The Op: Unelected Agents Now Infiltrating ‘Critical Infrastructures’

Massive Collection Of Data
A covert op for the ages: Technocracy United
Technocracy: “control of society by a technical elite”

technocracy
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 9, 2017

Note to readers: the people in charge of, yes, running the future are counting on a populace who can’t think beyond a few weeks or months. That’s their ace in the hole. The long-term future must always seem blurry and vague—and a waste of time to consider. Why? It’s obvious. The people in charge are always building the long-term future, brick by brick, and if very few citizens can grasp what it looks like, how can they object or resist or sound an alarm?

If you want to illegally take over an area, you need to invent an external threat justifying the takeover. We’ve been seeing exactly that recently, as Russia has suddenly been painted as a hostile force trying to destroy our “open democracy.”

Therefore, the Department of Homeland Security is now in charge of US elections, to “combat the Russian hackers.”

And it isn’t only elections.

In the release, last Friday, that gave control of US elections to the Department of Homeland Security (a naked coup), we also have this, from ABC News:

“A 2013 presidential directive identified 16 sectors as critical infrastructures, including energy, financial services, health care, transportation, food and agriculture and communications.”

“The designation announced Friday places responsibilities on the Homeland Security secretary to identify and prioritize those sectors, considering physical and cyber threats against them. The secretary is also required to conduct security checks and provide information about emerging and imminent threats.”

ABC got it wrong. The responsibilities (excluding elections) placed on the head of Homeland Security weren’t invented last Friday. They kicked off in 2013, and they represent a technocratic op to infiltrate and exert power over every aspect of American life.

The 2013 Policy Directive, issued by President Obama, was titled: “Critical Infrastructure Security and Review.” It enumerated no less than 16 areas of so-called US “critical infrastructure” where Homeland Security would muscle in:

Chemical; Commercial Facilities; Communications; Critical Manufacturing; Dams; Defense Industrial Base; Emergency Services; Energy; Final Services; Food and Agriculture; Government Facilities; Healthcare and Public Health; Information Technology; Nuclear Reactors, Materials, and Waste; Transportation Systems; Water and Wastewater Systems.

These are the areas where the head of Homeland Security is expected to “manage risk and strengthen security.” HS will also, of course, take charge of integrating and monitoring ALL the data networks of these 16 sectors.

It sounds reasonable to the average person. But the true theme is control. Planning, control, execution. Move in on these areas and exert operational command from the top.

This IS, in fact, the technocratic blueprint for global management of a new system. We’re talking about the re-engineering of society.

Capturing the 16 areas (and their data) above was always the long-term aim, when the Department of Homeland Security was invented in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. If you recall, there was considerable grousing then about the word “Homeland,” because it emitted a strong whiff of Fascism.

If the goal is engineering a new society—and it is—all systems of data collection, communication, and surveillance must be gathered under one roof.

The social and political engineer (aka the technocrat) views every person (unit) as a biological machine that must be profiled six ways from Sunday, for the purpose of inserting him into an overall pattern. As Patrick Wood explains in his brilliant book, Technocracy Rising, “[technology] is being rapidly implemented…to exhaustively monitor, measure and control every facet of individual activity and every ampere of energy delivered and consumed in the life of such individual[s].”

In truth, the Dept. of Homeland Security is spearheading a movement to connect, cross reference, and integrate every major apparatus of data- collection in both the private and public sectors.

This is the ongoing op.

It is not partisan. It flies the banner of no political party. It pretends to protect the citizenry.

But, in fact, it is the major long-term threat to the citizenry.

It is planning a national and global civilization that does not ask for permission to exist.

No one is voting, because if a vote were required, and people were informed about what is really happening, they would overwhelmingly reject technocracy.

Which is why new enemies must be invented on a continuous basis—to justify the “proactive measures that will keep us safe.”

Homeland Security, with its 240,000 employees and its 24 agencies, is in the business of securing untold trillions…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
______________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The Alleged “Russian Hacking” Story Changes AGAIN

fakenews

Source: ZeroHedge.com
January 5, 2017

Today at 9:30 am, senior U.S. intelligence officials face questions at a Senate hearing that will be dominated by the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia meddled in the presidential election to help Donald Trump win. Participating will be James R. Clapper, Jr., Director Of National Intelligence. Marcel J. Lettre II, Under Secretary Of Defense For Intelligence and Admiral Michael S. Rogers, USN, Commander, United States Cyber Command.

The Armed Services Committee’s cyber threats hearing on Thursday comes a day before the president-elect is to be briefed by the CIA and FBI directors — along with the director of national intelligence — on the investigation into Russia’s alleged hacking efforts. Trump has been deeply critical of their findings, even appearing to back controversial WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s contention that Russia did not provide him with hacked Democratic emails.

