We live in a great Age of Conspiracy Theories.
I’m not quite on board.
As the Internet grew up, with it came all the condemnations of conspiracy theories, run rampant. The Internet, we were told, was problematic in that not only was information readier at hand than ever before, but so was it easier to share and nurture all these goofy conspiracy theories.
You know: JFK was killed by someone other than Oswald, or also by others, in addition to Oswald.
Or . . . UFOs are real, and the government is covering it up.
Or the Rothschilds are behind it all.
You know the kind of thing I’m talking about.
Ick.
Yet: The government now admits that UFOs are real, implying that it was, ahem, lying in the past.
Further: As we uncover the grotesquerie in the Epstein Files, we learn that he proudly served Rothschild banking interests!
So let’s not get started on the JFK assassination.
One reason conspiracy theories are prominent is that we are uncovering so many conspiracies. Actual conspiracies. Like the Wuhan lab business, or the suppression of information about the mRNA “vaccines,” or . . . must we go on and on?
I don’t like conspiracy theories. I said I’m not on board. We need to work towards a world not built for conspiracies. This means whittling down government, with its current vast powers to take and to “give.” And siphon off wealth at each step. While sidestepping transparency.
Ask yourself: Does our political-legal environment actually discourage conspiracies?
That question almost answers itself.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with Nano Banana
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
4 replies on “Run Rampant”
In many discussions, terms are used without actually being understood by the speaker, by the audience, or by both. Definitions are then highly desirable.
Fools such as RFKjr will offer this-or-that theory of conspiracy, and deny that it is a conspiracy theory, and others will act as if a theory of conspiracy may be refuted simply by labelling it “conspiracy theory”, because he and these other fools don’t know what “conspiracy theory” means. Still greater fools just use the bald word “conspiracy” to refer to a theory as such, and likewise act as if this theory is refuted ipso facto. (“That’s a conspiracy!”)
In the most general sense, “conspire” refers simply to acting together for shared purpose, and “conspiracy” is just the abstract noun for such action. To be sure, in most uses, “conspiracy” refers to acting to together for hidden purpose (which is not quite the same thing as acting together for purpose unknown to others), and typically for nefarious purpose; standard dictionaries note peculiar definitions thus.
One thing that standard dictionaries do not include in their definitions is central coördination, and in everyday life nearly all of us are aware of decentralized conspiracies, such as the habit of journalists of suppressing mention of associations of wrong-doers with favored groups.
When we critique a conspiracy theory, we should identify what, if any, fragility the theorized conspiracy would have. Some conspiracies would collapse even if merely widely suspected. A conspiracy such as that of the journalists can be an open secret — hidden yet known to all but the most stupid of people — but can survive until-and-unless it is not secret at all; though we should see that the conspiracy has become rather ineffective with recognition. Other conspiracies would collapse altogether if known to most, even as open secrets.
The conspiracy theory of Card and Krueger doesn’t work, because some conspirator would long ago have become alienated, revealed the scheme to the world and to authories, and brought dire legal consequences upon the remaining conspirators.
The UFO conspiracy to which the US government now admits had many apparent defectors, and wide group of believers before admission, but was rejected and continues to be rejected by people such as I for other reasons, and we instead believe that the apparent defections and the admission itself are parts of a continuation of a conspiracy to gull people into believing in alien visitation. If apparent defectors from that theorized conspiracy begin appearing, they won’t be very effective in changing the beliefs of anyone; people such as I will see confirmation, but others will see revival of an earlier conspiracy.
By the way, no one such use “co-conspirator” except ironically. The prefix “co-” is a reduced form of “com-”; the “con-” in “conspirator” is the form that “com-” takes in Latin when prefixed to a word beginning with consonants other than ‘b’, “gn”, ‘h’, ‘l’, ‘m’, ‘p’, or ‘r’. The prefix “com-” refers to something joint, and duplicating it is just silly; “co-conspirator” means nothing more than conspirator.
Our political-legal-media environment discourages exposure of nefarious, corrupted, and illegal activities by labeling it as conspiracies.
“You know: JFK was killed by someone other than Oswald, or also by others, in addition to Oswald.”
You are seriously calling this a “goofy conspiracy theory”?? I suggest you do a bit of reading before making such silly claims.
If you’ll read the entry again, you should see some irony in “goofy conspiracy theory”, as two of the three theories are acknowledged to have some vindication.