The origin of conspiracy theories and cognitive warfare
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
I really like the channel ‘Academy of Ideas’ and highly recommend it. I believe I’ve used their videos before. The channel isn’t about geopolitics or world events; instead, it focuses on philosophy and psychology. In my opinion, it is excellent. While I don’t agree with the authors on everything — as with any author, I have my own thoughts and views — the content is definitely worth watching, and you can find a lot of interesting information there. Since I’m not sure if everyone will watch the video, I’d like to start with a short quote from it.
The Warren Commission’s inability to satisfy the American public’s demand for answers led independent investigators to develop their own theories about what happened to JFK. Some suggested possible involvement by the man who perhaps gained most from the assassination, namely JFK’s vice president Lyndon Johnson, who took over the presidency following JFK’s death. CIA complicity in the crime was also widely speculated about. The CIA decided they needed to act lest these theories gain too much traction and cause a serious collapse in government trust. In January 1967 they initiated a propaganda campaign targeting those who questioned the government narrative. One part of this campaign, which was revealed in a Freedom of Information Act request, was Dispatch 1035-960. This Dispatch, which was distributed to CIA field offices across the globe, contained the instructions to “destroy it when no longer needed”. And as deHaven-Smith explains:
“Essentially, Dispatch 1035-960 instructed CIA agents to contact journalists and opinion leaders in their locales about critics of the Warren Commission; ask for their assistance in countering the influence of “conspiracy theorists” who were publishing “conspiracy theories” that blamed top leaders in the U.S. for Kennedy’s death; and urge their media contacts to criticize such theories and those who embraced them for aiding Communists in the Cold War, trying to get attention, seeking to profit financially from the Kennedy tragedy, and refusing to consider all the facts.”
-Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America
The effort to discredit critics of the official account of the JFK assassination proved effective largely because it introduced a new group label into American political discourse. Individuals who questioned the establishment’s narrative were categorized as “conspiracy theorists” and with the help of the media, politicians, and members of academia this group was branded with increasing pejorative labels, they were called paranoid, mentally unwell, crazy, fringe, extremists, crackpots, and fanatics. And as deHaven-Smith explains:
“The CIA propaganda program was designed to interject a new group into the pantheon of political groups Americans employ to pigeonhole political candidates, issues, movements, and so on. In this case, the group was called “conspiracy theorists,” and its beliefs were described abstractly as “conspiracy theories” about the assassination of President Kennedy. However, like the other group labels in American politics, the conspiracy-theory label was (and is) sufficiently vague and general to be applied to many other events, issues, and individuals in addition to the assassination of President Kennedy.”
-Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America
The author of this video is not informed on this matter since he focuses on philosophy and psychology. That’s why he takes a look at the origin of conspiracy theories and cognitive warfare more from abstract, philosophical, and psychological points, without knowledge of the facts about geopolitics and those events.
Now, the author shows he is not well-informed in matters of history and geopolitics since he mentions Lyndon Johnson as a suspect, as mentioned in this Dispatch 1035-960. I, on the other hand, am quite knowledgeable on this subject. For example, while it was called the Warren Commission (named after Earl Warren), the fact is: do you know who spent more time and days on this commission and was the most active member? Allen Dulles. Yes, the same Allen Dulles who was fired by JFK, and the same Allen Dulles — chief of the CIA — whose actions made JFK say, “I will splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the wind.”
So, after Allen Dulles’s actions made JFK want to destroy what Dulles built (the CIA), and after he got fired by JFK, he was the main participant in the commission whose role was to find out who killed JFK. In fact, Allen Dulles was the person with the biggest motive to kill JFK. While many people think and say that Israel was behind killing JFK — and it’s true JFK was messing with Israel and they had motives to do so — in my opinion, the ultimate decision-maker behind his killing was Allen Dulles.
By firing Allen Dulles (the person basically responsible for building the CIA) and threatening to destroy the CIA, JFK signed his own death sentence. Since killing the American president using the CIA was dangerous (as there could be some patriots loyal to the president within a government organization), Allen Dulles used James Angleton, who served as chief of the counterintelligence department of the CIA and Israel liaison, as well as Meyer Lansky, as leader of a crime syndicate also called Murder, Inc. So, while in my opinion the person responsible for the murder was Allen Dulles, the main people involved in it were Mossad and the Mafia. Like I wrote before, using the CIA too much was dangerous for it since there would be some patriots in the CIA who would still be loyal to the American president. Still, while the main people involved were the Mafia and Mossad, decisions were made, in my opinion, by Allen Dulles, who represented the corporate elites for whom the CIA really worked and which represented the “Deep State.” Neither Israel nor the crime syndicate would be willing to do it on their own without a green light from the American corporate elites represented by Allen Dulles.
