In 1967 the CIA created the label "Conspiracy Theorist"

In 1967, the CIA created the label "Conspiracy Theorists" to attack Truthsayers and Whistleblowers who are exposing TPTB.

Conspiracy Theorists USED to be called Conspirologists and were accepted as normal.

Democracy and free market capitalism were founded on conspiracy theories.

The Magna Carta, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and other founding Western documents were based on conspiracy theories. Greek democracy and free market capitalism were also based on conspiracy theories.

But those were the bad old days …Things have now changed.

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.

Here is the link with full text: www.zerohedge.com...

Do not trust nobody who is calling himslef or somebody else a "Conspiracy Theorist" - there is a high probablity that this person is a shill who is perpetuating the disinformation agenda and is trying to lure you into believing the negative connotations Truthsayers and Whistleblowers are being given by TPTB agents.

The only true name for a Truthsayer and a Whistleblower is "Conspirologist". Conspirology is the only real definition of the act of performing research about conspiracies. In order to educate yourself about what Conspirology is, it is enough to Google "Conspirology".

Conspirology is from Latin: (conspiratio - conspiracy); and Greek: (λογία - logia), is the scientific study of the nature, causes and effects, extent, control, and prevention of conspirational behaviour in both the individual and in society.

Don't let TPTB fool you.

I am proud when people call me that, but then I correct them and say that actually I am a "conspiracy realist"

I agree 100%. I've never had any sources, but I've always recognized the slur "Consiracy Theorist" to be created to discredit the intelligent with different perspectives. When you get labeled as one, everything you say is invalidated, no matter how much sense you make or how well supported your idea is. It lets people put walls around their brains and ears. Its like an extremely powerful version of an ad hominem attack. They dont have to address your points, they can just dismiss you by calling you a ConspiRACIST.

I get really angry when Im called one:
"So, you wont listen to a word I have to say, only because of a label?! "

You hit the nail on the head with that last word - label.

By attaching a label to people it is easier to dismiss them and their ideas out of hand as a crackpot, dumbass, whatever.

Conclusion There is a certain social process which is known and very visible but perhaps not acknowledged as much as it should be. It is that one where a new idea or an old one in new form, is accepted by a minority, while the majority is shouting treason, rubbish, cook, communist, anarchist, capitalist, or whatever is a term of abuse valued by that society--infringer--and they develop this idea, at first probably in secrecy or semi-secrecy, and then more and more visible, with more and more support until, guess what? What? This seditious and impossible wrong-headed idea, becomes what is known as... what? ...received opinion and is loved and valued... what? ...by the majority. What? What?

Blue Linky Thing for above

The words are from a song called ABCs of Anarchism by Chumbawamba.

originally posted by: MayanBoricua
I agree 100%. I've never had any sources, but I've always recognized the slur "Consiracy Theorist" to be created to discredit the intelligent with different perspectives. When you get labeled as one, everything you say is invalidated, no matter how much sense you make or how well supported your idea is. It lets people put walls around their brains and ears. Its like an extremely powerful version of an ad hominem attack. They dont have to address your points, they can just dismiss you by calling you a ConspiRACIST.

I get really angry when Im called one:
"So, you wont listen to a word I have to say, only because of a label?! "

originally posted by: MayanBoricua
I agree 100%. I've never had any sources, but I've always recognized the slur "Consiracy Theorist" to be created to discredit the intelligent with different perspectives.

Me too. Even before finding this information, I always knew that "Conspiracy theorist" was grammatically incorrect. It is possible to say a "conspiracy hypothesis" or a "conspiracy theory", but you can't really say a "conspiracy theorist". It's like people say "Evolution theory", even if it's wrong, because it is still a hypothesis, but you can't really say "Evolution theorist", because it is grammatically incorrect.

Welcome to ATS. The search function sucks, but it works in cases such as this.

A great attribute of conspiracy knowledge bases are that you can learn ancillary things that you had no idea existed. The conspiracy may or not be real, but the underpinnings in the way people think and how they get their data are truly interesting.

a reply to: Conspirologist

The CIA coined the term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967

Probably because of the rising din of cries of conspiracy behind the JFK assassination. Then, why we're in Vietnam, why Dick is so Tricky…

Remember, whatever you come up with is only a theory. Guilt by word association.

Just like Gun-crime, Humanitarian Intervention, Islamic Extremist, etc.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Conspirologist

The CIA coined the term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967

Probably because of the rising din of cries of conspiracy behind the JFK assassination. Then, why we're in Vietnam, why Dick is so Tricky…

That's right. It is exactly the reason why it happoend then.

