Why the Elite Love the Label 'Conspiracy Theory'

One of the main ways in which the elite remain able to operate without being confronted is how they have molded society in all walks of life to instantly dismiss anything that may be related to 'conspiracy theory.' In achievieng this, they can avoid scrutiny no matter what they do to further their agenda.

I'll use this thread to link some of the many articles that discuss this incredible phenomena, in which people will gladly bend the very laws of physics and label something 'conspiracy' and dismiss it.

I'll list some of the standout quotes from each article although I recommend checking out each article-

web.archive.org...

In his book, “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower,” William Blum warns of how the media will make anything that smacks of “conspiracy theory” an immediate “object of ridicule.” This prevents the media from ever having to investigate the many strange interconnections among the ruling class -- for example, the relationship between the boards of directors of media giants, and the energy, banking and defense industries. These unmentionable topics are usually treated with what Blum calls “the media’s most effective tool -- silence.” But in case somebody’s asking questions, all you have to do is say, “conspiracy theory,” and any allegation instantly becomes too frivolous to merit serious attention.

infowars.net...

The fact that the term "conspiracy theory" has no literal meaning is one of the many things that was firmly established by the events of 9/11. The official explanation of events of that day is unequivocably a theory of conspiracy. It's the ultimate conspiracy theory for the world's most spectacular crime, but it's not called a conspiracy theory. That term is reserved for any ideas that contradict the official story. This is a very important point. Conspiracy theories are not about conspiracies, they are about forbidden thought. The label "conspiracy theory" is a stop sign on the avenues of rational thought and inquiry. It says, "Stop here. Entrance forbidden."

When one reaches the stop sign, one must turn around, one must find another way, must bend the very laws of physics if that is what it takes, or throw them out altogether in order to avoid following a certain train of thought to its logical conclusion.

www.washingtonsblog.com...

The label “conspiracy theory” is commonly used to try to discredit criticism of the powerful in government or business.

For example, just this week – after Tony Blair was confronted by the Iraq Inquiry with evidence that he had used lies to sell the Iraq war – Blair dismissed the entire Iraq Inquiry as simply being part of Britain’s “obsession with conspiracy theories“. (Not only did Blair know that Saddam possessed no WMDs, but the French this week accused Blair of using of ‘Soviet-style’ propaganda in run-up to the Iraq war).

Similarly, psychologists who serve the government eagerly label anyone “taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, … and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook” as crazy conspiracy theorists.

This is not really new. In Stalinist Russia, anyone who criticized the government was labeled crazy, and many were sent to insane asylums

Using the Power of the State to Crush Criticism of the Government

The bottom line is that the power of the state is used to crush criticism of major government policies and actions (or failures to act) and high-level government officials.

Pay attention, and you’ll notice that criticism of “conspiracy theories” is usually aimed at attempting to protect the state and key government players. The power of the state is seldom used to crush conspiracy theories regarding people who are not powerful . . . at least to the extent that they are not important to the government.

Conspiracy Theory as Naive Deconstructive History

by Floyd Rudmin
newdemocracyworld.org
April, 2003

"Conspiracy theory" is usually used as a pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. The power of this pejorative is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of those who advocate the theory. By labeling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory," evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory" means, in effect, "We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation."

In earlier eras other pejorative labels, such as "heresy," "witchery," and "communism" also worked like this. The charge of "conspiracy theory" is not so severe as these other labels, but in its way is many times worse. Heresy, witchcraft, and communism at least retain some sense of potency. They designate ideas to be feared. "Conspiracy theory" implies that the ideas and their advocates are simple-minded or insane.

All such labels implicitly define a community of orthodox believers and try to banish or shun people who challenge orthodox beliefs. Members of the community who are sympathetic to new thoughts might shy away from the new thoughts and join in the shunning due to fear of being tainted by the pejorative label.

www.911blogger.com...

Conspiracy or Coincidence?

Often the term "conspiracy" is applied dismissively whenever one suggests that people who occupy positions of political and economic power are consciously dedicated to advancing their elite interests. Even when they openly profess their designs, there are those who deny that intent is involved. In 1994, the officers of the Federal Reserve announced they would pursue monetary policies designed to maintain a high level of unemployment in order to safeguard against "overheating" the economy. Like any creditor class, they preferred a deflationary course. When an acquaintance of mine mentioned this to friends, he was greeted skeptically, "Do you think the Fed bankers are deliberately trying to keep people unemployed?" In fact, not only did he think it, it was announced on the financial pages of the press. Still, his friends assumed he was imagining a conspiracy because he ascribed self-interested collusion to powerful people.

