Home Conspiracy CIA Coined the Term “Conspiracy Theory” in 1967 To Deter Criticism of...

CIA Coined the Term “Conspiracy Theory” in 1967 To Deter Criticism of Warren Commission

58
President Kennedy and CIA head Allen Dulles

by Mary W Maxwell

Have you had the experience of telling a family member that you’ve discovered the truth behind some public disaster only to have him or her ask you “Is that a conspiracy theory?”  Did you honestly answer Yes – meaning the event was planned in advance and so there had to have been some conspirators to do the planning?

Did you then notice the family member switch off and change the subject? Did he or she seem to dislike you after that?

Or did you make a slip of the conspiracy tongue at the meeting of an  organization and subsequently noticed that notice that they’ve never invited you back?

I am a conspiracy theorist, bigtime, and enjoy saying so. Yes of course I get the cold shoulder, but truth-seeking is an instinct and there’s not much you can do about it.

However, based on something I’ve just read, I may decide to abjure the term “conspiracy theory.” That is, I’ve read that the CIA invented the term, and they did so as part of their ongoing ability to deceive us and dumb us down. They apparently consider it their sworn duty to prevent criticism of government.

After President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, President Lyndon B Johnson (let us wonder how he came to be the running mate in 1960) set up The Warren Commission to investigate JFK’s death. Or not investigate it as the case may be. Or to come up with a lot of hooey, such as the single bullet theory.

The head of the commission was the then-serving Chief Justice of the United States, Earl Warren (1891-1974) who himself had been a governor of California and was a Republican candidate for president in 1952. It is very displeasing that a member of the US Supreme Court could be such a liar, but never mind that for now.

And I’ll pass over the fact that the late Sherman Skolnick claimed that Earl Warren had been told to kill his elderly father with his own hands as a test for making his way up, and did so.

The members of the Warren Commission included such conspirators as Allen Dulles, John McCloy, and Congressman Gerald Ford (we might ask how he came to be Nixon’s running mate in 1968). And Rep Hale Boggs, not a team player, who in 1972, disappeared  in a Cessna in Alaska, along with fellow congressman Nick Begich, Sr.

I wanted to include some jokes about the Warren Commission here – they were rife in the 1970s – but googling for “Jokes, Warren Commission” kept bring me the phrase “the Warren Commission was a joke.”

CIA Document of 1967 Sent to the Media

The rest of this article is a complete copy of a CIA Document 1035-960 entitled “Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report,” dated 1967. The CIA sent it to newspapers and book publishers, in hopes of dissuading citizens from getting interested in the theories that were being rumored about the particulars of a US president being shot, in broad daylight, in Dallas four years earlier.

I have added a bit of bolding and the occasional square bracketed comment. This CIA’s paper makes seven points, in about 1400 words:

Concerning Criticism of the [1964] Warren Report

1 – Our Concern.

From the day of President Kennedy’s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, various writers have now had time to scan the Commission’s published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission’s findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission’s report, a public opinion poll recently [1967] indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, [perhaps thanks to Sylvia Meagher’s excellent sleuthing into the Warren Report itself] while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2 – This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity [as compared to whom?], experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination.

Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved [I’ll say!] among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists [nowadays they wouldn’t dare be so forthright!], 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 assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active, addressees are requested:

a) To discuss the publicity problem with  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 without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. [such as what 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. [Why have libraries anyway? Who needs ‘em?]

b) To employ propaganda assets to 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 [a ploy, is that a conspiracy?] 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 [e.g., Mary Maxwell’s infatuation with her theory of the Marathon bombing].  In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein’s theory [huh?] for attack, using the attached Fletcher  article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane’s book is much less convincing that Epstein’s and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

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 [espccially as the witnesses got bumped off]. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933 [indeed], which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b) Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. [That’s true, for example Marathon writers overvalue the murder of Todashev by the FBI.] 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) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence [for example of the Lindt Café siege].  A close examination of the Commission’s records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

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. [a seldom-noted expense, payments of hush money!] Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy’s brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

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. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

e) Oswald would not have been any sensible person’s choice for a co-conspirator. He was a “loner,” mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service. [How did “professional intelligence service” get into this conversation?]

