Are Conspiracy Theorists Nuts?

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:

CIA conspiracyCIA conspiracy2

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
  • 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:

  • 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?

  • 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:

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:

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. 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.

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.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Ryan

    Then there is NO NEED for the CIA …….. ..

  • jon

    Words in law are not what you and I have thought. God created man. Government created a person, which is your all capital name. Are you a person? Are you sure?

    • isnamthere

      The existence of your supposed “god” is the biggest conspiracy theory of them all.

    • free_dom4all

      Congress in 1862 changed the meaning of the word person to mean a corporation The fourteenth amendment say’s “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Since the U.S government is a corporation and person now means a corporation looks like everyone born in the U.S is owned by it’s parent corporation The United States Incorporated, The meaning of subject to from online law dictionary “Being under domination as of a authority or government subject to the whims of the boss. Meaning jurisdiction The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law.The fourteenth amendment was never ratified by the number of states need and wasn’t even signed by President Andrew Johnson. We have had a de facto government every since. Feel Free?

      • No.

        Long before 1862, the courts had established that corporations could be considered “individuals” for the purposes of making contracts, suing, and being sued.

        The 13th Amendment gave freed slaves the vote in 1865. After the Civil War, many of the Southern States took their old slave codes and just changed them to apply to blacks only, or to the descendents of slaves. (That’s where the phrase “grandfather clause” comes from – because many states passed a requirement that you could not vote if your grandfather could not vote.) So the Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1869, defined citizenship to grant all rights of citizens to blacks.

        That did not work either, and the Fifteenth Amendment was passed to require states to at least allow blacks to vote. That wasn’t enough either, and it wasn’t until the Civil Rights Act of 1864 and passage of the 24th Amendment – plus a lot of public attention – that African-Americans were finally able to vote again in the American South. (And without the Civil Rights Act, we’re back to certain states trying to deny the vote to blacks by circuitous means.)

        Corporations came to be so that the life of a firm could be longer than the lives of the partners. And the US wasn’t the first to think of it. For corporations to work, they had to be able to sue and be sued, make contracts and keep them. To do that, they were granted legal “personhood” – and that had been going on throughout the 1800s.

        But it was the COURT that put the Fourteenth Amendment and corporate personhood together to insist that corporations had all the rights due citizens. At the same time, they weren’t enforcing it with regards to the rights of African-Americans. That was in 1886, in a court case involving Santa Clara Railroad.

        I would love to see that ruling stricken down, but I can’t imagine it ever will be.

  • Bev

    Election fraud, 9/11, Fukushima, Bankers’ Debt Money, Privatization and more…it is the same technique…a criminal conspiracy.


    The Silence of the Scams: Psychological Resistance to Facing Election Fraud
    Diane Perlman, Ph.D.,
    Licensed Clinical Psychologist

    The subterfuge was successfully accomplished with use of censorship, illusion, distortion, brainwashing, propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, mystification, intimidation, shaming, and domination. As Bush might say, it was a “catastrophic success.”

    These techniques combine to form something like a collective hypnotic induction, which creates an illusion of a consensus that cannot be challenged. Few have the insight, training, or tools, to see through the manipulation. Even fewer have the courage to take on the challenge. For many, responses to domination may include disbelief, learned helplessness, psychic numbing, fear, cowardice, conformity, denial, cognitive laziness, avoidance, and submission to authority. These items are inter-related and the list is not exhaustive.

    Before the psychological explanations, it is necessary to acknowledge a basic factor: the overwhelming ignorance of the facts. This can be exacerbated by a lack of desire to know the facts, and an avoidance of the awesome responsibility that comes with this knowledge. Of course if the facts were accurately reported in the mainstream media, the collective psychological climate would be conducive to a healthier public response.People accept fraud for reasons which may be conscious or unconscious. Some of the ways that they do this are described below.

    Confusing Outcome with Process

    Many don’t want to deal with the corruption because they believe that challenging fraud won’t change the outcome, so there’s no point. This might be a self-fulfilling prophecy. It represents a kind of immature, black-and-white thinking, as the outcome is a separate issue from the process. Even if it doesn’t affect the outcome, voter suppression is criminal.

