CIA memo leads entire culture to mock ‘conspiracy theories’ in defense of any official story

A lone protester in Dallas for the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination in 2013. (LA Times photo)

November 21, 2016

Attempt to deflect criticism of the Warren Commission Report has become the ultimate weapon against dissent

“Now it’s conspiracy – they’ve made that something that should not even be entertained for a minute, that powerful people might get together and have a plan. Doesn’t happen, you’re a kook, you’re a conspiracy buff!” – George Carlin

By Craig McKee

It has been called the “conspiracy theory” conspiracy.
But it’s not just a theory, it’s a fact. And like more than a few conspiracies it involves the Central Intelligence Agency – specifically a campaign in the 1960s to discredit those challenging the findings of the Warren Commission in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The agency achieved this by linking challenges to the official story with “conspiracy theories.”
It is known as CIA dispatch #1035-960. It was distributed in 1967 but not released to the public until 1976 following a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times. On the dispatch were marked “PSYCH” (for psychological warfare) and “destroy when no longer needed,” and the subject line was, “Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report.”
Not only was the CIA worried that too many people did not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone (a poll was mentioned indicating that 46 percent of Americans had doubts about this), but they were also reacting with alarm to suspicions that the agency itself – or even then Vice-President Lyndon Johnson – might have been involved.
Thanks to the early work of researchers like Mark Lane, author of Rush to Judgment, the holes and impossibilities in the official version of the JFK coup were being exposed. People had reason to be suspicious of the “magic bullet” theory, the claim that no shots came from the grassy knoll, the assertion that Oswald both planned and carried out the shooting by himself, and the awfully convenient murder of Oswald by mob-connected Jack Ruby.
The idea was that the dispatch would encourage the CIA’s “elite contacts” and “propaganda assets” to counter the criticism by discrediting the messengers: impugning their motives, dismissing their research, and even suggesting they might be Communists. The hope was to convince the public that the Warren Commission did the most thorough job possible, that critics’ charges lacked foundation, and that “speculative discussion” only plays into the hands of the opposition. It called for its assets in the media to produce news features and book reviews to counter the Warren Commission critics. The CIA would even provide background information that could be used towards this end.
The dispatch even used the word “ploy” to describe the plan. The ploy would accuse critics of being politically motivated, financially motivated, wedded to a theory before the evidence was in, hasty and inaccurate in their research, and infatuated with their own theories. Today, those same charges are commonly made against those who question official stories of many events.
As it happens, the term conspiracy theory had been around for decades before that, but it became more common after the dispatch – a lot more. As James Tracy points out in an article in Global Research, the New York Times database contains 30 mentions of “conspiracy theory” between 1870 and 1960. The term shows up 46 times in the 1960s alone. But that was just the beginning of the explosion in the use of the term. Between 2000 and 2009, for example, it was found 728 times in the Times.
Prior to the dispatch, the term was relatively neutral. It just meant a theory about a conspiracy. But after it was distributed, the term began to take on a different connotation. Today, the term is usually associated with ridicule. The suggestions in the dispatch are now used unthinkingly by journalists and members of the public to ridicule “conspiracy theorists.” Now, we don’t have to be told to do this, it has become ingrained in how we see the world.
In his book Conspiracy Theory in America, Lance DeHaven-Smith calls the Kennedy assassination the “Rosetta Stone” for understanding the origins of the conspiracy theory meme. He writes:

The weaponization of “conspiracy theory” all started with JFK.

“The conspiracy theory label took form and gained meaning over a period of several years (or longer) in the context of efforts by the CIA, one of the world’s leading experts in psychological warfare, to deflect accusations that officials at the highest levels of the American government were complicit in Kennedy’s murder. … The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term “conspiracy theory” and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.” (page 25)
Simply put, “conspiracy theory” is about forbidden thought and forbidden speech. It means stop thinking, stop questioning or risk being labeled a tin-foil-hat-wearing kook who probably thinks Elvis is still alive and extra-terrestrials secretly run the government. And most of the time it works. All someone has to do is say you are pushing a conspiracy theory and actual arguments become unnecessary. This stops discussion and even rational thought. It brings out extreme condescension in those who otherwise might be pleasant and reasonably intelligent. No actual evidence needs to be offered because a conspiracy theory is, by its very nature, assumed to be a lunatic idea that is not supported by facts.
DeHaven-Smith writes that those who mock conspiracy theories out of hand “lump together a hodgepodge of speculations about government intrigue, declare them all ‘conspiracy theories,’ and then, on the basis of the most improbable claims among them, argue that any and all unsubstantiated suspicions of elite political crimes are far-fetched fantasies destructive of public trust.”– (page 3)
The most brilliant thing about this propaganda weapon is that the uncritical population it targets propagates it freely without even realizing its purpose or understanding its devastating effects. They don’t see that they are helping those with power to hide their crimes. This saves the elites from having to face some pretty serious questions about what they’re doing to our world. It has the power to disguise the most outrageous acts of deception and destruction – and those who commit them.

