The Magna Carta, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence<\/a> and other\u00a0 founding Western documents were based on conspiracy theories. Greek democracy and free market capitalism<\/a> were also based on conspiracy theories.<\/p>\n But those were the bad old days \u2026Things have now changed.<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=5H7mOU28i7M<\/p>\n That all changed in the 1960s.<\/p>\n Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote<\/a> a dispatch which coined the term \u201cconspiracy theories\u201d \u2026 and recommended methods for discrediting such theories.\u00a0 The dispatch was marked \u201cpsych\u201d \u2013\u00a0 short for \u201cpsychological operations\u201d or disinformation \u2013\u00a0 and \u201cCS\u201d for the CIA\u2019s \u201cClandestine Services\u201d unit.<\/p>\n The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.<\/p>\n The dispatch states:<\/p>\n 2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u2026\u00a0 propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.<\/p>\n b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. <\/strong>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<\/strong>, (II) politically interested<\/strong>, (III) financially interested<\/strong>, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories<\/strong>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n 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:<\/p>\n a. No significant new evidence has emerged<\/strong> which the Commission did not consider.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses<\/strong> (which are less reliable and more divergent\u2013and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) \u2026<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal<\/strong> in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it<\/strong>; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n f. As to charges that the Commission\u2019s 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<\/strong> already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.<\/p>\n g. Such vague accusations as that \u201cmore than ten people have died mysteriously\u201d can always be explained in some natural way<\/strong> \u2026.<\/p>\n 5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission\u2019s 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<\/strong> to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here are screenshots of part of the memo:<\/p>\n Summarizing the tactics which the CIA dispatch recommended:<\/p>\n In other words, the CIA\u2019s clandestine services unit created the arguments for attacking conspiracy theories as unreliable in the 1960s as part of its psychological warfare operations.<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=QDKUC-nshv0<\/p>\n Forget Western history and CIA dispatches \u2026 aren\u2019t conspiracy theorists nutty?<\/p>\n In fact, conspiracies are so common that judges are trained to look at conspiracy allegations as just another legal claim<\/a> to be disproven or proven based on the specific evidence<\/em>:<\/p>\n Federal<\/a> and all 50 state\u2019s<\/a> codes<\/strong> include specific statutes addressing conspiracy, and providing the punishment for people who commit conspiracies.<\/p>\n But let\u2019s examine what the people trained to weigh evidence and reach conclusions think about \u201cconspiracies\u201d. Let\u2019s look at what American judges<\/strong> think.<\/p>\n Searching Westlaw<\/a>, 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 \u201cConspiracy\u201d. This is such a common term in lawsuits that it overwhelmed Westlaw. Specifically, I got the following message:<\/p>\n \u201cYour query has been intercepted because it may retrieve a large number of documents.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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.<\/p>\n So I searched again, using the phrase \u201cGuilty of Conspiracy\u201d. 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 \u2014 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 \u201cGuilty of Conspiracy\u201d (maybe there\u2019s a way to change my settings to get more than 10,000 results, but I haven\u2019t found it yet).<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Moreover, \u201cGuilty of Conspiracy\u201d 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<\/a> results<\/a> (as of yesterday) under the term \u201cGuilty of Conspiracy\u201d, 669,000 <\/a>results<\/a> for the search term \u201cConvictions for Conspiracy\u201d, and 743,000 <\/a>results<\/a> for \u201cConvicted for Conspiracy\u201d.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cPrice Fixing\u201d (1,180,000 r<\/a>esults<\/a>).<\/p>\n Given the above, I would extrapolate that there have been hundreds of thousands of convictions for criminal or civil conspiracy in the United States.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s Ponzi scheme was a conspiracy theory.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d 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<\/strong>.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Proving a claim of conspiracy is no different from proving any other legal claim, and the mere label \u201cconspiracy\u201d is taken no less seriously by judges.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s not only Madoff<\/a>. The heads of Enron<\/a> were found guilty of conspiracy, as was the head of Adelphia<\/a>. Numerous lower-level government officials have been found guilty of conspiracy. See this<\/a>, this<\/a>, this<\/a>, this<\/a> and this<\/a>.<\/p>\n Time Magazine\u2019s financial columnist Justin Fox writes<\/a>:<\/p>\n Some financial market conspiracies are real \u2026<\/p>\n Most good investigative reporters are conspiracy theorists, by the way.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And what about the NSA and the tech companies that have cooperated with them?<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=o_B1E_ainGQ<\/p>\n While people might admit that corporate executives and low-level government officials might have engaged in conspiracies \u2013 they may be strongly opposed to considering that the wealthiest or most powerful might possibly have done so.<\/p>\n But powerful insiders have long admitted to conspiracies. For example, Obama\u2019s Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n 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 \u201cmind control.\u201d Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of A common defense to people trying sidetrack investigations into potential conspiracies is to say that \u201csomeone would have spilled the beans\u201d if there were really a conspiracy.<\/p>\n But famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg explains<\/a>:<\/p>\n It is a commonplace that \u201cyou can\u2019t keep secrets in Washington\u201d or \u201cin a democracy, no matter how sensitive the secret, you\u2019re likely to read it the next day in the New York Times.\u201d 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\u2019t 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.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n History proves Ellsberg right. For example:<\/p>\n There was \u201ca 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\u2019s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Moreover, \u201cthe tycoons told General Butler the American people would accept the new government because they controlled all the newspapers.\u201d<\/a> 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?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Moreover, high-level government officials and insiders have admitted<\/em> to dramatic conspiracies after the fact, including:<\/p>\n The admissions did not occur until many decades<\/em> after the events.<\/p>\n These examples show that it is possible to keep conspiracies secret for a long time, without anyone \u201cspilling the beans\u201d.<\/p>\n In addition, to anyone who knows how covert military operations work, it is obvious that segmentation on a \u201cneed-to-know basis\u201d, along with deference to command hierarchy, means that a couple of top dogs can call the shots and most people helping won\u2019t even know<\/em> the big picture at the time they are participating.<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=dBBaDchDnOI<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Finally, people who carry out covert operations may do so for ideological reasons \u2014 believing that the \u201cends justify the means\u201d. Never underestimate the conviction of an ideologue.<\/p>\n The bottom line is that some conspiracy claims are nutty and some are true. Each has to be judged on its own facts.<\/p>\n Humans have a tendency to try to explain random events through seeing patterns \u2026 that\u2019s how our brains our wired. Therefore, we have to test our theories of connection and causality against the cold, hard facts.<\/p>\n On the other hand, the old saying<\/a> by Lord Acton is true:<\/p>\n I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely<\/strong>. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Those who operate without checks and balances \u2013 and without the disinfectant sunlight of public scrutiny and accountability \u2013 tend to act in their own best interests \u2026 and the little guy gets hurt.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Postscript: The ridicule of all<\/strong> conspiracy theories is really just an attempt to diffuse criticism of the powerful<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n The wealthy are not worse than other people \u2026 but they are not necessarily better<\/a> either. Powerful leaders may not be bad people \u2026 or they could be sociopaths<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\nThe CIA Coined the Term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967<\/h3>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n![\"CIA](\"http:\/\/www.washingtonsblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/CIA-conspiracy.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"CIA](\"http:\/\/www.washingtonsblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/CIA-conspiracy2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
But Aren\u2019t Conspiracy Theories \u2013 In Fact \u2013 Nuts?<\/h3>\n
But Our Leaders<\/em> Wouldn\u2019t Do That<\/h3>\n
\nterrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials \u2026.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nBut Someone Would Have Spilled the Beans<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Conclusion<\/h3>\n