Hostile, paranoid cranks . . . . .

Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”

In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07...vs-govt-dupes/

Hows this working for you now ?

“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”

I think that post is too general. There is a big difference between a conspiracy theorist and someone that has more than a few things wrong upstairs. You have some CT's that bring good ideas to the table and some that just believe whatever they read on certain sites. The latter are only supported, no matter how crazy or disproved, only because it helps support the CT's true objective. Much like some of the chain mail that gets posted on here long after they been identified by snopes. Doesn't matter if its true, I believe it because it supports my point.

Which fully supports the article . . . . .
Thank You Please Drive Thru . . . . .

No Tommy, what Nick said doesn't fully support the article.
I understand the post you made and see it's point. I don't doubt it's validity either. The label conspiracy theorist does automatically result in those connotations.
Nick is also correct in his statement, which did not contradict what you posted.

There are, generally speaking, two types of "conspiracy theorists". There's one type who listens to a potential theory and using their own intelligence and common sense, deduces whether the theory has merit. They research, and learn for themselves, as best they can, the truth behind it.
I myself fall into this category and do not mind the label when it's applied to me. The theories I believe in myself though, I do so because there is sufficient evidence apart from the theory itself to support it.

Then you have the other CTs, who believe and repeat everything they hear or read as long as it's painting the government in a negative light and proclaiming secrets.
There are many examples of the latter, and they serve only to muddy the water and make anyone who does question the actions of the government to look bad as well.
I personally believe that many of these so called theories are actually started by the CIA themselves for the sole purpose of causing anyone labeled a CT to be viewed as a fringe element. There's a CT if my own, take it for what it's worth.

For example, take Area 51. I really don't know what goes on there, but I can be all but assured it has nothing to do with aliens. However, the government has never attempted to deny those theories at all. Their silence perpetuates the alien conspiracy theory and as a result distracts the masses from considering what might really be going on while they focus on the little green men. Basically it serves their purpose, so they encourage it through silence.

I'm sure you remember the newsletters that were prolific in the 90s. The ones you could subscribe to and were available on many tables at any gun show. Back then they printed claims of UN troops from foreign countries training in "UN Biosphere Reserves" like Mt. Mitchell, and Russian nuclear missiles being moved through Montana, and the mind control capabilities of the HAARP project.
Today we have the stories of the truckloads of caskets for the CDC, which will be used for mass extermination of the dissenting populace. Most recently the Russian troops doing security at American events.

It's these sort of theories that the second type of CT attempts to proliferate. As soon as it's printed on the web, or mentioned on Alex Jones' site it's repeated and treated as gospel.
People like Alex Jones are on to the truth some of the time I have no doubt, but not everything they claim is valid and that's where the damage is done.

Meanwhile, the real conspiracies, like Bengazi, or the circumstances of 9/11 (which borders on blasphemy when mentioned, despite the evidence available), get buried and discredited because of the ones who latch on to every theory coming and going regardless of how ridiculous.

The fact is yes there are conspiracies at work in our government, conspiracies that would likely result in the imprisonment if not execution of some if proven, but there are others that are total BS and used as a means of distraction and to discredit any who question the powers that be.

There's nothing wrong with being a "conspiracy theorist", it is a justified pursuit, you just have to be selective on what theories you support, those which have actual evidence aside from something that was written on the web.

If someone latches on to every "conspiracy theory" published on the web, without any due diligence or research on their part, then they are just another form of the sheep you so often like to refer to.
One blindly believing everything the government says is no better that one who blindly believes anything someone else says either. Critical thinking is the key, and too few today employ it.

Like they say, They can't all be paranoid schizophrenics.

Originally Posted by Clay Davenport

Critical thinking is the key, and too few today employ it.

I agree. Some theories today, to me, sometimes seems like fast food, one is encouraged to buy into them fast and ready made, and more they circulate and get advertised, the more they are bought into.
There are those who like to consider points slowly, talk them out, think them out, apply their own experiences to what is said and select out of what is offered the parts that pass the 'think test'.

I do understand Clay,but playing for the audience gives them warm fuzzies of mental superiority so I feed'em.
I do not fear the US Goverment,they are the oldest running comedic venue in history

WHILE YOU WERE FIGHTING AND DISTRACTED BY THE ZIMMERMAN CASE, OUR RIGHTS WERE ALMOST ABOLISHED - TIME TO WAKE UP!

Traitors (46 of them) Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the bill read: To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. , and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo. Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power. Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR
This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our guns. They need to lose the next election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

P.S. For whatever it is worth: please take note that all but two of these Senators were Democrats – those two were Independents.

Originally Posted by Metachrosis

WHILE YOU WERE FIGHTING AND DISTRACTED BY THE ZIMMERMAN CASE, OUR RIGHTS WERE ALMOST ABOLISHED - TIME TO WAKE UP!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

Actually that's accurate. It just happened back in March, and not over the weekend while we were distracted by Zimmerman.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...un-arms-treaty