"Conspiracy Theory" or "Conspiracy Theorist" are terms now enshrined in our cultural temple as easy, finalized plaques of pejorative judgment on anything or anyone that questions one's own paradigm, or the "consensus" paradigms. In plain English, the connotation of the various "conspiracy" terms is, I think, simply "paranoia," which is a conglomeration of the Greek root words "para"(beside) and "noos" (mind). In the Greek world, "noos" has a much deeper connotation in terms of connection to reality, to the cosmos (order of things), and so to be "para" or "beside" the "noos" is a much more loaded term: together these words mean a divorce from order, from reality. I think we think of this word, "paranoid," in similar though weaker terms, and besides, the Greeks also had the richness, the generosity, the hope to maintain some awe of certain kinds of "beside reality," or madness: there could be a Bacchic kind, for example, a frenzy that was yet mystical, in touch with some deeper force beyond human rational categories. Today, I think we mean more that someone is overly afraid of things, or makes conclusions not based in the reality of a particular situation; some people, though, we think we can deem as fundamentally and comprehensively paranoid, and yet we don't have the distinction in language, so the difference comes across either through inflection or expression, or we use different terms and syntax like "He is a Conspiracy Theorist" to make the distinction categorically clear (the term is loaded and the syntax redefines the entire person: think: "She is a dog").
The Conspiracy Theorist, for most people at present, is one who more-or-less has a kind of complete paranoia about effects and consequences happening in the world, more particularly political, economic, or spiritual issues. Thus to use it nowadays, such as "Oh, he's just a Conspiracy Theorist," is to relegate a person to a functional madhouse; unfortunately, no one in the modern world seeks advice from a madhouse resident, ergo that person is effectively cancelled from the community or discussion; he or she simply cannot be taken seriously or even mystically, and all their offerings are suspect, whatever the subject. They are at the forefront of the "cancel culture," made all too easy by the lack of personal, face-to-face contact that is becoming ubiquitous.
However, let's back up a little, maybe to a few years before the Mel Gibson movie "Conspiracy Theory" came out and played with and perhaps inadvertently cemented the present defamation. Let's go back before the term seems to have been weaponized as a way to defame anyone questioning tightly-held narrations: Before the first weaponization of the term and the later comedy, a theorist about possible conspiracies was one who theorized or made hypotheses and perhaps even theses about something going on behind the scenes, much like a detective; because of the complex nature of the issues (groups in power and groups oppressed by it alike tend toward secrecy though of course for different reasons, I would argue), the hypothesis or theory required some inference, or, in circular terms, theorizing--much the way a scientist should theorize about the complex natural world, using the tools of induction and deduction with the humility to remain open to falsification or the better model to explain the appearances. Proper theorizing requires the prudence to know when evidence is complete and absolute and when the situation is simply at some point beyond our power to have absolute knowledge (the latter most of the time, in all areas of human knowledge, I think it safe to say, because, as Aristotle points out, particular situations are subject to so much variation, we can actually "know" these situations less, than, say, universal rational principles like the Law of Non-Contradiction).
Based on this earlier usage of the term "conspiracy theorist," one can define the early American "Sons of Liberty" as conspiracy theorists. They got a lot wrong because of the Atlantic Ocean between them and the British Parliament and the wide ocean of intent and miscommunication that created a lack of transparency between the British overlords and the colonists, but they used what data they had, and made tremendous inferences from what could have been (or weren't?) malicious actions, like the doing away with the tea tax which precipitated The Boston Tea Party. The jury is still somewhat out about the intent of the British Parliament, but the evidence we have seems to indicate that it was, at least partly, a misunderstanding, a conspiracy theory not quite on the mark. However, though, do we then say that the Sons of Liberty were fundamentally madmen who should have been locked up instead of having their portraits painted and beer drunk by ensuing grateful generations of Americans? Were they just paranoiacs? Were their thoughts totally unjustified? Or correct in some deeper sense (the intent to use the colonies in the new, and cruel, dehumanizing paradigm of mercantilism) and yet off the mark slightly due to their status as the relatively powerless?
