“Conspiracy Theory”: Foundations of a Weaponized Term
Subtle and Deceptive Tactics to Discredit Truth in Media and Research

Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs.

Conspiracy theory’s acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s well-known fusillades against the “New Right.” Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively “weaponizing” the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question.

This important memorandum and its broad implications for American politics and public discourse are detailed in a forthcoming book by Florida State University political scientist Lance de-Haven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America. Dr. de-Haven-Smith devised the state crimes against democracy concept to interpret and explain potential government complicity in events such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the major political assassinations of the 1960s, and 9/11.

“CIA Document 1035-960” was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times. The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American government” vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially interested in maintaining its own image and role as it “contributed information to the [Warren] investigation.”

The memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.” For example, approaching “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” to remind them of the Warren Commission’s integrity and soundness should be prioritized. “[T]he charges of the critics are without serious foundation,” the document reads, and “further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the [Communist] opposition.”

The agency also directed its members “[t]o employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”

1035-960 further delineates specific techniques for countering “conspiratorial” arguments centering on the Warren Commission’s findings. Such responses and their coupling with the pejorative label have been routinely wheeled out in various guises by corporate media outlets, commentators and political leaders to this day against those demanding truth and accountability about momentous public events.

No significant new evidence has emerged which the [Warren] Commission did not consider.
Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others.
Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.
Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it.
Oswald would not have been any sensible person’s choice for a co-conspirator.
Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” [during the Warren Commission’s inquiry] can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes.

Today more so than ever news media personalities and commentators occupy powerful positions for initiating propaganda activities closely resembling those set out in 1035-960 against anyone who might question state-sanctioned narratives of controversial and poorly understood occurrences. Indeed, as the motives and methods encompassed in the document have become fully internalized by intellectual workers and operationalized through such media, the almost uniform public acceptance of official accounts concerning unresolved events such as the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing, 9/11, and most recently the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, is largely guaranteed.

The effect on academic and journalistic inquiry into ambiguous and unexplained events that may in turn mobilize public inquiry, debate and action has been dramatic and far-reaching. One need only look to the rising police state and evisceration of civil liberties and constitutional protections as evidence of how this set of subtle and deceptive intimidation tactics has profoundly encumbered the potential for future independent self-determination and civic empowerment.

any statistics on how many unemployed have records, Or are we just throwing out tangents to further villify and blame the jobless,,?



try as one may to keep disparaging people for daring to not 'have a job',,,, it doesn't change the fact that people have to be the BEST candidate,, and whether they aren't because someone else applying has more impressive credentials or because they have a record,, doesn't change the fact that 'having a job' isn't something that is solely under the control of those seeking work,,

its a decision for employers and they dont hire everyone who applies,,,,

also, if they don't have any ID, they won't be able to get a job either...they can vote, but not get a job...

because 'working' isnt like going out and pulling a leaf off of the tree
it is a PROCESS to become employed,,and until the time of such employment,, one is considered

unemployed


since there are hundreds of apps to any given job, that leaves HUNDREDS that have to continue looking ,, ie being 'unemployed' until an EMPLOYER finds them a BEST fit for the opening

It's interesting what a Muslim clergy in Lucknow, India said to the community. Translation:


For a couple of years, in a project, I was employed by a contractor who had his family roots in Bombay, belongs to the Shia sect and now lives in London. Same project, field engineers from Huta Engineering, run by the Bin Laden Group were very cooperative. I think it is when we work and build something together that one goes beyond the cultural differences. Quite different from a soldier's perspective.


????
my friend, I could've understood if you had stated that Osama's source for recruit to his Taliban came from the Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia.
Wiki throws some light on Wahhabism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

To state that members from the now fragmented Taliban went on to form the ISIS sounds fantastic. From what I understood, the ISIS recruiting base was in Iraq / Iran. To me it sounds like the thief who went to the police station and filed in the first information report stating that he was the victim of a robbery.

Allow me to share an experience: my first time in the Middle East.
It was in Qatar & the holy period of Ramadan. I had missed the company bus to site. So I walked 2 kms to the main road, bare headed, wearing a tie, carrying my laptop, drawings what not. On reaching the road, I saw a mosque and a few people gathered.
Actually, I just saw the water faucet outside the mosque, went over & drank in like an elephant.

People had gone silent, I remember that; a few may have given strange looks, didn't notice at all. It was after I got inside a passing cab & the driver offered me a water bottle & I told him that I had just filled in at the Mosque that I came to know the narrow escape.

The Law says any man caught drinking water during the daytime hours of Ramdan will be put in prison & released after the period of Ramdan.

Then I recalled, that there was a police station just beside the Mosque.

What is my point in rambling on like this?
Simple: In today's complexity, the enemy is not who it seems; not really the Mullah's who are against women acquiring any level of freedom. The Mullah's voice will start fading as and when the larger world takes a more united approach. A beginning could be made if Putin & the next US President agreed to work jointly. After all, Kissinger did get Mao & Nixon to talk and then what happened?

May be our Muslim members can give a better insight into all this?