    Paradoxically, refusal to examine the process prevents discovery, which might change the outcome. The Ohio vote challenge required two-hour debates in the House and Senate. Most Democrats who
    supported the challenge, emphatically stated that they didn’t expect it to change the outcome, as if they were intimidated into making that point first or they would be ridiculed and dismissed. Most Republicans ignored their actual words and made emotional, even hysterical accusations of them not accepting the outcome, being sore losers, and worse. Republicans ignored the issue of voter suppression and praised Kerry highly for not making a big deal out of this.


    Evolution, Adaptation and Survival

    All of these reactions are understandable, but all become part of the problem. In the short run, they may minimize pain, but in the long run they are counterproductive and serve to magnify and multiply problems that are not being faced. Such avoidance mechanisms are not adaptive, as they play into the game of the destructive forces, allowing them to dominate. The continuation of the processes of systematic domination requires the ignorance, passivity and complicity of the majority of decent people, including the millions who supported Kerry. These people are colluding with their own domination.

    The Courageous Minority

    The reactions listed above are completely natural. Carl Jung said that consciousness is a work against nature. To go against the collective tide of ignorance, conformity and cowardice is a work against nature taken on by the courageous few. This collective, archetypal drama described by Jung was popularized by Joseph Campbell in The Hero’s Journey. The Hero is the one who is willing to take on challenges that most people fear. According to Jung, the hero archetype represents the progressive force in society.

    The people I have witnessed working intensely to investigate and challenge voter fraud have a particular psychological profile. They are courageous and willing to face pain and fear. They call up their strength to challenge authority, as our lives, our freedom and democracy depend on it. They are unable to deny what is going on or remain silent. They are heroes in our mythical, archetypal Hero’s journey, willing to face the dragons that are guarding our “National Treasure.”

    They are acknowledged in a piece by William Rivers Pitt called “Heroes” on Pitt quotes Bob Dylan: “I think of a hero as someone who understands the degree of responsibility that comes with his freedom.”

    Only by facing the pain can we transcend it. Consciousness is the first step. Action is an antidote to depression. It would be a sign of health, freedom, and conscious evolution if more people could muster up the courage to face the painful truth of what is happening in our country and support the great work of those courageous souls–who are not nuts or conspiracy theorists, but evolved, conscious, healthy leaders taking personal risks and sacrifices to elevate our democracy, restore our
    integrity and ultimately to increase our security on the world stage …if we let them.

  • unheilig

    Just because there’s a conspiracy theory doesn’t mean there isn’t a conspiracy.

  • hvaiallverden

    I dont call it conspiracy, I call it To Equalize a narrative.

    Whats amazing is when you accumulate knowledge, things tend to be more simple of nature.
    The paterns becomes clearer, all thoe drowned in narratives invented by a wide range of consessusess, and indulgence in sematical oral based bar exerisess, witch seems impressive but sayes almoust nothing aka AGW, but in its true nature simple.
    As Greed.
    The feilds this is aplyed in is all encompasing isnt it, from sex to economy.
    But stil, its just simple greed.
    This is the same rule I aply to political issues in the news.

    My humle tech. is to kick from directions not known to the mass, and slamm it into their faces, as in the Israel/Palestinian conflict.
    The sledge hammer aproutch.
    Keep your self short and clear, dont indulge in issues to far out and basicly is invented to keep you in the idiot zone as National Geo/BBC and so on. and spectacular shottholes as they all have becomed.

    The rule of thumbs.
    Anything has an origin, a intiale cause, the one that kicked it into motion, and then to watch the players popp up as a cause evolves, cue bono, and then its easy, but they all are garded by the prestitutes in the western MSM.
    Its not a problem, to ripp whatever the hasbaratnjiks babbels about, but the problem we face to day is as before, censure.
    Otherwise, trust but verify, both sides, and anyone fluent in this, its vitale to know what your oponents narratives are, as know your enemy, as you know your self.
    And above all, I dont have to lie.
    And I am case oriented, and not politicaly oriented.


    • nomadfiles

      It’s not just greed. There is also a desire to cause harm. There is malice.

  • Is this a conspiracy, but with fact’s and video’s? That is word often used by government agents and bureaucrats.

    February 20, 2015 Obama’s “Fake War” against the Islamic State (ISIS)

    The Islamic State is Protected by the US and its Allies By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

    Since August 2014, the US Air Force with the support of a coalition of 19 countries has relentlessly waged an intensified air campaign against Syria and Iraq allegedly targeting the Islamic State brigades.

  • cettel

    another bulls-eye on an important subject, from the best public-affairs commentator ever to go online.

