American History

Octopus

Octopus

Octopus “The Octopus” was researcher Danny Casolaro’s term for the vast series of interlocking conspiracies he believed he had uncovered...

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody> <tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href=" " imageanchor="1" rel="nofollow" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="blank"><img alt="The" border="0" conspiracy="" holds="" in="" october="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI0mXiG-MVBxei24eNclTokZzYUwNAtKm4suKoac1NN53NMi6WNx2hDYMghrdV5oxwYQrQEz7LBXCsL_7DNb-4H5U9issNu5KQP0Avoeox12FRO3dt3L3A3VyABTuVZ_Hun-U8IDhNUYA/s1600/October-Surprise.jpg" surprise="" that="" theory="" title="October" /></a></td></tr> <tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">October Surprise</td></tr> </tbody></table> The October Surprise conspiracy theory holds that in October 1980, <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Ronald Reagan</a> conspired with the Islamic Republic of Iran to beat Jimmy Carter in the U.S. presidential elections on 4 November. The deal: in return for the Khomeini government keeping its U.S. hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran until after the election, damaging Carter’s candidacy, Reagan would reward it with armaments. The conspiracy theory endured for over a decade, from 1980–1993, but has since disappeared. The idea originated with <a href=" " target="_blank">Lyndon LaRouche</a>, one of the most prolific, original, and bizarre of U.S. conspiracy theorists. Just after the 1980 election, one LaRouche magazine first laid out the conspiracy theory, then another one repeated it three years later. The idea attracted minimal attention, however, until the <a href=" " target="_blank">Iran-Contra</a> scandal of late 1986 seemed to fulfill the terms of the alleged deal. The former president of Iran, Abol Hassan Bani Sadr, tentatively tried out this theory in an article on 12 April 1987 in the Miami Herald. When commentators in the United States endorsed the idea, Bani Sadr felt emboldened to make ever-larger and more elaborate claims. <table align="center" style="width: 450px;"><tbody> <tr> <td align="center" width="225"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812919890/ref=as_li_ss_il?ie=UTF8&linkCode=li3&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=2da3b2f70e464c0245b106b897fff376" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=0812919890&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img alt="The" border="0" conspiracy="" height="1" holds="" in="" october="" src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=li3&o=1&a=0812919890" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" surprise="" that="" theory="" width="1" /></td> <td align="center" width="225"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594741565/ref=as_li_ss_il?ie=UTF8&linkCode=li3&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=e8470d64704554d9f3b90cc49368ad1c" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=1594741565&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img alt="The" border="0" conspiracy="" height="1" holds="" in="" october="" src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=li3&o=1&a=1594741565" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" surprise="" that="" theory="" width="1" /></td> </tr> </tbody></table> A handful of conspiracy theorists in the United States (Barbara Honegger, Martin Kilian, David Marks, Robert Parry, Jurgen Roth, and Craig Unger) began researching Bani Sadr’s allegations and stumbled upon an array of self-promoters, con men, and criminals from several countries. The cast included Israelis (Ari Ben-Menashe, Ahran Moshell, and Will Northrop), Frenchmen (Robert Benes and Nicholas Ignatiew), Iranians (Jamshid Hashemi, Ahmed Heidari, Houshang Lavi, and Hamid Naqashan), Americans (Richard Babayan, Richard Brenneke, William Herrmann, Oswald LeWinter, Heinrich Rupp, and Gunther Russbacher), and even a South African (Dirk Stoffberg). Not only did they confirm the story and add their own elaborations, but the researchers carelessly contaminated their sources by informing them of others’ statements, further stimulating them to grandiose claims. After a year, Bani Sadr returned to the topic and found his conspiracy outline fully fleshed out; he was especially impressed by Brenneke’s allegations at a 1988 trial in Denver, which in his eyes offered official documentation of the plot. Encouraged by this new information, the former Iranian president now hypothesized a much larger and longer-lasting conspiracy between Reagan and <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Khomeini</a> (Playboy, September 1988; and the interviews he granted to Jean-Charles Deniau in September and October 1988, forming the basis of their joint book). Although the October Surprise theory had now ripened, it remained the guilty pleasure of die-hard conspiracy theorists. Only when the New York Times on 15 April 1991 devoted an exceptional two-thirds of its opinion page to this thesis did it become a public issue. The author of this article, Gary Sick, brought to the issue an establishment pedigree (navy captain, Columbia University Ph.D., Ford Foundation jadwal officer, Human Rights Watch board member) as well as the credibility of having served as principal White House aide for Iran during the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis. Sick alleged that “individuals associated with the Reagan-Bush campaign of 1980 met secretly with Iranian officials to delay the release of the U.S. hostages until after the U.S. election. For