More notes on a methodology for a Rational Conspiracy Theory

 

Someone who calls themself "Sound of Mind" tweeted a good question:

How can there be roughly the same amount of deaths during a pandemic as before it? The only rational conclusion a sane person can come to is there is no pandemic.

Which got me to thinking:

Another opportunity for developing a methodology of a rational conspiracy theory, which proceeds by asking critical questions, e.g.: What kind of a global conspiracy would fail to just simply manufacture sufficient Covid deaths, in order to avoid this glaring discrepancy?

 

I haven't yet developed that methodology, but one way to steer our uncertain way towards it is, as I noted, to ask critical questions about whatever putative conspiracy we are supposing exists.  One hallmark, it seems, of the irrational conspiracy theorist is not only to fail to ask such questions, but also to get prickly, if not hostile at you if you persist -- assertively yet politely -- in raising them.

It is also relevant to determine what subject matter is being framed as a "conspiracy".  The JFK assassination?  The RFK assassination?  The moon landing?  The 'Paul McCartney is dead' claim?  Here, we are concerned specifically with the full catastrophe of Covid -- a mass, messy complex of confounding factors, official corruption, and apparent lies from the Mainstream.  (Another hallmark of the irrational conspiracy theorist is to vaguely and with a desperate, almost maniacal glibness, assume any conspiracy you bring up is part of the same overarching Conspiracy.  I have yet to encounter such a conspiracy theorist who places limits on their feverish speculations in this regard.)

Then, concerning how the state of Victoria, Australia, recently locked everyone down (with their police often behaving like fascist thugs against people whose only "crime" was walking around without masks) on the basis of a mere 12 cases, I observed:

Another opportunity to make a note re: an RTC (Rational Conspiracy Theory): If it's all orchestrated, why wouldn't they manufacture 20,000 cases rather than a paltry dozen? & why not manufacture 100s of deaths while they're at it? I ask this as a conspiracy theorist myself.

 

On another note, Juanita Broaddrick asked:

Why would you hire almost 75 lawyers to stop the audit of a legal election? Democrats did in Arizona.

 

Which got me wondering:

 

Another opportunity for demonstrating hey rational conspiracy theory. If the Cabal were really that powerful they wouldn't need to go to the trouble of hiring 75 lawyers, it could just prevent the audit from even beginning.

 

And added:

 

So the rational conspiracy theory isn't about denying that there is a Cabal, it's about reasonable speculation concerning the degree of power they have. And relatively less power = the coexistence in society of non conspiracy forces to some extent.

 

That last point is one key component:  To what extent are non-conspiracy forces powerful and/or in the Mainstream?  A closely related question may be:  Can a malevolent conspiracy appear, temporarily, to have more power than it really has?  What would account for that?