The committee’s session is the first in a series aimed at investigating purported Russian cyber-attacks against U.S. interests and developing defenses sturdy enough to blunt future intrusions. “We will obviously be talking about the hacking, but the main thing is the whole issue of cybersecurity,” the committee’s Republican chairman, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said ahead of the hearing. “Right now we have no policy, no strategy to counter cyberattacks.”

More importantly, however, the hearing comes hours after Reuters reported overnight that U.S. intelligence agencies obtained what they considered to be conclusive evidence after the November election that Russia provided hacked material from the Democratic National Committee to WikiLeaks. However, in the latest change of the narrative, this time the allegation is that Russia provided the hacked data through a third party, three U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

Wikieaks was quick to highlight that according to the report, US officials admitted that the Wikileaks “source” was not Russia, and that the goal posts now shifted to the source’s source:

In keeping with the theme of providing no proof to the general public, the officials declined to describe the intelligence obtained about the involvement of a third-party in passing on leaked material to WikiLeaks, saying they did not want to reveal how the U.S. government had obtained the information. So just trust them, please.

The shift in the narrative is curious because as a reminder, officials had concluded “months earlier” that Russian intelligence agencies had directed the hacking, but had been less certain that they could prove Russia also had controlled the release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. It now appears that along with lack of evidence, the attention has shifted to an “intermediary” as being the responsible party .

In an interview with Fox News, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said he did not receive emails stolen from the DNC and top Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta from “a state party.” Assange did not rule out the possibility that he got the material from a third party.

Trump on Wednesday sided with Assange and again questioned the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia tried to help his candidacy and hurt Clinton’s.

Concern by U.S. officials over the hacking first spiked in August, when intelligence agencies concluded that Russian intelligence, with the direction of President Vladimir Putin, had been trying to disrupt and discredit the presidential and congressional elections. Obama in August rejected recommendations from some of his advisors to disclose the Russian link and take some limited covert action as “a shot across Putin’s bow to knock it off,” one official with knowledge of the matter said. Instead, Obama warned Putin privately, arguing that a similar private message to Chinese President Xi Jinping had reduced Chinese hacking into U.S. agencies and companies.

Ultimately, the additional intelligence informed U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision to retaliate on Dec. 29 by expelling 35 suspected Russian spies and sanctioning two Russian spy agencies, four intelligence officers and three companies, a decision that capped four months of debate at the White House about how to respond.

So far not a shred of evidence has been provided confirming the Kremlin’s involvement in the matter, aside from some Ukrainian malware code exposed in a 13-page joint DHS/FBI report which could be purchased by anyone online.

The Russian Hacking Meme: Trump & A Coming Showdown With The CIA?

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell PhD
January 7, 2017

In the last two News and Views from the Nefarium I’ve been concentrating not only on the geopolitical realignments that the coming year(s) portend, but also on the international and domestic realignments that are concomitant with them, including what I have been calling “international mafia wars,” as the neo-con globalist-Atlanticist factions within various great powers attempt to hold on to power and chorale and channel their unanticipated opposition into policies acceptable to them. In that  vein, consider the following stories shared by various readers here:

Trump on Alleged Russian Hacking: I know things others don’t

As this RT article citing Sean Spicer points out, the Russian hacking meme has been getting all the attention – no doubt in part in an attempt to de-legitimize the election results – while Chinese hacking has been downplayed, if it is mentioned at all:

Political retribution? Trump press sec questions Russia sanctions, brings up unanswered ‘China hack’

And finally, these articles from our friends at  The Daily Bell about a possible looming battle between the incoming Trump administration and the CIA:

Supposed Russian Hack Further Illustrates the Divide Between CIA and Trump

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/supposed-russian-hack-further-illustrates-the-divide-between-cia-and-trump/embed/#?secret=5OOGExhWeM

A similar story is being reported by Zero Hedge:

Trump Is Working On A Plan To Restructure, Pare Back The CIA And America’s Top Spy Agency

And finally, this find, by one alert reader of this website:

US Govt Data Shows Russia Used Outdated Ukrainian PHP Malware

https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/embed/#?secret=irF84cJ0qg

Note the conclusion of the last article:

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website.

The relationship of the malware sample, originating from the Ukraine, raises unpleasant but necessary questions: since it it widely known that the USA was a main sponsor of the events in the Ukraine that overthrew a legitimate (if corrupt) government with a new (and even more corrupt) government. That question is rather obvious: could the entire hacking meme have been an attempt at a “cyber false flag” originating in the West to embarrass Russia? Possibly, but here our criticism of the hacking meme and a Russian origin for the hacking, works in reverse: if the Russians were unlikely to have used such a clumsy method, perhaps the West would be to. And as the conclusions point out, the mere use of addresses in Russia does not, as any hacker knows, mean that Russia is the one using them. In effect, it proves nothing.  And we must hold out the possibility of non-state actors, and such a possibility would fit well with my “emergent international Mafia wars” hypothesis, as factions of Globaloneyists and the fascist sympathizers in various nations’ deep states close ranks.