this favor, Iran was rewarded with a substantial supply of arms from Israel.” Sick also raised the possibility that <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">George Bush</a> was one of those Americans, thereby impugning the legitimacy of at least one subsequent Republican president. The October Surprise instantly vaulted to national importance. Leading television shows devoted hours to the subject, weeklies made it the subject of cover stories, and <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Jimmy Carter</a> called for an investigation. A January 1992 poll showed 55 percent of Americans believing these allegations to be true and just 34 percent finding them false. As part of his preparations to run for the presidency, H. Ross Perot sent his associates to talk with Gunther Russbacher in his Missouri jail cell. In February 1992, the House of Representatives voted in favor of an investigation of the charges and the Senate followed suit soon after. Sick himself expanded his op-ed into a 278-page book, October Surprise: America’s Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan. Here, Sick characterized the 1980 election as a “covert political coup.” To give his story the feel of authenticity so important to a conspiracy theory, he chronicled in loving detail events that (it turned out) never took place. Thus, discussing a phantom meeting in Madrid on 27 July 1980, for example, he provided this little touch: “The conversation was interrupted twice, when hotel waiters arrived to serve coffee”. So much attention to the October Surprise theory meant it had to be checked in sober and exhaustive detail, and under such scrutiny it promptly collapsed. Several journalistic investigations started the process, especially Frank Snepp, “Brenneke Exposed,” Village Voice, 10 September 1991; John Barry, “Making of a Myth,” Newsweek, 11 November 1991; Steve Emerson and Jesse Furman, “The Conspiracy That Wasn’t,” New Republic, 18 November 1991; and Frank Snepp, “October Surmise,” Village Voice, 25 February 1992. Two congressional inquiries then confirmed these conclusions. The Senate stated that “by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages”. The House report went further, declaring that “There was no October Surprise agreement ever reached.” It found “wholly insufficient credible evidence” that <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">communication</a> took place between the Reagan campaign and the Iranian government and “no credible evidence” of an attempt by the campaign to delay the hostages’ release. The report also expressed concern that “certain witnesses may have committed perjury during sworn testimony”. Surprisingly, given that once started, conspiracy theories tend to live on indefinitely, this one did not. For once, research successfully discredited a conspiracy theory. Symbolic of this was that <a href=" " target="_blank">Oliver Stone</a> decided not to make a movie on this topic. But a devout conspiracy theorist sticks to his guns and Sick continued to forward the October Surprise thesis, writing that the House report “does not lay ... to rest” his claims of campaign contacts with Iranians; and that it “leaves open the possibility” of Republican interference with the Carter administration’s foreign policy negotiations. The October Surprise belahan holds much interest as a conspiracy theory case study. In particular, two features stand out: Gary Sick’s having single-handedly transformed it from a story only taken seriously on the left-wing fringe into a credible mainstream claim; and the clarity with which it confirmed the conspiracy theorists’ tendency to accuse others of what they themselves are doing. On this latter point: again and again, one finds that whereas the conspiracy theorists’ accusations of collusion and illegal behavior were unsubstantiated, they themselves engaged in precisely such behavior. Examples include: <ul> <li>They claimed Casey and Bush pretended to be in the United States when they were in Paris and Madrid. Richard Brenneke, perhaps the single most important informant for the October Surprise thesis, claimed to be in Paris and Madrid when credit card receipts proved he was in Portland, Oregon.</li> <li>They accused Reagan campaign officials of plotting to save their necks, when this is what the conspiracy theorists were doing; at least seven of them (Robert Benes, Richard Brenneke, Ahmed Heidari, Nicholas Ignatiew, Oswald LeWinter, Hamid Naqashan, and Will Northrop) were implicated in a 1986 sting operation and the October Surprise offered a way to rehabilitate their reputations.</li> <li>Sick, a former Carter administration official, accused the Reagan campaign of secretly working out an arms deal with the Iranians. In fact, as Sick himself already disclosed in 1985, Jimmy Carter initiated such a deal.</li> <li>Sick accused others of withholding <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">information</a>, yet this is precisely what he did, keeping quiet about the hundreds of thousands of dollars he received from Oliver Stone for the movie rights to the October Surprise story.</li> <li>Sick accused U.S. government officials of lying, yet he was less than honest himself. He wrote in his New York Times article that he had heard rumors of a Reagan-Khomeini deal during the 1988 election campaign but he “refused to believe them.” Not so: on 30 October, 1988, at the very peak of the 1988 election campaign, he told the Rocky Mountain News, “At first I dismissed this, but not any more. I’m convinced on the basis of what I heard that there were some meetings in Paris.”</li> </ul>

