Isn’t it interesting how often these days, when someone in a position of power is accused of being less than 100% benevolent in their actions, that the accusers are dubbed “conspiracy theorists” by the “legacy media“.
This kind of shutting down of conversation is what happens in totalitarian regimes, where diversity of opinion and thought isn’t allowed in the public square (which to all intents and purposes these days is social media).
So shutting other people’s opinions down because you assume your opinion is superior, is a slippery slope. Particularly if you do so publicly, using power and influence irresponsibly. This is what we see much of the legacy media doing these days. Mostly in response to the demand of an increasingly juvenile public, who relate to the “news” as they once did WWE or Eastenders… A growing mass of the population – however – see this and are fed up with it. This type of media has had its day. Hence “legacy”…
The Queen is a lizard!?
So what’s this about the Earth being flat, the Queen being an alien lizard, or humans being turned into machines by injecting them with programmable metals… If you’ve spent any time entertaining these ideas, you can appreciate how far it can go. It’s enough to make your eyes pop out of your head… And the immediate response of most sane people would be something like “F*** off, you tin hat wearing idiot!”
Fair enough. But I think it’s worth remembering at this point that the word “conspiracy” exists in the English language, because it’s a real thing. People conspire all the time. Why not those in power? Just because we believe those in power are supposed to be morally incorruptible, doesn’t mean they are. But then again, neither are we… We are all, only human afterall.
So perhaps it’s worth taking a little time to think about whether this is a possibility. Could conspiracy be happening at the highest levels of government and global leadership?
How to be an elite conspirator
Say you had been brought up with great privledge and little connection to the ordinary person. You may have come to the conclusion that these folks were like animals, driven by their base needs most of the time. Perhaps you lump them into a category, viewing them as a group, not a collection of individuals. “Plebs” you think of them and name them with your friends in private. It would be understandable – would it not – that such a lens on reality would lead to thes eplebs being the cause of the world’s troubles. And that you – as someone with the resources and influence to make things happen – should save the world from them, and them from themselves. This attitude is as old as the hills. Totally misguided of course, but nothing new. Moral superiority is a favourite way for humans to justify heinous actions.
Now I don’t know whether we’re governed by aliens, flying through space on a disk balancing precariously on the back of a giant sea turtle (no that last one is mythology…) or not. Frankly I don’t care much, but also I cannot just write things off that I have no evidence for either way. I can only decide what is relevant to how I live my life and what is not.
Is it a conspiracy or not?
Life is far more complex than most people would like to think. There are many contributing factors and variables that bring any result about. It’s also worth noting that there will always be people who take advantage of circumstances for personal gain. Intentionally or otherwise.
What I can say confidently is that I have no trust in the “powerful” to make good choices on my behalf. Because they are only human. In an ideal world, they would be more morally advanced. But this isn’t an ideal world and never will be… So what to do? The only viable alternative is for each of us to become more independent of the systems we’re dependent on.
This IS NOT a call for revolution. That never ends well. What would you even replace it with? What I’m suggesting is a withdrawl of dependence and a move toward independence. It’s a peaceful move. We were born into this dependence, but we needn’t remain there. If we are to enable the emergence of the diversity of thought required to tackle the troubles of the world, we need to withdraw from the “collective”. But crucially, to return later, as stronger more influential people, capable of improving society.
We get to choose whether we let the world burn. It has burned many times before. Will you go down with the ship, or get to land before we’re too far out to sea?
If you’d like some help separating fact from fiction, relevance from distraction, book in a quick chat to find out how I can help.