Society has been conditioned to serve the elite by automatically dismissing anything that questions them as crazy 'conspiracy'. One has to admit, this is one hell of an achievement when you stop and think about it! The elite operate with an agenda against mankind yet the masses have been so conditioned that they will ridicule anything that questions said elite

It's mindblowing how they have managed to achieve it- a society that will automatically dismiss anything challenging the elite that controls them. When I think of it like this, I can't help but wonder that the power behind the NWO is not human. How can one group of people control and engineer millions of people like this, I don't think humans acting alone are capable of such ability.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Dude. That's what it's all ABOUT.

The unfolding awareness of the level of manipulation going on in the hearts and minds of people, as well as the avenues that are taken to assert these things, these "agendas", as we conspiracysts know them.


People need to THIIIIIINK.

reply to post by Wonderer2012

I believe the conditioning which leads many people to use the words conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorist in a derogatory sense is a relatively recent development.

In my opinion this association of people who question the official narrative of historic and contemporary with the lunatic fringe is not just an accident. It was a direct response to the citizens concern about the assassinations in the sixties. There was an active media campaign which tried to margnialize people whose ideas threatened the establishment. There is a declassified CIA memo which gives instructions to CIA media assets how they should deal with those who question the official story of the death of JFK.

Here a link to the important part of the declassified document and to the scanned document.

Kevin Ryan has checked the archives of the Washington Post and the NYT and tried to find out if these instructions have somehow effected the language. Here is what he found:

This cultural phenomenon goes back to 1967. At that time, in response to questions about the Warren Commission Report (which President Ford helped create), the CIA issued a memorandum calling for mainstream media sources to begin countering “conspiracy theorists.”[13] In the 45 years before the CIA memo came out, the phrase “conspiracy theory” appeared in the Washington Post and New York Times only 50 times, or about once per year. In the 45 years after the CIA memo, the phrase appeared 2,630 times, or about once per week.

Before the CIA memo came out, the Washington Post and New York Times had never used the phrase “conspiracy theorist.” After the CIA memo came out, these two newspapers have used that phrase 1,118 times. Of course, in these uses the phrase is always delivered in a context in which “conspiracy theorists” were made to seem less intelligent and less rationale than people who uncritically accept official explanations for major events.

digwithin.net...

Originally posted by Soloro
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Dude. That's what it's all ABOUT.

The unfolding awareness of the level of manipulation going on in the hearts and minds of people, as well as the avenues that are taken to assert these things, these "agendas", as we conspiracysts know them.


People need to THIIIIIINK.

Yes, but does this not paint a worrying picture as more people become aware?

With the government stock piling millions of rounds of ammo, FEMA camps popping up all over the place, fusion centers etc, it's scary stuff because whilst conspiracy theorists were dismissed and ridiculed in the past, what about the future?

'First they ignore you...'



That video actually ties in very well with the thread- the media and puppet politicians defending the corrupt system and the methods they use to manipulate public opinion.

It's like "doublethink" from Orwell's 1984. Everybody should read that book, it paints a very bleak, very realistic portrait of our future, and gives great insight into what is happening all around us. The rise of Big Brother.

Right on. It's become an art form and goes, even, much deeper than the term "conspiracy theory."

I was just reading in John Marks excellent book on the MK-ULTRA fiasco, The Search for the Manchurian Candidate (which continues to this day I believe) that in the few papers that managed to survive there were 39 subjects listed who were given mind-bending drugs such as BZ and then hospitalized by intelligence agency psychiatrists and labeled mentally ill to discredit them and/or their information.

BZ, unlike '___', can incapacitate a person for a week and also creates a mind-set of violence in many.

...effects include stupor, confusion, and confabulation with concrete and panoramic illusions and hallucinations, and with regression to automatic "phantom" behaviors such as plucking and disrobing.

en.wikipedia.org...

Our journalists HAVE let us down, but they are working with their hands tied in most cases due to the co-option and infiltration of our free press by the alphabets with like of Operation Mockingbird and it's modern equivalents.