October Surprise

October Surprise The October Surprise conspiracy theory holds that in October 1980, Ronald Reagan conspired with the Islamic Republic o...

Nullification

<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody> <tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href=" " imageanchor="1" rel="nofollow" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="blank"><img a="" alt="Nullification" assertion="" authority="" border="0" by="" constitutional="" is="" nullification="" of="" or="" power="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEingqKIvwaxslGCdYbH6m2ph0IDyNE3TdvFeiaEBQRfX9oxw6VnJepW9YrvtDZ8sqChzKUHUGIDQdLe9ENjQMRwHKH3fCTxsnd0KpJHDtyESxugr7qOljq6x0yzHEtXWrarS57YDs8T2O6e/s1600/Nullification.jpg" state="" subnati="" the="" title="Nullification" width="470" /></a></td></tr> <tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nullification</td></tr> </tbody></table> Nullification is the assertion of power or constitutional authority by a state or subnational government that negates or nullifies an act of the national or federal government. Because nullification inherently involves a high level of intergovernmental conflict, those instances where nullification becomes a dominant policy preference typically coincide with allegations of unconstitutionality and conspiratorial theories. Nullification is a concept that developed in U.S. constitutional thought associated with federalism and states rights. Under the compact theory, the U.S. Constitution was created by the thirteen sovereign states. The sovereignty of the U.S. states originated with their each having distinct and separate creation and governing structures as British colonies, and that, as equal states coordinately declaring independence from Britain, each state was an equal party to the Articles of Confederation. <table align="center" style="width: 450px;"><tbody> <tr> <td align="center" width="225"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596981490/ref=as_li_ss_il?ie=UTF8&linkCode=li3&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=f4bbe06dc9769533700bc1c9a81eb656" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=1596981490&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img a="" alt="Nullification" assertion="" authority="" border="0" by="" constitutional="" height="1" is="" nullification="" of="" or="" power="" src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=li3&o=1&a=1596981490" state="" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" subnati="" the="" width="1" /></td> <td align="center" width="225"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1939709008/ref=as_li_ss_il?ie=UTF8&linkCode=li3&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=e9a9006f34c244bd55f32d7923c312a5" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=1939709008&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img a="" alt="Nullification" assertion="" authority="" border="0" by="" constitutional="" height="1" is="" nullification="" of="" or="" power="" src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=li3&o=1&a=1939709008" state="" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" subnati="" the="" width="1" /></td> </tr> </tbody></table> The original sovereignty of the states and the interpretation associated with the establishment of the U.S. constitutional system are important foundations from which the concept of nullification developed. The origin of the U.S. constitutional compact through thirteen sovereign states makes the nature of the new union a point of historical, political, and legal contention. As varied interpretations develop around the nature and meaning of federalism, the almost religious sanction attributed by the interpretive schools of thought contribute to the development of conspiratorial allegations when the federal system reaches periods of crisis. Federalism is defined as “a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government”. Federalism describes a system of governing authority apportioned between central and regional governments. This definition assumes limitations on both national and state “spheres of authority,” and that within these spheres they are supreme and sovereign, but that there are overlapping authorities that they cooperate in, and within these cooperative spheres the national government retains supremacy. The U.S. system of federalism was described by James Madison in The Federalist no. 39 as “neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both”. Because the United States has a “mixed” constitution, there has always been debate over the extent, intent, and direction of national policy in the federal system, and one of the principal sources of political conflict in the United States is between state and national governments. In almost all cases, major conflict translates ultimately into major conspiracy theories. As public policy conflict increased, the frequency and severity of intergovernmental conflict increased as well. Nullification was a concept developed by those asserting “states rights” over national authority. Essentially, any act of the national government that a state determined to be beyond the constitutional authority of the national government was declared null and void. The earliest and most powerful assertions of nullification authority were written by Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution and James Madison in the Virginia Resolution. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were passed by the Federalist Congress under the support and direction of President John Adams, who vigorously enforced them. The national government was given broad police powers to arrest, hold, and dispense with foreign nationals and citizens who criticized the U.S. government. This affront to civil liberties was met with strong opposition, from individuals as well as subnational governments. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were drafted by their respective state legislatures in 1798 as statements of nullification with regard to the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Kentucky Resolution, drafted by Jefferson, clearly states the nullification view of federal law enacted unconstitutionally as “not law,” being “altogether void, and of no force.” It further fuels the conspiratorial views of the time by attributing as “obnoxious,” “suspicious” and “tyrannical” the motives and designs of the president. The critics at the time saw Adams as being controlled by the British government, and alleged that the Alien and Sedition Acts were designed to usurp American rights to free speech as a prelude to monarchy. In 1832, President Andrew Jackson signed into law a new tariff bill that lowered the protective tariff that protected southern economic interests. South Carolina responded by calling a state convention on the matter, which resulted in its declaring the new tariff void within the state. The work of John C. Calhoun had further developed the Jeffersonian position on constitutional authority, and the political actions of Calhoun, then a senator from South Carolina, only further fueled the legitimacy and popular appeal of his theory. The only major point of common ground between Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs during the American Second Party System came in response to this nullification crisis. On this central question of states rights, both Democrats and Whigs agreed that national authority must prevail over the states. This unholy alliance of bitter enemies fueled speculation that a national conspiracy to destroy southern economic interests was at work among the tariff opponents because the maneuverings of Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun had frustrated a more popularly supported effort by Van Buren to lower the tariff further, and Jackson’s defenders paradoxically included his longtime enemies Daniel Webster, Joseph Story, and John Quincy Adams. Ultimately, the American Civil War was fought in large part to resolve the issues associated with the underlying constitutional theory that justifies nullification, as it also justifies secession. Nullification has been less utilized since the nineteenth century as the Civil War resolved the question of political authority. <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Ronald Reagan</a> has been the most recent political leader to revive the legitimacy of the states rights position. In his 1981 inaugural address, Reagan stated that “All of us need to be reminded that the Federal government did not create the States; the States created the Federal government.”

Nullification

Nullification Nullification is the assertion of power or constitutional authority by a state or subnational government that negates or ...