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 e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the “ten mysterious deaths” line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment. [which proves the point, doesn’t it?] )

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. [You could go see how many reviewers actually followed this suggestion.]

SHARE

58 COMMENTS

  2. Experience has taught me that the best way of dealing with loaded questions such as “Is that a conspiracy theory?”is to ask “what’s that?”

  3. I have been thinking for a while that the Repubs need to find a candidate for 2020, instead of Trump. My reason — apart from the fact that he hasn’t pardoned Leonard Peltier, say, or that he threatens war in breach of Article I, section 8 — is that you can’t talk to him, he won’t listen, he just repeats his claim.

    So today he said Alabama will suffer from hurricane Dorian (wonder where they got that name) , and the media corrected him but he would not capitulate. I don’t recommend you spend precious time on this video, and it is awful that they hired four speakers to comment, and of course they are out to bash Trump no matter what,

    but Ms Atkins did get it right — Trump DOES NOT PROCESS INFORMATION. Good God, how can we have such a leader? It’s fierce.

    This arvo I went to visit candidate Tulsi Gabbard in a small town in NH. Told her she is wanted for a Gumshoe interview, but the venue was too noisy for us to do it. On the way back I heard a citizen say “It’s remarkable that Tulsi called out the CIA.”

    Bout time someone called out those bastards. You go, girl!

  4. “Wash your mouth out, young Mary [actual quote was “son”] – I’ve seen the pictures and reports in the newspapers and on TV !!”

    Speaking about Wellington House – Lippmann – Bernays – Toynbee – Tavistosk – Woodrow Wilson – Creel Committee …

    From Chapter 5 of “The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations” by John D. Coleman

    “From the beginning the techniques were designed in such a way that polling (public opinion-making) was based on one obvious, but striking feature: — it was concerned with people’s opinions, not with their understanding of the processes of science. Thus, by intent, the pollsters elevated an essentially irrational element of mind to a primary level of public focus. This was a conscious decision to undermine the grasps of reality of masses of people in an increasingly complex industrial society.”

    Here
    https://archive.org/details/Tavistock_201601

    Or a copy here for a mere £850.00
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/TAVISTOCK-INSTITUTE-HUMAN-RELATIONS-Spiritual/dp/0963401971?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duc08-21&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0963401971

  5. President John F. Kennedy stopped by our high school in San Diego, (Herbert Hoover High School) for a couple of minutes as the El Cajon Boulevard was lined up with people to see him as his motorcade passed. He got out and started shaking the students hands we thrilled and the girls screamed in ecstasy! I was 16 at the time. This was a few months before the assassination.

    My father and I talked about the Warren Commission and he said it was a coverup and a lie and I too had come to that conclusion. Anything that is classified was certainly felt it was a coverup of the criminal activity of the assassination of JFK who was deeply loved by his country.

    That was the starting point of the vast criminal conspiracy network of the criminal consortium that now runs the US Fascist Empire or the CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    • That is too confined and does not fully explain the full context of Revise or Revisonism or Historical Revisionism and is in its negative form in the English language.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionism
      Historical revisionism, the critical re-examination of presumed historical facts and existing historiography
      Historical negationism, a particular form of historical revisionism concerned with the denial of claims accepted by mainstream historians

        • Ok but Im sure you got my point of a confined definition or of just a negative context. Thanks for the compliment. 🙂

          https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/revisionism
          asking questions about and trying to change existing beliefs about how events happened or what their importance or meaning is:

          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism
          Historical revisionism is a practice in historiography in which historians reinterpret traditional views of causes and effects, decisions, explanations and evidence. It is said that “history is written by the winners”. Thus, it is instructive to look at history with a critical eye. As such, revisionism is an accepted and important part of historical endeavor – it serves the dual purpose of constantly re-examining the past while also improving our understanding of it. Indeed, if one accepts that history attempts to help us better understand today by better understanding how we got here, revisionism is essential. Only idiots take history wholeheartedly as indisputable facts.

