The Insidious Conspiracy of Conspiracy Theorist Labels

“Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not really out to get me.”

The easily predictable prison death of Jeffrey Epstein has resulted in mainstream media (MSM) once again peppering their reporting with the term ‘conspiracy theory’. This is a good thing; many a wildly imaginative or opportunistic charlatan has hoodwinked the public by spinning intriguing tales out of nothing, in pursuit of a quick buck. We all chuckle at tabloid headlines while standing in line at the supermarket. So the proper use of the term can serve as a caveat that we should use healthy skepticism before blindly accepting just any old unfounded story.

That said, in many cases, the term is used also at times by the ‘elites’ and MSM in a pejorative sense, followed by smug, condescending smiles or even eye rolls with the intent to intimidate those who raise serious questions. It did not take long for people in government and the military in the 1940’s to gap in that the best way to deflect attention away from Roswell was to imply that those asking serious questions were nut jobs, not to be taken seriously by any sane person. As the technique was refined, agencies that did in fact engage in criminal or clandestine activity became quite adept at using ridicule, condescension and aspersions to silence skeptics. Yet YouTube now offers many interviews of aging military and government personnel, down-to-earth decent old guys with nothing to prove or gain from telling their stories, which they’re now legally cleared to do, and verifying what they saw at Roswell.

And I will never forget sitting in my apartment in 1983, around 3 am, reading a section of a book called Best Evidence, that provided exhaustive research that indicated that the body of JFK was altered to make it look like he was shot from the rear by Oswald. I still feel the chills that ran up my spine at that thought. And yet, for a couple of years after, when I tried to tell everyone to read the book, their eye-rolls eventually intimidated me into silence, except with close trusted friends. Now of course, 56 years and an Internet later, many of those witnesses and participants who were legally forced or intimidated into silence are clearly proving that that is exactly what happened. The JFK assassination was an inside coup d’etat. I strongly encourage you to watch the video below (right to the end) to hear doctors who were present in Parkland hospital swear that the wounds shown by the Warren Commission were altered versions of the actual ones.

Serious journalists like James Douglass, in JFK and the Unspeakable, David S. Lifton in Best Evidence, and Russ Baker in Family of Secrets have doggedly tracked down key eye witnesses, FOIA documents, and ordinary people involved in the aftermath, and connected the dots to show that the CIA and Alan Dulles, J. Edgar Hoover, the Mafia, Cuban ex-pats, and LBJ and long-time Texas thug friends of his were all complicit in JFK’s removal from office. The web is complex and the tale old, but the facts are there nevertheless.

Rolling your eyes? Of course you are. Cognitive dissonance refers to the psychological stress that accrues to holding two conflicting thoughts or values in mind at one time. We don’t want to hear things that could shatter our deeply held beliefs. And yet, the facts show that a good many of those so-called ‘conspiracies’ actually did happen! The CIA did sell arms to Iran in order to fund contras in Nicaragua, Bill Clinton did “have sexual relations with that woman.” The autopsy doctor for RFK said the lethal wound came from a shot fired from 3 inches away from the back of his right ear. Many witnesses swore that Sirhan Sirhan only approached RFK from the front left, and 4-5 feet away. Perhaps the greatest current example is 9/11. Are you aware that the 9/11 Commission Report did not even mention the collapse of WTC building 7? Not a word. Yet thousands of architects, structural engineers, demolition experts, metallurgists, physics academics and other professionals have signed a petition stating that the Commission Report defies the laws of science, and calling for a new investigation. (

No. Many of these so called conspiracy theories were labelled such by the guilty perpetrators, knowing that such a label would effectively intimidate or embarrass nay-sayers into silence.

At the Watergate Hotel, a security guard walked past a door that had had the latch duct taped flat. He was puzzled, but removed the tape and continued on his rounds. It was only upon passing again and seeing the door taped a second time, that he called the police. Now imagine if he hadn’t, and the burglars had not been apprehended. If anyone ever suggested later that the burglary had happened, they would have been shown a padded cell, or at least laughed out of the room. And yet, it actually did happen. And for a couple of years afterward, those who suggested it was sinister and that the White House was trying to cover it up, were labelled conspiracy theorists. Then someone said “hey, doesn’t the President record everything?” So much for conspiracy theory.

