“There exists in our world today a powerful and dangerous secret cult. This cult is patronized and protected by the highest level government officials in the world. Its membership is composed of those in the power centers of government, industry, commerce, finance, and labor. It manipulates individuals in areas of important public influence – including the academic world and the mass media. The Secret Cult is a global fraternity of a political aristocracy whose purpose is to further the political policies of persons or agencies unknown. It acts covertly and illegally.”
We exist within extraordinary times. The proliferation of technology has ushered in an age of information and never before has humanity had the ability to gather information so easily, at least in the technologically advanced nations. Essentially, the knowledge of mankind lies at the fingertips of people in much of the world and curiously, a high percentage of people, especially in the west, instead utilize the tools available, not for self education or expansion of ones knowledge base, but as a means of distraction. I mean, really, why educate oneself when you can watch video clips of monkeys hurling feces at tourists? Why expand your knowledge base when you can upload to social networking sites, pictures of your kitty-cat or what you ate for lunch?
The internet is a linking of billions of minds; this technology has moved us forward and has brought the world closer. It has revolutionized the way we communicate, conduct business, gather information and connect with the world. It has also created a global platform for alternative media, which has been the bane of corporate, mainstream controlled, bought-and-paid-for media.
It seems as though whenever information is presented that conflicts with the official, consensus, mainstream version of events, it is immediately attacked and discounted as “conspiracy theory.” It’s amazing to me the way that words get thrown around and often times, their true meaning is lost to the ones using them. Etymology or the derivation of words, can teach us an awful lot. The word “conspiracy,” derives from the Latin word, conspirationem, which simply means: “agreement, union, unanimity.”
The modern dictionary definitions of the word conspiracy are:
1. The act of conspiring.
2. An evil, unlawful, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. A combination of persons for a secret, unlawful or evil purpose.
4. Law: an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud or other wrongful act.
5. Any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
To simplify, the word “conspiracy” simply means: “to breathe together.” I’ve actually heard those among the I believe everything I’m told crowd, with such certainty; claim that there is no such thing as conspiracies. Obviously, when the etymology and definition is understood, that statement is seen for the ill-informed and absurd nonsense that it is. Two or more people plotting to rob a bank would be “conspiring” to do so.
The first use of the phrase “conspiracy theorist” apparently occurred in 1909; in an article published by the American Historical review. Later, in 1967, the CIA adopted the term in a psychological operation to discredit researchers and actual journalists whose findings deviated from the official claims, particularly, with those who were investigating the JFK assassination, and the ridiculous assertions and conclusions of the whitewash known as the Warren Commission Report.
In 1976, the New York Times acquired a CIA dispatch thorough the Freedom of Information Act, which outlined the CIA’s tactics to discredit those whose research and investigations conflicted with official propaganda. The document spells out the CIA’s tactics of psychological manipulation and disinformation. The dispatch outlines certain tactics:
- Claim that it would be impossible that so many people would keep quiet about such a big conspiracy.
- Claim that eyewitness testimony is unreliable [unless it is in line with the official version of events].
- Accuse theorists of being wedded to and infatuated with their theories.
- Accuse theorists of having financial interests in promoting conspiracy theories.
In part, the document reads:
- To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation] 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.
- 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.
I’ve been on the receiving end of the label “conspiracy theorist” more times than I can count, and I would estimate that 99.9% of the time, the person using the term has not even bothered to look at any of my work or even engage in intelligent discussion regarding the particular topic at hand; they simply repeat the label as if by rote, and so few of them would ever bother to look at information that just may challenge what they think they know, or their TV educated mindset. They never seem to engage in any investigation of their own, apart from glancing at a “news” snippet or simply adopting the consensus view as their own. In fact, if I had a dollar for every time that label, or other such nonsense was thrown at me, without even considering what I was saying, I’d be writing this right now from my private yacht, off the coast of Maui!
Critical thinking has become all but extinct; it seems to have been bred out of most people, and the ones that question are at once considered “crazy conspiracy theorists,” often on knee jerk reaction with outright rejection of any information that contradicts their consensus mindset. Author Jack trout summed it up perfectly when he stated:
“The sane person constantly analyzes the world of reality and then changes what’s inside his or her head to fit the facts. That’s an awful lot of trouble for most people. Besides, how many people want to constantly change their opinions to fit the facts? It’s a whole lot easier to change the facts to fit your opinions. Unsane people make up their minds and they find the facts to ‘verify’ their opinions. Or even more commonly, they accept the opinion of the nearest ‘expert’ and then they don’t have to bother about the facts at all.”