Now, since the author of the video is focused on philosophy and psychology, I suspect he knows none of those things and looks at this subject only in an abstract way. I just wanted to present my views on this subject. Still, from such videos, even from a person who is not informed on subject matter like this, you can still take out very interesting information — like, for example, this Dispatch 1035-960, which is available on the internet. I want to present to you a fragment of it.
CIA DOC 1035 960 : Central Intelligence Agency : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
1967 CIA cable titled, Countering Criticism of the Warren Report.
a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts
(especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission
made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the
critics are. vithout 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 Communist propagandists.
Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible
speculation.
To employ propaganda assets to answer 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 passage to assets. Our play should point out,
as applicable, that the critics are (i) weddejL 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.
In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful
strategy may be to single out Epstein’s theory for attack, using the attached
Funny enough, I still hear the same attacks from people as mentioned in this Dispatch. For example, that people do it for “financial interest,” even though they are silenced, algorithmically suppressed, and constantly have their credibility attacked and suffer personal attacks. You can just look at the fact that this forum on which I am writing right now is banned in Poland, as well as the fact that YouTube channels which spew pro-government propaganda and Hasbara nonsense are promoted, while channels like TheDuran — which say uncomfortable truths — are suppressed.
I see channels talking about how Trump is wonderful and America is wonderful, gaining 100k subscribers every two weeks, while TheDuran is being suppressed to prevent them from growing. It’s not because TheDuran content is worse, but simply because it is inconvenient for the state and the powers that be. So, for TheDuran, if they were truly “financially interested,” it would be better to follow the line and not speak against the state. I completely don’t understand this argument about this being for “financial interest.”
Was it in the financial interest of Julian Assange to spend 7 years in the Ecuadorian Embassy and over 5 years in the harshest prison in Britain?
Was it in the financial interest of Gary Webb to have his career ruined for speaking the truth?
Was it in the financial interest for Gonzalo Lira to die for speaking out?
Was it in the financial interest for Glenn Diesen to be persecuted and have his academic career and real life threatened?
From what I see, speaking the truth now ends in being called a “propagandist for the enemy” or a “conspiracy theorist,” which is more harmful than beneficial. I respect people who are willing to say the truth despite the cost, and as my favorite philosopher Schopenhauer wrote:
“All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident.”
I understand some people are focused on science; mostly, if you find a new fact — let’s say a formula or an abstract truth — you can speak it without worrying about consequences since it does not threaten the state. But the moment you speak a truth which goes against government lies and the narrative from which this “world of the naive” is constructed, you face threats and troubles. Even in science, you can face consequences when truth goes against the narrative, as seen in the cases of global warming and COVID.
The moment your work threatens government narratives, you need to be ready to face repercussions just like Galileo Galilei. So, while being called a conspiracy theorist does not automatically mean you are telling the truth, I know very well there are things the powers that be don’t want us to know. When I see someone labeled a “propagandist for the enemy,” it does not make me listen to him less — instead, it makes me want to listen to him more. In the eyes of mainstream media, TheDuran’s Alex and Alexander are both “Putin propagandists” simply because they don’t follow official narratives.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-duran/
Overall, we rate The Duran as a Questionable source based on far-right-wing bias, promotion of Russian propaganda, right-wing conspiracies, a lack of transparency, use of poor sources, plagiarism, and failed fact checks. (D. Van Zandt 11/30/2016) Updated (01/08/2025)
Here is the ‘Media Bias/Fact Check’ for all of you with a phobia of conspiracy theories: if you are so discouraged by them, why do you even read TheDuran? After all, according to the mainstream narrative slob, TheDuran is nothing but the “promotion of Russian propaganda and right-wing conspiracies”.
The management of public opinion #politics #media #capitalism #usa #history #government
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
I will end it here. Please feel free to ask questions in the comments; I’ve had to leave out a great deal to keep this post from becoming even longer. Thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end. And, as always…
“Knowledge will make you be free.”
― Socrates
+
“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”
― Richard P. Feynman
=
“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”
― Grzegorz Ochman
“To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.”
― Michael Parenti
“The media have been tireless in their efforts to suppress the truth about the gangster state.”
― Michael Parenti
Read LaterAdd to FavouritesAdd to CollectionReport
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
