JFK -- & the origin of the term, "Conspiracy Theory"

[Why Syzygy]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/jfk-assassination-marked-the-end-of-the-american-republic/5346419

.... "In January 1967, shortly after Jim Garrison in New Orleans had started his prosecution of the CIA backgrounds of the murder, the CIA published a memo to all its stations, suggesting the use of the term “conspiracy theorists” for everyone criticizing the Warren Report findings. Until then the press and the public mostly used the term “assassination theories” when it came to alternative views of the “lone nut” Lee Harvey Oswald. But with this memo this changed and very soon “conspiracy theories” became what it is until today: a term to smear, denounce and defame anyone who dares to speak about any crime committed by the state, military or intelligence services. Before Edward Snowden anyone claiming a kind of total surveillance of internet and phone traffic would have been named a conspiracy nut; today everyone knows better." ...

[Bolo Boffin]

1. And the CIA used its mind control rays to make everyone begin using the term.

Or the term accurately describes something and people saw the utility in the phrase.

You know what they call conspiracy theories that are proven to be true? Conspiracies.

[Why Syzygy]

2. um .

your statements strike me as bipolar. Which is it?

I don't know if you know anything about *marketing*. It isn't that hard to sell stuff.

[ConcernedCanuk]

3. "today everyone knows better" - problem is, they don't . . .

.
.
.

some are just plain uninformed, others cling to the vitriol spewed out by our governments;

many are just plain stuck in their ways, - and so on . . .

I for one believe that JFK's demise and 911, among other events,

were designed and happened under the control of the PNAC/MIC gang et al.

When the USA stops bombing the World, gets a grip on gun control, takes care of it's own citizens via job creation, healthcare, income security for old age, housing etc., - I might take a different stance as to my opinion of the USA.

Be clear - I am talking about the powers that be, not USA's citizens -

I like the people, dislike the governance with a passion.

Not happy with my own government much lately.

(sigh)

CC

[MrMickeysMom]

4. Yep...

Not happy with the way the right wing grabs ahold of world powers, either. You summarize correctly about the PNAC/MIC gang, and this isn't anything that I feel I have to explain over and over because you either pay attention or you do not.

[Why Syzygy]

5. The way I read it ..

it means that less than a year ago, anyone talking about the NSA and its scope of power would be mocked and marginalized by being labeled a CT or "Creative Speculation". Today, no one can deny that the NSA is spying on everyone!

That's just one example of "conspiracy theories" that were true. It's hard for me not to believe those who still label some of us conspiracy nuts actually have evil intent. Or a brain eating amoebae.

[William Seger]

6. Um... No

> That's just one example of "conspiracy theories" that were true.

No, it isn't. First, "conspiracy theory" has come to have a fairly specific idiomatic meaning -- specific enough for most people that I dare say you will not find any actual example of anyone calling speculation about NSA spying a "conspiracy theory." That would be because, unlike the typical "conspiracy theory," such speculation would not have been preposterously implausible and would have been justified by what was actually known.

Second, since there weren't any "conspiracy theorists" talking about NSA spying, it's actually a good example of how "conspiracy theorists" are too preoccupied with their absurd theories to pick up on anything real. That special intuition that they believe they have about such matters appears to be just another figment of their imaginations.

Third, the existence of any real conspiracies does not provide a rational person a reason to believe totally absurd theories like controlled demolition of the WTC. Contrary to popular opinion among "conspiracy theorists," calling those theories absurd bullshit is not based in any way on denying that conspiracies exist.

> It's hard for me not to believe those who still label some of us conspiracy nuts actually have evil intent. Or a brain eating amoebae.

Having a difference of opinion is one thing, but when you spew abject bullshit like that, it's clear that you simply do not understand how rational people think. If you are going to make extraordinary claims about highly implausible versions of history, then a rational person will expect you to provide sufficiently credible evidence for believing that incredible version. If you can't, then a rational person is likely to call that version a "conspiracy theory," using a colloquial definition that's derived directly from the types of belief systems that "conspiracy theorists" proselytize, not from FBI propaganda.

[MrMickeysMom]

7. facepalm....

Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah...

....................hhhHOW......mmmmmMAny.......WORDS......can...there...be.....to.... s a y N O T H I N G.......

Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... v Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah... v v Blah... Blah... v v Blah... Blah...

[William Seger]

8. Why, are you going for the record?

... or just maintaining your average?

[Why Syzygy]

9. It happened, beefcake

It happened to me. So you can't say it can't be found. It was well-known on the right, but the left denied it. Don't try to revise history.

I know how rational people think. They don't deny evidence. They LIVE for evidence. You and others kid yourself about your ability to reason.

[William Seger]

10. Bullshit

> It was well-known on the right, but the left denied it. Don't try to revise history.

Your "history" is 180-degrees away from reality. The two main organizations that have worked to expose NSA abuses and fight them in court have been the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. You are the revisionist, and not a very good one.

Edit: Here's some evidence for you to ignore. Now, let's see your evidence of someone calling the ACLU and the EFF "conspiracy theorists."

[MrMickeysMom]

11. Wikipedia regarding the NSA?

No wonder you said it was evidence to ignore...

[William Seger]

12. Ignoring contrary evidence is what "conspiracy theorists" do

Thanks for proving my point, but when evaluating the quality of Wikipedia articles, the key is to check the sources:

External links

Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information, Congressional Research Service, January 5, 2006 (HTML)
U.S. Department of Justice White Paper on NSA Legal Authorities, Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President,January 19, 2006
Department of Justice Letter to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee December 22 (PDF) via Federation of American Scientists
Justice Dept Supplemental Brief to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Court of Review
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: An Overview of the Statutory Framework and Recent Judicial Decisions – Congressional Research Service – April 2005 via Federation of American Scientists
Statutory Procedures Under Which Congress Is To Be Informed of U.S. Intelligence Activities, Including Covert Actions, Congressional Research Service , January 18, 2006 (HTML)
FindLaw News Document Archive for National Security Agency (NSA)
Cornell Law: US CODE Title 50, Chapter 36—Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
FAS FISA Resource Page
FISA and Immunity
Presidential Powers in Time of War, a written exchange between professors at the Univ. of Minnesota School of Law
Large Cruxlux debate on legality of wiretapping program
Surveillance law resources, JURIST
ACLU Complaint (Initial Filing) against the NSA Central Security Service and Lieutenant General Keith B. Alexander (HTML)
House Judiciary 20 January 2006 Briefing Statements, Transcript, EFF and ACLU Complaints and Related Action Documents in HTML
Response by the American Bar Association:
Letter to George W. Bush (pdf) from ABA President Michael S. Greco, dated February 13, 2006
Resolution (26-page pdf) from the ABA denouncing the warrantless wiretaps
David Alan Jordan, Decrypting the Fourth Amendment: Warrantless NSA Surveillance and the Enhanced Expectation of Privacy Provided by Encrypted Voice over Internet Protocol – Boston College Law Review, Vol. 47, 2006
Commentary Magazine March, 2006 Has the New York Times Violated the Espionage Act?
Of Bugs, the President, and the NSA– Douglas C. McNabb and Matthew R. McNabb, The Champion.
EFF Class Action Complaint (Initial Filing) against AT&T (HTML)
Not Authorized By Law: Domestic Spying and Congressional Consent, JURIST
Washington Monthly blog post on an opposed conservative reaction
An Open Letter to George Bush partly on this issue
T.J. Rodgers. U.S. gets closer to Orwell's Big Brother, San Jose Mercury News, December 29, 2005.
FindLaw News Document Archive for National Security Agency (NSA)
The New York Review of Books: ON NSA SPYING: A LETTER TO CONGRESS (Volume 53, Number 2 · February 9, 2006)
ALEXANDER COCKBURN and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR, Time-Delayed Journalism: the NYT and the NSA's Illegal Spying Operation December 17, 2005
Gabriel Sherman, Why Times Ran Wiretap Story, Defying Bush The New York Observer, December 26, 2005
Morrison, Trevor W., "Constitutional Avoidance in the Executive Branch" . Columbia Law Review, Vol. 106, October 2006
JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State? Findlaw (Monday, January 9, 2006)
The Secret Sharer: Is Thomas Drake an enemy of the state? A reportage by The New Yorker's Jane Mayer from May 23, 2011 about the prosecution against Thomas Andrews Drake in general and in particular in the context of the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
Swire, Peter P., "The System of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law" – George Washington Law Review, Vol. 72, 2004
C-SPAN videos (require RealPlayer)
Whistleblower says NSA violations bigger United Press International, February 14, 2006
Letter from Senator Pat Roberts to Senator Arlen Specter Senator defends NSA program legality, February 3, 2006 via Federation of American Scientists
Presidential Secrecy and the NSA Spying Controversy, JURIST
NSA Eavesdropping and the Fourth Amendment, JURIST
Washington Post's overview: NSA: Spying at Home
ACLU v. NSA ruling, which held that the NSA warrantless surveillance program is illegal and unconstitutional and must be halted immediately.
"NSA warrantless wiretapping is illegal" argument diagram at HonestArgument.com
"So Judge, How Do I Get That FISA Warrant?": The Policy and Procedure for Conducting Electronic Surveillance, The Army Lawyer, October 1997
Technician Mark Klein discussing Room 641A on "Countdown", November 7, 2007
Amicus Filed in NSA Wiretapping Case
Swedish FRA granted the right to intercept all traffic at exchange points that exchange traffic that crosses Swedish borders

