Secrecy and Taylor Swift: What Conspiracy Theories Reveal About Our Growing Distrust of Institutions

“My concern is with the current inclination of society to accept as genuine these deeply improbable ideas just because they align with an assumption of malevolent and all-powerful institutions.”

secretsMaintaining control over trade secrets is mostly about risk management, and one dimension of risk lies in having to tell hundreds or thousands of employees to keep quiet and then depend on each of them to do so. Human nature being what it is, risk increases quite a bit when the secret is about something really big and important. And it increases even more if the secret shows that your employer is lying to the public. Indeed, you might think that kind of information is the very hardest to keep under wraps. But there seems to be a growing number of people who think it’s quite easy.

It was July 1969 when I first visited California, with two weeks to go until the crew of Apollo 11 were to land on the moon. But having grown up on the East Coast, I was completely distracted by the unusual climate: no humidity, no bugs, and no rain until October, guaranteed. Eventually the novelty wore off a bit and I was able to take in the amazing reality of Armstrong and Aldrin landing the Lunar Module on the powdery surface.

But was it reality? Many years later I heard that some people claimed it was all a stunt organized by NASA and the federal government to generate propaganda during the Cold War. I laughed off the idea, which represented my first exposure to a lingering conspiracy theory. (In 2002, one of its proponents managed to catch up to Buzz Aldrin and accuse him of fakery, whereupon the then-72-year-old astronaut punched him in the face.)

More recently, I was bemused to see reports that pop icon Taylor Swift’s relationship with Kansas City Chiefs star right end Travis Kelce had been engineered as a “psyop” (psychological operation) by the Pentagon to favor President Biden’s reelection with an endorsement by Swift during halftime at the Super Bowl. I was less bemused when I learned that a significant portion of the population actually believed that the government could pull off such a trick, or would even risk trying.

The Legal Take on Conspiracy Theories

I have written before about how we lawyers, when dealing with “circumstantial evidence” use probabilistic logic to help us distinguish between reasonable inferences and mere speculation. When it comes to conspiracy theories like the moon landing and the Swift “psyop,” the ideas seem so preposterous that they hardly deserve a reaction. But then there’s the undeniable fact that, in the age of social media and declining trust in institutions, a whole lot of people do get drawn in to this sort of thing.

Indeed, the widespread acceptance of some conspiracy theories is disturbing, as they can corrode social cohesion. Each tribe can embrace false narratives that read on hateful stereotypes of the others, pushing us all further apart. The pull is emotional; even the term “conspiracy theory” has been attacked as the output of its own conspiracy, supposedly generated by the CIA in order to ridicule and discredit true believers.

Although “conspiracy” is used broadly in the law – defined generally as the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something illegal – “conspiracy theory” is distinct and pejorative, referring to a hypothesized conspiracy, and suggesting that the person promoting it is motivated by prejudice and emotion and has no actual evidence that the hypothesis is true. In a sense, the conspiracy theorist operates on the same set of principles that define the law of evidence, but the “circumstances” they draw on to support an inference are spread almost infinitely thin, as when just two stars are said to represent a complex constellation.

Setting themselves against the mainstream consensus on whatever the topic is, the conspiracy theorist takes comfort in the fact that, although they cannot prove the proposition with evidence, neither can their opponents conclusively disprove it. All they need is what they view as a plausible assumption, and then any absence of evidence to support it is folded into the conspiracy as proof of its existence and of the determination of the powers that be to fool the gullible public.

A Disturbing Trend

You will probably be relieved that I don’t intend here to weigh in on Pizzagate, whether jet contrails are actually “chemtrails,” or whether the attacks on 9/11 were faked. For those who have convinced themselves of these stories, there is almost no point in arguing. Rather, my concern is with the current inclination of society to accept as genuine these deeply improbable ideas just because they align with an assumption of malevolent and all-powerful institutions.

Indeed, the readiness of substantial portions of the population to accept the most outlandish claims of government manipulation is well demonstrated by the “Birds Aren’t Real” conspiracy. In 2017 Peter McIndoe began circulating the story that all birds are actually robotic surveillance drones created and operated by the federal government, which had supposedly killed the real birds in a secret operation between 1959 and 1971. He managed to hide the satirical purpose of his organization for four years, by which time he reportedly had amassed a movement with hundreds of thousands of members.

