Readings – Paul Craig Roberts: Are You a Mind-Controlled CIA Stooge?

I admit that conspiracy theories are one of my guilty pleasures.  But sometimes the outlandish tales have the ring of truth to them.  And sometimes what conventional wisdom had dismissed out of hand as being CT, later turns out to have been true.

What makes something a conspiracy theory and why? Paul Craig Roberts provides some insight in a recent article excerpted below.  Read the whole piece at


Are You a Mind-Controlled CIA Stooge?

Do you smirk when you hear someone question the official stories of Orlando, San Bernardino, Paris or Nice? Do you feel superior to 2,500 architects and engineers, to firefighters, commercial and military pilots, physicists and chemists, and former high government officials who have raised doubts about 9/11? If so, you reflect the profile of a mind-controlled CIA stooge.

The term “conspiracy theory” was invented and put into public discourse by the CIA in 1964 in order to discredit the many skeptics who challenged the Warren Commission’s conclusion that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald, who himself was assassinated while in police custody before he could be questioned. The CIA used its friends in the media to launch a campaign to make suspicion of the Warren Commission report a target of ridicule and hostility. This campaign was “one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”


The CIA’s success in controlling public perception of what our Founding Fathers would have regarded as suspicious events involving the government enables those in power positions within government to orchestrate events that serve hidden agendas. The events of September 11 created the new paradigm of endless war in behalf of a Washington-dominated world. The CIA’s success in controlling public perceptions has made it impossible to investigate elite political crimes. Consequently, it is now possible for treason to be official US government policy…

Perhaps this is CT about CT  😉

Roberts’ entire article –

A list of confirmed conspiracies –

This entry was posted in Readings and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Readings – Paul Craig Roberts: Are You a Mind-Controlled CIA Stooge?

  1. The CIA did not invent the term “conspiracy theory.”

    The first time it appeared in a professional scientific journal was in an article in The Journal of Mental Science, Vol. 16, p 141, published in 1870.

    The term also appeared in The American: A National Journal, Vol. 20, p 67 (May 10, 1890). The following is an excerpt from that article:

    The conspiracy theory may be well founded, but then again it may not. And rather than be dependent upon the evidence of it which may be furnished through the self-sacrificing efforts of the gentlemen who are so ardently engaged in that behalf, we should rather see the party stand on its own foundation, and Mr. Quay on his record, whatever it may be. Then the plot might be proved or disproved, and still the party could live for the further service of the country.

    In 1895, it was used in an essay about reasons the South seceded from the Union.

    Recommended reading:
    David Aaronovitch, Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History

    • Interesting, so the CIA did not invent the term. Perhaps they consciously adopted previous terminology and practices, or perhaps they refined/expanded use of the concept to the point where modern day understanding of the term traces back to them. Something to ponder.

      • Queries says:

        They perhaps didn’t originate the term, they certainly, among many others since, have made liberal use of it, including, most recently, some dodgy political campaign narratives of all stripes.
        It was even used liberally during this very campaign cycle for things that later in the campaign season were strongly supported by official government disclosures, as well as released documents that have come to light.
        One might be hard pressed to dismiss as much.

  2. po says:

    Speaking of conspiracy theorist… I plead guilty. Which means that I read everything available on a subject (yes, including watching youtube where amateurs do an amazing job of logical breakdown of events that we used to expect of seasoned reporters), then make up my mind about which of the competing narratives is the most logical, and too often, it is the one suspecting shadow hands and nefarious elements affiliated with US government, its intelligence agencies and their allies foreign and domestic.
    At this point, to not be a conspiracy theorist is take at face value whatever we are told by the government and its media stooges and to actively do a thorough job of self-lobotomization resulting in childlike naivete and subsequent inability to apply logic and rationality.

    • That is probably the best approach. Unfortunately too many people start out with their minds made up, and are looking through the lens of confirmation bias.

      In the 1960s, Psychology Professor Jerome Bruner at Yale conducted a series of studies of the effect of coming to a conclusion first, then looking at evidence.

      Subjects who were asked to form opinions based on a very small snipped of information were very hard to dislodge from the opinion, even when the rest of the information was given to them. This was clear, distinct and unambiguous facts that their conclusion was wrong, but they literally could not, or would not, believe the truth.