Media proves to be an ‘asset’

The mass media has turned this government-promoted meme into something truly powerful through the incessant production of articles and TV reports that dismiss any doubts about things like 9/11, JFK, Sandy Hook, or the Moon landings. Article after article examines the conspiracy theory “phenomenon” and how it should be understood in terms of the psychological makeup of those who fall under its spell. We also hear about how amazing it is that these theories don’t seem to fade away (implying they persist despite having been proven wrong).
When a conspiracy theory is referred to in a mainstream article it will often be accompanied by adjectives like “bizarre.” The Week from the UK makes this work effectively by choosing the most implausible theory they could to lead off an article entitled, “’Elvis is alive’ and ten more top conspiracy theories” with the subheading, “From faked moon landings to reptiles ruling over us, we present the most bizarre theories out there.”
The piece addresses 9/11, the JFK assassination, the CIA’s MKUltra mind control program, Area 51, and a claim I didn’t even know existed that singer Beyoncé has been replaced by her own clone. So the position that the Moon landings were faked and 9/11 was an inside job get lumped in with reptiles, Elvis, and a double dose of Beyoncé.
The article routinely poses questions like, Why do people still believe these theories (as if we should all figure out they’re wrong eventually…)? What is it in our brain that makes conspiracies so attractive (apparently we crave explanations for otherwise inexplicable events, often violent ones)?
In fact, one can’t help feeling like these articles follow some kind of script … Wait, no, I didn’t say that.
The Raw Story web site, published a piece on September 11, 2016 with the headline “Here’s our handy guide to 9/11 conspiracy theories — and how we know they’re b*llshit”. The article explains to us why we should dismiss the “theories” they have chosen to highlight. Like, “9/11 never happened.” (I had never heard this one, but apparently it’s b*llshit.)
The writer explains: “These theories encompass the full range of delusional hooey, including the idea that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by a controlled demolition, which an astonishing number of people believe in spite of the piles of evidence to the contrary.”
As usual, they don’t share any of that evidence with us. And, of course, the psychological angle isn’t left out of the article:
“When we look at the real psychological motivations behind conspiracy mongering, it becomes clear that the people who believe this kind of rot take comfort in the fact that it helps them make a kind of sense out of a random and confusing world. To believe that everything happens because of a huge, all-encompassing plot projects a coherent narrative on to an out-of-control world and gives the lunk-headed believer a sense of specialness and purpose.”
Slate offered its own brand of pop psychology with this piece: “Conspiracy Theorists Aren’t Really Skeptics: The fascinating psychology of people who know the real truth about JFK, UFOs, and 9/11.”
From the article: “The more you see the world this way—full of malice and planning instead of circumstance and coincidence—the more likely you are to accept conspiracy theories of all kinds. Once you buy into the first theory, with its premises of coordination, efficacy, and secrecy, the next seems that much more plausible.”
Harvard law professor and former Obama administration official Cass Sunstein, author of Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas, has actually called for the infiltration and disruption of groups that in some way further “conspiracy theories.” In a Bloomberg article entitled, “Pssst! Everything’s a Conspiracy,” Sunstein asks rhetorically why people accept these obviously crazy theories:
“The first explanation points to people’s predispositions. Some of us count as “conspiracists” in the sense that we have a strong inclination to accept such theories. Not surprisingly, conspiracists tend to have a sense of personal powerlessness; they are also more likely to conspire themselves.”
It’s also about how people react to terrible events, he explains. “Such events produce outrage, suspicion and fear. Sometimes the perpetrator is self-evident, as in the case of many terrorist attacks, but if there is no clear perpetrator – as with a missing plane, a child’s disability or the outbreak of a disease – people might go hunting for the malicious agent behind it all.”
With Sunstein leading the charge, a new element has been introduced into the discussion of conspiracy theories. They are not only to be mocked and dismissed with a chuckle anymore; now they are to be feared and, if at all possible, stopped.
For example, an article by Kurt Eichenwald appeared in Newsweek in May 2014 under the title, “The Plots to Destroy America: Conspiracy theories are a clear and present danger.” As befitting the media outlet, the tone is much more serious than in articles mentioned above. Eichenwald quotes Brendan Nyhan, a “researcher of conspiracy theories” and an assistant professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College:
“The reason we should worry about conspiracy theories and misinformation is that they distort the debate that is crucial to democracy. They divert attention from the real issue and issues of concern that public officials should be debating.”
Nyhan offers this familiar explanation for how the inner minds of conspiracy theorists work: “Researchers agree; conspiracy theories are espoused by people at every level of society seeking ways of calming the chaos of life, sometimes by simply reinforcing convictions. “The world around us can feel more disordered and chaotic for various reasons,’’ he explains. “Conspiracy theories provide a way to restore feelings of control and order.’’
For example, it features a section heading, “Conspiracy as contagion.” In this section, the author explores the “psychological research” that tells us that those who believe in one conspiracy theory are highly likely to believe in others.
“This ability to hold two contradictory thoughts goes to the nature of conspiracy theories and their believers. Psychological research has shown that the only trait that consistently indicates the probability someone will believe in a conspiracy theory is if that person believes in other conspiracy theories.”
As deHaven-Smith explains, this demonizing of those who draw connections between different conspiracies has a chilling effect.
“This aversion is learned. Americans know that voicing suspicions about political elites will make them objects of hostility and derision.”
The theme that conspiracy theorists are dangerous is also echoed by Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay, the author of Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground. In Orwellian fashion, Kay actually believes that the harmful effects of “conspiracism” need to be taught to children in schools. In an interview this writer did with Kay in November 2011, he said:
“Every conspiracy theory is different, but they tend to follow the same basic pattern in the way that racists tend to follow the same basic pattern and other forms of toxic “isms” follow the same pattern.
“I think you should teach kids, especially in the context of the Internet where they receive all kinds of propaganda, you should teach them how to recognize the basic ingredients of a conspiracy theory. Some people say there’s this small group of people, and they control the world, and they’re creating terrorist attacks and wars and depressions, and it’s all led by a guy in a smoke-filled room, the Bilderbergers or whatnot – I think people should be sceptical of that.”