          • Thank you Arlyn, appreciated and the compliment was genuine. (My copy-paste button is running hot.)

            I am sure you understand I was being flippant with the definition of ‘revisionism’ because the term itself is being demonised as if an integral part of ‘conspiracy theorism’. I was pushing back on the ubiquitous ‘projectionism’ by emphasising that the moment you knowingly provide a false, misleading or improbable explanation of an event, that is true revisionism.

            Perhaps we could extend the definition even further …

            Revisionism: preparation of a false narrative about an event before it happens.

  7. “This was a conscious decision to undermine the grasps of reality of masses of people in an increasingly complex industrial society.”

    Crikey, they sure did a good job of it. The freaking Democrats just had a debate on ‘global warming’. No, they didn’t actually debate whether it was true or not, but rather what sort of idiotic policies each would implement if they became President. What a hoot, I liked the ‘environmental racism’ theme, although I was surprised that ‘gender’ didn’t get slipped into the ‘environment’ sound bites in some form.

    I think I now agree with Bill Gates. What the world needs now is a massive DIE-OFF. There’s way too many stupid people, hopefully, this Grand Solar Minimum will get rid of a bunch of them.

  8. Every week somewhere in Commonwealth countries, one of Her Majesty’s learned crown prosecuters opens the case for Her Majesty, before a jury in a criminal trial outlining the EVIDENCE IN THE CROWN CASE TO BE PRESENTED TO SUPPORT THE CRIMINAL CHARGE/S ON THE INDICTMENT.
    How strange? So many such charges are based on a alleged conspiracy by two or more persons to commit ……… believe it or not; some examples: Conspiring to kill granny to get granny’s estate, conspiracy to import drugs, supply drugs, to defraud the tax person, to invent a unknown driver speeding ……. and so on.
    The jury then considers the EVIDENCE and determines a verdict based on or the lack of sufficient evidence to find the charge of conspiracy to …….. etc.
    So if anyone says ; ” that is just a conspiracy theory” and does not examine the available evidence, then they are insulting Her Majesty at first instance.
    Seems that in regard to 911 most of the politicians, msm’s and shock jokes are conspiring to defeat the course of justice and can, on the evidence be reasonably found guilty of that crime.
    Clearly, those immediately above do not have the necessary intellectual and objective capacity to serve on any jury in a criminal trial.
    Channel 7 is running a program on 911 soon.
    Now let us consider it and objectively consider whether channel 7 will be guilty of a conspiracy to attempt to defeat the course of justice by failing to inform and/or misleading/lying to, the public in regard to the avaible evidence, clearly proving that it is party to the official government tin foil hatters 911 unscientific fraudulent conspiracy theory and therefore guilty of the evil crime of a conspiracy to protect mass murderers.
    Her Majest may not be amused!

    • “Seems that in regard to 911 most of the politicians, msm’s and shock jokes are conspiring to defeat the course of justice and can, on the evidence be reasonably found guilty of that crime.”

      Oh joy, oh rapture. Ned, when can we effect a capture?

    • It will just be pure propaganda with no real insight or investigation. Channel 7 and 9 were part of doctoring images with the Port Arthur massacre. Once you start lying you have to continue lying and denying. Her Majesty has had plenty of time to act or react….

  9. Ned, adding to your post, Channel 7 were guilty of being involved in a conspiracy when Mike Willesee aired the program, “Never Before Seen Evidence”, in which he added to the already government conspiracy of misinformation regarding the Port Arthur incident.

    Interesting connection. I have just finished a phone conversation with a person connected to a minor political party who tried to convince me that they had studied all information of Port Arthur Massacre since the late nineties and in their opinion Martin Bryant definitely was the gunman. (Could not convince me. I have the proof…..in the witness statements…..not all of the witnesses could be liars.)

    Terry, are there really such people on this planet as that couple in the US?