Nuclear Freeze Movement

<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody> <tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href=" " imageanchor="1" rel="nofollow" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img a="" alt="to" appeared="" beginning="" border="0" for="" freeze="" movement="" new="" nuclear="" offer="" presidency="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjQEmv6wQRLDybvJX9BbKApWXlJlscCaO1t2ZKpaqUWUZ77S4vi-I7_X8H293DmlAQMt-QCS3RMGf8VrR7cyqJTZ-Qoel2uycLIfEPnPwqNHvkw4zAHhuhtSpiVPxsOyLmmcoMwn8qqKLT/s1600/Nuclear-Movement.jpg" states="" the="" title="Nuclear" to="" united="" width="470" /></a></td></tr> <tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nuclear Freeze Movement</td></tr> </tbody></table> After <a href=" " target="_blank">Watergate</a>, <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Vietnam</a>, and the economic/cultural malaise of the 1970s, the election of <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Ronald Reagan</a> to the presidency appeared to offer a new beginning for the United States. Reagan promised to unleash U.S. business by reducing taxation and government regulation, while simultaneously calling for major increases in defense spending so that the United States could assume its role as the “arsenal of democracy” against the forces of aggression in the Soviet Union. Pointing to perceived Soviet expansionism in Afghanistan, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and Central America, Reagan reinvigorated the cold war. However, the rhetoric and policies of the Reagan administration also reenergized the U.S. peace movement with the call for a freeze on nuclear weapons by both the <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title=Nuclear Freeze Movement>Soviet Union</a> and the United States. Many conservative supporters of the Reagan administration reacted to the nuclear freeze ajuan by labeling the peace movement as a conspiracy supported and financed by the Soviet Union. In a new guise, <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">McCarthyism</a> had reentered U.S. politics. <table align="center" border="0"><tbody> <tr> <td align="center"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0870235605/ref=as_li_ss_il?ie=UTF8&linkCode=li3&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=541873beeebc9fcdba5bc2ac1f378047" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=0870235605&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img a="" alt="to" appeared="" beginning="" border="0" for="" freeze="" height="1" movement="" new="" nuclear="" offer="" presidency="" src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=li3&o=1&a=0870235605" states="" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" the="" to="" united="" width="1" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0275933067/ref=as_li_ss_il?ie=UTF8&linkCode=li3&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=3461c0749719a4fcd836af6084a1bd33" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=0275933067&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img a="" alt="to" appeared="" beginning="" border="0" for="" freeze="" height="1" movement="" new="" nuclear="" offer="" presidency="" src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=li3&o=1&a=0275933067" states="" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" the="" to="" united="" width="1" /></td> </tr> </tbody></table> The peace movement of the 1980s had its origins in the protest politics of the 1960s and 1970s, which had opposed deployment of the Anti-Ballistic Missile system and urged ratification of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This coalition of peace groups included the American Friends Services Committee (AFSC), Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (CSNP), Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), Mobilization for Survival (MfS), and Clergy and Laity Concerned (CALC). In 1979, Randall Forsberg of the MfS published Halt the Arms Race, calling for a broad coalition to support a “bilateral freeze on the production, testing, and deployment of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles”. Forsberg’s appeal proved promising to many in the peace movement, for it was intelligible to the general public, as well as to arms control experts, and it provided a rallying point for a mass protest movement. However, tension was manifest in the nuclear freeze movement between those who perceived the issue as part of a larger social movement and those who pursued a more pragmatic political strategy. In November 1980 the freeze campaign was given impetus when three <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title=Nuclear Freeze Movement>Massachusetts</a> Senate districts endorsed a nonbonding freeze resolution. This successful campaign was followed by international protest against the deployment of cruise missiles by the Reagan administration in Western Europe, as well as the introduction, by Democratic Representative Jonathan Bingham of New York and Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, of the nuclear freeze resolution into Congress. The apparent momentum of the freeze forces led opponents of the movement to question the motives of the peace alliance. For example, the State Department in 1981 charged that the World Peace Council was a Soviet-front organization that funneled money to the European peace movement, seeking to neutralize the <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title=Nuclear Freeze Movement>North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)</a>. In March 1982, Secretary of State Alexander Haig called a news conference to denounce the congressional resolution for a freeze, asserting that the concept was bad defense, security, and arms control policy. Conservative groups and publications rallied behind the State Department and Haig. Writing in Commentary, Vladimir Bukovsky, a Soviet dissident who had been imprisoned for his political activities, asserted that the Soviets were behind the freeze movement, and he was shocked to observe “the ease with which presumably mature and intelligent people had by the thousands fallen into the Soviet booby-trap”. Rev. Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority organization issued fund-raising letters insisting that “freeze-niks” were undermining U.S. security. In a piece for the Reader’s Digest, Frank Chapple wrote, “Those nuclear disarmers who cry ‘Better Red than Dead’ should examine the record: since 1917, some 25 million people have died under Soviet repression inside Russia and its satellites ...”. Not to be left out of the debate, President Reagan stated during an <a href=" " target="_blank">October</a> 1982 press conference that nuclear freeze supporters were being manipulated and used by forces “who want the weakening of America”. Proponents of the nuclear freeze invested valuable time and resources defending the movement from the accusations of a Soviet conspiracy. Popular opinion against the Soviet Union was further galvanized by the Soviet downing of <a href=" " target="_blank">Korean Air Lines flight 007</a> in the fall of 1983. Meanwhile, the nuclear freeze movement moved increasingly from protest into electoral politics, only to be disappointed by the landslide reelection of President Reagan in 1984. Nuclear freeze proponents found it difficult to recapture momentum after the election and became increasingly marginalized, splintering into more narrow special-interest groups. Nevertheless, the nuclear freeze movement may be credited with placing the debate on nuclear weapons firmly within the political mainstream, and establishing the framework for the arms reduction talks of Reagan and Soviet General Secretary <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Mikhail Gorbachev</a> in the late 1980s.

Nuclear Freeze Movement

Nuclear Freeze Movement After Watergate , Vietnam , and the economic/cultural malaise of the 1970s, the election of Ronald Reagan to t...