Reflecting on the general subject of conspiracy theories, I decided that I might be able to make a small contribution to the discussion, drawing on my own experience in government, as well as over 50 years dealing with issues around secrecy management.

The Government is Not That Organized

First, consider the government, which in most cases is presumed to have designed and implemented an extremely complex operation, with the presumed cooperation in most cases of hundreds or thousands of employees and officials. Put aside for the moment the supposed slaughter of billions of birds while no one was paying attention, and focus just on the details of planning and execution in the moon landing, when hundreds of engineers were watching from Mission Control (where their equipment had to have been modified to receive a feed from a studio with actors in spacesuits, instead of from Apollo 11 and the actual astronauts). The “psyop” involving Taylor Swift would have been equally daunting to organize, involving not only Ms. Swift and her boyfriend but all those close to them who would have to play their roles.

The complexity of conspiratorial designs increases dramatically when (as is very often the case) the supposed objective is some form of collaboration among elites to establish a New World Order. In that case you would have to coordinate the activities of almost 200 countries that have in recent decades (or centuries) become rather settled in their own sovereignty.

Having spent five years inside the world’s largest bureaucracy, I have experienced firsthand the pace and quality of decision-making among nations. One example should make the point. At the outset of a meeting (among all the member states) that was scheduled to last five days, it took us an entire day and a half just to get agreement on the meeting agenda. That’s not to say that the delegates were not hard-working and sincere; I found the working level representatives to be dedicated and smart. But when it comes to usurpation of national prerogatives, I can confidently report that we have absolutely no reason to fear the formation of a transnational government exercising authority in the United States.

In a similar vein, while at the UN I worked closely and frequently with State Department staff, who I found to be almost universally competent and committed to their mission. I could not conceive of them forming some cabal to seize the reins of power and construct an elaborate scheme to trick the American public.

Some Secrets Are Hard to Keep

But there is a more prosaic, and reliable, reason to feel confident about this, apart from the professionalism of those who work at UN or U.S. agencies. That’s because virtually all of these imagined “conspiracies” depend on hundreds or thousands of people keeping silent about what they are actually doing. On this point, I depend not only on long experience with people dealing with commercial secrets. All of us began learning this basic message in grade school: if someone tells you a secret, you can’t wait to get out on the playground and find someone else to tell it to. That inclination to share can be brought under control to an extent when we become adults; but as we know, even in the CIA there are those (thankfully few) who break their promise.

So, the next time you run into someone who is pushing a conspiracy theory, especially one that involves a big event or a big set of consequences, ask them this: how many people would have to be in on it in order for the government to pull it off? And how likely is it that every one of those people, down to the lowest staff levels, will never utter a word about the plot?

Secrecy can be hard to manage. For most people, the more important the information, the more it burns inside until they get to share it. Even the Pentagon could not have kept the lid on the Taylor Swift caper – if it were a real thing.

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Author: pedro2009
Image ID: 395210670 

Share

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com.

Join the Discussion

11 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for BWL]
    BWL
    March 1, 2024 11:51 am

    Thank you for your experienced and pragmatic commentary on secrecy. Also for the reminder about the 72-year-old Buzz Aldrin.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    February 28, 2024 06:28 pm

    Correct Jeff – and the pattern of consistency only makes it more so – especially when “conspiracy theory” itself is a reflexive accusation that often means merely, “I don’t want you discussing that.”

    The problem here not that Swift/Kelce was discussed as being a psyop – the problem is that psyops are real. As is the gaslighting that occurs to cover up psyops.

  • [Avatar for B]
    B
    February 28, 2024 05:23 pm

    @ Anon +1

    “Don’t question the science.”

    Ironically, the scientific principle is first and foremost to question the science. Otherwise, the whole Earth revolving around the Sun thing would still be taught in high school alchemy.

