The Programming Of Society To Reject Those Who Question
by Dane Wigington, ZenGardner The society we have existed in has been conditioned very effectively to marginalize any that question the government. No matter how big and glaring the lies are from the criminal cabal that runs our country and the planet, most citizens still do not wish to stand out from “the herd”, their programming is for the moment too strong for them to overcome. As George Bush so clearly said “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”. Such a statement has a tremendous impact on many people both consciously and unconsciously. Only when unimaginable challenges are forced upon populations and comfort zones are shattered can the programming be broken. Such conditions are unfolding now by the day. When a critical mass of the population fully realize what is unfolding, and what has been done to them, our paradigm will overturn. The article below is historical documentation of the intentional mental conditioning of US populations to reject those who have the courage to question. Dane Wigington geoengineeringwatch.org In 1967, the CIA Created the Label “Conspiracy Theorists” … to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the “Official” Narrative Source: Zerohedge
Conspiracy Theorists USED TO Be Accepted As Normal
Democracy and free market capitalism were founded on conspiracy theories. The Magna Carta, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and other founding Western documents were based on conspiracy theories. Greek democracy and free market capitalism were also based on conspiracy theories. But those were the bad old days …Things have now changed. The CIA Coined the Term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967 That all changed in the 1960s. Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories. The dispatch was marked “psych” – short for “psychological operations” or disinformation – and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit. The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976. 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. *** 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. *** b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. 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) … *** 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. *** 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. *** 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 …. 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.