What is a “Conspiracy Theory?”
Those Americans still getting their news from the mainstream media have learned to nervously laugh when the term “conspiracy theory” is derisively applied by any of their overpaid “journalists.” At this point, the label “conspiracy theorist” is a badge of honor. I wear it proudly.
A few days ago, President Obama shed what appeared, to many of us, to be theatrical tears during his anti-gun speech. There has been the usual hysterical reaction from the mainstream media to “conspiracy theories” that his tears weren’t sincere. Is it now a “conspiracy theory” to question the sincerity of politicians? What has Obama or any other politician ever done to earn such universal trust?
When John Toland published his book Infamy, he went from being a Pulitzer Prize-winning establishment historian to “conspiracy theorist.” All the private diary anecdotes and unclassified documents be damned; to contend that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor in advance is just another discredited “conspiracy theory.” To those of us on the fringes, it doesn’t appear to have been “discredited” other than through the loud proclamations of the court historians. I will explore this subject, along with many other pre-1963 conspiracies and cover-ups, in Hidden History 2.
We know that there was a diabolical plan, which President Kennedy thankfully vetoed, to create a series of fake attacks, which apparently would have included real casualties, called Operation Northwoods. If that wasn’t a conspiracy, what was it? Is it a “conspiracy theory” to mention it? Was Operation Mockingbird, a CIA program to infiltrate the media with intelligence assets, a conspiracy? When “conspiracy theorists” now rant about establishment journalists being “controlled,” how can anyone deny that there was an official government program designed for just such a purpose?
When evidence is withheld, as it routinely is in virtually every significant event, is it a “conspiracy theory” to question this? After all, each of these same events is invariably attributed to random madness. What is there about random madness that impacts “national security?” If Lee Harvey Oswald was a minimum wage loser, why is anything related to the JFK assassination still classified?
Thus, it is a “conspiracy theory” to question the unconstitutional actions of Abraham Lincoln, or the official narrative of 9/11, or the sanctity of the Apollo space program, or the wildly implausible story of Sandy Hook. In the minds of some, it is “disrespectful” to families, whether the event in question was 9/11, or the Aurora “Batman” case, or Sandy Hook, or the Boston Bombing, to ask any questions. Instead, we should all contribute to the ever-present funds, which are established for unclear purposes and appear to have less oversight than the Federal Reserve has.
Jim Fetzer and company’s book Nobody Died at Sandy Hook has been banned by Amazon. Why? What is it about that particular “conspiracy theory” which causes such blatant censorship? Wolfgang Halbig went to Newtown and tried to question the local chapter of the United Way, in regards to the fund established for the families. The police blocked the building and wouldn’t let him enter. Doesn’t such an overreaching act cry out “conspiracy?”
When Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Jenny McCarthy and numerous experts charge that there is a connection between vaccines and autism, the mainstream media, in conjunction with the medical industrial complex, slanders them as “conspiracy theorists.” Is it a “conspiracy theory” to note that when Bill Gates got his polio vaccine into India a few years ago, nearly 50,000 cases of paralysis resulted?
Is it a “conspiracy theory” to point out how the absolute leaders of countries all over the world meet once a year, with no coverage from the mainstream media? The Bilderberg group consists of truly powerful people, gathering in secrecy, always including a few high-profile journalists, who agree not to report on anything that transpires. Celebrity weddings garner more press attention.
Is it a “conspiracy theory” to mention the yearly get-togethers at Boheman Grove, where our leaders don robes, participate in occult rituals, and worship a giant owl? What else would one call this, other than a conspiracy? Again, as it is with the Bilderbergers, some well- known journalists and celebrities are always in attendance. As long as they’re male, of course. No females have ever been allowed, and no feminist is apparently concerned about this.
Those who are paid generously to supposedly “investigate” these incidents, and have the resources the rest of us don’t, simply won’t ask any questions. Unless they’re scrutinizing the skeptics, of course. They have been trained to accept the most ridiculous conflicting accounts, the most suspicious behavior, and the most incriminating arrogance of authorities, at face value. Since professional journalists simply won’t do their jobs, the void has been filled by those dreaded “conspiracy theorists.”
When Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone ran his car into a tree a few years back, shortly after warning friends and associates that he was onto something “really big,” was it a “conspiracy theory” to connect the dots there? If you were watching a movie like that, what member of the audience wouldn’t associate his death with his dire pronouncements immediately preceding it? Similarly, when Andrew Breitbart announced that he had a video that was going to totally expose Barack Obama, and then dropped dead at a young age, are we “conspiracy theorists” to associate his death with his comments?
The examples are endless. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the “D.C. Madam,” goes on the Alex Jones show and tells him that she will never commit suicide, then supposedly kills herself. Margie Schoedinger accuses President George W. Bush of rape, and publicly claims to fear for her life, then supposedly kills herself, too. The mainstream media had little interest in either story, and certainly wasn’t about to trot out a Woodward and Bernstein to truly investigate these incidents. It was left, instead, for those pesky “conspiracy theorists” to make the logical connections.
No matter what the mainstream media does, the majority of the public continues to trust them. When they were caught faking a scud attack in Iraq, no repercussions resulted. When they doctored an audio tape in an overt attempt to stoke racial tensions in the Trayvon Martin case, people barely blinked. Instead, they place an unwarranted faith in those vacuous, smiling faces as they transmit one official lie after another to millions of clueless, eligible voters.
Even with the lack of attention paid to their continuous crimes, the public has come to hold a grudging belief that most politicians are hopelessly corrupt. Congress holds an approval rate of under 10%. However, these same despicable representatives are re-elected, in election after election, at a 90% or more clip. The dichotomy there is astounding, and hopefully is the result of massive voting fraud, which the late Collier brothers chronicled in their book Votescam, and which I covered extensively in Hidden History.
For whatever reason, the American public clings to a naive notion that, despite the broken promises and empty rhetoric, our leaders are basically a decent lot, who act out of good intentions.As I’ve said before, most people are reluctant to confront the extent of the corruption all around them. Perhaps they don’t want to feel like rubes at a circus, or accept just how extensively they’ve been swindled.