    • It’s getting to where I don’t want to go outside anymore, there’s too many ‘crazy makers’ walking around.

      I think Martin Armstrong is correct in his assessment about the Global Warming hoax being used for population control. It’s like a bunch of dumbasses crossing a one way street while looking in the the wrong direction. – There’s a penalty to be paid for being stupid.

  10. Conspiracy theory is only that, until that theory is proven correct, then it is a fully fledged conspiracy
    .
    Just as Martin Bryant was the gunman. That is a theory, now proven to be a theory only, as it is fact that he was not the gunman. How do we know. Police witness statements which were never put to court or jury.

    9/11, Another conspiracy theory is that 19 muslin high-jackers flew aeroplanes into the buildings. No proof so only a conspiracy theory. Building 7 brought down by deliberate implosion, not theory, because we can see it over and over again with our own eyes.

  11. The fact that the fatal shot to Kennedy’s head came from the front has been an established fact for decades, the surgeon at Parkland even wrote a book about it. Ergo, Oswald could not have been the killer., (There is also evidence that he was not even in the Texas Book Depository Building at the relevant time). There are literally hundreds of books destroying the BS that was the Warren Commission Report.
    To me what is really interesting about the Kennedy killing (and that of his brother 5 years later) is that the mainstream media are not the least interested in telling the truth. That cannot be by chance. Once one appreciates that fact, then it is a natural extension to distrust the mainstream’s version of any significant event. There have been countless examples since November 1963 and yes, Australia has played its assigned role of perpetrating the mythology. The more interesting question to me is, cui bono?

      • That is far too simplistic for a number of reasons:
        The refusal of JFK to support nuclear to Israel
        The Bay of Pigs that JFK refused to support
        The mafia helped get JFK elected and then they went after them
        JFK apparently told Marilyn national state secrets and she was going to spill the beans.
        The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION gives the orders not the US government
        The ultra right in politics including the CIA did not like JFK policies
        The withdrawal of Vietnam troops angered the military industrial complex oligarchy
        the CIA and their drug distribution from Laos Cambodia Thailand and Vietnam would be curtailed

    • At 36:41 Ms Tulsi Gabbard “There are so many different examples they [the US Govt] are providing direct and indirect support – directly to al Qaeda – in places like Yemen and Syria … “

      Then check this video out – especially at 2:35:

      George W Bush: “Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists including members of al-Qaeda … “

      So was “al-Qaeda” responsible for 911 or not?

      • Thanks, Fish. In 18 USC 2332, the term “WMD” is not very clear:

        (c)Definitions.—For purposes of this section—
        (1) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22));

        (2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
        (A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
        (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
        (C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
        (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; and

    • That is astonishing. Thank you, Diane.

      “Another genius scientist was Nikola Tesla, a super genius Serbian. Tesla, along with the others mentioned above, knew that the ancient Indian Brahmans (wise men), well equipped with knowledge from the Vedas, had understandings of the intricate laws, mathematical formulas and subtle workings of the universe that far surpass anything we can even imagine today.”

  14. The burning question re the JFK assassination is, did those concerned consciously carry out Tenskwatawa’s bidding or were they deluded enough to believe that they were steering the ship? I’ve no doubt it was the latter but so far as Gumshoe goes it seems I’m the odd one out.

    From what I can gather the respective curse was broken by some Christian group and Reagan was saved accordingly; that sort of thing doesn’t just disappear by itself

  16. Correction: Gerald Ford (major pedophhile according to Cathy O’Brien, allegedly in cahoots with the late Pierre Trudeau) was NOT the running mate of Nixon in 1968. Rather it was Spiro Agnew.

    Thus we can ask How did Agnew get the job? He had a popularity rating of zero. Probably picked because he was sackable and indeed he got the sack, by Gen Haig, as explained in his book “Go Quietly Or Else.”

  18. Tonight! On Gumshoe…

    Mary eats some shortbread…

    Terry discovers that since gender is a spectrum there are now infinite genders…

    And I discover a feminist who invents a chair…
    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6_38X7GJvQ

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.