The jury is still out, I think, on the Sons of Liberty...at least, the jury that resides in my mind is...but it is a serious conversation, and one would never think to simply consign them to the madhouse of history along with inmates like Joe Stalin simply by using a weaponized term against them, the ad hominum stick of desperadoes and cowards. That, seems to me, is paranoia.
The other option is to think of someone theorizing about hidden political, economic, or spiritual motives, or even not-so-hidden ones, as possibly a "huponoiac"--now, I really did make up that term, though there is a real word in there, another Greek one: "huponoia," from "hupo" (under) and "noeo" (to think, to perceive). I am defining this as someone akin to the myth-makers (Hesiod, Homer, Virgil, Dante, Milton, MacDonald, Tolkien, and others) who tried to uncover, to reveal poetically the deeper truths of reality, of existence, of the cosmos. Like terms such as "science" and "theorist," "myth" is another word we've murdered, cut into little pieces, put through the grinder, and re-packaged as something to sell as "food" at the local store. In truth, a myth is a poetic image that, again, reveals things too sublime, too deep to express in human rational categories alone. The myth-maker is not crazy by definition; "myth" is not synonymous with "false," although one could talk, as Lewis and Tolkien and Barfield did one fateful night, about the "false myth" and the "true myth."
I'm not saying a 'theorizer' about what is 'underneath' the events and consequences in our present world is a myth-maker--I was making a kind of analogy, as the myth-maker creates within the Poetic World, the world that is meant to reveal truth, the Logos, through story, through image, through rhythm, a road to Truth through Beauty, or a portrayal in some way of Goodness. The theorist about patterns of power is in a different category. This "huponoiac" could be some one who tends to think "under" or to perceive the underlying patterns, intents, and motives resulting in the effects and consequences we live with in our moral, political, economic, and spiritual lives. Not an easy task, but one can see a quite necessary one. The huponoiac could, probably does, get a lot wrong; but when one has resisted the temptation to defame in knee-jerk response to discomfort, like one kicks when someone sneaks up and pulls a scab off one's knee (yes, we've all had that happen to us), then it is certainly possible to judge whether one's interlocutor is a paranoiac or a hupanoiac, a Conspiracy Theorist or a theorist about possible power-structure agendas.
How? First, be aware of your own cultural and family and tribal attachments: they are largely subconscious and shot through with emotion: affection, fear, love, hatred, anger. Emotions and attachments are not bad; however, as CS Lewis says, anything not kept in the proper hierarchy will become demonic, and subconscious attachments are often feasts where demons eat beyond their fill and get you to vomit them all over others. Be aware that you have them, and that they should be firmly governed by reason and the doctrines and principles of the Faith (that revelation of true Logos), by true sanity. Second, cultivate an attitude of listening and the responsibility to do your own homework before anything close to weaponized-word defamation is even on the horizon; know the difference between claims about absolute truth, theory, and hypothesis.Third, if at all possible, get a real liberal education, which includes hefty, foundational portions of logic and philosophy. Seriously. You need to know how to think, or anyone and everyone rhetorically compelling, or even emotionally compelling yet idiotic, will tell you what to think: and if he or she happens to be the fad, or in your tribe, or can get you some power, or toilet paper, as the case may be, then, well, then, it becomes really difficult. We all need authority and belonging, but we are also asked fundamentally to use our distinguishing characteristic in the natural realm (rationality) and our distinguishing characteristic in the spiritual realm (free will).
Huponoiacs, as I'm defining the word, are often the prophetic type in the spiritual realm, or philosopher types in other areas; these are people who listen for, look for, are gifted in terms of, the "hupo" or that which is underneath normal, more shallow categories of thinking and action. Sometimes they are just regular people who, through virtue and common sense and experience, and the use of their God-given sight, see. I think all these types are more rare, or perhaps more and more 'cancelled' in the fearful, emotional, selfish, irrational, relativist paradigm we inhabit. Modern science, now far from its proper place in the hierarchy of knowledge is now unquestioned dogma, and real dogma is eschewed for the Self. The upside-downness of Christ's kingdom, the scandal of the True, Good, and Beautiful, is becoming more intolerable to those who cannot think, or see, or hear, beyond the neon signs and cartoonish conclusions of the "right-side-up" elite. What should be obvious, what is simply scripted for us in open documents like Reset 2021 is considered prima facie false because it calls our nannies, our nursemaids, those who squirt their reality into our mouths, into question.