The movies and conspiracy theories

While the news media have been very effective at pushing the idea that “conspiracism” should be attacked, movies and television have played an important part as well. They do a lot to popularize the existence of conspiracies while at the same time marginalizing and ridiculing those who believe they exist. Why the contradiction? Because making a movie about a fictional conspiracy does not help us to understand how real conspiracies work or help us to recognize them in real life. Instead, conspiracies are reduced to mere entertainment – in other words, fantasy.
For example, the 1997 thriller aptly called Conspiracy Theory with Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts, is about a wacko conspiracy-obsessed taxi driver named Jerry Fletcher who embodies the worst stereotypes of someone who thinks everything is a secret plot. The twist is that he’s actually a victim of MKUltra mind control, and his instability is the result of what was done to him. But before we find that out, we are treated to a lampooning of all kinds of “conspiracies.”
In the opening of the movie, Jerry rattles off his checklist to any passengers in his cab who will listen – not that they have a choice. He talks about George Bush and his New World Order speech and theorizes that it was intended to get “conspiratologists” all excited and therefore destroying their own credibility. He tells us that George Sr. is a 33rd degree Mason in addition to being the former CIA director.
Jerry explains passionately that fluoride is being added to the water supply to take away people’s ability to think freely and creatively and make them slaves to the state. He thinks the Vietnam War was started because Howard Hughes lost a bet to Aristotle Onassis. And he thinks that right-wing militias aren’t concerned about the day UN troops come to take over America, they ARE the UN troops, and “when the time comes they’ll just take over, and we’ll all be toast.”
You get the idea. But here’s the line that really lays it out: When Roberts asks Jerry if he can prove any of his theories, he says, “No, a good conspiracy is an unprovable one. If you can prove it, they must have screwed up somewhere along the line.”
The thing is that in Jerry’s ravings there are elements of both absurdity and truth. But the truth gets lost because it is shown as being just part of Jerry’s paranoia. Oh, did I mention that he makes fun of people who write on the Internet and publish newsletters and “manifestos.” His newsletter, called Conspiracy Theory, has five subscribers – get it?
So the film reinforces every negative stereotype and then adds the twist that Jerry is the victim of a real conspiracy. Films like Enemy of the State, The Bourne Ultimatum, Shooter and countless others show us that conspiracy theories can be true, but this is done in the form of a “twist” on reality. In other words, if we see it in a movie or on a TV show then we can tell someone who thinks these conspiracies are real that, “You’ve been watching too many movies.” Another message is that even if a conspiracy theorist gets something right, they’re going to get a whole lot more wrong – because they ARE paranoid after all. So really, the idea is to laugh at what they say – even if the odd thing turns out to be true. Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day!
I’m not sure that the creators of CIA dispatch #1035-960 realized just how successful their “conspiracy theory” label would continue to be half a century later. But the effect has been huge, and those who do think the activities of the political elites need to be scrutinized and challenged on a regular basis continue to have their work cut out for them.