[MrMickeysMom]

13. That's a laugh...

Considering the consistency in the method Wikipedia validates its material and who and who cannot edit.

Keep trying...

[William Seger]

14. Wow

It's one thing that you didn't already know that the ACLU and EFF have been going after the NSA's overreaching for some time -- I'm sure you've been pretty busy with that JFK investigation -- but it's amazing that you think you can save face by continuing to deny it. Sorry, but the Wikipedia article simply confirms what I remember from keeping up with the news, as you could learn for yourself by checking out some of the article's sources. But suit yourself.

[MrMickeysMom]

15. William, you keep amusing yourself...

God knows, I've heard how you address persons stepping over this subject before. Keeping up with the news these days has a different meaning for you and a few others here. Yes, you are right... I'll suit myself by calling you out whenever you puff up and fart.

Wikipedia does not a reference make. Plus, you constantly poke holes into what the majority of Americans believe about the death of JFK.

[William Seger]

16. The "majority of Americans" believe in ghosts

... and "calling someone out" based on your own willful ignorance is not flattering. I just rechecked, and the article's sources did not magically disappear.

[MrMickeysMom]

17. What's that?

Oh, it's you... having to get the last word. That's okay... You can write me back again and be the authority on willful ignorance.

Don't confuse ghosts with why after 50 years, a country that claims to love Kennedy still hasn't solved his murder.

Bye-bye..

[greyl]

18. That article gives a true date for the origin of the term "Conspiracy Theory".

And by true, I mean false.

Evidence shows it was used in conversation and published works as early as in 1870.

The Oxford English Dictionary records the first use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" to a 1909 article in The American Historical Review. Other sources predate this use by nearly four decades to at least 1871, where it is used in The Journal of Mental Science reporting on a conference of the Fifth Quarterly Meeting of the Medico-Psychological Association (now the Royal College of Psychiatrists), held on January 27, 1870:

"The theory of Dr. Sankey as to the manner in which these injuries to the chest occurred in asylums deserved our careful attention. It was at least more plausible that the conspiracy theory of Mr. Charles Beade..."

Acquired derogatory meaning

Originally a neutral term, since the mid-1960s it has acquired a somewhat derogatory meaning, implying a paranoid tendency to see the influence of some malign covert agency in events. The term is often used to automatically dismiss claims that the critic deems ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational. A conspiracy theory that is proven to be correct, such as the notion that United States President Richard Nixon and his aides conspired to cover up Watergate, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Prove me wrong.

[Ace Acme]

19. OK, it originated as a neutral term in the 19th Century

... and became a derogatory meme in the 1960s. Thanks for proving the point.

[KurtNYC]

20. Per Ngram, "Conspiracy theorist" is not used until around 1980

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=conspiracy+theory%2C+conspiracy+theorist%2C+lone+nut&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2010&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cconspiracy%20theory%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bconspiracy%20theory%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BConspiracy%20Theory%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BConspiracy%20theory%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cconspiracy%20theorist%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bconspiracy%20theorist%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BConspiracy%20Theorist%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BConspiracy%20theorist%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Clone%20nut%3B%2Cc0