Richard Nixon

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody> <tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href=" " imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img alt="The" border="0" career="" milhous="" nixon="" of="" political="" richard="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIMBsmIgHQ5-upHPdSKfZi87dypy_zZv2BAJJ-z5Lt2zQpIBldX6-Ky5Q_rJkeFgN-dRKQEp3l-l_5Px1SYlhPazGKwCm2TZ-HMrC-2BtqvCk26xLDCUIcbtuEah9jMwAjgJvrg9OQONI/s1600/Richard-Nixon.jpg" title="Richard" /></a></td></tr> <tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Richard Nixon</td></tr> </tbody></table> The political career of Richard Milhous Nixon (1913–1994), thirty-seventh president of the United States, was framed by suggestions of conspiracy, from his rapid rise to prominence as a result of his involvement with the Hiss case to <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Watergate</a>, which ended his career. Furthermore, the frequent diagnosis of Nixon as “paranoid” placed him as both subject and object of numerous conspiracy theories. Nixon’s connection to the conspiratorial even predates the Hiss case, beginning with his response to the advertisement by the “Committee of 100” for a candidate to oppose Congressman Jerry Voorhis. The Committee was a group of local businessmen, sometimes considered to have sinister motives, who met at an elitist rural retreat, Bohemian Grove in <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">California</a>, itself connected to a set of conspiracy theories through groups such as the Bilderbergers. Mae Brussell insists that “That ad was typical, a covert method of pretending this was an open contest for office”. Brussell’s argument invokes an article of faith that frequently exceeds the “conspiracy research community”: that Nixon’s entire career constituted a form of conspiracy. <table align="center" style="width: 450px;"><tbody> <tr> <td align="center" width="225"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1627790837/ref=as_li_ss_il?ie=UTF8&linkCode=li3&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=9f37b749896c17c8244cfdb90ef1069b" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=1627790837&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img alt="The" border="0" career="" height="1" milhous="" nixon="" of="" political="" richard="" src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=li3&o=1&a=1627790837" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /></td> <td align="center" width="225"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812995368/ref=as_li_ss_il?ie=UTF8&linkCode=li3&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=8d12332829fe1c4806d51ba40fabeb7a" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=0812995368&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img alt="The" border="0" career="" height="1" milhous="" nixon="" of="" political="" richard="" src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=li3&o=1&a=0812995368" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /></td> </tr> </tbody></table> Nixon’s early political success was largely dependent on public recognition of his preeminent position on the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), most notably in his investigation of espionage charges against Alger Hiss. Nixon coauthored the first piece of legislation produced by the HUAC, the Mundt-Nixon Bill, which was anticonspiracy legislation in that it would have forced “Communist front” organizations to reveal themselves by declaring Communist Party affiliation. While Nixon’s ensuing prominence can only be credited in a period in which the “international Communist conspiracy” or “red scare” was a widespread belief, his status as perceived conspirator and object of conspiracy exceeded the zeitgeist. Nixon not only responded to, but also contributed to, conspiratorial beliefs, intending, for example, to investigate “communistic art” in federal buildings and insisting that filmmakers make films that warn the American people about the dangers of communism. Throughout his career, Nixon was linked to financial corruption and to organized crime. As the journalist Jeff Gerth argued during Nixon’s presidency, Nixon was located at the center of a tangled web of conspiracy: “Somewhere within the classic alliance of money, power, and politics lies this particular sharp-edged triangle: the Teamsters Union ... ; the shadowy empire of organized crime and its power; and the political fiefdom of Richard Nixon”. This interconnection of a “shadow government” and organized crime, termed “deep politics” by Peter Dale Scott, is frequently aligned with Nixon in conspiracy theories. In the document “A Skeleton Key to the Gemstone Files,” for example, Nixon first appears in 1956, having been “bought” by Howard Hughes in his conspiratorial attempt to control the U.S. electoral process. Nixon’s significant financial dealings with Hughes inspired a number of conspiracy theories, including a purported Hughes involvement with Watergate. This contributed to a model for the perceived power structure of the Nixon <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">administration</a>, which “replaced public politics with the politics of secrecy”. Watergate and Beyond While many of Nixon’s political actions have been considered to be conspiratorial, such as the secret bombing of Cambodia or his obstruction of the Paris peace talks to end the <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Vietnam War</a> before the 1968 presidential election (detailed by Anthony Summers), the latter part of Nixon’s political career coincided with shifting models of power, which tended to identify his power as overt and, therefore, largely symbolic. Some conspiracy theories correspondingly place Nixon as the victim of the covert “invisible government.” Some critics have argued that Watergate was a constitutional coup d’état against Nixon; Robert Altman’s Secret Honor (1984) presents it as an operation designed to finally remove him from the control of the “deep politics”—of the “Committee of 100.” But it was after the investigations into Watergate revealed the power operations of the Nixon administration that Nixon became linked, through conspiracy theory, to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. On the White House audiotape of 23 June 1972, known as the “Smoking Gun” tape, Nixon instructs Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman to have the CIA pressure the FBI into dropping its Watergate investigation, because it would “open up the whole Bay of Pigs thing again.” Haldeman would later write, “It seems that in all those references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination”. Some conspiracy researchers would specifically link the assassination to Watergate, arguing that White House burglar Frank Sturgis and fellow “Plumbers” unit member E. Howard Hunt were the assassins, a claim investigated by the U.S. President’s Commission on CIA Activities within the United States, also known as the <a href=" " target="_blank">Rockefeller</a> Commission. While there is no substantial evidence to verify these theories, the perception of the conspiring Nixon revealed by Watergate was transposed onto many of his actions. For example, Nixon, who was revealed to have been in Dallas on the day of Kennedy’s assassination, told the Warren Commission that he had only been in Dallas on 20 and 21 November. Nixon gave varying explanations for this mistake, giving rise to jokes that Nixon was the only member of his generation who did not remember where he was when Kennedy was shot. Of the many reasons proffered for why Watergate occurred, one of the most enduring is that it was an extension of Nixon’s personal <a href=" " target="_blank">paranoia</a>. Both opponents and some administration members referred to this, either indirectly, by alluding to Nixon’s “isolation” or “bunker mentality,” or directly, by claiming he suffered from a form of persecutory paranoia. But whether or not Watergate was initiated as an attempt to preempt Nixon’s “enemies,” Nixon could never escape Watergate. The verified criminality and conspiracy of Watergate would forever conjoin Nixon, the “unindicted coconspirator” (in the legal jargon), to the realm of conspiracy theory, with the revelation of his actions and motivation projected onto his entire life and career. After Watergate forced the end of his official political career, Nixon spent the remainder of his life writing books on foreign policy and attempting to rehabilitate his public image. For many critics, the laudatory eulogies at his funeral—Senator Bob Dole said that the latter twentieth century would be known as the “age of Nixon”—testified to the <a href=" " target="_blank">success</a> of this, Nixon’s greatest conspiracy.

Richard Nixon

Richard Nixon The political career of Richard Milhous Nixon (1913–1994), thirty-seventh president of the United States, was framed by su...

