"Conspiracy Theory" -- You're Misusing the Term

It's been flagrantly and rampantly misused and it's time to start reining it in.

A conspiracy simply refers to a group of people with plans to do harm in some form or another. The definition is perfectly functional and applies very much to human behavior in general. From street crime, to corporate crime and governmental crime — unfortunately, people conspire all the time. As a general concept it's not that fancy. The key to the definition is that more than one actor is involved. It takes at least two to conspire. A person does not conspire by themselves. Other than that stipulation, it's a familiar theme in history as well as everyday life. If two or more people collude in any manner, to commit harm, it's a conspiracy. It doesn't have to be particularly sophisticated. It doesn't have to be high tech. It doesn't have to involve a criminal mastermind. It doesn't require the machinations of a secret society. The group or organization conspiring does not have to be the most powerful organization in the world (although I would venture to say the most powerful organization, whomever they may be, are likely to have conspired to have achieved eye on top of the pyramid status).

One of the observable symptoms of the mass formation psychosis fomented by covid propaganda was the rampant overuse and misuse, of the terms "conspiracy", "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist." The term "conspiracy" is now commonly used as though the denotation means "false" or "fabricated" with the connotations being "silly", "ridiculous",  "not to be taken seriously".  The word conspiracy, used in this manner, is being misunderstood and misused. 

In my fifth substack I mentioned that I was going to tackle the concept of the conspiracy theory. In the spirit of non-procrastination, I'm going to roll up my sleeves and address this here and now.

As I mentioned in that previous article, the term conspiracy theorist entered the popular lexicon as a direct result of CIA memo 1035960. It's purpose was to discourage speculation around the conspiracy that actually occurred resulting in the assassination of President John F Kennedy. So let's start there.

The example of the JFK assassination is an interesting one. The proposal that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone actor, a communist nut job if you will, who took it upon himself to assassinate the president is a claim that there was no conspiracy involved in that action because without a collaborator (at least a second person) — there is no conspiracy. That feature makes the JFK example a little bit different than other popular reference points we may invoke for the simple fact that there is the possible claim that Oswald acted entirely of his own volition, without even one additional collaborator. That's untenable by now, but at one point the claim could have  been made. With the lone gunman caveat out of the way —  was it, however, a conspiracy to kill John F Kennedy? Obviously, it was. If it weren't, that would mean it was the result of some spontaneous action and therefore not pre-planned. If it was pre-planned, which it had to be, it was by definition a conspiracy. It is completely unrealistic to suggest that event was the result of spontaneous decision making that morning in Dallas, or that Oswald acted alone. Decades later, we now know neither is true. By now, it has been revealed that Lee Harvey Oswald was, in fact, a CIA asset.  https://www.newsweek.com/new-documents-shed-light-cias-connection-lee-harvey-oswald-1765105

Next, let's take 9/11, that enormous event that resulted in the creation of the homeland security industry, ushering in the new American century. The 9/11 Commission's official report is just the commission's account of the conspiracy they claimed transpired on that fateful day. They don't claim the hijackers all, by chance, woke up that morning — independent of each other — with the same notion to hijack planes.  That would be the most preposterous thing one could propose — to suggest 9/11 was not the result of a conspiracy. Has anyone ever actually suggested that? Has anyone claimed the (supposed) 9/11 hijackers woke up that morning and all spontaneously decided to collude in a military operation? Not plausible, right?

So how is it that the word conspiracy has become synonymous with ridiculous or simply not true, when there are certain events we understand had to have been conspiracies and to suggest otherwise would be unreasonable and unrealistic. More and more frequently the word is being used to reference something that should be dismissed offhand, when it's meaning is far more practical than that. Conspiracy — "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful."  Based on that simple definition, it's fair to say, a great deal of history is driven by conspiracy. Conspiracy to colonize, conspiracy to enslave, conspiracy to exploit both people and resources, conspiracy to annex, conspiracy to revolt, etc., etc., etc..

I have a personal aphorism: "The only thing more ridiculous and silly than a cooky, spooky, wacked-out conspiracy theory is to suggest conspiracies do not occur."


As above, so below is an ancient saying.  The same way there are massively significant conspiracies that result in massively significant outcomes like the assassination of a president or the destruction of two enormous skyscrapers resulting in a subsequent "global war on terror",  there are also far less sophisticated conspiracies. People also collude in various lower level crimes and power grabs — on the streets, in the workplace and elsewhere. In this respect it could be said that conspiracy is a part of everyday life. The misguided notion of using "conspiracy" synonymously with "fictional" is a failure to grasp the concept.