After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the media, in a lockstep with the corporate apparatus that funds and controls it, engaged in massive smear campaigns against anyone who dared to question the official story. Now, I cannot pretend to know exactly what happened on that tragic day, but I can say emphatically, after investigating the event for years, that the official story is a steaming pile of crap from start to finish, filled with more holes than a Swiss cheese factory.
The laws of physics were somehow suspended on that day. Kerosene fuel burned over 1,000 degrees hotter than its maximum temperature and was somehow able to melt steel. Small, contained fires brought down a 47-story skyscraper that was not even hit by aircraft (building 7). The 200-ton, metal aircraft that allegedly hit the pentagon somehow disappeared upon impact and the public was told that it vaporized. The public was told that a passport of one of the hijackers somehow miraculously survived an explosion of fuel and metal, only to be found neatly amidst the rubble, intact! There are so many anomalies to the official story that it boggles the mind. Even more mind boggling, is the fact that when these events occur, droves of people buy into the official story and immediately adopt it into their beLIEf systems without question.
Here’s a great example of what I’m talking about:
At the time that the Obama administration announced that troops had killed Bin Laden (the CIA asset) I was working in the food service industry. Newspapers were sold there, and of course, when the govt. announced that they killed their former ally, the story was blasted all over mainstream media, on every front page and every news network. No evidence, photographic or otherwise was presented to the public, but of course, this didn’t matter. The “news” was broadcast on every TV network and printed in every major newspaper so it must be true.
I watched a man walk over to the newspaper rack, pick up a copy of the propaganda rag, and claim with glee: “we got em! We got the son of a bitch!” No investigation, no critical thought, hell, he didn’t even read the article! The front page headline was enough to convince him and this is exactly what I’m talking about.
I wonder if those who simply believe what they are told ever even consider where the information comes from. Do they ever ask who benefits by them believing the official story? Do they ever ask who owns the media, and whether or not those owners have a vested interest in the public believing what is presented to them? Alternative researchers are attacked all of the time, even if their information is credible and true; it wasn’t on CNN or Faux news so therefore, it must not be true or credible. Interestingly, alternative journalists, or “conspiracy nuts” have been very accurate as the passage of time and unfolding of events has shown.
When one challenges the system or steps out of line, they are at once considered a threat. Swinging the sword of truth at mainstream lies does not exactly win you many friends. When the consensus trance is challenged, people are naturally resistant because their very identity is often built around what they’ve been conditioned to believe. Besides, so many seem to have real trouble entertaining the notion that they may have been wrong about something. The ego doesn’t like that idea very much! Those who question their reality, and what is presented as truth, and report their findings, are viewed as a threat, even if their information is true and valid; if it flies in the face of the mainstream consensus, it must be false, crazy, unfounded, “conspiracy theory.” No investigation required! A talking head in a five-thousand-dollar business suit, with a thousand-dollar haircut has slavishly repeated the official line, so who am I to question? Not thinking is just so much more hassle-free!
Fortunately, due to the efforts of some very brave researchers/presenters, film makers, real journalists, authors and the like, the tide is turning. People actually are beginning to shake off the spell that has been woven around their very consciousness and wake up to the fact that they have been sold lie upon lie and have willingly bought into them. Unfortunately though, there still does appear to be a rather high percentage of those whose minds are guided by the corporate apparatus, the mainstream media and the gatekeeper voice pieces that serve the spin machine.
Taking into consideration the actual meaning of the word conspiracy, and the etymology, the statement that “conspiracies don’t exist,” is simply absurd and nonsensical. Have you noticed that when the word conspiracy is used, it is so often followed by the word “theory?” That immediately discredits the information as per the CIA’s very succesful psy-op.
Was it not a “conspiracy” that hatched the plot to kill Caesar? Do corporate CEOs not “conspire” to figure out how to maximize profits? Don’t war profiteers “conspire” to sell unjustified wars to the masses to gain public approval? Whatever truly happened on 9/11, wouldn’t the perpetrators have had to “conspire” to pull that off? Crazy talk, crazy talk, tin-foil-hat-wearer, shut that person up! It’s making my cognitive dissonance hurt!
I sum it up like this:
“The greatest threat to the establishment today is the person who can think independently and maintains the ability to continuously scrutinize what they think they know. The challenger of conventional thought, the critical thinker, the man or woman of ideas is the enemy, the one who walks alone. She will not join, she will not conform; she will not waver. She has detached from the herd. The free thinker is perceived as the dangerous one. His ideas are a danger to the system, to his peers and to the rigid confines of ego- centered consciousness. He is a rebel in the truest sense. He/she is the sane amongst the unsane, the one whose guidance comes only from within. Think for yourself and watch the lie become dust beneath your feet!”
I’m not sure who came up with this phrase, but it’s perfect:
“I’ll call myself a conspiracy theorist if you call yourself a coincidence theorist.”