      We see that phenomenon in most cases of false confessions. Detectives decide a suspect is guilty, and instead of looking for possible alternative suspects, spend all their energy proving the one they picked is guilty.

    • Thank you, po. My approach is similar: read widely, but think for myself, including considering who benefits from a certain narrative. Follow the money, as the saying goes.

  3. Incidentally, Paul Craig Roberts is well known right wing extremist who Jonah Goldberg, editor of the National Review and hardly a liberal, calls Roberts out specifically in an article, America the Treacherous: The Seditious Dementia of Conspiracy Theories.

    • po says:

      Chuck, did you say Paul Craig Roberts is a right wing extremist? For all the years I have been reading him I have never caught that impression!
      Now that you mention it I realize I never read him advocating any liberal policies but I don’t remember right wing leanings either.

    • Hmmm …. I am not familiar with they guy. I’ll check your links and finish reading the other writings from his site that I have queued up when I am not as tired as I am now.

      But what are you saying here? That we should dismiss anything he says because he is right wing? There was a time when I never read right wing sources, but especially with this election cycle I have been finding to my chagrin that these sources are often more likely to accurately report certain topics than the mainstream liberal-oriented press is.

      • No, not at all. As the old proverb goes, “Even a broken clock is right twice a day.” What I think is important is to remember something one of my grad school professors taught me. He said, before you read an opinion, find out what the writer’s biases are. If they are trying to sell something, keep your hand firmly on your wallet.”

        Are you familiar with the term, ‘ecological validity?’ If I read a study about whether cigarettes are harmful, it is helpful to know the research was done at Duke and paid for by R. J. Reynolds.

        Now, that does not mean the study results are biased or wrong, but they do deserve far more critical scrutiny than a study done at an institution that is not dependent on tobacco money and funded by the government. The same rule of critical evaluation applies if it is a study done by an institution known to have an anti-tobacco bias.

        • Well, actually, I think all those words boil down to another way of dismissing the guy’s article merely because he is conservative (that is, assuming your sources are correct), while giving the sliver of acknowledgement that at 12:42 am and 12:42 pm he might be right about some minor thing.

          Aside from taking issue with who coined “conspiracy theory,” do you agree or disagree with other parts of his piece?

          • If we are talking about how and why the twin towers came down, I know how they came down, and it was not some kind of controlled demolition. Two planes flew into the buildings, the internal temperature rose to a degree that the steel supporting columns that had not been shared off by the airplanes softened so they could no longer support the thousands of tons of weight above them and the whole thing came down like a stack of Jenga blocks if you pull out a critical middle piece.

            Some have made a big deal of the jet fuel not making a hot enough fire. In truth, most of the jet fuel burned in a matter of seconds in the initial explosion. The liquid fuel shot off in all directions, burning as it went, creating the gigantic fireball. What all firefighters know, and what is taught at the Academy, is that ordinary office furnishing, paper and other items found in offices burn with intense heat. Air being sucked into the flames increase the temperature. Free flames outdoors seldom go over about 900ºC; however, peak temperature of fires in confined spaces such as offices, stores, and indoor rooms typically reach 1,200º C. That converts to approximately 2,100ºF. The beams in the WTC met building codes in that they were coated with fire resistant material. However, post crash inspection showed that a considerable amount of that coating was knocked loose by the impact. The building was not engineered for the impact loads of a 200,000 pound airplane hitting it at several hundred miles an hour.

            Structural steel of the type used in the WTC begins to soften at about 425ºC (800ºF).
            At 650ºC (1,200ºF) it will have lost half its strength. Keep in mind those columns were still trying to hold up thousands of tons above the impact point. When the steel softened like cooked spaghetti, it did not have to “melt.” The supporting columns lost their strength and folded up like wet noodles, literally. Newton’s First Law says that once the upper sections started coming down onto the lower part, there was no stopping the collapse.

            Heat, not some theory about demolition charges brought those buildings down. Look at building demolition logically, it would have taken crews of hundreds of workers several days or weeks to prepare charges, and there would have been no way all that activity which would involve drilling holes in walls and setting off test charges could have gone unnoticed. Even if that were true, buildings don’t collapse like they are supposed to. There are several funny examples on video.