In my high octane speculation of the day, it appears that what is looming here is a showdown between Mr. Trump and his deep state supporters, and the neo-con factions within the American intelligence community, represented by the CIA (which, let it be noted, is not a monolithic anti-Trump agency either, if one takes the pre-election revelations of Dr. Steve Pieczenik at face value). The Daily Bell suggests this looking showdown:

It seems obvious at this point that the CIA and Trump have entirely different positions when it comes to Russian maliciousness, which Trump downplays while the CIA works to advertise it.

But the issue is even more serious than that.

The larger issue is one we’ve been talking about for 15 years or more. The CIA is accountable to overseas banking interests in the City of London, not to American intelligence operations. The latter accountability is just a smokescreen.

The split has now become public knowledge and Trump is being directly threatened as a result.

Such statements strongly imply a showdown is looming, and give even more credence to those stories that Mr. Trump has retained his private security for protection, and of course, they give credence to those rumors that perhaps even Russian speznaz units are running security interference for Mr. Trump without his knowledge or involvement. If so, then this means that Mr. Trump is very aware of the power blocs aligned domestically against him, and give strong support to those rumors that he, like Mr. Kennedy, may be planning to reign in the agency. Unlike Mr. Kennedy, it appears that Mr. Trump is not so naive to believe he can do so without his own private and trusted security.

Time of course, will tell, and this is definitely a case of “you tell me.”

See you on the flip side.

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
_____________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Deutsche Well: Cyber Attacks On Russian Financial Institutions…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
December 8, 2016

While everything else has been going on, it seems that Russian financial institutions were again under cyber-attack according to this story that appeared in the English-language service of Deutsche Welle (carried also on AP and Reuters), in this story shared by Mr. M.M.:

Russia repels cyber attack on financial systems: FSB

This comes after a TASS story by Yuri Smityuk that appeared on Dec. 2:

Russian banks expect a powerful cyber attack and prepared to repel them

What caught my attention, however, was the Deutsche Welle story, and these items:

Russia’s security agency thwarted a cyber attack aimed at destabilizing the country’s financial system, according to the agency’s statement Friday.

The Federal Security Service (FSB), said unnamed attackers planned to flood Russian social networks with comments and send mass text messages with false comments warning of the imminent collapse of major banks and financial systems in the country.

The FSB received information on “plans by foreign secret services to carry out large-scale cyberattacks from December 5,” it said in a statement.

It said the attacks would originate from computer servers in the Netherlands owned by Ukrainian company BlazingFast, based in Kiev.
(Emphasis added)

Then, later in the story, we find this piece of confusing information:

Two people in Ukraine, believed to be in control of the 900,000 hacked devices that formed the massive “AVALANCHE” botnet, were arrested as part of a series of police raids in 10 countries, German authorities announced on Thursday. German leaders hinted at Russian involvement.

The leader is left with the lingering impression that the Ukrainian attack mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the article is the same network that had two of its leaders arrested in the 10-country international raid, which Germany is maintaining had Russian involvement, leading to the possibility that Russia staged an attack on itself, and blamed it on hackers in Kiev, The Ukraine.

In today’s world, anything is possible of course.

However, in this case, I don’t think that scenario is at all plausible. There’s another high octane scenario that I think lurks in between the lines of those first four paragraphs. For the sake of argument, let’s accept the FSB’s (Federalnaya Sluzhba Bezopaznosti Rossiyskoi Federatsii, Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation) explanation here at face value, namely, that the attacks originated in the Ukrainian company BlazingFast, through servers in the Netherlands. For the Ukraine to launch a cyber-attack on Russian banks and its banking system – even through a corporate cats paw, on its own is absurd. It would only fuel the tensions between the Ukraine and Russia, and hand Mr. Putin yet another talking point on the whole western-instigated mess there. Meanwhile, Germany was strongly hinting that Russia was behind the attacks:

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_____________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

 

Is The Game Plan Revealed? Germany Contemplates Conscription, Domestic…

 IS THE GAME PLAN REVEALED? GERMANY CONTEMPLATES CONSCRIPTION, DOMESTIC ...
Source:GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
August 29, 2016

Many people, including many in Germany and the rest of Europe, shared this article with me, and frankly, I find it both disturbing and darkly revealing:

Germany Debates Putting “Troops On Streets” To Protect Against Terrorism

The opening paragraphs say it all here:

The quiet German militarization continues to escalate.

