Tag Archive for 'JFK'

Those seeking to discredit that which so inconveniently goes against the grain of historical memory are often deemed “conspiracy theorists” – the connotation being that alternative explanations for historical events must certainly be in the realm of bigfoot and little green men. However, such assertions are not always accurate. In fact, more often than not, alternative explanations are intentionally overstated in order to discredit them.

Defining the Conspiracy Theorist
One good definition for the word conspiracy is a concurrence or general tendency, as of circumstances, to one event, as if by agreement. A good definition of theorist is a person who theorizes. So a conspiracy theorist would be a person who theorizes about occurrences or general tendencies, as of circumstances, to events, as if by agreement.

Theories involve propositions; absent a proposition a theory cannot exist. For example, if I were to say that Lee Harvey Oswald in collusion with the Soviets assassinated President Kennedy that would involve a definite proposition. (And just so we’re clear, this is a hypothetical theory that I do not personally subscribe to.) Now, if I were to simply say that I do not believe that Oswald acted alone in his attempt to assassinate the president that is not a theory because it does not involve an absolute proposition about who is responsible. In other words, I am not making accusations about the guilt of any particular party; rather I am saying that I remain unconvinced, from my examination of the evidence, that the accused is solely responsible for the crime.

Basics of Criminal Investigation
When criminal acts take place, those given the responsibility of investigating the crimes gather evidence (including circumstantial evidence), conduct interviews of witnesses, determine persons of interest and interview them. On the basis of the evidence gathered, the authorities formulate a theory about how and why the crime took place and who is responsible. By definition, this is a conspiracy theory if it involves more than one person. Most of these theories involve some degree of hearsay and conjecture.

Basics of Criminal Prosecution
After the authorities determine the guilt of an individual or individuals on the basis of their investigation, formal charges are made. However, the accused has a right to present his defense, and until he is proven guilty his innocence is assumed. He may enter a plea of guilty, not guilty, or no contest. Assuming the defendant has maintained his innocence, the guilt or innocence of the defendant is determined by those whose function it is to weigh the evidence, either a judge or a jury.

Disruption of Criminal Process
When there is a disruption in the criminal process, and a “rush to judgment” occurs, the outcome should always be in question until a satisfactory and independent examination of the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, many major crimes involving national security fall into this category, and thus the official explanation is naturally discredited.

This would be the case concerning the attacks on the World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001 in New York City. First of all, there is the question of jurisdiction. Whose responsibility is it to investigate the crime and prosecute the criminals? The NYPD? The FBI? Whatever the jurisdiction, the investigations that have followed in no way resemble legitimate criminal process. The suspects have been tried in the court of public opinion, an opinion shaped almost entirely by information disseminated to the public with the intent of manipulating public opinion.

Assuming the crime fell under the FBI’s jurisdiction, it might interest the public to note that the FBI has never named Osama bin Laden as a suspect for the crime despite the fact that millions of Americans still believe he is responsible. Why not? Obviously, if a person is not even named as a suspect, there might be some reasonable doubt as to his guilt or a lack of evidence. And such a conclusion does not constitute a conspiracy theory.

The Motive of the Accusers
When there is a disruption in the criminal process, it is left up to the public to examine the possible motives of the accusers. This is where the public is duty-bound to check government power and police the police. Because the accused, for whatever reason, are being denied their day in court, the information given to the public can only be propaganda; it is the strongest possible case the state could make because there is no opposition to it.

The most obvious motive the state has is to maintain the appearance of competence. No one wants to lose their job because they fail to measure up to what the public expects of them. Prosecutors who wanted to keep their jobs and maintain their reputations for being “tough on crime” have been guilty of locking up innocent people, only to have them released years later when suppressed or new evidence is presented. In some cases, the prosecutors have still maintained that the formerly accused are guilty even after their release.

Naysayers and Complicit Gatekeepers
For some reason, rather than questioning the second and third-hand information and outright propaganda that comes from governments, many people actually internalize it. This is the best situation that the state can hope for – to foster collective consent in the public such that any opposition to the official government account is quickly and instinctively extinguished. Even this concept, likely to be mistaken as a conspiracy theory itself, is just institutional analysis; all governments have a stake in controlling public opinion.

In some cases, the CIA has literally fed propaganda through a media filter in order to marginalize opposition. (This is a fact, not a theory.) However, not everything is handled with the same techniques used in Operation Mockingbird. Although such techniques are definitely in use today, most recently evidenced by the CIA’s infiltration of Iranian media as exposed by Brian Ross at ABC News, manufacturing consent does not usually require such covert practices. All governments have to do is wait for the public to reach a consensus on the basis of their version of events, and those thus indoctrinated will cry “conspiracy theorist!” at the slightest mention of anything that questions the official government account. Of course, this only works when the public trusts the government or is too lazy or apathetic to look at the evidence independently. One sure way of becoming a government stooge is to repeat what they say as a fact.

Psychological Warfare through Word Association
One of the techniques used by governments and government stooges alike is a straw-man involving the use of word associations to misrepresent a point of view. Sometimes these word associations use legitimate terms that have taken on a different meaning through negative usage, like conspiracy theorist or liberal. Other times words like kook, crazy, tinfoil hat, compound, separatist, anarchist, un-American, terrorist, and the like are used in conjunction with the mention of a dissident person or group of persons.  

Another similar and popular technique involves using ridiculous ideas and comparisons to discredit a point of view. For instance, a person might say, “The government’s explanation for the destruction of the Salomon Brothers building just doesn’t make sense.” A stooge might respond by scoffing, “I suppose a secret cabal of Zionists and Jews is to blame.” Or another response might be more extreme like, “Yeah, the little green men detonated the building from their flying saucer.” Either way, the desired effect is the same whether a person is shamed into submission by associating his point of view with something politically taboo or science fiction. At any rate, a careful examination of the evidence is discouraged through peer pressure.

Formulating a Theory
The formulation of an accurate theory as to the motivation for something like an assassination, for instance, is a near-impossible feat. This is due to the complicated nature of a multitude of parties of interest and the limit to which one may investigate all possible motives and associations. A much more practical approach is to remain skeptical when the evidence warrants skepticism. The last thing anyone wants to be is a sucker, and you can be a sucker being a government stooge or voicing opinions about questions you are ill-equipped to answer. Nevertheless, a healthy sense of skepticism is a guard against deception, and there is no reason why a person must – especially if he in good conscience cannot – formulate a theory.

Although the formulation of conspiracy theories is generally (though not always) ill-advised, the communication of evidence of complicity is encouraged. It must be understood, however, that this is a means of public investigation. For instance, the fact that the North American Aerospace Defense Command ran military exercises very similar to the actual real world scenarios that occurred on 9/11 and then lied about it, is evidence of complicity; it does not involve the formulation of a theory, but states a matter of fact. Now, if an individual were to take that evidence (not proof) and formulate a theory involving NORAD as a possible conspirator to the crime, that would be premature. Nevertheless, the emergence of the many theories that have entered the national consciousness (some of them quite ridiculous) bears witness to the fact that not all of the populace is asleep. That is a good thing.