Newburgh Conspiracy

<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody> <tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPdQd8Ytwor17TiZxvUqmnzzG4rKdgl5lXj4X0Oq-8wH_vdxumGGvgFIoymGq31a1Dw4TRxAZrsvjzGjZ3PeidPBFEJsiWN4wwNDpVEb6JqlDQrns5Xaa2Gzp7munHO36Uo3OG9FiLAG0/s1600/Newburgh-Conspiracy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="allegations" an="" attempted="" border="0" conspiracy="" coup="" d="" erupted="" newburgh="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPdQd8Ytwor17TiZxvUqmnzzG4rKdgl5lXj4X0Oq-8wH_vdxumGGvgFIoymGq31a1Dw4TRxAZrsvjzGjZ3PeidPBFEJsiWN4wwNDpVEb6JqlDQrns5Xaa2Gzp7munHO36Uo3OG9FiLAG0/s1600/Newburgh-Conspiracy.jpg" surrounding="" title="Newburgh" /></a></td></tr> <tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Newburgh Conspiracy</td></tr> </tbody></table> In March 1783 allegations erupted surrounding an attempted coup d’état by Continental Army officers encamped at Newburgh, New York. The relationship between Congress and the Continental Army had been strained throughout the Revolutionary War. As Congress was notoriously short on cash, payments to soldiers and officers were insufficient and erratic; many went without remuneration for several consecutive years. Officers hoped for a recognition of their services in the form of pensions, and Congress had in 1780 voted to award them half pay for life. However, the impost tax of 1781, designed to finance pensions, failed to achieve ratification by the states. Furthermore, as the financial situation of many officers worsened, they started to call for a lump sum instead of a lifetime of small payments, a demand known as commutation. <table align="center" style="width: 450px;"><tbody> <tr> <td align="center" width="225"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0985387580/ref=as_li_ss_il?ie=UTF8&linkCode=li3&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=2523689c2784e2f2853aa834470b494b" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=0985387580&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img alt="allegations" an="" attempted="" border="0" conspiracy="" coup="" d="" erupted="" height="1" newburgh="" src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=li3&o=1&a=0985387580" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" surrounding="" width="1" /></td> <td align="center" width="225"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Rebellion-Ranks-Mutinies-American-Revolution/dp/1594160554/ref=as_li_ss_il?ie=UTF8&dpID=51j5rxA5ctL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR105%2C160_&refRID=0AATWJCH0ZW9HBAGDWS9&&linkCode=li3&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=b454e6522601b42cacbea796a07fe7ac" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=1594160554&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img alt="allegations" an="" attempted="" border="0" conspiracy="" coup="" d="" erupted="" height="1" newburgh="" src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=li3&o=1&a=1594160554" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" surrounding="" width="1" /></td> </tr> </tbody></table> In late 1782, the army sent a delegation under the leadership of General Alexander McDougall to Congress in order to demand a redress of their grievances. Despite the general’s vigorous and outspoken lobbying effort, Congress voted against commutation in January 1783. With commutation rejected, no feasible prospect of financing pensions, and a peace treaty with Britain imminent—which meant the subsequent disbanding of the Continental Army—discontent grew among officers who had sacrificed much for the <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Revolution</a> and now feared being left out in the cold. A group of young officers connected to Major General Horatio Gates, an old rival of George Washington’s, started spreading a series of anonymous pamphlets around the Newburgh encampment in early March 1783. These Newburgh Addresses, written by Major John Armstrong, accused Congress of betraying the army, lambasted the ineffectiveness of McDougall’s petition, criticized Washington for undue moderation, and called for a meeting of officers on 11 March in order to decide on further measures. It was quite possible to see in the Newburgh Addresses a call for rebellion against civil authority, or even a full-scale coup d’état, but more moderate readings were also possible. At the very least the pamphlets proposed an ultimatum to Congress and advocated a refusal to disband the army until their demands were met. In any case, Washington stepped in to defuse the situation. Forbidding the meeting on 11 March, he called for another a few days later to discuss the results of McDougall’s petition. At this meeting, Washington condemned the Addresses and made an emotional appeal to remain loyal to Congress and the American Republic. Washington’s speech won over the officers, who passed a resolution asking Congress for redress, but also affirming their loyalty and condemning the Newburgh Addresses. The most controversial aspect of this crisis in military loyalty, which became known as the Newburgh conspiracy, did not involve the officers responsible for the Newburgh Addresses as much as a group of nationalist politicians, especially Robert Morris, the congressional superintendent of finance, as well as Gouverneur Morris and Alexander Hamilton. They hoped that lobbying efforts by the military would induce Congress to pass a second impost law, thus fulfilling their hope of securing the power of taxation for Congress. Robert Morris had been in touch with McDougall’s delegation and had urged the officers to impress upon Congress in no uncertain terms the level of discontent in the army. After Congress had rejected commutation, McDougall wrote to Major General Henry Knox under the pseudonym Brutus, suggesting that the army refuse to disband until its demands were met. Knox, however, refused to spearhead so blatant a defiance of civil authority. At this point, theories diverge considerably. One interpretation holds that, spurned by Knox and thoroughly discouraged with Congress, the Morrises and Hamilton turned to Gates and his followers to start a coup and finally consolidate national government in this way. Another theory argues that the nationalists did encourage Gates’s group to make their move, but that Hamilton warned Washington of the danger in a letter, thus making sure the coup was quelled before it really started. Some evidence exists to support the second claim, but much remains unclear and inconclusive. It seems doubtful that Washington actually needed a warning from his former aide Hamilton to be aware of trouble brewing in Newburgh, and there is some controversy over whether Gates was actually involved. Nevertheless, the impression of a narrowly averted rebellion shocked Congress into voting in favor of commutation as well as a new impost law designed to secure an independent income for Congress, endorsing central demands of both officers and nationalists. Eventually, however, this new impost failed to achieve ratification by the states, and thus the pension question remained unanswered. Distrust of the officer corps, nationalist politicians, and special privilege remained contentious throughout the early Republic; they figured prominently in the controversy surrounding the Society of the Cincinnati and the ratification of the Constitution.

Newburgh Conspiracy

Newburgh Conspiracy In March 1783 allegations erupted surrounding an attempted coup d’état by Continental Army officers encamped at New...