  • [Avatar for B]
    B
    February 28, 2024 05:18 pm

    @ Jeff Lindsay +1

    “. . . but this does not give insights into the real conspiracy theories that appeal to some intelligent people, such as the ridiculous conspiracy theories that Stalin was starving people in Ukraine (vigorously denied by the New York Times), that Castro was a Communist (just an agrarian reformer, per the NYT), the horrific Tuskegee Experiment had the support of our national health organizations, . . . ”

    100% correct. Those issues were “conspiracy theories” until the NYT and the other dishonest press couldn’t deny them any more.

    “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” — Malcomb X

    “The greatest power of the mass media is the power to ignore.” — Sam Smith

  • [Avatar for Jeff Lindsay]
    Jeff Lindsay
    February 28, 2024 03:03 pm

    Regarding the “Birds Aren’t Real” movement, there’s a huge difference between people enjoying and following a movement for its obvious comic value, and people actually believing something that takes 2 minutes of observation or 30 seconds of thinking to disprove (“Wait, that chicken sandwich I just ate did not taste like metal! Hmm….”). Do any readers here actually know anybody who seriously believed that bird were robots as a result of this “movement”?

    You write, “He managed to hide the satirical purpose of his organization for four years, by which time he reportedly had amassed a movement with hundreds of thousands of members.” No, he kept the obvious joke going for years, had a bunch of like-minded satire-loving followers on Twitter or Instagram, and then got to give a Ted Talk about his brilliant insights into “conspiracy theorists.” Well played, but this does not give insights into the real conspiracy theories that appeal to some intelligent people, such as the ridiculous conspiracy theories that Stalin was starving people in Ukraine (vigorously denied by the New York Times), that Castro was a Communist (just an agrarian reformer, per the NYT), the the horrific Tuskegee Experiment had the support of our national health organizations, including the CDC which took over administration of the program shortly before its exposure and demise (see the book Bad Blood for the history). that Hunter Biden’s laptop was real, or that there might be many adverse reactions from the 100% effective and totally safe experimental drugs millions were forced to receive recently. An effective article on conspiracy theories needs to consider the tendency for some vigorously persecuted “theories” to end up being true after all. Fraud and corruption often seems implausible and unproven at first when it has been effectively covered up, but fraud and corruption is nevertheless real. Exposure almost always begins as just a theory, a conspiracy theory, that can be fleshed out enough to result in prosecution and conviction, or at least exposure. It happens time and time again. Dismissing the possibility of fraud because those exposing it are “conspiracy theorists” initially is not a sound approach to the challenge of distinguishing real conspiracy from bogus conspiracy.

    The “Birds Aren’t Real” story would be more interesting and relevant if the Federal Government suddenly sequestered all records related to bird policies for 75 years, shut down social media accounts of anyone talking about robotic birds, had the FBI raid the home of the founder of the movement, etc., showing a strange lack of transparency on the topic and intense hostility to concepts that should not be a threat to them, unless there was some kind of wrongdoing that had to be covered up. It is the absence of transparency on some issues that can lead to unwarranted conspiracy theories to to fully warranted ones as well, and the intense attention of government in denying such theories that signals something is wrong.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    February 28, 2024 03:03 pm

    B,

    It has gotten to the point that when I hear the words “Conspiracy Theory,” I FIRST check to see IF the person making that accusation would benefit from the “theory” being discounted.

    When you have shysters hawking “I AM the science. Don’t question the science.” one SHOULD BE conditioning oneself TO question that person.

  • [Avatar for B]
    B
    February 28, 2024 12:48 pm

    @ Lonnie

    “Bingo. I have asked people espousing these conspiracy theories how, if Donald Trump was unable to prevent a leak when only a few people were present during a telephone call . . .”

    Just FYI, a review of the actual transcript of the telephone call – as well as statements made by Zelensky – proved the “whistleblower” to have given false witness.

    So which is the conspiracy theory? The version a sympathetic press and a political opponent pushed . . . or the version of the actual text of the transcript backed by BOTH Trump and Zelenski?

    My point, old friend, is that D.C. really is a vile swamp, and most of the press can’t be trusted.

    https://time.com/5686305/zelensky-ukraine-denies-trump-pressure/

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/19/alexander-vindman-admits-making-up-parts-of-trump-call-summary/

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/vindman-testified-he-tried-to-fill-in-omissions-in-trump-ukraine-transcript

  • [Avatar for B]
    B
    February 28, 2024 12:27 pm

    “My concern is with the current inclination of society to accept as genuine these deeply improbable ideas just because they align with an assumption of malevolent and all-powerful institutions.”