    Please organize them into a separate but associated site, exclusively yours, with no one else, but organizing them together into a system, as if you were writing a book (maybe constructing it from selected parts of selected posts here), so that readers can understand your viewpoint whole, not just in these dribs and drabs, however magnificent they may be individually.

    Books, in the digital age, should be replaced by such sites as that, because links are vastly superior to footnotes. So, please do a live, online, “book,” in that format, and help to start the future of book-publishing, thereby.

    Will anyone here second that request? Or am I alone in it?

  • ShankyS

    Excellent post, thank you.

  • Defiant

    Meh…I don’t think one is a “nut” for believing in a conspiracy…what makes them nuts is that if they believe ONE conspiracy theory, they believe them ALL–even when some are mutually exclusive! It just becomes a paranoid hobby of gullibility. After a while…they can’t even recognize the truth because they’ve poisoned their own minds.

    • Holpern

      Once one conspiracy is uncovered, it’s difficult to get back to a balanced paradigm. All of a sudden one questions the mainstream view on all events, and has to start from scratch to learn what sources to trust.

    • Dutch

      Kind of like believing in evolution and climate change. Like somehow all species radically evolved and diverged while the weather (a primary evolutionary and epigenetic driver) never changed for 300,000 years. As this example illustrates, there are lots of conspiracy theories floating all around us. But I fear that you, like most define conspiracies by the source, and not the credibility of the content. The mutually exclusive theories of evolution and manmade global warming are mainstream doctrine. So the tragic reality is that everybody is this gullible and DOES believe in every conspiracy theory they hear. But, they just fail to recognize them as such. There are many flavors of gullibility.

      Note that 12 years later we’re still fighting a war started on the premise that Saddam Hussein was actively building nukes. Probably the most grandiose conspiracy theory ever. We even honor the soldiers in church and put ribbons on our cars. So your point is dead on, just maybe not in the condescending manner in which you intended.

  • SHTF411


  • Major Mad Dog

    I believe in every one of them. I see how easy it is for them to lie to us and keep a strait face. Look up into the sky and watch the tankers dump their chemicals and call me a loony tune because I can not tell a contrail from a chemtrail. Those hazy fused clouds are not nature’s clouds. Watch the sky. I do wear a protective aluminum cap to ward off early dementia that is approaching plague levels.

  • Consper Acie

    nicely done.

  • adsicks

    11For thus the LORD spoke to me with mighty power and instructed me not to walk in the way of this people, saying, 12″You are not to say, ‘It is a conspiracy!’ In regard to all that this people call a conspiracy, And you are not to fear what they fear or be in dread of it. 13″It is the LORD of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, And He shall be your dread.…

  • jps73

    Operation Northwoods


    …In [Joint Chief’s chair] Lemnitzer’s view, the country would be far better off if the generals could take over. [JFK assassination legend has it some general presided over the fudgy JFK autopsy. –Mk]

    For those military officers who were sitting on the fence, the Kennedy administration’s botched Bay of Pigs invasion was the last straw. “The Bay of Pigs fiasco broke the dike,” said one report at the time. “President Kennedy was pilloried by the super patriots as a ‘no-win’ chief . . . The Far Right became a fount of proposals born of frustration and put forward in the name of anti-Communism. . . Active-duty commanders played host to anti-Communist seminars on their bases and attended or addressed Right-wing meetings elsewhere.”

    Although no one in Congress could have known it at the time, Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge.

    According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of antiCommunism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba. ; Look at this and apply it today conspiracy theorist are not crazy!!!!

  • Marcy Fleming

    We need to abolish the very term ‘conspiracy theory’ as there are only conspiracy facts (true) and conspiracy fictions (false.)

  • Man on the street

    The reality of life is the majority of the population if asked do you think the politicians are mostly truthful, they would disagree, and they also feel the same about our media. OK, so far most of the population do not trust the media or the politicians, yet, if you say to democrats for example that Obama was not born in America or his MUSLIM upbringing makes him more sympathetic with them? They will say that you are a nut case conspiracy theorist! Yet a good number of the Republicans will agree! The same thing about global warming?

    In conclusion, if we all think that the politicians and the media are liars, then, conspiracy theorist should never be a curse word?

