Mr. Vankin, whose previous work includes Conspiracies, Coverups and Crimes, currently resides in Tokyo, where he is an editor at the English language newspaper Daily Yomiuri. Mr. Whalen lives in California and writes for Wired, Spin, and New York Newsday.
Fair Play: Is 50 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time a continuation of Vankin's earlier book? Judging from the press release I saw, there seem to be some parallels.
John Whalen: No, 50 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time is not really a continuation; it's a different approach to the topic, one we hoped would reach a wider audience. We wanted to cover a representative swath of conspiracy theory--which includes the probable, the plausible and the unlikely. So our approach to the unlikely theories is more light-hearted.
Fair Play: Where do you guys find this stuff? How serious are you in all this? (From the material you sent me, and from your Web page, there appears to be a degree of whimsy in what you're doing.)
John Whalen: We find these conspiracy theories through the usual research methods, as well as through our own reading and journalistic experience.
Fair Play: How did the Web page tie-in (if I may call it that) come about? Who maintains the site?
John Whalen: We had always planned to do some sort of online promotion for the book. But we didn't want our Internet presence to be merely an ad; so we think of the Web site as a compliment to the book and a project unto itself. We've given it a somewhat different personality from the book--we tried to make it a little funnier. We maintain the site ourselves.
Fair Play: In many ways, the Internet remains a vast, uncharted
territory. As you may know, there is a Usenet group called
alt.conspiracy.jfk, devoted to discussion of the JFK case. The exchanges there can get very heated, even viciously personal; it is not uncommon for conspiracy believers to hurl the charge "CIA disinformationist" at some of those advocating the Lone Nut theory.
John Whalen: In terms of the government infiltrating the Internet to spread disinformation, we find it quite plausible. However, we have no evidence that they do so. The CIA's history of manipulating the media is well-documented (in 50 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time, for example). We don't think the online media would be any exception. At the same time, conspiracy believers--as you put it--are prone to "agent-bait."
Fair Play: In the Preface to your book, you distinguish between the `Disney' version of history, and what really happened (which isn't always knowable). Isn't this simply the way the world works--what Peter Dale Scott calls "Deep Politics"?
John Whalen: Yes, it is the way the world really works. The problem is that historians and journalists usually wind up distorting their accounts of how the world works. Those events and mechanisms of history that don't fit into the specific worldview of the historical chroniclers usually get left out. As the saying goes, History is written by the victors. In America, we have especially powerful "myths" that discourage us from thinking about unseemly political realities: Our country, based on democratic rule of the people, is supposed to be tamper-proof, self-correcting, etc. So when "conspiracies" do occur, there's a reflexive desire (among those who have a stake in preserving those national myths--Washington insiders, the press) to deny reality, to deny that the system can be subverted so easily and effectively. Most of the time, this denial by media and statesmen isn't a conscious "conspiracy" to suppress the truth. Instead, it's a learned reflex to reject the cognitive dissonance that occurs when one's worldview is contradicted. That doesn't mean that all conspiracy theories are true, healthy and rational; it just means that it's important to look with a critical eye at what Scott calls "Deep Politics."
Jonathan Vankin: Our beef isn't with any particular version of history -- it's with those who believe that their version, whatever it is, is the unshakeable truth. The "Disney" version happens to be the prevailing one these days for the reasons John explained. But it's important to realize that any version is "myth," in the sense that "myth" just means a story told to explain the inscrutable mysteries of how the world really does work. That said, as long as there's been politics, there's been behind-the-scenes politics, which is the subject of conspiracy theory.
Fair Play: You draw very few conclusions in your book, and those that you do draw seem to be pretty general. (For example, in the case of Marilyn Monroe's death, you write that "the coverup continues," but don't get much beyond that.) Was this intentional?
John Whalen: Because we decided to include a full range of conspiracy theories in the book--from the confirmed conspiracies, as in the CIA's plots to kill Castro, to the more dubious speculations, like the theory that we never landed on the moon--we approach each theory accordingly. So on the theories where the evidence just isn't bulletproof, we don't jump to hasty conclusions. One of the problems with conspiracy theorizing--the search for Deep Politics--is that many researchers get swept away in what I call "conspiracy vertigo," that dizzying state in which the possible and the plausible get thoroughly muddled. The researcher often errs on the side of paranoia: If A and B are true, then C and D must also be, this kind of fallacious thinking goes. That said, I think we do, in fact, draw a lot of definitive conclusions on the more solid conspiracy theories: especially the early chapters of the book, which focus on well-documented government misdeeds.