Remember, whatever you come up with is only a theory. Guilt by word association.

You mean just a hypothesis, which is basen on assumptions. A theory is based on proven facts.

originally posted by: eisegesis
Welcome to ATS. The search function sucks, but it works in cases such as this.

Thanks. The site definitely has some bugs. I still can' upload an avatar.

a reply to: Conspirologist

You mean just a hypothesis, which is basen on assumptions. A theory is based on proven facts.

We point and say conspiracy, they point back and say its only a theory.

That way none of the conspiracies can ever be true, just theories.

originally posted by: charlyv
A great attribute of conspiracy knowledge bases are that you can learn ancillary things that you had no idea existed. The conspiracy may or not be real, but the underpinnings in the way people think and how they get their data are truly interesting.

Yep. I learned that people have different types of brains. Only people with intuitive brains can become freethinkers and form conspiracy hypotheses, while people with methodical brains are those who can't think freely, therefore denying such hypotheses.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Conspirologist

You mean just a hypothesis, which is basen on assumptions. A theory is based on proven facts.

We point and say conspiracy, they point back and say its only a theory.

That way none of the conspiracies can ever be true, just theories.

I repeat, you mean hypotheses. Theories are based upon proven facts, or accademical consensus.

a reply to: Conspirologist

Theories are based upon proven facts, or accademical consensus.

Facts are proven, theories aren't.

Wipe that visor.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Conspirologist

Theories are based upon proven facts, or accademical consensus.

Facts are proven, theories aren't.

Wipe that visor.

Sorry son, but you really need a good dictionary.

a reply to: Conspirologist

You mean just a hypothesis, which is basen on assumptions. A theory is based on proven fact

I repeat, you mean hypotheses. Theories are based upon proven facts, or accademical consensus.

Sorry son, but you really need a good dictionary.

your wrong, and your the one that might need to check your dictionary. in academics when the evidences / facts point in a different direction they change their theory.
here one from Oxford and one from Webster.

noun (plural theories)
1A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Darwin’s theory of evolution.
1.1A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: a theory of education music theory More example sentences
1.2An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action: my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged More example sentences
1.3 Mathematics A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.
Theory

Full Definition of theory plural theories
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
Theory

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Conspirologist

your wrong, and your the one that might need to check your dictionary. in academics when the evidences / facts point in a different direction they change their theory.
here one from Oxford and one from Webster.

Sorry kiddo, but I have a Ph.D. I think I know better, that what your TPTB owned Webster tries to show.

Get some real ducation here: carm.org...

A hypothesis is an attempt to explain phenomena. It is a proposal, a guess used to understand and/or predict something. A theory is the result of testing a hypothesis and developing an explanation that is assumed to be true about something. A theory replaces the hypothesis after testing confirms the hypothesis, or the hypothesis is modified and tested again until predictable results occur.

So, a person might make an observation and immediately form a hypothesis about why something happens the way it does. He or she then tests the hypothesis, modifies it if necessary, and eventually develops a theory. The hypothesis might change significantly as testing occurs. A hypothesis can be right or wrong, but a theory is supposed to be true based upon the scientific method. So, when a hypothesis has been verified to be true, it becomes a theory.

a reply to: Conspirologist

Sorry kiddo, but I have a Ph.D. I think I know better, that what your TPTB owned Webster tries to show.

wow, three letters behind your name.
is that suppose to impress me. news for ya,it doesn't.

and another thing, when you keep on calling people son and kiddo, that doesn't do much for your attempts to persuade people to your line of thinking.

just shows how big of a ass you are and your arrogance.

also in your link,

A theory replaces the hypothesis after testing confirms the hypothesis, or the hypothesis is modified and tested again until predictable results occur.

so in some instances a hypothesis is modified to get the outcome desired, doesn't sound like a set of facts to me just some made up BS, facts do not need to be modified.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Conspirologist

wow, three letters behind your name.
is that suppose to impress me. news for ya,it doesn't.

and another thing, when you keep on calling people son and kiddo, that doesn't do much for your attempts to persuade people to your line of thinking.

just shows how big of a ass you are and your arrogance.

also in your link,

A theory replaces the hypothesis after testing confirms the hypothesis, or the hypothesis is modified and tested again until predictable results occur.

so in some instances a hypothesis is modified to get the outcome desired.

Mine is not arrogance, son. It is called being self conscious.

Arrogance in this case is only about your puerile and uneduacted person.

You don't even have the intellectual capacity to understand written words.

I have better things to do than arguing with unedecated and irrational kids.

Sayonara.