            This is a room with ordinary furnishings being burned under controlled conditions. You can see the flashover occur at the 2:31 mark. That means temperatures reached well over 1,000ºC in this video, clearly hot enough to soften steel until it is too weak to hold up a roof, much less a multi-story building above the level of the fire.

            As for my own background and qualifications to discuss these issues, I refer you to a conversation I had with Lenny Flank on Daily Kos a couple of days ago.

          • Chuck, in our conversation here, YOU are the one talking about 9/11, not I. My interest is in using claims that something is a conspiracy theory as a political tool to detract from a hidden agenda.

          • True. However, the biggest and baddest CT going around has been 9-11 and what happened to the buildings.

            Now, we might get into how come certain Saudi VIPs got out of the US so fast, just as the US air traffic system was grinding to a halt is another story. If it is a conspiracy, it is not a theory. I have been thinking about the guy who called himself Edscan. He promised he would write about something he learned, but would not disclose it until GWB was safely out of office. He finally wrote what he promised in a diary he called, “The Promise.”

            There was a good deal of speculation about who or what Edscan was. My take is that he was most likely a mid-level functionary, possibly with the State Department. He had been too frightened to reveal what he saw and heard for thirty years. At the time he wrote this, he was 80 years old.

          • To go CT on you, if the persception is that 9/11 is “the biggest and baddest CT going around,” it is because it it distracts from a larger CT, which is waging war for benefit of the military/industrial complex and other monied interests.

            (Design note – For nesting comments, I think max four or five levels.)

          • You know me. I get distracted easily…..oh look, there’s a squirrel. I was writing that stuff between three and four o’clock AM. I am not sure I was fully functional. What distracted me was the fact Roberts has been a “9-11 truther,” among other things.

          • Replying from email … Chuck & squirrels, yep

          • Queries says:

            Lest we forget, stories may be fostered to obscure others in order to create “noise”, thereby making others seem what they are not…
            I am not referring to your posting however.

          • po says:

            Also, Chuck, it is not for nothing that 2500 architects and engineers agree that the collapse of the buildings (not even including building 7 which fell on its own!!!!) was abnormal by any standard of precedent and physics.
            As for the labor required to place explosives in the building, there is enough documentation and witnesses that state the presence of exactly such labor during preceding weeks and months. Many witnesses also stated they heard explosions BEFORE the first plane hit.
            The supposed hijackers? None of them was qualified to fly a plane, let alone direct it so precisely…as many pilots themselves offered. Odd also that some of those hijackers were found alive and well in other countries.
            Additionally, it is documented that the visas that allowed them entry into the US were given in breach of the standards and protocols for visas, as stated by the consulate rep who witnessed it.
            Finally, rather odd that the ruins of the buildings were packaged and sent to China for melting before a comprehensive forensics were conducted.
            Finally 2, it is also well documented that Israeli intelligence agents were detained who had been cheering the collapse of the buildings. They were returned to Israel and nothing ever came out of that.
            Taking all of those issues in consideration (plus the many more I left out), any logical person (conspiracy theorist, including widows of 9/11) may/should refuse to accept the official version of the events, especially since the process by which that official version was established was notoriously flawed and subjective.

          • po, this might be of interest to you: 15 YEARS LATER: ON THE PHYSICS OF HIGH-RISE BUILDING COLLAPSES – I don’t want to believe this stuff, but I also refuse to close my eyes.

          • po says:

            Thanks, Joy, will read.

  4. JoF,
    Per your suggestion, I moved nesting comments to five layers. Eight levels was squashing stuff too far to the right side of the page.

    • I much prefer nested comments over straight chrono, and five levels look good. But a new problem! One can’t reply to comments at the fifth level, although I think I can go up one level and reply to that, which I will try.

      It’s also darn hard to find new comments … I am getting email alerts so I know when a new one comes in and what it says, but for a comment thread of any length, finding the comment means having to search for the person’s name or key word. I haven’t tried monitoring comments through the admin page, but as I raised before with another topic, that only works for editors and is not available to guests.

      Once the format is tweaked, a “Mechanics of Commenting” sticky post might be useful, and surely WP has such somewhere.

      • Nope, no widget for that. This format has the same problem as all blogs using nested comments. My work-around is what I did below, when I replied to Queries; that is, address a comment to who you are talking to.

        It’s also a good technique to use when comments are not nested, so everyone knows who you are replying to.