  1. Great work as usual Craig. The idea that a conspiracy theory is somehow comforting is nonsense, especially in the case of 9/11 where the implications are more frightening than the official story. And sure, I believe in coincidence. It’s when there are too many coincidences that my eyebrow gets raised.

    1. Thanks, Peter. I totally agree with you that the “psychology” that is applied to conspiracies is backwards. I used to be much more comfortable before I knew about what is going on in the world. Much more stressful now.

    2. There is some comfort but has a different origin. Conspiracy theory removes the stochastic element from reality. The reality that is purely deterministic is more comforting.

      1. Well, you can believe in highly improbable series of coincidences or you can use inference to the best explanation to figure out what appears to have happened. I don’t think any student of conspiracies has given any thought to determinism vs. indeterminism but focuses on causation in the form of how it was done, who was responsible and why, which are the crucial questions.

      2. Not quite. Whatever stochastic element Craig and others “remove” is an extremely improbable element. In the case of Building 7, the probability of the stochastic element is small enough to be equated with zero.

        1. What do you mean by “the stochastic element”? The explanation that is (by far) best supported for the destruction of WTC-7 is that it was a classic controlled demolition, where all the floors came down at the same time and there was a pile of debris equal to 12% of the height of the original 47 floors (or about 5.5). Nothing stochastic (or probabilistic) here. Do you disagree?
          WTC-1 and WTC-2. by comparison, are blowing apart in every direction from the top down. The floors are stationary, awaiting their turn to be “blown to kingdom come”. The buildings are being converted into millions of public yards of very fine dust. And there is no stack of debris in either of their footprints. Clearly a different mode of destruction, but what is stochastic here, either?

  2. The very memo the CIA sent to its “media assets,” CIA dispatch #1035-960, in which those assets were encouraged to apply the term “conspiracy theory,” was itself a conspiracy: sent in secret to more than two people for purposes contrary to the public interest. I wonder if any of the recipients considered the extreme irony/hypocrisy…

  3. Painfully accurate rundown of how they “gaslight” us. We were warned that the culture and media would be weaponized against us. By McLuhan, Neil Postman and Guy Debord, among others.

  4. And now here’s something I think you’ll really like. “And when it was day, some of the Jews banded together and bound themselves under oath, saying that they would neither eat or drink till they had killed Paul. Now there were more than forty who had formed this CONSPIRACY.” -Acts 23:12-13. Holy Moses, a conspiracy theory in the Bible. Amen.

  5. “With Sunstein leading the charge, a new element has been introduced into the discussion of conspiracy theories. They are not only to be mocked and dismissed with a chuckle anymore; now they are to be feared and, if at all possible, stopped.”
    And stopped how? Oh, that’s right, by ‘infiltrating and disrupting’ groups, presumably ‘covertly,’ eh.
    How clever of Sunstein: by suggesting that the government ‘should,’ he is effectively saying that it ‘hasn’t’ yet, at least in so far as he feigns to know.
    On the other hand, here is a government official musing aloud that the government ‘should’ indeed engage in ‘conspiracies’ against the public to help quell among the public the very notion that the government would ever dare to think of engaging in such things, let alone actually engage in them.