One day after Germany’s DPA broke the news that the Merkel government is considering “bringing back nationwide conscription in times of crisis”, such as situations in which the country needs to “defend NATO’s external borders”, strongly hinting at the possibility of a future war, which in turn followed this weekend’s shocking announcement that Germans should prepare to stockpile several days of food and water “in case of an attack of catastrophe” as part of the country’s revised “Civil Defense Concept, today NBC reports that “Germany Debates Putting Troops on Streets to Protect Against ISIS.

To be sure, plans to involve soldiers in counterterrorism operations. and the suggestion troops could also be used to beef up security in public places, have proved controversial in a country only seven decades “removed from totalitarian rule that’s still grappling with guilt from the Nazi era.” However, Wolfgang Bosbach, a lawmaker from Merkel’s CDU party, dismissed an such concerns.

“During the recent terror threat in Munich the German armed forces, and also the military police, were put on alert,” he told NBC News. “They have been deployed in other crises, so why should the military not help with domestic security as well?”

There is, of course, push-back, and rightly so, from concerned German politicians:

Yet despite the seeming acceleration by Germany to militarize at any cost, some more sover voices did emerge, such as that of Christian Moelling, a security expert at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, told NBC News that conservative politicians appeared to be trying to capitalize on recent events as they sought to achieve their longstanding goal of allowing the military to deploy within the country’s borders.

He noted that since the end of World War II, high hurdles had been established governing how the armed forces can be used and was skeptical that any push to change that would be successful.

“To use Germany’s military for interior security, including the use of force, would necessitate a large majority for a constitutional change, and this majority doesn’t exist,” Moelling said, adding that at least two-thirds of parliamentarians would have to approve such a measure.

It can, however, quickly be achieved should there be a few more terrorist attacks on German soil, which will promptly provide the needed cover if not to change the constitution, than to implement an indefinite state of emergency, bypassing such pesky things as laws. As a reminder, France has had once since last November.

And there you have it: just create so many “incidents” by allowing the “eager-to-kill” refugee a free hand to do so and, voila, decree and state of emergency.

But what I find intriguing here is that the root problem – flooding Europe with non-assimilating, and in some cases, radicalized, refugees – is not being addressed. Rather, it is being used as the crisis of opportunity to (1) expand the military (in this case, Germanys’), (2) expand and militarize domestic police, and (3) rule under emergency. In other words, the refugee crisis serves as the modern Reichstag fire.

Of course, Chancellorin Merkel is herself largely responsible for the mess, and one doesn’t hear or see any indication from her that she wants to change her policy or has any desire to do so, and this suggests that the real goal all along was to create the primary conditions for the creation of a vastly expanded military – remember that German industrial and defense leaders want to triple the size of Germany’s military by 2025 – and the conditions for its domestic use.

This much seems obvious, at least in Germany’s case. So where’s the high octane speculation here? As most regular readers here know, and if you’ve been following my interviews over the years, I’ve also strongly suspected that the Islamic world was being “set up,” and used as a crisis of opportunity not only to delay and marginalize the voices of reform within it, but also to drive domestic policy in the West. In the latter case, it should be recalled that France and Germany both have committed to the creation of a joint European-wide military and certain corporate mergers have already transpired in aid of this agenda. So where does the refugee crisis fit in? It fits because it does two things: (1) it creates a “counter-culture” against which Europeans can unite to defend “European culture,” i.e., it serves the creation of a European cultural identity, which currently the EU lacks, and (2) it creates the conditions for the expansion of national militaries and their integration. I’m relatively confident that the game plan is being revealed here, for the very simple reason that the problem these measures are designed to address could be  more simply, and possibly more cheaply, addressed simply by closing European borders. Europe, in short, is being used as a test bed.[Bold Emphasis Added In Bottom 5 Paragraphs]

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
_________________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

The Deep State: False Flag Attacks by Richard Dolan

TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
August 28, 2016

In this following segment academic and historian Richard Dolan gives a synopsis of False Flags in relation to our culture.

Richard Dolan is among the world’s leading UFO researchers, historians, and publishers. He has written four groundbreaking books. These include two volumes of history, UFOs and the National Security State [Read Review Here], an analysis of the future, A.D. After Disclosure, and most recently UFOs for the 21st Century Mind, which provides a fresh treatment of the entire subject. He has appeared widely on television, has lectured around the world, and is a frequent guest on radio shows such as Coast-to-Coast AM. He also hosts two radio shows: The Richard Dolan Show and The Effed Files, and is the publisher of Richard Dolan Press, which features the work of many leading thinkers exploring alternative realities in our world. Find him at http://richarddolanpress.com.

Richard Dolan begins at the 2:00 Minute mark or so.

In 1967, the CIA Created the Label “Conspiracy Theorists” … to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the “Official” Narrative

Source: ZeroHedge.com
February 25, 2015

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.

Conclusion

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:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.

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.

And see …

The Troll’s Guide to Internet Disruption