There's also the interesting question of why people continue to use the word conspiracy in this way, when so many "conspiracy theories" have been proven true (historically and at a disproportionately high rate over the past 3.5 years).  It was ultimately proven that the U.S. government was involved in elaborate conspiracies to kill Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr.  — both wings of the black liberation struggle in the United States. 

Just as it's ridiculous to suggest that conspiracies don't happen, it's equally ridiculous to expect people to not theorize when really unexpected, strange things lacking explanation and coherence occur. Like when poster child Tiffany Dover, one of the first "vaccine" recipients in the country, collapsed on national television moments after receiving her injection. Or  multiple corporations, situated around the globe, all rapidly and simultaneously creating and manufacturing (as though by magic) a cure for a novel pathogen.  One would have to be groomed in not questioning, to not question such things. A person getting captivated by a really far-out "conspiracy theory" could possibly get pretty weird, but if I stop and think about it, I find it more weird to point to other people and say, "Don't theorize!" (about difficult to comprehend events that necessarily activate the human imagination). Who is anyone to regulate the imagination of others? Perhaps the results will be a great novel or screenplay.

How about the word "theory"? The definition is the following: "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." Music theory, the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution. Why is the word theory, a word that otherwise has a certain nobility about it, a pejorative when placed in the phrase "conspiracy theory"? The ability to theorize is one of the most delightful aspects of being human.

Regardless of what you think about German economist Karl Marx, either his political theories or economic observations, we must admit that he was astute in pointing out that history can be interpreted as a struggle between "the haves and the have nots." Likewise,  it is fair to assert that history can also be understood as an ongoing conspiracy against the poor and working classes by the oligarchs and monarchs of the world. This grand conspiracy has transpired over the course of millennia. 

During the (ongoing) period of covid hysteria and the propaganda onslaught that accompanied it, there were several articles and "news" items making reference to "dangerous conspiracy theories." I would like to challenge the notion that conspiracy theories are particularly harmful. I think it's a disingenuous claim. I don't buy it. If someone says kooky, spooky wacked-out stuff what exactly does that add to, or subtract from, your life? If someone makes a preposterous suggestion, are you compelled to abide by it? If you are, it seems to me your compulsion to do so is more of a problem than the random, preposterous suggestion. As opposed to the notion of the so-called "dangerous conspiracy theory" I suggest it's far more dangerous to be so naive as to think people are not conspiring. It's more dangerous to trust the government. It's more dangerous to trust transnational corporations. It's more dangerous to trust captured agencies like the FDA and CDC.

In fairness, I would like to quickly address the potential drawbacks of the conspiratorial mindset. There is a certain type of mind that is constantly looking for mystical, supernatural, extraterrestrial explanations. This type of mind finds itself insufficiently entertained by "ordinary information" and therefore gravitates towards the fantastic and fantastical explanations. I do not believe this is a proper orientation towards the world.  The basic functionality of things must always be understood as well as possible. The inexorable elements of politics, economics and human psychology are always at play. As in any discipline, our ascertainment of history should be based on solid fundamentals and guiding principles — not sketchy stuff. Yet, despite the drawbacks of the aforementioned mindset, the conspiracy theorist (even if they overshoot the target or go a little far afield) is more well-suited for survival (by virtue of their more than justified paranoia) than the person pretending unrealistically that we have achieved equality, rationality, equanimity, safety and a corruption-free environment, when in fact, those things have not been achieved.

I would like to point out, lastly, that when we denigrate the term conspiracy we also deprive ourselves of the option of being conspirators. As one of my political heroes, Pam Africa, has pointed out on numerous occasions, "Legal has never been synonymous with right." While I certainly do not advocate for senseless violence in any instance  — we may have to find new ways to achieve secrecy from a biosecurity state that wishes to track our every motion, gesture (literally every keystroke) and ultimately our very thoughts. We may have to conspire against unjust mandates and possibly unjust laws.

I am the host of a new program called The Bassline, that airs every Friday at 1pm EST exclusively on The Progressive Radio Network (PRN.live). The archive to my program is here:

https://politicalanalysis.podbean.com/

Please tune in and share the link above with anyone who may appreciate the discourse. Thank you for your support.