[mcpackieh]

Before the JFK assassination, 'conspiracy theory' literally meant a theory about a criminal conspiracy. In the case of the JFK assassination, all theories that were counter to the official lone-wolf theory were conspiracy theories, theories about multiple people being involved in the assassination are categorically conspiracy theories while a lone-wolf theory involves no conspiring. Due to this, the term 'conspiracy theory' shifted to mean any theory that was counter to the official narrative.

For instance, all theories about 9/11 are conspiracy theories in the literal sense. Even in the official 9/11 Commission Report theory, a bunch of men conspired to hijack airplanes on the same day and crash them into buildings. That's literally a theory about a conspiracy. But in the new meaning, this is not a conspiracy theory because it's the government's officially endorsed theory.

Whether the CIA induced this verbal judo deliberately is another question. I'm inclined to think they didn't. I think it was a natural language shift, albeit one that has been harmful to society.

[cmmeur01]

Have you read CIA 1035 960?

https://archive.org/details/CIADOC1035960/mode/1up

[mcpackieh]

I have now. This document shows that the CIA was trying to counter conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination (of course they were), but it doesn't seem to provide evidence for the CIA deliberately shifting the meaning of 'conspiracy theory'.

This part got an audible "Heh" out of me though: "Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy." Robert Kennedy was murdered one year after this document was written, while running for president. Suppose he secretly doubted the Warren Commission's report (as has been claimed by some of the people close to him, but disputed by others), becoming president would have given him a uniquely privileged position from which to assail it.

[Julesman]

"It doesn't seem to provide evidence for the CIA deliberately shifting the meaning of 'conspiracy theory'."

No one (the public) had heard that term before the CIA got US media writing propaganda pieces to disparage inquiry into the assassination. It wasn't about the theories. It was about defining a group of theorists and creating ways to dismiss them. That continues to this day in yearly exercises of establishing mainstream credibility where young "journalists" help us all understand the broken psychology of people who want the world to be scary.

Honestly, if you have ever tried hard to advance a line of thought that's dangerious to the establishment you'd maybe be personally familiar, as I am, with the smell of counter-intelligence. But I can't cite a web link that would make that credible. And you've already learned to discredit anyone calling themselve a truther.

It worked. I'm saying it worked because it works on me. No amount of facts or scope or wisdom makes mainstream friends of mine more open to reality. Reality is scary. Disagreeing with the 'news' is scary. But US industry gatekeeps history and I refuse to be naive.

[Julesman]

I know what it means better than most. I also know that it's application as a means of establishing liberal identity as opposed to basic historical facts is a long time feature of our empire. Liberals punch down at leftists. Someone questions the motives of our empire and invariably some liberal eager to establish their mainstream credibility shows up to argue with skeptics and side with industry.

[mikrotikker]

God damn. I guess we see RFK Jr future.