A Conspiracy Theory refers to a type of belief that suspects a secret or covert group is responsible for planning or orchestrating events, actions, or outcomes in secret, typically with the intent of manipulating or deceiving the public. The term is used to categorize any type of belief that rejects the standard explanation for an event or set of circumstances, believing the situation to be the result of a secret plot or cover-up by powerful people.

Throughout history, Conspiracy Theories have always been a present as a central theme to guide civilizations as they evolved. In fact, most people fail to realize that America was actually founded on a Conspiracy Theory that detailed the oppressive nature of the King of England’s tyrannical design. From the very beginning, Americans have been aware of the potential for abuses of power and secret plots by political insiders who would seek to undermine, overpower and dismantle the constitution. The difference is that people with these types of concerns were not called Conspiracy Theorists, they were called Patriots.

The reason the Founding Father’s are not known for being Conspiracy Theorists is because the term itself is fairly new and did not even exist in the American lexicon until 1964. 1963 is the year that JFK was shot and Conspiracy Theory was created as a sort of catchall phrase for a range of criticisms regarding the Warren commission’s conclusion about the Kennedy assassination which attributed it to a lone gunman and sparked widespread debate and skepticism among the public.

A Conspiracy Theory Diagnostic Framework

At first, Conspiracy Theory as a term did not carry the same negative connotations as it does today, but overtime it has evolved to be used almost exclusively as a way to dismiss alternative viewpoints, marginalize dissent and delegitimize critical examination of official explanations and accounts of certain events without intelligent or reasoned debate. Ultimately, the term has been so deeply and intentionally distorted that believing in conspiracy theories is now widely considered to be a symptom of impaired thinking similar to superstition and mental illness. The very term itself has been used to frame suspected collusion between people in power and government distrust as a symptom of mental illness, deliberately foreclosing upon the opportunity for rational discussion and independent investigation to occur.

Simply put, a person is thought to have impaired thinking if they do not wholly trust the government and instead believe that it’s possible for elite organizations to secretly plan things that are not in the interest of the people and then lie, deny and cover up their actions.

What’s really happened is that Conspiracy Theory skeptics and deniers have side-stepped critical thinking and substituted unbiased reasoning and objective observation with an irrational decision-making process driven by emotional attachment to American political leaders and institutions. Many people have placed their complete trust in democracy and government leading them to find the details of conspiracy theories offensive and emotionally triggering. While their emotional attachment is understandable, it can’t be emphasized enough that it is completely illogical.

When an uncontrolled emotional response interferes with the ability to reason without bias, thoughts become irrational and by definition; insane. The absence of reason that accompanies emotional reactions is what blindly categorizes all Conspiracy Theories as ludicrous and insulting even though not all of them are. Critics of conspiracy theories carelessly dismiss all Conspiracy Theories by lumping together all kinds of anti-government beliefs, unsubstantiated claims and suspicions of elite political crimes as far-fetched fantasies that are a threat to homeland security and destructive of public trust but the truth is that political conspiracies in high office do actually happen, so if some Conspiracy Theories are true, then it doesn’t make sense to dismiss all unsubstantiated claims as if they are definitely false.

Take the Watergate Scandal in the 1970’s for example. Suspicions of a high-level conspiracy within the U.S. government were initially dismissed as conspiracy theories, but two investigative journalists revealed a series of illegal activities and subsequent cover-up, demonstrating how important it is to maintain a critical and discerning approach when it comes to suspicions of wrong doing.

Today, journalists are protect the government, elites and powerful organizations while betraying the civic ethos of America by using the term Conspiracy Theory to ridicule and dismiss suspicions of elite crimes, instead of investigating them. The constitution was written in a way that was well aware of how political power could be a corrupting influence that had the ability and potential to conspire against the people. In fact, the founding fathers were so concerned about this happening that they believed corruption was almost inevitable so they explicitly and repeatedly called for checks and balances, as well as popular vigilance against anti-democratic schemes in high office. You should be wondering how this all came to be.

Cognitive Infiltration

In 2009, Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor appointed by President Obama to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), co-authored an article on the causes and remedies of conspiracy theories. The OIRA serves as the central authority for reviewing Executive Branch regulations and coordinating federal privacy policy, much similar to a Community Guidelines Center in a privately owned corporation, such as Twitter.

Examining the ideas held by individuals in positions of authority, like Sunstein, is very important, particularly when it comes to privacy. In his article, “The Causes and Cures of Conspiracy Theories,” Sunstein argues that once someone embraces a conspiracy theory, they become “self-sealing.” According to him, conspiracy theories attribute extraordinary powers to elites who orchestrate events and maintain secrecy, leading conspiracy theorists to dismiss opposing evidence as fabricated or planted. Sunstein suggests that conspiracy theories are essentially closed-loop systems of self-driven paranoia.

There is some truth to Sunstein’s observation about the difficulty of changing the mindset of conspiracy theorists and he raised a valid point by suggesting that the decentralization of the internet would led to the hyper-polarization of like-minded groups, limiting exposure to opposing viewpoints that could stimulate debate. However, what is most concerning about the situation is that Sunstein appears to favor centralizing information, potentially under government oversight, which resembles a “ministry of truth” scenario. He suggests that voluntary norms and government intervention should counteract this polarization, ensuring that conspiracy theorists encounter credible counter-arguments and are not confined to echo chambers of their own design. This stance also provides a convenient excuse to collect private data, potentially violating federal privacy laws.

What Sunstein proposed was to take covert government action similar to the FBI’s actions against the civil rights and antiwar movements in the 1960s which included public information campaigns, censorship and fines for internet service providers hosting conspiracy theory websites, which sounds like a big ole Propaganda Palooza. Ultimately, he rejected these ideas because they would attract attention and reinforce the conspiracy ideas, so he opted for something called “Cognitive Infiltration” instead. Cognitive infiltration meant that groups and networks that were popularizing conspiracy theory ideas would be infiltrated and “disrupted” by the government.

Sunstein perceives conspiracy believers as dangerous and believes their discussions should be disrupted to expose them to government-sanctioned information deemed credible. However, one must question the potential dangers posed by a government attempting to manipulate thoughts. Furthermore, such actions would reinforce the very conspiracy theories the government seeks to counter, creating a cycle of suspicion and paranoia.

So what conclusion can we draw from the introduction of de Haven-Smith’s book? If a government conspires to monitor and infiltrate the networks of citizens who believe the government might try to do such a thing, they are using a psychological weapon called Gaslighting. By definition Gaslighting means “to manipulate by psychological means into questioning one’s own sanity,” and it is considered a form of emotional and psychological abuse.

Therefore, government officials that secretly collude with tech companies and intelligence agencies to identify, monitor and dismantle conspiracy theorist networks or to prevent certain information from circulating should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity and charged with collective psychological abuse.