It is often said that the internet is teeming with conspiracy theories, and on top of that the term itself is losing all meaning; anything that isn’t mainstream is now labelled a conspiracy theory. We scarcely know what the word means anymore.
The term, if I remember correctly, originated in the context of the Kennedy assassination, where dissenting opinions were described as conspiracy theories — a dismissive way of referring to conclusions the investigators disliked. And the murder remains a mystery, with credible indications that the accepted theories may not be entirely accurate.
Thus, the word has carried a disparaging tone from the very beginning. Its purpose is to make the proponents feel ashamed, and to make outsiders believe they are somewhat unhinged. Compare it to terms such as “crank or serial complainer” — it carries a similar ring. And while there are indeed people who pursue legal cases ad absurdum and exaggerate in almost pathological ways, it also happens that they are occasionally proven right. It becomes difficult to distinguish the righteous individual’s ironclad struggle from the madman’s futile one. Perhaps that is the point?
Today, the term conspiracy theory is used for anything odd or unusual, regardless of whether it involves an actual conspiracy or even constitutes a theory. From claims that the moon landings were faked to rumours about strange material on Hunter Biden’s missing laptop — the latter of which ultimately turned out to be true.
If we consider great scientists like Newton or Tesla: they contributed invaluable knowledge and breakthroughs, yet they also engaged in peculiar pursuits behind the scenes. Newton wrote books on alchemy, while Tesla believed the numbers 3, 6 and 9 concealed universal secrets. He also speculated about death rays and earthquake machines.
Such musings would easily fit under today’s broad definition of conspiracy theories.
Perhaps we humans need to keep imaginative thoughts alive in order to be creative? That even the brightest researchers, in the solitude of their studies, immerse themselves in esoteric ideas far removed from their otherwise dry and logical reasoning? A free, uncensored channel — a private mental space, or simply cerebral exercise? Who can say.
For the state to suppress these expansive ideas — whether true, half-true or entirely false — would be a great loss. Yet that is more or less what is now underway in both the United Kingdom and the EU. Officials are to be granted unrestricted access to our correspondence and online activities, empowered to evaluate our words and even impose penalties if they are deemed to conflict with the prevailing order.
It has long been a given that free spirits should be allowed to grow wild and cultivate their eccentric thoughts — such has been the foundation of free societies in the Western world. Citizens are considered capable of judging for themselves what is good or bad, true, false or somewhere in between. It is perfectly acceptable to oppose influenza vaccines, question CO₂ theories, or worry about harmful substances in food. It would be absurd to claim the opposite in general political debate — no one should question, let alone concern themselves with, esoteric musings, unless our leaders were deeply deluded, paranoid or somewhat unstable. In other words, it is not the theories that are dangerous, but the reactions to them.