  6. I agree of course, but think that the power of the “conspiracy theorist” label is fading. It has been over-used and has lost its punch.
    There are new terms that are being weaponized today. If you think about what our fascist overlords want to achieve (one world government, with them at the helm) then you can see why the controlled media now reserves its harshest disdain for “racists” and “nationalists.”
    In striving for a one-world government, their biggest obstacle is the deep loyalty that people feel to their own country, their own religion, their own culture, values and way of life. To merge us all into one, these need to mocked and destroyed.
    Our controllers can’t come right out and state the nefarious reason that they want to do away with national borders, for no one would get behind them. But if they smear those who oppose uncontrolled immigration as “racists,” who have no logical reason (other than a narrow-minded hatred of foreigners) for opposing illegal immigration or floods of refugees, then the left lines up dutifully behind them.
    All the negative connotations once linked to conspiracy theorists are now being ascribed to “racists” and “nationalists.” Watch for it in the media, and suddenly you’ll see it everywhere.
    Notice that Israel, which borders Syria, hasn’t accepted a single Syrian refugee, yet the mainstream press does not consider this either racist or nationalistic. Those terms only apply to those who live in countries that have already been slated to be submerged into the global soup.

    1. Excellent commentary, Sheila. And they are now talking about having to moderate “fake news”, a though that were not what they have been shoveling all along about JFK, 9/11, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing and more. The nerve of this phonies is breathtaking. Their hypocrisy is almost beyond belief. The alternative media is rapidly displacing the mainstream–and they are in a virtual state of panic. Obama, Facebook, Google et al. are conspiring to suppress dissent.

      1. “…The alternative media is rapidly displacing the mainstream–and they are in a virtual state of panic” ~ JH Fetzer
        I am not buying this sentiment that is becoming more and more common among those who have seen the collapse and shaming of the main stream media in the aftermath of the elections, and feel that this is a victory against the establishment corporate media…
        There is really no question that during the brief period of Internet freedom, we have enjoyed unparalleled opportunities to communicate, share information, investigate, and hold a light at the naked emperor as much as the cumulative “we” could.
        The gray ladies and the old men of the news, and the structure they had built for 20th century reality is now bankrupt. Collapsing… Dying… They no longer have control over the discourse… They are no longer relevant. For those of us who stopped believing them long ago, seeing them exposed, failed, embarrassed or ridiculed certainly has a sweet taste… But let’s not celebrate so prematurely.
        But, big money and big power did not sit idly and watch their weapons being dismantled one blog entry at a time. They have invested a huge amount of time and resources into taking control of the internet as a source of news. In fact, they have been way ahead of the curve most of the time. Within a few decades, they have managed to change the dynamics of flow of information over the internet, and finally managed to weaponize this flow with precise and scientific algorithms in order to to disrupt, distract, deceive, manipulate and ultimately control the populations, resources, etc.
        The current meme of “fake news” being pumped by the professional fake news sources like NYTimes, CNN, Huffington Post, etc. is the next move of beginning to create awareness “fake news”, the predetermined solution of which will certainly be, you guessed it, more regulations on who is allowed to report news, and who is not, perhaps implementation of a “news” license, legislation passed to squash undesirable news at will, or simply push the undesirable news in to the internet’s black hole by using ever-more sophisticated algorithms to filter news without the user being aware of it. Perhaps even a Truth Ministry to decide what is fake and what is real…???
        Lastly… The mockingbird operation that used the news outlets as an outlet for propaganda, were doing it by proxy, because most who worked in these institutions were actually sincere journalists, useful idiots or just professional whores, and not direct agents of some alphabet agency. After all, they had to maintain a respectable and reliable facade… However, as Trump clearly demonstrated this week, he no longer needs the old and stuffy “media” to communicate (translates as propagandize) with his citizens… From here on, the “proxy” part has become unnecessary. Everyone is plugged in, everyone is on the grid… And majority of people getting news from their Facebook echo chamber feeds.. So, CIA operation Facebook, and CIA operation Google, can verify news from sites like CIA operation Snopes… What could go wrong?

        1. What precisely are you “not buying”? Gallup has a recent poll showing the public’s confidence in the mainstream media is at historic lows. Jon Rapapport has a brilliant piece about the massive embarrassment they have suffered for getting the election wrong, not to mention their grossly biased reporting demonizing Trump and laying off Hillary. They need a “fall guy” and are now promoting “fake news” as responsible. But all they have ever published about JFK, 9/11, the Wellstone crash, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, San Bernardino and more is fake news. I don’t know why you disagree with my observations. They appear to be both obvious and true.