    • Ah, replying from email takes you right to the comment that you are replying to. Clumsy as all get-out tho.

  5. Queries,
    RE: your comment at 12:44PM

    That was the point I was trying to make, but it is not a good idea to try and be logical and coherent at 4:00AM after two or three glasses of good Australian Shiraz.

    I am uneasy just talking about some things. In one of my response to one of Edscan’s diaries, I related an incident that happened back about 1994. I went out to the airport to go on a cross country flight. I found the door unlocked, the master switch turned on and the battery dead as a door nail. I got the FBO mechanic to quick charge the battery. When I looked at the Hobbs Meter, I saw that 1/10 hour had been run on the engine since I last logged time. I went over the plane with a fine tooth comb and could not find anything else wrong.

    My gust lock was still in the control column. The purpose of a gust lock is to make the control surfaces immovable when the plane is parked, so windy storms will not cause them to flap and be damaged. The photo below is a picture of a typical gust lock used in most general aviation airplanes.

    My gust lock was not typical. I made it myself. It was small, well concealed, and had no “Remove Before Flight” banner on it. If one did not know where to look, the control yoke will remain locked no matter what you do. Other pilots told me that was both dumb and dangerous. I was told that one of these days I was gong to forget to take it out and very bad things would happen. However, part of my preflight routine was to check all controls for freedom of movement clear to their limits. I always did that twice. Once before starting engine and again just before turning onto the runway.

    On this day, it was clear the plane had been broken into and the engine started and run for somewhere between five and ten minutes. I assumed that whoever did it was probably trying to steal it, but with the controls locked, it was not going anywhere. It was a type of plane that drug smugglers like, and also is used by Brothers to the Rescue. The person who broke into my plane obviously shut the engine down by closing the mixture and throttle controls, but left the master switch on, which ran down the battery.

    Once the battery was charged enough to start both engines, I filed my flight plan and took off. When I got to my cruising altitude, I flipped on the autopilot to reduce the work load. The instant the autopilot came on, the plane started wild dutch rolls. The little 28-second video below shows what dutch rolls look like in training practice.

    Those are mild compared to what happened to me next. The rolls were violent, going past vertical and getting worse. The airframe was experiencing loads nearing the maximum allowable. I managed to reach down and disengage the autopilot, and the rolling/yawing stopped immediately. Later, I tried the autopilot again, but this time kept my finger on the switch. It did it again, but that time I was quick to disengage.

    I took the plane to a well-known aircraft maintenance shop in Mena, Arkansas, and they said they could find nothing wrong. The autopilot still wanted to wrench the wings off the damn airplane. A few weeks later, I took it to another avionics shop run by a Vietnam vet I knew. He found where it had been tampered with and only took about five minutes to fix it. Now where have I hear the Mena, AR airport mentioned before?

    As I said back then, I understood why Edscan was frightened. Later on, there was a pile-on of Edscan, with accusations being anti-Semitic and Kos banned him.

    I don’t think anyone was trying to steal my plane.

    • Criminy, Chuck. I know some of the history about the Mena airport, certainly not the whole story, even for what is commonly known. I am wondering why you took your plane to Mena – is that where your flight from hell originated?

      • I was living and working in Jackson, MS at the time. Was working on a number of high profile cases, some I still won’t talk about. Some of them involved big oil companies. Took it to Mena because they have a number of repair and maintenance shops there. It is a big regional airport now.

        I used to live in Mena, and it was where I took my first flying lesson. That was when the Mena airport was nothing but a grass field, little more than a meadow that was kept mowed.

    • Queries says:

      Seems to me you were targeted, I would have recommended at the time that you get a forensics team in on it, as well as gone over my actions both personal, and professional to find a connection.

  6. CT in the news – Shadowproof: How Clinton and US Government Benefit when New York Times Attacks Wikileaks

    • Queries says:

      It’s all to the purpose of obfuscation, and deflection, they have to have friendly outlets foster/plant such as they can’t personally refute the truth of the releases as it could be cause legal exposure for making public false exculpatory statements…

  7. Such a wild story one would think it has to be CT, but it’s true – Truthout: Hillary Clinton, the Podesta Group and the Saudi Regime: A Fatal Ménage à Trois

  8. ann summers says:

    I am nyuck a stooge

Comments are closed.