If someone questions the narrative of our global governments and NGOs and agencies and corporations and technocrats, look at the evidence. Not an easy task, if you can't think or you don't have access, or there's just too damn much. However, if you've got documentation and a clear logical pattern of centralization and manipulation; if you've got motive and means, then a conclusion, however uncomfortable or unbelievable in terms of our emotions and paradigms, might just be a good theory and not madness, no matter what the parrots on our screens say. If you watch something like Plandemic 2, do your homework on the evidence they present: don't just knee-jerk it because Bill Gates looks too nice in his hot chocolate sweaters, or Anthony Fauci looks so--small. How could someone that size pack a nefarious punch? Think for yourself, based on solid rational and spiritual principles. It could be, it just could be, that our governments don't have our best interests at heart, that they are fundamentally corrupt; if history teaches us anything, it is that this is the tendency of human institutions, and that no nation or tribe is exempt, except, perhaps, those who know they have that tendency and who don't kill their genuine prophets and philosophers, their huponoiacs, their "I beg to differ and here's why."
Back to paranoia: does everyone deserve a hearing equally? No. There are mad people about, people whose logic or principles are simply not in accord with reality. Historically, these are usually people or groups who have a lot to lose or are deeply fearful and thus desire manipulation, but there are some who've been driven a little mad by this valley of tears and deserve our pity and understanding, and a la Shakespeare, perhaps at times speak the truth no one else dares to say. The former lot deserve jail or worse, especially if, like many corporations and powerful individuals, they have killed or oppressed many people. They probably deserve the Eighth Circle of the Inferno.
Do your homework and if you're confused, find good people who are willing to dialogue with respect and honesty. Look for those who've had a genuine liberal arts education and/or live good, humble lives; look for those, liberally educated or not, who show a clear pattern of laying down their lives (and not just self-aggrandizing disguised: Do they give up their place on dais? Do they allow others to shine? Do they genuinely allow dissent? Do they listen? Do they love you with a love that is genuinely about your good and not about looking good or about flattery? Do they need to portray themselves as experts and make sure you know it?). Look at the wide range of their thought and writing and action, and make a suitable theory about whether or not they are mad (See? You're now a huponoiac). Look at mission statements in writing (like BLM or the Communist Party) or look for, ponder in prayer, mission statements that are embedded: remember that everyone and everything has a mission statement, or principles by which and for which they act. As Aristotle says, no one acts except towards some good, true or perceived, some love. That 'good' or end is usually expressed in a kind of mission statement or statements, or in a pattern of action, and it is the end or purpose for which that person or group or thing acts. There are some obvious ones, like "corporations exist to make money." Period. Don't believe they exist fundamentally to make you more virtuous or safe, even if they have some good programs, etc.. Remember that modern governments exist for many different reasons, and that it isn't always found in some Declaration or Manifesto. Remember that Communists fundamentally exist to build a materialistic paradise, a replacement for heaven, for God, that they are "humanists" denying the proper end for humans. Remember that many people think they exist to aggrandize themselves or their political cause. Remember psychopaths are real, and they tend to run things because they have no scruples. Remember that Machiavelli was probably mad from being tortured, but that he described powerfully the way people act when their final end, their basic principle, is maintaining political order and power, no matter the cost, divorced from metaphysics and proper theology. Look to St. Thomas More if you want a picture of a good man acting on the best principles in the political realm.
If you can figure out how to see basic principles for action, you are on your way to true discernment of the world around you, and you are on your way to being a huponoiac. You may, however, have to deal with being called a Conspiracy Theorist if you happen to question secular or corporate or science dogmas (one is not allowed, for example, to remind people that the theory of Darwinian biological or social evolution is a theory, a model). Just yell "You mean huponoiac" and I'm hoping on a wing and a prayer (?!) that people who think a government that legalized the murder of unborn children is still benevolent somehow, and people who think that just because they have money are magically allowed become a medical authority for millions of people at once, and people who think that Marxist organizations care about the Good, will start listening to you.
Valley Girl voice offstage: "Nawwt."
