esoteric conversations, agendas, and desires of the people running the government no matter what Department or level, like in a war zone ten people on the same page can defeat a hundred. As soon as we Abandon the system of Check & Balance, under the guise of homeland security, advisor's, contractors, and experts know better so trust us, or for what ever reason, a Conspiracy Theory is no longer necessary .

Often misused, though.

attacks on our citizens, Elections ans assignations .True, it's a verbal shortcut the media uses to conjure up images to scare with supposed information about plots and WMD's or terrorist bombings, and to dub people who don't believe the cover story as "Conspiracy Nuts " , so not only overused but also ambiguous .

that a group of people can't keep their mouths shut. I am the child of parents who had life long security clearances and they never spoke of anything that was classified except to someone with the necessary clearance and the NEED TO KNOW.

Now congresscritters, their staff and other political flunkies are famous for leaking classified material for whatever self serving reason in their small minds.

So as long as the conspiracy is made up of people like my parents no one will ever find out the truth. I know Mom and Dad went to their graves with secrets untold.

Every conspiracy theory does not involve as many people as 911 or the Kennedy assassination.

that wished i.e. to kill Kennedy who were like my parents; they would organize in cells with only certain people with full knowledge. I'm trying to say that a conspiracy can be keep secret and be effective.

I have seen various programs that seek to de-bunk any conspiracy theory connected to the assassination. I don't know enough to say I believe them or that I disbelieve them.

However, I do know that at least some members of the Warren Commission were recruited with the idea that the national security depended on coming up with an explanation fast. (Not exact words, obviously.) If members of the Warren Commission thought that putting the thing "neatly" to bed ASAP was their duty to the nation, I can see how they would keep their mouths shut.

I just have never felt comfortable with the official story. My Dad did not have any inside info but he felt it there was a connection to the New Orleans mob or to Cuba, but he also thought those could be false trails to hide the real truth.

All I know is JFK, RFK, MLK, Jr. were all supposedly assassinated by lone wolfs acting alone and that is one heck of a coincidence. John Kennedy, Jr., too, not long after he started publishing George. Accidental.

shut down discussion, the more suspicious and/or skeptical I get. The JFK assassination has been examined numerous times with a lot of different theories, but what about 9/11? The government has chosen a hands-off approach. Both Parties. The answer can't be because they all agree with the story presented. More time and money has been spent on investigating the Clintons for Monica and Benghazi. I think an inquiring person would at least wonder why, if not speculate as to why.

If it's only shooting the breeze or posting, anything goes. But, if people are going to get serious about something, I'd like to know more about what is going on right now. For instance, governments have been propagandizing their own citizens since forever, especially during wartime--and we are in perpetual war now. That being the case, why did the US government pass a law not so long ago authorizing itself to propagandize us? What the hell is up with that?

personal, it's just that they need more and more power.

"The 1% don't openly want us in the 99% to die. They just don't care if we do."

The fewer "useless eaters," the better for the environment.

the mythical "let them eat cake", is that there was no sarcasm in that statement. It showed a true disconnection between the aristocrats and the People. Granted there are many aristocrats that abhor the masses but there are more that are indifferent. They view us as cattle. They don't wish us ill will, they just won't do anything to help us if it costs them. In fact, if they need to harm us to make gains in wealth (power), it isn't personal, it's just business. I think the Third Way ideology includes this. They may honestly wish us well in gaining some social justice (good for their consciences) but not if it takes away from their primary goal in life, gain wealth. Wealth can be made, esp if there is an abundance of free resources or labor, but in today's world, it's much easier to steal it. The Wealthy have been stealing the wealth of the lower classes for decades now. When the oligarchy says, "Let them have same-sex marriage," I hear, "Let them eat cake."

I believe that candidate running with the backing of the oligarchy will follow the Third Way ideology. They might help us with some social justice but only if it doesn't interfere with their plans to steal our wealth.

outcome of an election until after the election. Was it 2000 or 2004 (I'm thinking 2004) when some really bad for W story came out right after he was reinstalled in the White House, because one of the news orgs had decided they should 'sit on it' so as not to affect the election? Barring that 'conspiracy' by the reporter(s) and the editors, the punlic would have been reminded of Bush's sleaziness right when it could have actually saved the country from another 4 years of incompetence and criminality.