Jonathan Vankin: I think there's also a certain sense of humor that finds quirky things funny, per se. I guess we've got it. A lot of the stuff in the book, we think (or at least hope) is just amusing. No grandiose conclusions required.
Fair Play: Jonathan, your previous book, Conspiracies, Cover-ups and Crimes, focused on the mind-set of those who believe in (and research) one kind of conspiracy or another. The new book focuses more on a set of conspiracies and alleged conspiracies. Any reason for the difference?
Jonathan Vankin: Yeah, they're two different books. Not to be flip, but I didn't want to repeat myself.
Fair Play: Do you see a growing awareness or acceptance among "regular folks" of conspiratorial activity within governments, or other walks of life? Or to be more precise, more openess to the possibility?
John Whalen: Certainly, the recent terrorist bombing in Oklahoma has made front-page news of the conspiratorial mindset that reigns in America's conservative hinterlands. I think Americans--and I'm referring to regular folks--have always been open to the idea that power breeds corruption, and conspiracies. The USA was founded on anti-elitist ideals, a new form of government intended to prevent the kind of skullduggery and Aristocratic manipulation that reigned in Europe. But Americans have always been quick to focus that suspicion on their own leaders, too. Mark Twain was Congress-bashing way back in 19th century. And after the assassination of Lincoln, elaborate conspiracy theories ran rampant through the nation. But there's also been a countervailing notion at large in the land--largely endorsed by the American elites with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (mercantilists, politicians, press, middle class folks who identify with those elites, etc.): That notion denies the reality of conspiracies, at least conspiracies perpetrated by the members of America's ruling status quo (meanwhile, the commies, lefties, and Islamic fundamentalists never seemed to get the same benefit of the doubt). During the first half of the 20th century, with the rise of the mass media, the American governing classes used their media monopoly to promote their views, and to marginalize and ridicule the "paranoid" alternative views. At the same time, the Cold War helped ice any dissent from within the republic, and refocused America's suspicions on an outside enemy: The Reds. It wasn't until the accumulation of doubt fostered by the JFK assassination, Vietnam, Watergate, COINTELPRO, etc., etc., that suspicions about our own government resurfaced into the mainstream of politics.
Jonathan Vankin: Let's just say we hope that lots of people are becoming more interested in conspiracy theories. We'll let you know when we get our royalty statements.
Fair Play: Speaking of the Oklahoma City bombing---your chapter on FEMA, "The Disaster Agency," makes for pretty scary reading, in light of your statements that, in effect, FEMA is looking for an excuse to declare martial law. Is FEMA something to still be concerned about, or was it something of the Reagan/Bush era? FEMA has been all over the place in the aftermath of Oklahoma City. Is this the type of situation that the government, through FEMA, might somehow exploit?
John Whalen: Despite the fears of the militia movement, I haven't seen any indications that FEMA is still as obsessed with martial law as it was during the Reagan years. It probably still has its "Continuity of Government" plans--how to keep the government running in the event of a national apocalypse--but I haven't seen evidence of the kind of paranoid plotting that reigned under Reagan. Of course, the right-wing militia movement has grafted the very real plotting of the early 1980s FEMA onto the right-wing conspiratorial obsession with a United Nations takeover of the USA. The paramilitary rightists claim that FEMA is working in tandem with the UN to build concentration camps throughout the United States. When the UN invasion occurs--according to the right-wing theory--FEMA will round up God-fearing, liberty-loving Americans and slam them into these 43 regional "detention centers." Of course, we take that theory with a jumbo grain of salt. What's interesting, though--and we've posted a story about this on our World Wide Web site--is that one of the Michigan militia leaders says in a lecture videotaped last year that the FEMA "processing center for detainees in the Western half of the United States is Oklahoma City." This suggests a motive in the bombing: You have to wonder if Timothy James McVeigh and company thought they literally saw the whites of FEMA-UN eyes in Oklahoma City.
Fair Play: Although McVeigh and any others under arrest in connection with this case are, of course, innocent until proven guilty.
John Whalen: No, judging from the frequent polls that find most Americans rejecting the Warren Report's version of what happened in Dealey Plaza.
Jonathan Vankin: At the time it might have been difficult. These days it would probably be expected.
Fair Play: Regardng JFK, your chapter "Conspiracy of Confusion" seems to boil down developments of the last few years into seven or eight pages--stuff with Antonio Veciana and Gaeton Fonzi, for example, and Dick Russell's information on Charles Willoughby. I wonder if you have come across anything new linking P-2 to Permindex, the so-called "assassination bureau" that Clay Shaw was linked to? Or anything linking Priory of Zion to P-2? This gets into the arena of Grand Conspiracy Theory. Thoughts?
John Whalen: In their followup book to Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Henry Lincoln and his co-authors describe some tenuous connections between the P-2 crypto-fascist lodge and the current incarnation of the Priory of Zion. Lincoln speculates at one point that the Priory might be involved in right-wing Euro-politics, which would make collaboration with the P-2 seem plausible. What Lincoln and company hinted at, but never definitively determine, was that the Priory of Zion may have been some elaborate propaganda hoax intended to rally conservatives of Europe under one quasi-religious, political banner, with the supposed offspring of Christ being the glue holding this potential coalition together.
Jonathan Vankin: I don't think there's any Illuminati-style conspiracy in the JFK assassination, but it makes a good story.
Fair Play: You really trash Gerald Posner in the JFK chapter of your book. To play devil's advocate for a moment, did you contact him directly to let him defend himself?
John Whalen: No, he's had more than ample opportunity to voice his views.
Jonathan Vankin: We weren't attacking him outside the parameters of his views on the JFK assassination. If our criticisms aren't answered in his book, then the fault lies with his book.
Fair Play: The notion of "Manchurian Candidate"-style assassins pops up at several points in your book--it's explored in the first chapter, and discussed in the case of Sirhan Sirhan in your RFK chapter, and in the case of John Lennon's murder. I don't think you mention it, but it has been suggested that Lee Harvey Oswald may have have had some kind of behavioral programming done to him. In Conspiracies, Cover-ups and Crimes, Jonathan reports that Mae Brussell advanced the idea of a "hidden fascist oligarchy...able to hypnotically program assassins," and as you recount she believed John Hinckley may have stalked her at one point. So knowing you touched on all that, I wonder if you examined the assassination attempt on John Paul II in the early eighties, and whether Mehmet Ali Agca---officially a lone nut---may have been part of a larger cabal? I know you examined the death of John Paul I, and note that JP II, or Karol Wojtyla, didn't continue with his predecessor's planned reforms. But someone still tries of off him. Thoughts?
John Whalen: In the chapter on the attempted assassination of John Paul II, we do examine the very strong possibility that Agca was part of a larger conspiracy: he was a member of the fascist Gray Wolves and had dealings with other neo-fascist groups, apparently even the omnipresent P-2. The conspiracy theory that we explore is two-fold: 1) Sponsored by the Gray Wolves, Agca tried to assassinate the Pope for reasons that remain murky. 2) It appears that anti-communists in the West with connections to Western intelligence agencies siezed on the incident to tar the Soviets. As you recall, various anti-communist propagandists promoted the tale--which seems to have been pure fabrication--that the Soviets sponsored the Agca hit. There is a third, related possiblity, although the evidence is hardly definitive: The same Western intelligence agencies that promoted the "Bulgarian Connection" red herring actually sponsored Agca's attempt on the Pope, for the purpose of blaming/framing the Russkies.
Fair Play: Jonathan, I don't want to flog what may be a dead horse, or encourage you to do the same. But in a postscript to the paperback edition of Conspiracies, Cover-ups and Crimes, you talk about the negative reaction Dave Emory had to the earlier, hardcover edition of the book. Have you had any contact with Emory since then?
Jonathan Vankin: None.
Fair Play: If even half of the conspiracies you write about in 50 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time are true, a lot of people will probably find it a disturbing book. What, if anything, can we do about some of the things you write about?
John Whalen: I hope people get two things out of our book: 1) the inclination to look at the "official story" of history with a skeptical eye, and 2) to look at the alternative possiblities--conspiracy theories--with an open mind, but with appropriate skepticism too. There are a lot of dangerous myths on boths sides of the fence. We've recently seen what happens when the radical right acts on beliefs based on distorted notions about alleged conspiracy theories on the part of the government.
Jonathan Vankin: Another message I hope people will get from our book -- and the web site, I should add -- is not to take anything too seriously. There is a lot of craziness in the world. If you can't see at least some humor in it, you'll sure go crazy yourself.
* * *