After 1953, the network was overseen by Allen W. Dulles, director of the Central Intelligence Agency. By this time Operation Mockingbird had a major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. The usual methodology was placing reports developed from intelligence provided by the CIA to witting or unwitting reporters. Those reports would then be repeated or cited by the preceding reporters which in turn would then be cited throughout the media wire services.

These networks were run by people with well-known liberal but pro-American big business and anti-Soviet views such as William Paley (CBS), Henry Luce (Time and Life Magazine), Arthur Hays Sulzberger (New York Times), Alfred Friendly (managing editor of the Washington Post), Jerry O'Leary (Washington Star), Hal Hendrix (Miami News), Barry Bingham, Sr. (Louisville Courier-Journal), James Copley (Copley News Services) and Joseph Harrison[disambiguation needed] (Christian Science Monitor).

The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was funded by siphoning of funds intended for the Marshall Plan. Some of this money was used to bribe journalists and publishers. Frank Wisner was constantly looking for ways to help convince the public of the dangers of Soviet communism. In 1954, Wisner arranged for the funding of the Hollywood production of Animal Farm, the animated allegory based on the book written by George Orwell.

So sit back and relax...your (our) NWO will be served shortly.


The Search for the Manchurian Candidate by John Marks PDF

Well thats fairly obvious news. By now all kinds of people do that.

"Me? Speeding? What kind of conspiracy theory is that !" .

Our journalists HAVE let us down, but they are working with their hands tied in most cases due to the co-option and infiltration of our free press by the alphabets with like of Operation Mockingbird and it's modern equivalents.

The problem is they have no choice, if they want to draw a good salary. The media are owned by less and less hands. People see it in Italy with Berlusconi. I would say it happened in America too, but more often than not, the players trascend national boundaries, like Rupert Murdock, to name one of the few.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Wonderer2012, you hit all the points right on. It all makes so much sense. When we look at our system here in the U.S., how can people not see that the elite, industrialist families control nearly everything. The Rockefellers took over the entire educational system of the United States in 1903, with a little help from Carnegie and pals. I don't think most realize how important that is for getting people programmed and conditioned to be obedient citizens and workers.
As we know, they helped take over the financial system with the Fed. It's all documented, sometimes in their own memoirs even.

From what I can tell they control most of the medical system and own many chemical manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies. So, they control and have controlled oil/energy, banking, steel, insurance, media outlets,
transportation.. and the list goes on and on. Hell, the Rockefellers, and their cronies the Dulles brothers, owned about 53% of the infrastructure of Guatemala in the 1950s. That was mostly done through their United Fruit Company.

Overall, it seems they're all agents of the Rothschilds. It's all there for people to see. A conspiracy in the truest sense of the word. I like what Carlin said, "You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge." I find that this helps me to outline some of these things for people. I think people get hung up on the idea of everyone being in cahoots with a shadowy/cartoony vibe (thanks to their media). It's just an inter-connected upper class of families and their business interests, with everything else just flowing outward.

Well, I didn't mean to rant there, but topics like these really get me going. Great post!

To the OP, it is called 'hiding in plain sight'. Anytime someone gets close enough to pull the mask off, they are discredited, and most of the populace will buy the discrediting campaign as it is almost always easier to believe than the actual truth.

For anyone trying to expose this kind of thing, well sir, it is truly an uphill battle. More like trying to scale a sheer cliff face, come to think of it/

I always find that in situations when you are labelled as a "conspiracy theorist" - is to ask what the definition of a conspiracy theorist is! The idea of being a skeptic is no more different than the idea of being conspiracy theorist, with the latter being thrown around as an insult. Speak with evidence behind you and it will be impossible to refute.


With the growing base of knowledge known as the internet becoming substantially larger each second - I truly believe false flag attacks will become a thing of the past. I can hope that the internet is left free for all, in which case humanity will have triumphed.

Originally posted by Merinda


The problem is they have no choice, if they want to draw a good salary. The media are owned by less and less hands. People see it in Italy with Berlusconi. I would say it happened in America too, but more often than not, the players trascend national boundaries, like Rupert Murdock, to name one of the few.

edit on 26-9-2012 by Merinda because: (no reason given)

Rupert Murdock owns the majority of the newspapers and television news channels - two mediums which are quickly becoming a thing of the past. If the general population have access to unbiased real news then the general population will be better off. The time will come when his gang will attempt to get the internet in a choke hold and force it to comply by filtering and blocking information that doesn't agree with the status quo.

What a minute, they are trying that RIGHT NOW?