One news organization does not a conspiracy make. The NYT making a publishing decision is not a conspiracy. And I am not sure if failure to speak is "wrongful" if one has no specific duty to speak.

We do have a First Amendment right to STFU when we want to. Sometimes, a Fifth Amendment right as well.

Note that I specifically pointed out there were more than one human actors involved. If the reporters had not agreed with the editors, they could have shopped the story around elsewhere to make sure voters were informed.

And I would suggest that the 'failure to speak' is a breech of duty for the 4th estate. Indeed, it's the centrepiece of their existence. We may have become blase to the rise of infotainment and the decline of actual journalism, but it is at least on paper why they supposedly exist. If the news does not have a 'specific duty to speak' then who does?

jk.


One news organization is a single entity. Yes, it is comprised of more than one person, but saying " a news organization conspired" is a problem. Saying "a number of employees of a new organization conspired" could be correct, though, if true.

And I would suggest that the 'failure to speak' is a breach of duty for the 4th estate.

Duty in what sense? Not a legal duty. Maybe a moral duty as to a Presidential candidate, but agreement to breach a moral duty may not be a conspiracy.

Indeed, it's the centerpiece of their existence.

Ideally, perhaps. In reality, many news organizations have become something very different.

I believe that it's possible to have a conspiracy without the various partners specifically conspiring. That may sound confusing but bear with me. If a majority of news organizations all choose to promote a certain candidate or issue, over others, I see that as a conspiracy. The conspiracy is an unspoken agreement for a common agenda. Can there be a 1% "class conspiracy" to place restrictions on the lower classes?

If this doesn't make sense, help me out.

Russell Tice, long before Snowden stole the headlines, spilled the beans on the NSA and how the government in the wake of the passage of the Patriot Act ran roughshod over every Americans' civil liberties. He did that in 2004, but the NY Times waited to publish it in 2005 because they didn't want to affect the election.

So every time I hear some wingnut gripe about the "liberal" NY Times, this is my response:

As years go by and more information comes out some conspiracy theories are not so far fetched.

Some seem to think that simply labeling something CT ends the discussion definitively. It doesn't. Begins it, maybe.

The idea that no conspiracies exist is flat out bizarre. Drawing lines is difficult for me, though.

The heart of the issue isn't whether a news organization is a single entity. The real problem is that the term is not applied neutrally. "One or more people conspiring" takes a back seat to "This is not only false, but is so ridiculous that only a crackpot would believe it."

From the Wikipedia article about the term:

The 9/11 attacks provide another good example. "Various actors conspired to fake the attacks, including bringing down one or more buildings through controlled demolition" is called a conspiracy theory. "Various actors, including the 19 hijackers and a large supporting team headed by bin Laden, conspired to bring about the attacks" is not called a conspiracy theory because it's more respectable, having the government's imprimatur.

You say that it's "way overused", implying that it has some acceptable (albeit lower) level of use. I say it shouldn't be used at all. It adds nothing. As you note, the mere label doesn't disprove a theory. Just say "Smith believes a ridiculous and unsupportable charge about Western elites deliberately spreading AIDS in Africa" or whatever.

except I didn't even imply that whether a news organization is a single entity is the crux of this thread.

Just say "Smith believes a ridiculous and unsupportable charge about Western elites deliberately spreading AIDS in Africa" or whatever.

That does not disprove what Smith believes, either, though. You've only substituted one set of pejorative words for another.

I know you don't see it as the crux. My point is that it's an error for anyone to get hung up on whether there's a technical "conspiracy" by being distracted about whether there are multiple actors. No one denies that the official explanation of 9/11 involved multiple actors, but you just won't see that explanation derided as a conspiracy theory.

You're right that "ridiculous and unsupportable charge" and "conspiracy theory" are both sets of pejorative words. I prefer the former, however, because it's clearer. If you believe, as I do, that the controlled-demolition explanation for 9/11 is false, but you criticize it as a conspiracy theory, what do you say when the 9/11 truthers respond that the official explanation is also a conspiracy theory? The term adds nothing to the discussion and threatens to sidetrack it.

Subtle and Deceptive Tactics to Discredit Truth in Media and Research


“Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs.

Conspiracy theory’s acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s well-known fusillades against the “New Right.” Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively “weaponizing” the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question.


The CIA Coined the Term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967


Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories. The dispatch was marked “psych” – short for “psychological operations” or disinformation – and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.

