Never Say Conspiracy: The
Problem is Definition
For nearly a decade, now, Iíve been deeply involved in looking more closely at many high-profile news stories, both historical and late breaking, having to do with a potential for wrong doing by governmental and/or corporate players. Doing this under the general category of investigative writing, Iíve also been called upon by many dozens of people to look into their personal problems in fighting various injustices, typically with the same kinds of governmental and corporate players. I have noted certain patterns when it comes to conspiracy situations, and from this came the somewhat famous Rules and Traits of Disinformation as found on my Web site. The URL is: <http://www.proparanoid.net/truth.htm>
If you are not familiar with the topic, understand that in any organized criminal conspiracy, especially when it involves government or a major business... there are certain common and logical procedural methods which MUST be applied to protect the conspiracy from discovery and failure. These methods all fall under the guise of disinformation. The average person, and even more sophisticated specialists such as news reporters, are generally unprepared to detect and deal with disinformation. But it can be very easy to spot and deal with if you know what to look for, and so, I developed the Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation, and the Eight Traits of a Disinformationalist.
These timely lists (at the Web site) are actually used in two different college classrooms by professors (one teaching Journalism, the other Political Science), today, and have been widely distributed on the Internet. The Rules and Traits, which include step by step how-to respond instructions, have been successfully applied by others in combating disinformation. But that is not quite the intended topic, here.
Rather, I bring it up to illustrate that in a conspiracy, there are hidden rules to the game which typically, only the bad guys know and apply. In addition to the Rules and Traits, Iíve noticed a very consistent public stance by media and the courts when it comes to Conspiracy. To understand and deal with these, it is important that we first define the word.
The common definition applied by the lay person most often when talking about their problems is "THEY are out to get me." That is not too far removed from the official definition. My small Websters simply says: To agree secretly to do a wrongful or illegal act. The problem is that a conspiracy is easy to find when you are a victim, but hard to find when you try to make a case for it before others, especially when an authority such as law enforcement or the courts. They seem to want to use different definitions than you.
If you go to a friend with your story, their definition, though they might not say so to your face, would seem to be: The net result of (you) working too hard under too much stress and pressure.It is far too easy for them to discount you and your claims, most likely because no one wants to believe in the bogey man, and certainly, they donít want to be involved in fighting one, real or imagined.
If you go to the Police with complaint of conspiracy, they use this definition: What someone who is suffering delusional paranoia will say. The last thing a policeman or detective wants is to have to investigate a conspiracy. From their personal perspective, it is too immense a task, far too costly in resources to undertake at a local level. From their leadershipís perspective, it all too often opens cans of worms which put them directly into confrontation with power figures who can get them fired. No. The Police do not want to believe in Conspiracy as a real-life option.
If you take your story to the newspaper, they use this definition: An exaggerated view of whatever really happened.A reporter might be more motivated to expose an actual conspiracy, one would think. But a reporter has a problem because they must report only the hard visible facts of the matter. Because conspiracies do tend to involve very effective disinformation campaigns, the outward facts suggest your personal view is an exaggeration. As stated, they are not trained in spotting and dealing with the problem - it being a relatively new phenomenon in our times.
It is almost impossible for a newsman to get to the right collective of facts needed in order to find a real-world conspiracy - just as it would be for law enforcement. Even then, their Editor will want to be very careful before allowing any such story to be printed. It makes one vulnerable to slander suites which are costly to defend, even if absolutely in the right to say so. And why? Because...
The definition used by the courts is such that they donít EVER seem to find evidence of a conspiracy. Their definition seems to be: What lawyers present in court because their clients refused to listen to their advice against a loosing strategy.If that seems extreme, consider this fact as reported on a local television show by a former CIA operative discussing why conspiracies work: No Federal Judge has EVER ruled in finding for conspiracy.
Can you imagine that. With all the criminal actions going on in the history of national and local politics and big business? Bribery and kickbacks? Crooked deals and skimming? Money laundering and land swindles? Union busting and unsafe products? Price fixing and unfair trade practices? All of these things have surely involved multiple persons agreeing secretly to commit criminal actions, but the courts never seem to find them guilty of conspiracy. They might successfully prosecute for the crime, but NEVER for conspiracy to commit it, even when charged.
For the courts to find for conspiracy, it seems, there must be a smoking gun in the hands of the conspirators. The prosecution might be able to make it stick if they have a written contractual document signed by all participants stating they were going to commit the acts they were charged with. Such a document never exists, so the Judges never have to rule for conspiracy.
And heaven help you if you are somehow put into a situation where you end up talking to a someone doing a psychological evaluation of your mental health. Their definition of conspiracy is all-to simple: Paranoiac behavior. How easily do they jump to this conclusion?
Last year I was doing an Authorís party in a local bookstore to promote my book, The Professional Paranoid. A large sign above my table and chair read: Meet the Professional Paranoid and (in smaller print) Fight Back When Investigated, Stalked, or Harassed, which closely parallels the bookís subtitle and explains the nature of the work as self defense.
A well dressed man walked up to the table with a questioning smirk on his face, as if about to crack a remark. He looked at the books on the table for a moment and then picked one up, and looked at it long enough to read the cover, front and back. He seemed to chuckle to himself as he put it back down. He didnít say anything, but fished in his wallet for a moment. He then handed me his card and said "Come see me. I can help you." His card indicated he was a prominent psychiatrist: partner in a large clinic; professor teaching Psychology at a local university; and an office holder in a regional association of psychiatric professionals. That is so symptomatic of the problem.
Where does this leave us? Defenseless? Not necessarily. You can still fight back, but you simply must NEVER SAY CONSPIRACY. Not unless you want to be discounted. Instead, simply talk about the principle most crime involved and focus on the key culprit(s). There is no need to burden anyone with the fine details when trying to get help. Make as simple an explanation as you can and then answer whatever questions are put to you as result. You donít need to conceal the facts or information, just donít blurt it all out, and make certain you say nothing which suggests you think there is a conspiracy. I further suggest you avoid using the word ìThey...î Try the singular, or ìSomeone...î instead.
Once you gain their help, and they actually start
to take serious note of what is going on and it is clear they believe the
problem is real, then you can start to refer them to side issues, such
as being followed or electronic surveillance. Be prepared to have them
discount any such notions as paranoiac in nature, and seem willing to agree
that you are probably overreacting to the situation. Just plant the
seed of thought, and with luck, they will come to learn its true meaning.
More than that, you cannot hope - unless you find that smoking gun!
Contact The Professional Paranoid: Updated 7/2000