        2. I was not disagreeing with the observations at all, but just the sentiment of victory….
          The word alternative is a relative term and can be broadly defined as “one of two or more available possibilities.” Since we seem to agree that the non-alternative (so to speak) media is dying or dead, the alternative media will cease to be the “alternative” . As the flow of un-approved information will become more and more difficult in the heavily regulated internet, the local governments are already preventing citizens to build their own networks by enforcing not-yet-existing laws.
          And, in that context, what I was trying to point out was that the current alternative media has already been hijacked by the same masters, same agencies, and the same interests.
          Think tanks, AI researchers, psychologists and social scientists and social engineers have already figured us out. And this time around, the truth bending, brainwashing deception machine is plugged in straight into the brains of the young and impressionable via internet and social media. Perhaps more importantly, they are analyzing and conditioning all these fresh brains with video games that cost tens of millions of dollars to develop, but somehow get given to kids to play for free… a vast majority of which involves killing and destroying everything in sight. So, we already know for what kind of future they are preparing the current generation.
          We are probably one single cyber-9/11 away for the axe to come down hard on how we experience the internet. If there is to be an alternative media after they accomplish this, I think we should be looking for it, and developing it right now.

          1. Well, they have been profoundly embarrassed and have suffered a set back in the public’s belief in the media’s integrity. They have had to fabricate an excuse for their historically inaccurate stories about the campaign, praising Hillary and damning Trump, where their predictions about the outcome were wildly wrong. But I certainly agree this is but one stage in a protracted war of truth vs. fiction, where they have control over the media except for the modes available to us.

    2. All my life I’ve been used to the term “redneck” meaning a racist, xenophobic type of person. I only recent learned that it originally meant farmer.

      1. Actually, no. It has an altogether different but what I deem to be an equally venerable origin, as being a farmer or even a peasant is in no way a slight to one’s dignitiy.
        Have you ever heard of ‘The Battle of Blair Mountain?’
        Have yourself a short read: Do You Know Where the Word “Redneck” Comes From? Mine Wars Museum Opens, Revives Lost Labor History.
        You can, if you have the time and feel the inclination, follow that up with Scott Noble’s documentary, Plutocracy: Divide et Impera (Divide and Rule)
        Apparently, that documentary is only ‘part one’ of a ‘two part’ effort. I haven’t yet viewed ‘part two,’ Plutocracy II: Solidarity Forever, but here is the link to that in case anyone might be interested:
        Yup, everything that has been filtered for us by the propaganda organs of the ruling elites is an inversion of reality.

    3. Most Syrians know that Israel is behind much of the attacks on Syria. Why woukd anh Syrians even want to take refuge in Israel. By the way, Israel has accepted refugees – the terrorists that they sent into Syria in the first place.

  7. Remember George and Bush and his “Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories” speech? In other words, you will think what we tell you to think!

  8. Enjoyed the article, Craig, but disagree about the movie “Conspiracy Theory,” which I have thoroughly enjoyed numerous times. We’ve had this discussion before. For whatever reason, the non-“conspiracy theorists” to whom I have recommended this movie enjoyed it very much and started appreciating my perspective re JFK, 9/11, etc. after viewing the movie.
    To me, Jerry is a victim of governmental mind control, with ongoing side-effects, so anything he says must be taken with a grain of salt. Yet, he gets the conspiratorial bad guys at the end, and proves there was a conspiracy–not of the grand scale that actually exists, but that exists within governement nonetheless. Thus those in the movie who wrote Jerry off as a complete nut job are proven to be wrong. Moral of the story: Conspiracy theorists may be right after all. Isn’t that how Geraldo put it? at the 1:30 mark.

  9. This is an excellent write up on “conspiracy theories”, one of the best I’ve seen.
    In my studies on other subjects, I find the same thing has been going on for a long time. From how the Pyramids were built to where religion came from is chocked full of ideas propagated by experts with all sorts of academic credentials and called “scholars” or “doctors” to give them credibility. Most repeat what some charismatic person has already said in the past, but very few dissect the subject to find out what really happened.
    What is being said about conspiracy theories, is all of us can be steered into a direction and don’t know it.
    The people in power will always be in power and do the things they are doing until someone stronger removes them. That won’t happen in the immediate future.
    So, all we can do is try to find out what happened and the smaller the group the better chance of finding out the truth. Once you find the truth… who’s going to listen?
    Like Jesse Ventura said, “Just a handful of Navy Seals can bring this whole country to a standstill if they so chose to do it”. They all are expert snipers and can do things that would keep people at home.
    All you need to do is use “key” words like “Jew”, religious, Arab, Mexican, or “refugee” to make most people biased and adopt some attitude they normally wouldn’t.
    Who did it?
    One of my favourite fictitious characters said…..
    “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” -Sherlock Holmes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *