I don’t buy this stuff 100%, but like you I suspect there must be some truth in it or it wouldn’t convince so many people to act and to also suspect. In this piece I wish to speculate, I suppose that’s not really doing anything different than I do for the rest of my writing, as I am not an expert in a lot of the things I write about, nor do I pretend to be. What is different for this is that I am going to draw from theories not fully supported by logic of fact, ad hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this).

Conspiracy one – there is an establishment.
This isn’t really a conspiracy, we know these people are linked to each other, they are a network of persons who have developed a familiarity with each other because it is beneficial to their goals to be closely linked. We all do this to some extent. What is nefarious about these relationships is the power they exert on parts of the fabric of civilisation that have been mandated to be transparent in their dealings, both by promise (the government promises it will act within law and by the checks and balances of the constitution) and by the will of the people (the government becomes the government by winning over the public with their proposed intentions). Contained within the suspicion of the conspiracy theorist is the notion that the whole thing is a façade, that the real power to get things done is wielded by financial interests that are not apparent to the public. I believe that there is mileage in this suspicion, that powerful people do not set aside their power for the sake of a democracy that outvotes or outnumbers them. If they can, then they will.

Conspiracy two – Paedophile networks.
This one is the suspicion that when we see so frequently an occurrence of exposed persons from one place, the establishment, the halls of power, the place of media monopoly, the churches, that what we are seeing is the enablement of a practice that is maybe being supported, encouraged, and covered up by the persons within that cohort. It seems observable to some folks, that there is something going on, a long line of networked individuals, collaborating with each other to protect a secret that slips out more than occasionally. The broadcast media (particularly one very prominent outlet) have had too many individuals, too high a percentage of exposed persons, for there not to be something going on that requires further scrutiny. This is the theory that some people hold, and I’m not saying I agree, but I hear something like this often stated. Both Jerry Sadowitz and John Lydon said things about a certain prominent media figure that should have caused concern, and nobody listened at the time (footage available on popular video streaming sites!). Powerful people were linked to the man with the Island, they visited his island, the authorities have his helper in prison and she apparently has a book of secrets, yet nothing has been revealed, is it reasonable to ask why not? Also there is the fact that it is inconceivable to think that when these persons were operating at the peak of their depravity that others around them were oblivious to it all.

Conspiracy Three – Spying on us.
Big data, a term used for the collection of data that seems innocuous and unimportant to the average Joe, but seems to be very useful and worth pursuing for large companies. If I understand it correctly, the fear is that what is measured and observed, regardless of how unimportant it may seem, is used to create a profile of each person, an overall profile of groups of people, and becomes a predictive mechanism used to form expectations on political and purchase behaviour. Knowing all this, the corporations and governments that hold this pattern measuring information can then form pattern modifying interventions and incentives. In this way a contrived power can be exerted upon those person who are measured so as to change the way they vote and what they care about. If this one is true, then we should all be rather worried because it smacks of programming rather than rational persuasion. It may go even further that this, Edward Snowdon says that your mobile phone is listening all the time, even when it is off. You have that phone with you in corporate meeting, at the surgery, when you meet with your accountant or lawyer, and when you are with your partner. If this is true then Big Brother really is watching (Orwell). Now this intervention cannot be by accident, it cannot be a necessary function of the technology to function correctly, it must have purpose, that purpose must have agency, so the important thing s not the technology, it is the why.

Conspiracy Four – Alien architects / Crop circles.
This is nonsense, crop circles were made by guys that have since admitted it, and aliens would not have journeyed across the universe in advanced crafts then failed to know that an arch can span a gap for a space within a building. Stepped roofs in the chambers of pyramids prove that they were built by primitive peoples, humans. This does not mean that there is not a possibility that alien life exists, or has visited earth, just that some of the theories are nonsense since they are built on phenomenon that has a better, or more reasonable explanation. It would be safe to assume that if we did have interactions with entities from another planet then their capabilities would leave us in awe, let’s face it they would have solved distance and time and energy problems that we have not, we have only been off the ground for a couple of hundred years (balloon,1783), and humans have been only to the moon so far (a very very short distance in terms of the universe).

Conspiracy Five – Chemtrails.
The theory that the trails that airliners leave, which are mooted to be condensation, are actually a delivery method for chemicals that change the atmosphere. Only science could disprove this, but is it likely? What this would require was that every airline, every fuel company, and every engine manufacturer would have to be in on it. Think, the engine of a plane is a finely honed machine, it would have a reaction if it was burning a substance other than what it was designed for. I think the people who think this need to look closer to home, like for the mild sedative that is in everyone’s drinking water (fluoride).

Conspiracy Six – Diana Princess.
This one is unlikely, unless the car had been rigged to be controlled remotely the driver died in the crash, what deliberately? Looks more like an accident on the surface. This doesn’t mean that this tragic event was not caused by a series of other events that caused those involved to make bad decisions that led to it, just that the event itself was unlikely to have been the successful manifestation of a plan. Diana would have been the subject of a detailed plan of security enacted by the British Government, of course, because she was a royal she could never escape it, and that looks like a conspiracy to those that seek it to. One would have to believe that the royal family wanted harm to come to her, and that there were individuals in the security forces that were willing to carry such things out, this seems unlikely since those security details are not picked by royalty they are assigned by agencies that work for the government.

Conspiracy Six – Predicting he future so as to make the future.
There is something in this, the power of suggestion has been proved by many psychological studies. It is very hard to reverse engineer and spot though. People do this with the bible, the writings of Nostradamus, and even Simpsons episodes, but they have all been incorrect a lot more than they have been correct. Cherry picking after the event makes us see patterns where they may not be, but the mass of data can cause us to miss patterns when they are there. I think that what is real is masked by the chaff of the speculation on what is not.

Conspiracy Seven – Church based secrets.
these ones are true, but not likely in the form that you think. Yes the church tries to control your life, that is not a conspiracy, it is overt. But do they keep secrets and do shadowy deals? Of course they do, they are doing politics, and always have done. The church is as corrupt as any other institution involved in the accumulation and use of wealth and mass power without regulation. Churches have started wars, colluded with dictators, the catholic church worked with the Nazis to identify jews in WWII, the churches of Rwanda colluded with rebels to murder civilians, the church of Uganda said that African potatoes prevent the spread of AIDS. These institutions do non-transparent work to affect the lives of people, and that means secrets.

Conspiracy Eight – 911.
I personally think the contingency theories do not add up to sufficiently explain why the only two skyscrapers in history to fall because of fire happened on the same day that a building near them also collapsed but wasn’t on fire and hadn’t been hit by anything. There are just no good answers. The theorists are on to something, I’m not sure of the why or the how, but I am compelled to think there is more to this one. The one that gets me most is the fact that the buildings fell as if the upper floors were not having to demolish the lower floors with their weight, this has been described as free-fall speed, there is no explanation that fits this other than a controlled demolition, and I am yet to hear anyone explain it sufficiently.

Conspiracy Nine – Epstein.
I don’t believe that this guy is dead, I’m just not buying it that a guy that held so much dirt on so many persons of power did not have a dead-man’s switch somewhere that he had made those people aware of. He’s got a big old beard and he’s on an island somewhere being called Ian or Bob after extensive facial surgery, and he scrapes yacht hulls for what appears to be a living, and he has a lavish palace built under his shack – that’s my theory. Nobody with that much leverage and influence would not ensure their exit strategy! Also the circumstances of his alleged death are simply ridiculous.

Conclusions….

Well that’s my take on those, remember I am not an expert I just think my theories and accept that they may be wildly in error. Central to my thinking though is the idea that if something is unexplained then it is interesting, and if something has a better explanation that is more plausible then the one offered from speculation can be disregarded. My particular view is that if there was one mechanism operating nefariously within 100 mechanisms that are identified by the conspiracy theorists body as so-called evidence, then the one real action may be missed. The establishment loves the conspiracy theorist and his ilk because the more nonsense there is out there the harder it is to tell what is real from what is not, and the easier it is for them (the nefarious actors) to operate the things they actually carry out that lack transparency and scrutiny, which I believe should maybe be considered acts of treason if we are in a democracy.

Paul S Wilson