The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.




“CIA Document 1035-960” was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times. The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American government” vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially interested in maintaining its own image and role as it “contributed information to the [Warren] investigation.”

The memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.” For example, approaching “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” to remind them of the Warren Commission’s integrity and soundness should be prioritized. “[T]he charges of the critics are without serious foundation,” the document reads, and “further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the [Communist] opposition.”

The agency also directed its members “[t]o employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”

1035-960 further delineates specific techniques for countering “conspiratorial” arguments centering on the Warren Commission’s findings. Such responses and their coupling with the pejorative label have been routinely wheeled out in various guises by corporate media outlets, commentators and political leaders to this day against those demanding truth and accountability about momentous public events.

and Progressive speculation regarding the authoritarian control.

This whole thread has been great

right here in River City DU. It's so easy to push people around (bully) people when one is anonymous. Some like to push others around or control others because they like it, and others do it to push their world view when they don't have a decent argument. Mostly it's conservatives that want to control others.

The prohibition of CT in GD is a great tool for those that like to see threads locked that they don't like. For example, when Snowden emerged, it was ok to the conservatives to speculate that he worked for the Chinese and Russians to harm the US. But if one tried to say that the government was trying to subvert our freedoms, the CT card was apt to come out. It's a tool to lock or hide discussion that one has no good argument against.

Let's talk about CT. Your discussion in the OP was great. But I would go a little farther in that CT is all around us. In our jobs, in our schools, in our organizations, etc. Everywhere small groups (or big) get together to "conspire" or to "plan or plot secretly". All conspiring isn't evil. Let's say at the PTA you and a group of others decide that Person A isn't the best president and you conspire to vote them out. Same at work. A group gets together to convince the boss that they should get the project instead of the other group. Conspiring happens all the time, for good or evil. And in politics conspiring is a way of life. Think Tanks should really be called "Conspiracy Tanks", although it's not all evil.

IMO the prohibition of CT here in DU is to prevent rehash of old conspiracy data in GD. But I believe that new data is fair game or if Jeb makes a statement about 9/11, it's fair game. The CT card is too often used to shut off discussions for political reasons.

My personal criteria is that irrefutable evidence can determine the validity of a conspiracy theory, but the so-called irrefutable evidence must itself be valid

unless there is an "whistleblower" willing to step outside the law. And if you look at what happens to those people, there is a huge disincentive.

Even without the massive resources of government, you don't get irrefutable evidence of much wrongdoing in this world. Take even an ordinary murder conviction, after a supposedly fair trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, with no one but the perp trying to keep the truth secret. If you always had irrefutable evidence of things that actually happened, you'd never have a hung jury, or a jury that deliberates for days, or evidence that shows up later that proves the person convicted did not do it.

eventually come out

conspiracy theory, is it? It's merely a suspicion of wrongdoing.

How or why would anyone even begin to seek "irrefutable proof" of something if every suspicion for which there is not yet irrefutable proof gets dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" and everyone decides no "conspiracy theory" can possibly be true? Do you not see the Catch 22?

BTW, if there really is irrefutable proof of something, it's no longer a theory. It's just fact.

try hardest to ridicule so-called 'conspiracy theories.'

Out in the real world, I'm not surprised to find that quite a number of people think:
1. 9/11 was an inside job
2. The international bankers had a hand in killing the Kennedys
3. The international bankers had a hand in killing Lincoln
4. The international bankers had a hand in killing McKinley
5. Wall Street bankers had a 'come to Jesus' meeting with Obama upon him taking office so he'd be clear on what they would and would not allow him to do
6. Marijuana's a Schedule 1 substance not because anyone actually believes that, but because there's lots of money to be made in private prisons and the drug war in general
7. The invasion of Iraq was because we wanted their oil
8. The DOJ didn't prosecute Wall Street bankers because money changed hands, and threats were issued (by the bankers) in the right places
9. Big oil has funded a few spurious 'studies' on global warming with the goal of sowing just a little doubt; they all know global warming exists and we're causing it
10. The NRA called up radio hate show hosts and gave them talking points about how Obama will take your guns, thus dramatically raising gun sales

Oh, and let's not forget the REAL biggie:

11. So-called 'free trade' agreements are part of an agenda whereby international bankers plan to effectively take away the sovereign power of nation states and replace that power with an oligarchic new world order. Bush (HW) even used the term 'new world order' once. The media downplayed it, but...