  • truthbetold

    There is an old saying on how to determine a truth from a lie/fallacy. When someone gives you their theory look for what should be there, and isn’t. The government is very good at giving their account, but often they fail to provide real proof. They don’t like analytical thought, and for you to question their official story. They want you to just believe what they are telling you as the absolute truth. They will attack you personally if you ask reasonable/logical questions. They will not answer the questions they are posed, and will question your patriotism for asking the question. They will say you are on the side of the terrorists, or against the soldiers. Those hiding the truth are very cleaver in how to turn the tables on those who ask the questions. Conspiracy’s do occur. There are evil people who have an agenda, and carry out their plans. To say conspiracy’s never occur would be a fallacy.

  • The Aussie

    Conspiracy Theorists often serve as canaries in the coal mine. What they express as opinion may not be quite on the mark, but often they do serve to highlight that *something* may be going on. Perhaps we do need more canaries than ostriches.

  • scott


    They could’ve done so much better in them 2 war. Sadly sabotage lead to Afghanistan demise. THEY DID THIS STRATEGY AT FIRST, THEN STOPPED DOING IT TO COVER IT UP WITH SABOTAGE.

    The Helmand offensive used this strategy below “unknown” ans it killed 1,000s of the taliban man and turned around the area. Not anymore stopped doing and handed the taliban the CIA and Army drones codes. Impossible for the taliban to get them let along Russia. Odds will be staggering and is beyond proof.

    There was a system first made in Iraq. It was my idea for full proof id cards. The Id cards take a photo of them and scan their fingerprint and eyes, and makes them a id card.

    What you do is make everyone an ID card in an area, so know knew people can move in.

    Once they attack in the area and get killed. It’s 100 less terrorist that can live in that area and walk around freely.

    What you do is set up traps to draw them 2 you before and after you make the id cards.

    The biggest problem in Afghanistan was the size of the country and amount of targets that could go for.

    How do you stop ramam attacks that could target any group of troops? You set up traps and draw them to your target’s.

    If the taliban see 30 MRAPs driving down 2 long roads every hour unto late a night. Where do you think they will plant an IED bomb?

    What you do is draw them to you to take away the random attacks. You know what they are going for now, and set up traps like that to draw them to you.

    We know it takes 1 hour to plant an IED bomb. You drive MRAPs down that road in 3rs every hour, not giving them time to plant an IED bomb. That means you can put a drone over that road at night time. The size/distance has been worked out. The drone speed is calculated and we know it takes 1 hour to plant 1. The drone will fly up and back waiting for them to plant an IED bomb.

    So when the taliban see MRAP after MRAP unto late at night. They will target that road 100%.

    That there will and did kill 1,000s of them. In helmand 2,000 IED planters got killed within 2 months…Know you know why.

    You also mix it up. Put a down over a road F all MRAPs dive down to make it russian roulette.

    Setting up traps isn’t just that. It’s deliberately building infrastructure out in the open, in an area you know they are. The Taliban always targets infrastructure and we have a drone overhead 24/7…. Trap dead 100drs of less Taliban man able to live in that area.

    What we have done is made a full proof system that kills them off. The taliban are being extinct and less people can live in the area and mix in. They can’t be replaced.

    The Afghanistan war would have been won. They deliberately didn’t because of the guy that come up with the strategy’s.

    Shoe us your Id cards every time you see someone and every car that goes past at a checkpoint. People walking out in the hills can’t just mix in now or be in areas. Id cards 24/7 now.

    The Iraq war could of been fully won but they didn’t want to win it. That would mean there troops would have left Iraq.

    To win the Iraq war in full. All they had to do was make pop up poll checkpoints. The cars drive into them and the back polls pop up. A trained sniffer dogs runs around the cars. Once cleared the car, it pulls up to the troops 40+ meters away.

    That there stop truck bombs attacks and checkpoint cops deaths. It also stops troops being put on the spot and letting them past when they pull up and say “pick” let us past or you’re dead. It also stops bribing…. Cameras at checkpoints. No excuses now

    The last attacks in Iraq where truck and car bombing and checkpoint deaths. That would have stop the very small last death and totally won the IRAQ WAR.

    They made billions of dollars from me and changed the law and left me on the doll, after i ruined my health from doing the strategies all day most days 18 hours a day.

    I have no medical condition and they are making it up. Easy meet me and they you will know. What law says what they claim can stop me from having money? Unless they passed a law after 2007.



    Massive cover up is being done and it’s all probable.

    No surprise that the CIA sabotaged my strategy’s by handing the drone camera codes to the Taliban. They also didn’t put up the full proof checkpoints to stop the last attacks in Iraq….Deliberately.