    I fully understand and appreciate this sentiment, but unfortunately too many times in the last year these crazy “conspiracy theories” turn out to be undeniably true 6 months later.

    “That’s because virtually all of these imagined “conspiracies” depend on hundreds or thousands of people keeping silent about what they are actually doing.”

    Nonsense. It depends more on what a sympathetic press will or will not print, as well as what social media is willing to censor, at the behest of government agencies. You need to ride an Amtrak commuter train full of congressional aids 5x/week for a few years to grow sufficiently cynical.

    Is the Hunter Biden laptop merely Russian disinfo because 51 expert government types, 95% of a sympathetic press, and Jack Dorsey’s former clown car of blue-haired nonbinary censors all said so?

    Look, I’m fully willing to concede there are extreme nutcases publishing endless nonsense, but the correct approach to addressing “conspiracy theories” when government is involved is to use a heavy dose of cynicism. That said, there’s a reason the majority of the country doesn’t trust the DoJ.

  • [Avatar for Lonnie E. Holder]
    Lonnie E. Holder
    February 28, 2024 10:51 am

    Bingo. I have asked people espousing these conspiracy theories how, if Donald Trump was unable to prevent a leak when only a few people were present during a telephone call, would the government ever be able to keep the tens of thousands of people needed to, for example, “rig” a presidential election, quiet. Of course, these people continue to insist it is possible, without evidence.

    I have also worked on aircraft and creating “chemtrails” would be a daunting task. I asked how anyone would be able to get away with loading, for example, a passenger plane with a large amount of chemicals and then disperse those chemicals without anyone, anywhere, spotting such uploads. The answer was that the government has dozens of aircraft specially made to disperse chemicals that fly around all day long. Um, okay, that makes loads of sense. And who is being controlled? It is clear that US citizens are not being controlled or we would not have bizarre conspiracy theories.

    The people who repeat these theories, and the people who believe them, need to suspend all logic and reason. Once any semblance of reality is ignored then justification can be made up on the spot. There is an answer for every fact. My favorite is “You’ve bought into what they want you to think.” Good answer and impossible to refute. It’s all circular and comes back to not being persuaded by logic and reason.

    Well, I need to wash my tin hat and go watch videos of how the collapse of the Twin Towers was brought about by controlled explosions, no matter how many analyses show that the heat of the flames from the fuel decreased the strength of the steel to the point where the collapse was inevitable.

  • [Avatar for RW Graham, Former US Senate Candidate.]
    RW Graham, Former US Senate Candidate.
    February 28, 2024 07:16 am

    James,

    Many events, be it political campaigns, wars, sports, vaccinations, give rise to the conspiracy theories. Sometimes the facts surrounding these events lead us to the inescapable realization that the events are apparently a secret plan by a few bad people to do something unlawful or harmful to others. I have personally witnessed this in my life with my mother being in the Oklahoma City bombing as well as the corruption in our court systems. Frankly, there is good reason for the distrust in many of our institutions, because we have not removed those bad players who seek to do harm as opposed to good.

  • [Avatar for E. Meyer]
    E. Meyer
    February 28, 2024 05:46 am

    Playing the devils advocate here: If you would ask me “how many people would have to be in on it in order for the government to pull it off? And how likely is it that every one of those people, down to the lowest staff levels, will never utter a word about the plot?” I would answer: “A lot and it’s very unlikely that nobody utters a word about the plot. BUT this is why we know about the ongoing conspiracy!”

Varsity Sponsors

IPWatchdog Events

Patent Portfolio Management Masters™ 2024
June 24 @ 1:00 pm - June 26 @ 2:00 pm EDT
Webinar – Sponsored by LexisNexis
August 22 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EDT
Women’s IP Forum
August 26 @ 11:00 am - August 27 @ 5:00 pm EDT
IP Solutions, Services & Platforms Expo
September 9 @ 1:00 pm - September 10 @ 2:00 pm EDT
Webinar – Sponsored by Anaqua
September 19 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EDT

From IPWatchdog