychological warfare.
Then, less than a year after it was created, the NSC pushed the envelope even further and illegally assumed executive powers. On June 18, 1948, the National Security Council produced NSC 10-2, a directive that superseded NSC 4-A and was kept secret from the American government and people for many long years. NSC 10-2 authorized the CIA to conduct not only psychological but also all types of covert warfare operations.
The result is that, since the end of the Second World War, the CFR conspirators, through their secret agents in the NSC, have been putting blinders on American Presidents and giving them the mushroom treatment — keeping them in the dark, and feeding them manure. This guarantees that the President’s most important policy decisions are the ones already made at the Harold Pratt House in Manhatttan.
If one is to believe he U.S. Government's narrative about the 9/11 events (which I never bought), the CIA, the NSA and the rest of alphabet soup of intelligence agencies failed miserably to alert us about the attacks. Surprisingly, however, nobody at the CIA or the NSA was demoted, much less fired, as the result of such catastrophic failure to accomplish their mission for which We the People pay billions of dollars every year.
So, I think that, as soon as he is sworn into Office, the first thing President Donald Trump should do is to sign an Executive Order disbanding the National Security Council, the CIA and the NSA and passing their functions to the military — the place where such functions belong.
Or, even better, he should sell the CIA and the NSA tax free to Amazon and Apple so they can create their own CIA (Central Intelligence Amazon) and their own NSA (National Security Apple). This way they may save some dough by not having to redesign their logos and we, the American taxpayers, will save a lot of money by not paying for the work of these bunch of useless incompetents and traitors.[13]
Servando is the author of Psychological Warfare and the New World Order and I Dare Call It Treason, and the DVDs Treason in America and Partners in Treason, all of them available at NewsWithViews.
1. Out of unavoidable oversimplification, people always refer to actions taken by intelligence services as “the CIA knew,” “the KGB acted,” “the Mossad believed,” etc., forgetting that intelligence services are not homogeneous entities. Due to the application of the need-to-know and compartmentation principles, an inherent characteristic of all intelligence services, the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing, and vice versa. Therefore, when one says, “the CIA knew,” it actually means “some people at the CIA knew.” In the case of critical operations, as in the case of assassination attempts on a foreign leader, it is likely that most people at CIA, including very senior officers, were left in the dark about the operation. On the other hand, there is some evidence that, since the Sixties, the CIA has been not only teeming with liberals but it has had some crypto-leftists among its ranks. Contrary to what most people think, Castro has always had many secret admirers among CIA officers. Some CIA defectors, like Philip Agee, were notoriously pro-Castro. By the way, the story that the CIA tried to kill Castro on several occasions, but always failed due to incompetence, is just bovine manure. For Castro as a secret CIA agent see my book Psychological Warfare and the New World Order
2. The Bay of Pigs operation was actually a success for the CFR conspirators. Its goal was to destroy the anti-Castro opposition and consolidate him in power so that the Russians accepted him as member of the communist camp, and both goals were accomplished. See Servando Gonzalez, Psychological Warfare and the New World Order (Spooks Books: Oakland, 2010), pp. 193-200.
3. “CIA: Marker of Policy or Tool? Survey finds widely feared agency is tightly controlled,” The New York Times, April 25, 1966.
4. The assassination of President Kennedy was a CIA-Castro joint operation. More on this on a forthcoming article.
5. On the OSS see, Servando Gonzalez, The Secret Fidel Castro (Spooks Books: Oakland, 2001-2016), pp. 91-107.
6. On the role of the OSS in the assassination of Gen. Patton see Servando Gonzalez, Psychological Warfare and the New World Order, OpCit., pp. 103-107.
7. Ralph W. McGehee, Deadly Deceits: My 25 Years in the CIA (New York, Sheridan Square Publications, 1983), p. xi.
8. Ibid., p. 192.
9. Paul David Collins, “Unholy Matrimony: The Tie Between the Cult of Intelligence and the Cult of Oligarchy,” Conspiracy Archive, Sept. 9th, 2006.
