Last night I happened across an article by Brandon Murphy on the CIA generated label of "Conspiracy Theorist." Brandon's article, published at Waking Times, draws extensively upon a book published by the very reputable University of Texas Press by Lance deHaven-Smith, a well-established political scientist. I ordered the book but will today simply except from Murphy's article.
Drawing upon deHaven's account (pages 85-100 in his book), Murphy's article at Waking Times describes CIA Dispatch 1035-960 instructing CIA agents to contact journalists and opinion leaders concerning critics of the Warren Commission in order that they might assist in combatting the influence of “conspiracy theorists” who blamed US leadership for the death of President John Kennedy (page 85)
Brandon Murphy, “In 1967, the CIA Created the Label Conspiracy Theorist,” Waking Times January , 2016, http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/01/13/in-1967-the-cia-created-the-label-conspiracy-theorists/
Conspiracy Theory in America (Discovering America) Hardcover –University of Texas Press (April 15, 2013) http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Theory-America-iscovering/dp/0292743793/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
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.
Majia here: The following recommendations really struck me because I've seen these practices deployed when controversial claims are made at my blog and other social media sites:
[instruct opinion leaders that authorities] 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.
For an example of these types of comments, see this blog post here: http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/waveforms-and-sonifications.html
I am NOT using this discussion of psyops to argue that any particular theory/hypothesis about the cause of the Fukushima disaster is true or false because I lack adequate information to come to any conclusions.
What I am arguing is that we can see these tactics being deployed, rightly or wrongly, in the comments of this blogpost.