New World Order

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0MpAY41lP31K2ypX_D4j0xgcWUr5OH0i8MTiDCZUk2eodi0J02qi1PnlUFKwDHoKrO4cXsfNmaTe-EI2LTNYetUk-Kkuuc7MmXtIajJhSDpL82t-t0fpPMGz8Pwr2GczVZCQfq8X6SSE/s1600/New-World-Order.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0MpAY41lP31K2ypX_D4j0xgcWUr5OH0i8MTiDCZUk2eodi0J02qi1PnlUFKwDHoKrO4cXsfNmaTe-EI2LTNYetUk-Kkuuc7MmXtIajJhSDpL82t-t0fpPMGz8Pwr2GczVZCQfq8X6SSE/s1600/New-World-Order.jpg" /></a></div> On 29 January 1991, President George Bush gave his second State of the Union address. He spoke as the Gulf War was under way and he was keen to promote the new masa he claimed the conflict represented. Bush repeated a term he had already used in several speeches, claiming that abroad in the world was “a big idea, a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind—peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle and worthy of our children’s future.” Bush was not the first policymaker of the 1990s to speak of a “New World Order,” but like the others his words rested on a generally held perception that with the ending of the cold war something transformational had begun. Other visions that saw the sunlit uplands as lying just ahead had already been offered, most obviously two years earlier when historian Francis Fukuyama had proclaimed that “the End of History” and the arrival of endless liberal democracy had arrived. However, while talk of the New World Order was heard frequently in the United States for the rest of the 1990s, this was not in the affirmative sense Bush had intended. <table align="center" style="width: 450px;"><tbody> <tr> <td align="center" width="225"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0961413514/ref=as_li_ss_il?ie=UTF8&linkCode=li3&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=44128c110aae1e639046b37791532926" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=0961413514&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img address="" alt="President" border="0" bush="" gave="" george="" height="1" his="" new="" of="" order="" second="" src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=li3&o=1&a=0961413514" state="" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" the="" union="" width="1" world="" /></td> <td align="center" width="225"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00DTX88I6/ref=as_li_ss_il?ie=UTF8&linkCode=li3&tag=inamerican-20&linkId=82fca5a9491b9a1b9f5fbbe069ef1745" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=B00DTX88I6&Format=_SL250_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=inamerican-20" /></a><img address="" alt="President" border="0" bush="" gave="" george="" height="1" his="" new="" of="" order="" second="" src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=inamerican-20&l=li3&o=1&a=B00DTX88I6" state="" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" the="" union="" width="1" world="" /></td> </tr> </tbody></table> Instead, it gained notoriety as a code-phrase for the conspiracy theories of global control that were being disseminated in print, over shortwave radio, and, most of all, the new medium of the World Wide Web. It very soon dropped out of use by U.S. policymakers. For the radical Right, the mere use of the phrase was enough, for these three words were already familiar to groups such as the John Birch Society. The preeminent right-wing conspiracy-mongers of the 1950s and 1960s (and the focus of Richard Hofstadter’s seminal analysis of the paranoid style in 1964), the Birchers popularized its use in their literature to describe the socialistic “One Worldism” they were convinced was being promoted by the <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Soviet Union</a> via the United Nations. The vision was of a dedicated Communist conspiracy, working ceaselessly to overthrow U.S. liberties and incorporate the United States into a world state and world government. Conspiracy writers (such as the author writing under the name “Garudas”) have charted the term “New World Order” through <a href=" " target="_blank">Henry Kissinger</a>, Henry Wallace, the Versailles Peace Conference, Cecil Rhodes, and British imperialism, back to the traditional bogeymen of many U.S. conspiracy theories—the <a href=" " target="_blank">Elders of Zion</a>, the Freemasons, and the Bavarian Illuminati. Genuine organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the World Trade Organization, and the Bilderberger group are said to have conspired together to advance this goal. Needless to say, groups like the Birchers greeted Bush’s employment of it with the happy fear so typical of the vindicated conspiracy theorist. However, the key users of the term in the post–cold war 1990s were not the traditional radical or religious Right (although figures such as Pat Robertson did dabble), but instead were the new grassroots militias and other self-styled “patriot” groups that sprang up in the United States during the decade. The New World Order (often short-handed as “NWO”) became emblematic of their conspiracy theories about America’s slide toward global domination, with claims that made the Birchers look modest in comparison. The following is from “Operation Vampire Killer” by the “Police Against the New World Order”: Behind the scenes is a plan for an oligarchy of the world’s richest families to place 1/2 the masses of the earth in servitude under their complete control, administered from behind the false front of <a href=" " target="_blank">the United Nations</a>. To facilitate management capabilities, the plan calls for the elimination of the other 2.5 billion people through war, disease, abortion, and famine by the year 2000. As we can plainly see, their plan for population control (reduction) is well under way. (Mulloy, 426–427) Although the roots of this were often drawn from religious extremism such as the Christian Identity movement, the imagination was thoroughly postcold war. Treaties such as the <a href=" " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)</a>, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), and various United Nations environmental agreements were seized upon as evidence of this super-plot. In the patriot/militia NWO scenario one thing is made clear: the threat was not subversion. This time the globalist forces are here (as the preferred term “Zionist Occupation Government,” or <a href=" " target="_blank">ZOG</a>, made clear), and are assisted in their plot to deprive Americans of their collective and individual sovereignty by a traitorous federal government and its many agencies. As a militia text asked in 1994: “Do you know there are more than a million among us who are trained as traitors to the American constitutional way of life [and] are slated to be our slave-masters under the New World Order?” In support of all this, a profligate mishmash of detail was put forward as “evidence.” This ranged from the very specific—that Highway Department notations on the back of road signs are in fact secret codes to enable foreign troops to find their way (with the typical excess logic of conspiracy theories, they are written on the back because foreign troops will prefer to drive on the wrong side of the road)—to the sweeping, such as the claim that a government agency such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), responsible for floods, hurricanes, and the like, is a cover story for the preparation of concentration camps for dissident U.S. patriots. Among still wilder claims made are that electronic implants can control individuals, the military can control the weather, and that hovering above the United States is the all-seeing, all-knowing black helicopter. Summing up all this, in 1994 Linda Thompson, an Indiana attorney but also the self-styled “Adjutant General of the Unorganized Militias of America,” devised a “Re-Declaration of Independence,” with this as its preamble: “The Federal Government, at this time, is transporting large Armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of Death, Desolation and Tyranny, already begun, often under the color of the law of the United Nations, and with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized Nation.” Although such views seem absurdly inconceivable (particularly for Europeans who have learned to have little faith in the abilities of the United Nations), such rhetoric does, of course, sometimes connect to action. Militia