Getting back to Epstein, while it is inappropriate for the impetuous, American child-President to implicate Bill Clinton, the late night talk shows automatically label it conspiracy theory. And yet Clinton has lied about the number of trips he took on Epstein’s plane; he says four, independent flight logs say twenty-six. And remember Pizzagate? The conspiracy theory that outrageously claimed the Clintons and other powerful people were involved in a pedophile sex ring? Of course, it could be simply coincidence that the Clintons moved in the circle of pedophile sex trafficker Epstein, but I suspect there is a lot more here than meets the eye. Then again, Trump has also been implicated as a participant with Epstein in earlier times, and what better way to deflect attention away from himself than to implicate Clinton. Watch carefully to see how Trump’s AG Barr goes about this investigation. Watch to see whether the video from Epstein’s cell mysteriously disappears. (By the way, were you aware that in 1966, when investigators sought to measure the wound in JFK’s brain, in order to determine bullet trajectory, the brain, bullets and other evidence had disappeared from the National Archive? Imagine that.)

This month, I launched a book about poor leadership, suggesting that we the public have been lulled to sleep for that past 50 years, shrugging off and tolerating egregious neglect of responsibility and duty by our leaders. It’s called The Boiling Frog: How Complacency and Ignorance Created Our Leadership Crisis and What We Can Do About It. There are several messages in it, but the Epstein death, and subsequent rush to judgement by the media about conspiracy theories has sufficiently concerned me that yet another serious crime against society could well be underway.

Let’s follow this closely. Let’s demand a serious, objective investigation, and serious answers to the question of how a high-profile prisoner, with damning information on extremely powerful people around the globe, could possibly be removed from suicide watch and left un-monitored with sufficient material in his cell that he could commit suicide.

There is a lot more going on here. Focus clearly on those who roll their eyes and insist we are conspiracy theorists, and ask what they have to hide and why.

Values: Leaders Need to Know, Live, and Communicate Them

Daughter: “Mom, have you seen my green top anywhere?”
Mother: “Honey, you know that isn’t exactly my style.” Smiles thinly.
As the daughter runs off, mother dashes upstairs to rifle through her laundry basket, retrieve the stained top (to flashbacks of her out on the town with friends while wearing it) and quickly launders it with Tide’s newest product.
Pan to the daughter now wearing the top “hey mom, I found it; must’ve been hiding somewhere in my closet!” Mother smiles knowingly.
Some may think I am moralizing in criticizing this commercial, but I suggest there’s more going on here than meets the eye, especially the eye of Proctor & Gamble. This is surprising given the excellent job P&G has done for over 100 years to protect and manage it’s brand.
I imagine the ad agency was just trying to be cute: aging mother borrows daughter’s cool blouse to go out and have fun again as a youngster with her friends. This is completely innocuous. All of us middle-agers relate to the urge to do that. I’m wearing my son’s old Notre Dame fleece as I write this.
What P&G overlooked is the message that mother’s subtle lie sends to viewers.
First of all, don’t they realize that for a mother to be afraid or reluctant to tell her daughter the truth reflects an unhealthy family relationship? Quite the contrary, they try to portray this as cute and acceptable. Parents who lie to their children (directly or indirectly) quickly lose their children’s respect. Children played for fools quickly demonstrate to parents they’re anything but fools. This ad portrays as ‘normal’ exactly the dynamic that every family should work hard to avoid: deception and silence.
Second, from a marketing perspective, it is risky and dangerous. P&G has been a leader in (among other things) learning how to tap into and leverage the power of the internet and social media to build relationships that strengthen long-term buying. What I’m sure they quickly learned is that this new savvy audience cannot be easily zoomed; that they, more than ever before, demand transparency, authenticity and integrity, not just in products and services, but also in the companies that sell them. If P&G sanctions an ad celebrating family deception, why should the audience believe P&G doesn’t march to that same drummer? What ‘little white lies’ about P&G are they concealing?
Am I overreacting? Perhaps a tad. After all, it IS only a soap commercial. But the point is that for the pubic to understand and decide on a company’s values, (that is, should I buy from these guys?), that company must first clearly know what their values are, must walk that same talk, and must then ensure that every message sent out from their domain reinforces those values. Consider Hyundai’s ‘green’ car ads as perfectly aligned value statements.
Values, actions and messaging must be tightly aligned, especially among today’s buying public, where online conversations make or break product success. Judgments are swift, harsh, and viral.
Over the centuries (imagine that!) P&G has done a stellar job of crafting their solid image, so I think this ad is simply an oversight. That said, it is enough to make me decide not to buy that product, as the ad irritates me every time I see it. And lucky for them, my blog has yet to build a huge audience.
Values matter: know them, live them, and consistently communicate them.

email a comment