Further ruminations on an RTC...

 

I haven't fully developed a methodology for a Rational Conspiracy Theory (RTC); in fact, I haven't developed one at all.  What I have done is conceive of the concept, and taken a few stabs at what it might entail.  

Perhaps the crux of it is the concept of relative power imputed to the Cabal.  ("Cabal" would be a technical term to use with regard to any discussion of conspiracy theory, as it unremarkably denotes that collection of individuals who are cooperating to direct & manage their conspiracy.)  We assume it is not rational to impute omnipotence to the Cabal -- much less to its various operatives, many of whom may be not fully cognizant of the full details of the conspiracy.  Once we let that sink in, that the Cabal has relative power, it means they are limited. The question is how limited? -- a question that can unfold in complex ways, depending on the conspiracy being supposed.

One of the complexities involved with this concept of relative power is figuring out (unavoidably entailing degrees of speculation) what parts of the Mainstream are part of the conspiracy, and which parts are not, how those two areas interact, and which one at any given moment in sociopolitical time is more powerful -- though "more powerful" may be complicated, involving interlocking aspects of more or less powerful in different contexts and at times in a tug-of-war jockeying.

All of the above is an abstract meditation on general principles, still in the "groping" stage far from developing an actual methodology, but aiming towards one.  The abstract meditation can be tested, so to speak, with specific issues/questions.  For example, we have the startling claims of Maria Zack, more recently reiterated and amplified in two interviews she gave -- namely, that she and her colleagues have determined specifically who actually shifted the votes from Trump to Biden during the wee hours of Election night.  What pertains to my abstract meditation here is the relative optimism Zack expresses as she describes the Macchiavelian plot (even if her description has many maddening lacunae), even implying that there are in fact good guys in high places who will right this catastrophic wrong.  This more broadly implies there has been a dynamic configuration for months now where the bad guys seem to have the upper hand (after all, they "won" the Election, or rather the Coup) and the entire Mainstream (including even people like Tucker Carlson) are reinforcing that upper hand's legitimacy, but somehow the good guys will undo that nefarious victory.  The hope we may wish to have in that would depend on the good guys actually having at least the potential for a power differential on their side.  On what basis would we rest that hope?  Maria Zack, unfortunately, gives us little substance on this precise point we can hang on to.