10. The RIIA later changed its name to Chatham House.
11. Henry Makow, “Gloria Steinem: How the CIA Used Feminism to Destabilize Society,” (July 1, 2002).
12. Richard Poe, “Chinagate: The Third-Way Scandal,” in Christopher Ruddy and Carl Limbacher Jr., (eds.), Bitter Legacy: Reveals the Untold Story of the Clinton- Gore Years (West Palm Beach, Florida:, 2001), p. 83.
13. Due to limitations of space, the vision of the CIA I have painted is not totally accurate. Actually there are some true patriots working at the CIA. For a more in-depth analysis of the CIA, see my Psychological Warfare and the New World Order, pp. 108-149.
© 2016 Servando Gonzalez - All Rights Reserved
Servando Gonzalez, is a Cuban-born American writer, historian, semiologist and intelligence analyst. He has written books, essays and articles on Latin American history, intelligence, espionage, and semiotics. Servando is the author of Historia herética de la revolución fidelista, Observando, The Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol, The Nuclear Deception: Nikita Khrushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis and La madre de todas las conspiraciones: Una novela de ideas subversivas, all available at
He also hosted the documentaries Treason in America: The Council on Foreign Relations and Partners in Treason: The CFR-CIA-Castro Connection, produced by Xzault Media Group of San Leandro, California, both available at the author's site at
His book, Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The Secret War Against the American People is available at Or download a .pdf copy of the book you can read on your computer, iPad, Nook, Kindle or any other tablet. His book, OBAMANIA: The New Puppet and His Masters, is available at Servando's book (in Spanish) La CIA, Fidel Castro, el Bogotazo y el Nuevo Orden Mundial, is available at and other bookstores online.
His most recent book, I Dare Call It treason: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Betrayal of the America, just appeared and is available at and other bookstores online.
Servando's two most recent books in digital versions only are The Swastika and the Nazis: A Study of the Misuse of the Swastika by the Nazis and the first issue of the political satire series OBSERVANDO: American Inventors.
E-Mail: servandoglez05(at)yahoo(dot)com
The 2016 election and the secret CIA memo targeting ‘conspiracy theorists’

Jeff Morley
September 25, 2016
Viewed dispassionately, “conspiracy theories” are controversial political messages about secret power. They purport to tell us how the world really works, as opposed to official accounts of government and experts. At a time when the credibility of federal government and news organizations is low, conspiracy theories flourish at the expense of public authority.
Credible or not, conspiracy theories have shaped the course of the 2016 presidential campaign. Conservative strategists Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone claim that Hillary Clinton has organized a conspiracy to conceal her own dire medical condition. Liberals Ezra Klein and Cass Sunstein warn that conspiracy theories distort our political discourse and endanger the political process. Who’s right?
CIA memo on 'conspiracy theorists.'
Excerpt from April 1967 CIA memo on ‘conspiracy theorists.’
Talking About Theories
The idea that “conspiracy theorists” harm the legitimacy, and thus the effectiveness of liberal government, is not new. The concept was crystallized in The Paranoid Style in
Cass Sunstein
American Politics, an influential book by historian RIchard Hoftstadter, published in 1964. Hofstandter argued that irrational politics, exemplified by conspiracy theories about communists in government and flouride in the water supply, had influenced American political history much more than liberal historians admitted.
The idea that the government should take action to thwart the influence of “conspiracy theorists” originated three years later–at the Central Intelligence Agency. That may sound like a conspiracy theory to some. Alas, it is an indisputable fact.
In a top-secret 15-page memo, dated April 1, 1967, senior CIA officials laid out their strategy for discrediting and marginalizing critics of the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Key to the CIA strategy was labelling the Warren Commission’s critics as “conspiracy theorists.” The CIA’s language was soon adopted by journalists and government officials.