opinion and activity can easily be read as inevitably leading to the terrible events of 19 April 1995, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in <a href=" " target="_blank">Oklahoma City</a>. However, to consider all conspiracy theories about a New World Order as potentially terrorist or held solely by a right-wing fringe would be a mistake. Suspicions about the order of the post–cold war world and the United States’ role in it have become legion and have served to mobilize public opinion in the 1990s. Any analysis of conspiracy theories and the New World Order must recognize that the term has had just as much employment on the Left as the Right, and so must question its conspiratorial alignment too. For the Left, the term came about as part of a process of counter-definition, for instance by use of the modifier “New World Disorder.” The name on the Left one comes across most often is Noam Chomsky—no other author is so associated with a coherent viewpoint on the post–cold war order of the world and the place of the United States within it. Chomsky offered a succinct definition in Deterring Democracy in 1992: “The Gulf War has torn aside the veil covering the post–Cold War era. It has revealed a world in which the United States enjoys unchallenged military supremacy and is prepared to exploit this advantage ruthlessly. The New World Order (in which the New World gives the orders) has arrived”. Writing on this subject (with titles such as World Orders, Old and New) and developing these ideas has been Chomsky’s work in the last ten years and by the end of the decade his use of the term was solidly fixed for the Left—unsurprisingly, it gained an outing again in criticism of the War on Iraq. Some of the debate about the New World Order has involved cross-talk between Left and Right, leading some to regard this as evidence of a new fusion of political belief. However, the Kennedy and King assassinations, Vietnam, COINTELPRO, and <a href=" " target="_blank">Watergate</a>, Iran-Contra, and the Tuskegee syphilis study had already offered the Left historical confirmation for overseas military adventurism, government surveillance, corporate conspiracies, clandestine intelligence agency dirty tricks, and even Hillary Clinton’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her husband. In other words, the New World Order as the Left saw it could not help but rest on a foundation of prior suspicion. Does this make the Left’s concept of the New World Order a conspiracy theory? Not if it is taken to mean that there is only one superpower left in the world, and it uses its power to satisfy its own interests. However, the larger edifice constructed on the foundation of Left conspiracy theories does go further. Daniel Pipes, author of Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From, claims that Chomsky is the prime architect of a left-wing “conspiracy theory that blames the U.S. government for virtually every ill in the world, including environmental pollution, militarism, economic poverty, spiritual alienation, and the drug scourge. It manipulates the mainstream media (to divert the revolutionary potential of workers), sponsors academic postmodernism (to bewilder the uninitiated), and encourages professional sports (to distract attention from serious issues)”. Although this is a bowdlerized description of Chomsky, it does capture the totalizing tendency and the “can do no good” flavor of his writings. A perception that Chomsky offers a conspiracy-tinged analysis because he connects neglected issues together into a narrative, which operates by what it reveals, is suggested by his method, namely the exhaustive plotting of a mass of detail—a skill for which many on the Left have praised Chomsky a great deal. Alexander Cockburn recalled “the nights I’ve stayed at Noam and Carol Chomsky’s house in Lexington and I’ve watched him at even-tide working his way through a capacious box of the day’s intake of tripe—newspapers, weeklies, monthlies, learned journals, flimsy mimeo-ed mailers—while Carol Chomsky does the same thing on the other side of the room”. This does seem very reminiscent of the method classically employed by conspiracy theorists on the Right—the deep mining of the world’s detail for evidence. Chomsky might easily be defined as a guerrilla academic from MIT who mines for the “Truth.” The embrace, not of hard-edged conspiracy theories but of a softer conspiracy “mindedness,” bears upon the major source for New World Order conspiracy theories in the later 1990s, namely the anti-globalization movement. The protests in Seattle in late November–early December of 1999 brought together figures from Right and Left as different as Pat Buchanan (who a month before had quit the Republican Party, declaring himself against the New World Order) and Situationist Anarchists intent on trashing the home of Starbucks. Organized via the Internet and coordinated “live” via cellphones, the protests united for a few days over 50,000 demonstrators and led to the so-called “Battle of Seattle.” Follow-up protests have since taken place in at other meetings in Davos, Switzerland, Washington, D.C., London, and Venice. It is fair to say that these events were bred from a conspiratorial vision of the contemporary global order. Why else did this hardly very secretive meeting of the World Trade Organization, a bureaucratic body of 135 nations, whose membership was publicly known, serve as a focus for such protest? The concern came from the Left perspective that it was responsible for large corporations being set free to ruthlessly exploit Third World peoples and ruin the global environment, and this proved a significant motivation for many young people. As an explicitly titled “global” organization, the WTO therefore symbolized a great deal. The 1960s radical Tom Hayden claimed much for the protests: “For the first time in memory, the patriotism of the corporate globalizers is in question, not that of their opponents. Do the Clinton administration’s investor-based trade priorities benefit America’s interest in high-wage jobs, environmental protection and human rights? Are American democratic values and middle-class interests secondary to those of transnational corporations? As a grass-roots movement seeking the overthrow of what it sees as an oppressive system, Seattle 99 was more like the Boston Tea Party than the days of rage we knew in the late 60s”. At the heart of this seems to be less a defined conspiracy theory than a softer, diffuse suspicion that the post–cold war world is as not as it seems, or as it could be, or should be, and that somebody (the “corporate globalizers”) is responsible—a New World misordered, perhaps? As of 2003, the right-wing version of the New World Order seems to be tired and declining (as are the militias themselves), and the conspiracy theories of vitality about world order come from the Left. Focusing on corporate globalization, their foundation is more concerned with servicing a generalized mistrust and suspicion of the contemporary world order than with constructing baroque conspiracy theories like those of old. Of course, such servicing became much easier after the controversial election of the second President Bush in 2000, the attacks of <a href=" " target="_blank">September 11</a>, Enron and other corporate scandals, and the War on Iraq. From the evidence of sales of his book Stupid White Men, Michael Moore’s view that corporate America stole the election has considerable popularity. Indeed, Vice-President Cheney has assumed for many liberal-minded Americans a place in the Bush government every bit as conspiratorial as any Birchite view of Charles Wilson. Conspiracy theories about September 11 have not found the same appeal in the United States as in Europe (notably in France), but Gore Vidal’s contention that the attacks were suspiciously convenient for a business-oriented Bush administration anxious to secure oil pipelines in Afghanistan did meet with considerable attention after he wrote it up in a 7,000-word essay entitled, without irony, “The Enemy Within.” The war in Iraq and the tension between the Bush administration and the United Nations have acted largely to confirm what many seemed to suspect already.

New World Order

On 29 January 1991, President George Bush gave his second State of the Union address. He spoke as the Gulf War was under way and he was ke...