In defense of all the “Conspiracy Theorists”
By: Rick Highwater
Tags: Fake News, Free Speech, Media, Conspiracy Theories, 1st Amendment

Let’s talk about the concept of “conspiracy theory”, and its associated pejorative label applied to anyone who dares to think critically, the dreaded “conspiracy theorist”.

Let’s look at the words themselves — the definition of a conspiracy is “an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.” This happens all day, every day, and everywhere. It has happened in human societies since time immemorial. A theory is “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.”

So we have a particular thought process based on facts, precedent, logic, and human nature that is inclined to think that people actually do conspire in order to accomplish goals and satisfy desires that others will object to. To broadly assert that as a rule any theory along these lines is inherently crazy, paranoid, or foolish is utterly absurd.

The stigma attached to questioning any accepted mainstream narrative is obviously intended to discourage and punish original thought. It effectively instills a governor upon a person’s mind that will rein them in when they may dare for a moment to entertain a dissenting viewpoint. It triggers a sort of inner monologue that seems to say, “This is not acceptable to suggest or talk about. It will surely result in ridicule and uncomfortable reactions from others. I will likely suffer social and possibly professional consequences.” This psychological cattle prod is extremely effective. If espousing a particular viewpoint or theory on an issue endangers your social/professional status, personal relationships, or your very livelihood itself, very few people will accept the burden of crossing such a line.

Another tactic that is used to discredit any divergent thinking is the lumping together and equating of any and all “conspiracy theories” as the same thing, to be treated with the same credulity; e.g. — disbelief in the Warren Commission’s conclusion on the JFK assassination (which according to several polls, over 80% of the American public know is complete fantasy) is equated to Bigfoot, lizard people, flat earth, etc. Again the implication is made that you must be mentally unbalanced to be skeptical of the state-approved narrative, in spite of the endless examples of the U.S. government lying to its citizens over, and over, and over again (Gulf of Tonkin incident, Iran-Contra, WMDs, Snowden revelations, etc.).

When people do let their minds wander into making connections that actually aren’t there, it is not difficult to see why. It is a logical result of the propaganda and psychological manipulation that has been inflicted upon them by their government and corporate media for decades. The mainstream does lie, does obfuscate, does omit, all the time, as a matter of course. They are not there to inform the populace, but to manage them. This only pushes more and more average people to latch onto almost anything that taps into that disillusionment. To denigrate anyone and everyone who may have an alternate view of current events only serves to perpetuate the mistrust, the rage, and disgust that so many are feeling. Why would anyone continue to listen to those insisting that disagreeing with the established corporate narrative necessarily defines them as stupid and/or crazy, as if the paid stenographers who present themselves as current-day journalists have any moral or intellectual high ground whatsoever? The very idea that anyone should outsource his/her worldview to hollow, corporate media mouthpieces is laughable, yet that is implicit in the expectation of shaming or embarrassing anyone by calling them a conspiracy theorist.

The key concept to acknowledge is that no source of information can be trusted indefinitely, whether it be major TV network news, newspapers that have been around for decades or more, “independent” internet outlets, or your favorite youtuber on a webcam in their garage. No matter what the source, it must be examined critically, with consideration of what narrative is being pushed, who benefits from it, who is funding it directly or through advertising, and what changes or reactions it may be used to bring about in society. This means the aforementioned network anchors in multi million-dollar studios should be treated with exactly the same scrutiny as any Joe Blow with a USB microphone and a laptop, but this egalitarian method of critically determining trustworthy sources is the last thing the legacy media want anyone to get a grasp on. If everyone exercised this rule at all times, we would eliminate the “scourge” of fake news, and the associated reasoning used to justify the rampant censorship we see increasing every day. Let all speech be expressed; and likewise, let all speech be responded to and/or debunked with facts and logic. Ideas and the reasoning behind them exist on their own merit, regardless of the messenger. If one prefers the superficial credentials of one source over another, and lets that determine where credence is placed, then the trap has been successful. There is no such thing as a valid Ministry of Truth.

To reflexively label people as conspiracy theorists is intellectually lazy. If what they are claiming is ridiculous, then the name-caller should be more than capable of demonstrating that with their own cogent argument. To try and shut down a discussion by spouting this term is weak on its face. It lets everyone know that the one deploying this tactic has very little original thought to offer, and has attached themselves to some “team” in order to avoid ridicule while simultaneously slinging it at others. To base one’s thoughts on how acceptable they may be to a peer group is to sacrifice one’s own integrity, identity, and sense of self-determination.

The next time this trite, hackneyed label is applied to any dissident in whatever context, let the talking head reflect on the actual rhetorical value, which has been reduced to complete meaninglessness by chronic overuse in the lexicon of our times. An original thought would be an inherently much more rare and valuable offering in the market of ideas, so let us all share our own unique voice, freely and fairly, without ad-hominem attacks or childish insults.