The arguments of the CIA memo sounded reasonable to many people at the time. Entitled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Report,” the memo argued that the JFK investigation was led by eminent men who had all the relevant facts and who could be trusted to discern the truth. The memo also argued that the critics of the official story (such as Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson and Ed Epstein) didn’t have facts and couldn’t be trusted.
To indict the “conspiracy theorists” the CIA recommended a series of arguments that are still heard today. Employees and assets were instructed to argue that criticism of the official story of JFK’s murder was:
1) unsupported by facts; 2) motivated by politics; 3) motivated by money; 4) reliant on inaccurate information, and/or 5) intellectually vain. In any case, continuing investigation, described as “further speculative discussion,” would only helps America’s enemies.
The CIA strategy proved effective in discouraging investigation of JFK’s assassination, at least in the Washington press corps. It remains a template for those responding to controversial political messages about secret exercise of power.
The Problem
The problem with the CIA’s strategy, at least in the case of JFK, was that it was based on a tissue of falsehoods.
Jerome Corsi
The eminent men of the Warren Commission did not possess all the facts. Only one of seven members knew about the CIA plots to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Warren Commission staffer Howard Willens admits he was “naive at best” about the CIA.
The Commission did not know that Dallas FBI agents had destroyed a note written by Oswald to the Bureau a week before JFK was killed. And so on.
Imputing political or financial motives to critics was clever because it delivered the dubious implication that defenders of the official story did not have political or financial motives, a rhetorical strategy still in use. Likewise with the association of government critics with foreign enemies.
What persists over the decades is the rhetorical structure of the arguments of government officials against conspiracy theories that question their veracity.
Oswald unknown.
(Excerpt from April 1967 memo on ‘conspiracy theorists’)
The CIA memo asserted that Oswald was “unknown quantity to any professional intelligence agency,” a lie which the author of the memo, CIA director Richard Helms, knew was a lie.
In fact, Oswald, had been closely monitored by the CIA’s Counterintelligence Staff, under the direction of Helms’ close friend, James Angleton, from December 1959 to November 1963.  In my forthcoming biography of Angleton, I will document how he obstructed justice and committed perjury in the case of the murdered president.
Conspiracy theories today
The April 1967 CIA document haunts the discussion about conspiracy theories in 2016 election. It is widely available on the Internet. Ezra Klein and Cass Sunstein find it irrelevant to their purposes. Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone have no hesitation to cite it while trashing liberal government in service of their reactionary goals.
The average voter is left with a series of astringent truths. The official version of great public events deserves the closest possible scrutiny. Conspiracy theories can be pernicious and dangerous. So can the government’s response to them.
CIA & JFK From a 5-Star Amazon review of Jefferson Morley’s new ebook, CIA and JFK: The Secret Assassination Files.
The crown jewel of Mr. Morley’s work details his discovery that a retired CIA officer named George Joannides was called back to Washington to stall a re-investigation of the assassination by the House of Representatives in the late 1970s.
Morley’s latest investigation, CIA and JFK: The Secret Assassination Files, available on Amazon, provides the fullest account of the role of CIA operations officers in the events leading to the death of JFK.

In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy Theorists" ... to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the "Official" Narrative
by George Washington
Feb 23, 2015
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 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”.
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.
But famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg explains:
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.
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 story so 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:
◦Supporting terrorists to promote geopolitical goals
◦Supporting false flag terror
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.
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.
Also See:
Will Technology in the Future Deceive the Gullible?
07 December 2016
Facts Separates Reality from Conspiracy Theory
21 April 2015

Want to Invest in the Stock Market?  
06 April 2015
A Conspiracy Theorist is Not a Nut Case!
12 December 2014
Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura
(Season 1)
31 May 2013
(Season 2)
16 December 2013
Gary Allen's book - “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”
04 December 2013
Conspiracy Theories OR Fact!
21 November 2009
What is a Conspiracy Theory?
28 February 2007
911 Conspiracy Theories
21 February 2007