    That’s right. The NAZIS CIA wanted Iraq that small % unstable, so the public and government didn’t want them out of Iraq.

    Pop up poles and blast proof cement wall checkpoints next to each other.

    The sniffer dogs runs around the car first, then once cleared they pull up to the troops 40 meters away.

    Once the sniffer dog runs around the cars without giving a signal of explosives. The front poles go down and the car and trucks pull up to the checkpoint.

    Very basic and clear how it would 100% works.

    Checkpoint death would be 0 from suicide car bombers. No cops can be put on the spot “pick” let me past or i’ll blow you up. It also stops bribing as it’s all on camera to see who let them past after the dog gave the signal and then they cleared it after that.

    The cement walls are bomb proof just like the blast proof cement walls trucks had to take all the way into the markets. No weapons that big can get into the area “like” anti aircraft gun just cruising around in the side streets lol….Joke.

    Cameras codes leaked out because i said fuck you stop using my strategy above…Setting up traps. That showed the taliban where the drones are so they knew where to plant ied bombs. The i said fuck you i will leave after i did that. If i have no money then you have none “sabotage” your economy and lose all your money or o will leave AU. That’s 100% what they did and why pros on tv said BS impossible. Impossible for 1,000s of investments to collapse at the same time, when they don’t even show results at the same time.

    They didn’t really lose all their money. The shares never went bust as it was impossible. They sabotaged it so they kept all that money and used it to bail every bank out. They went into fake debt and banked the money, as debt can be wiped off in a time of war and so on. The system can be proven to be a lie. If it was true they deliberately picked an about of shares to fail every year for the last 30 years, That would mean they deliberately did them all. If they system made the banks money to lose their money, they why did they pick 97% good shares every year? I could pick 100% bad shares easily. PROVEN SABOTAGE,

    The deal was to stop bugging and monitoring me and they haven’t stopped doing that. They broke the deal from the start and faked it anyway.

    They also Changed the law to stop me from making a claim for the money they made off my other ideas. The contractors made billions of dollars from my harder/better ideas and they changed the law putting a timeframe on it and bribed every American lawyer i contacted.

    All those thing happens weeks apart. Including them breaking into the police station losing evidence for me. It was all over the news. I asked for money after that, but because of the way i walked back then….Really bad. They couldn’t have me connected with that. That’s when i said fuck you sabotage this “they did” then i said fuck you sabotage your economy if i get no money. As in the gov loses money. They broke that deal from the start.

    1 week after i said i would leave AU 9 months ago. I said put something in my pillow to give me cancer because i will leave and go to Russia..It happened. 1 week after that a chemical was in my pillow that choked me and made me stop breathing for 1 min.

    Ps i have since told Russia everything. All the top secret strategies and i told them to go to war in syria to kill the terrorist IS….They did that 1 month after.

    I also told Russia to start selling weapons to all countries America has stopped them from, and that China cant just copy the tech. I made it clear America was doing that so they didn’t make $100drs of billions of dollars to make way better weapons. As you can see now Russia is selling all weapons around the world. Russia is doing everything i am saying to do.

    This video with the sabotage is 100% proof they have done something 2 me. Let’s just see “because” it was no coincidence and that they bribed that guy when i can prove it.

    I AM ACCUSING THEM OF GIVING ME CANCER, IT IT HAPPENED 1 WEEK AFTER SAYING TO DO IT….NO COINCIDENCE AT ALL.. They also cover up my blood test and the test disappeared, for what i said they did to me. The cops come over and forced me to have a medical where they bribed a guy. Part Of it was for what i said they did 2 me. The dr took the bloods but the test results are nowhere to be seen. They have done something 2 me and it’s a massive cover up. This video proves he was bribed as it’s no coincidence at all.

    If they show you any videos of me, ask to see the original 1s. If you watch the original 1, ask to see it from the start, not the parts after. Watch what lead to it when i was a drunk and being abused for 5 years before hand. I ain’t nothing like that anymore, and i saved well over 100k lives.


    Go to oblique weapons on fb to watch all the videos and read it all. That’s if they haven’t covered it up or edited the videos and comments.

    They hate my guts so i set them up. I told them to do so many things when angry. 1 was to say they had been watching when i was a kid…lie. I am innocent of it and they new this.

    I haven’t hurt anyone or committed any crimes. My police record is clean from 18 up. I had ADD as a kid. Poor is proof.