In the minds of many people I've met, these aren't conspiracy 'theories,' but are considered quite real conspiracies.

Kinda strange DU has banned CT. BTW, I've seen some threads that I would lump into the 'conspiracy theory' pot stand up here without anyone saying anything. Maybe it's only certain ones...

"Oh, and labeling something a "conspiracy theory" does not disprove it."

Merrily, you are an very intelligent person, I do not understand your attempt here to "mainstream" woo woo and conspiracy theory as serious political discourse. That is the province of the Alec Jones and the Glenn Becks of this world.

And please see Reply 31.

Instead of attempting to ridicule what you imagined I said that I never said, why don't you simply state your own position?

Also, I think your comment about burden of proof conflates a court case with everything else.

This was not an 'attack' on you. I respect you and enjoy your posts.

My own opinion is that I don't care for conspiracy theory and IMHO doesn't belong on mainstream DU. I am very happy with DU's current policy on CT. I don't want DU to become known as a CT site. It is one of the many positive things that sets this website apart and keeps it credible

Hope that clarifies.

No, your statement does not clarify. My OP says nothing about what belongs on DU. I could care less what Skinner does or doesn't want on DU. But, also, before saying you don't care for conspiracy theory, you should offer your definition of conspiracy theory. You seem to think of every conspiracy theory as something both far fetched and false. That is not really the definition I was discussing in the OP. It's certainly not the criminal law definition of a criminal conspiracy. At some point, before those convictions of criminal conspiracy , someone had a theory that a conspiracy had occurred and investigated it, no? Isn't that a conspiracy theory?

Never have been interested, never will be interested.

IMHO you misunderstood my comment about Beck and Jones. There is no comparison implicit or explicit being made to you.

I am sometimes inarticulate and unclear in my writing. This is probably one of those times I guess.

I simply want to leave CT to them, and not read CT here on DU. Unless I choose to visit Creative Speculation.

Have a great night.

"Oh, and labeling something a "conspiracy theory" does not disprove it."

Merrily, you are an very intelligent person, I do not understand your attempt here to "mainstream" woo woo and conspiracy theory as serious political discourse. That is the province of the Alec Jones and the Glenn Becks of this world.

I don't know what problem you had with my sentence? Does labeling a statement a conspiracy theory disprove the statement?

I'm also not sure why you keep bringing up DU. I expressly said I could care less about that.

I don't see anything controversial about that statement.

I have a few CT's that I've been invested in over the years - for example I beleive Bush's "Do Not Call List" was a way to troll for phone numbers.

As to caring about DU's credibility, it is one of my personal issues. So it is just a general statement I made. Been around so long I guess I am personally invested. So that's why I spoke of that.

I couldn't care less that you couldn't care less about DU's cred. That's your prerogative, and probably more healthy than me being personally invested in the site.

What concerns me is that you appear to conclude that I think you are a "bad person" and I am attacking you personally. When in fact I like you and admire/enjoy your posts.

I am afraid I read your reply to me as extremely aggressive and sensed a lot of anger in it. Hence the fighting reference. Am quite willing to concede I might have misinterepeted it.

Did not Volkswagen conspire to falsify data on its diesel engines?
Does Industry not conspire to price fix, to lobby for legislation both contrary to the best interests of the nation as a whole? Are not corporations composed of many decision makers thus making conspiracy theory applicable?

There are many forms of conspiracies and conspiracy theories can encompass a wide range and can be taken to extremes. That does not suggest that those theories automatically do not hold water.

It's one thing to say certain individuals within Volkswagon conspired to do something. That would be a correct use of the word. And then, you would charge them individually. But Volkswagon is a single entity or "corporate person." So Volkwagon itself, as a corporation, did not "conspire" unless someone outside the company participated.

Maybe what I said is easier to grasp if we leave corporations out of it for a second. If one person kills someone, it's murder, not conspiracy to murder. If five people plan togeth to kill someone, it's a criminal conspiracy, even if the murder never happens. See what I am trying to say?

I addressed the issue of a conspiracy having to involve more than one "person" because I had actually seen someone post "conspiracy theory" to something involving only one person. Doubting that something happened does not automatically make the accusation that it did happen a conspiracy theory if only one person is involved.

Also, if someone has been convicted of something, we usually drop the word "theory."