There are many conspiracy theories. Their main common characteristic is that they postulate the existence of some power that acts a) secretly and b) in favor of a small group of beneficiaries who have conspired with each other.
Proving the absence of reptilians, the ZOG, or a Jewish-Masonic conspiracy is impossible, especially since there are clear results of their activities and the consequences of their actions, such as the systematic impoverishment of honest and hardworking people. The very formulation of the question about proving the non-existence of something is unproductive, as one can always say, “If you haven’t found it, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.” Those who understand will immediately recall Popper’s criterion of falsifiability and Russell’s teapot. Those who don’t will go look it up and understand. Conspiracy theories, therefore, can easily explain the reasons behind all significant historical events, but on the other hand, they cannot predict anything; any future event is explained only after it has occurred, including unfulfilled predictions with excuses like “the conspirators changed their plans,” “it’s a multi-step scheme,” “look for who benefits,” and so on.
Conspiracy theories are excellent complex memes, informational “viruses” that compel their carriers to spread them by “pressing the buttons” of human instincts. People want to warn each other about danger, gain insight into the future, and share important information. Conspiracy theories, by violating Occam’s razor, easily explain many phenomena by introducing new players into reality who are supposedly executing some rational yet secretive plan. It is easier and more comforting for people to accept the existence of a powerful force that is controlling the situation than to study the mathematics of chaos theory and self-organizing systems, ultimately realizing that the future is fundamentally unpredictable.
At the same time, conspiracy theories have one weak point that stems from their generalizing nature. These theories postulate a secret power, which is typically depicted as a network of implicit yet powerful connections, strings being pulled by hidden puppeteers who are executing their sinister plans to exterminate, say, the Russian people or to enrich themselves in secret.
What is power? Power is, first and foremost, a monopoly on violence. If there is no monopoly on violence or coercion, then we are no longer talking about power, but rather about a mutually beneficial agreement between parties. People who are under some form of power agree to this violence. Why does this agreement happen, and why do people not change their power or leave the territory over which this power is exercised?
There are two reasons for this:
1. People receive something in return that they would not have been able to obtain under other circumstances, or acquiring it would have involved unacceptable costs.
People recognize this authority and consider it legitimate.
What can one obtain from authority? There is a specific type of good known as “public good.” This is a good that everyone can use without restrictions. Examples include a lighthouse, a road, or a well. If public goods can be used without limitations, then the economically rational behavior of an individual is to avoid participating in the creation of that public good, since they will still be able to use it. Why dig a well or build a lighthouse together with others if no one will prohibit you from using them later? This leads to a paradoxical situation where, despite the significant individual benefits from the existence of a public good, no one will participate in its creation. One of the two ways to mobilize groups of people to create public goods is through violence. You can force a group of people to act collectively, and this violence may be perceived by the group as a manifestation of justice, as it will be aimed at combating free riders—those who plan to abstain from participating in the creation of the public good but intend to use it. Besides violence, there are so-called “selective incentives,” but these are not applied by authorities; rather, they are used by those who are unable to employ violence. Selective incentives are utilized by community organizations, philanthropists, and school teachers.
Why is it beneficial for authorities to create public goods? There are, once again, two reasons. First, the authorities create goods for themselves that, by their very nature, become public. To control a territory, the authorities build roads, lighthouses, develop postal services, and monitor the money supply. To maintain their monopoly on violence, they administer justice or “justice.” To increase revenue from taxes, they monitor the health of the population. To combat competing authorities, they fund scientific research, and so on.
Second, the authorities take advantage of the difference between the value of a public good and its cost. If each resident of a village values the presence of a road at 100 ducats, but building the road costs 5,000 ducats, then by collecting 100 ducats from each of the 1,000 villagers, the authorities can provide the desired road, fairly paid for by everyone without exception (keeping in mind the monopoly on violence), and significantly enrich their own pockets by 100*1000 – 5000 = 95,000 ducats.
Summary: Power generates public goods – this is its main manifestation, stemming from its fundamental characteristic – the monopoly on violence. Access to public goods cannot be organized selectively, distributing them only to members of some secret community.
The second reason for the acceptance of power is its legitimacy. People tend to consider a particular authority legitimate for various reasons, but the main point is that the power must be recognized by the population. This recognition can stem from a religious doctrine or from the illusion of “democratic elections.” The greater the legitimacy of the authority, the fewer resources it needs to spend on maintaining its monopoly on violence. When power loses its legitimacy, it will always resort to additional expenditures to suppress protests, which further diminishes its legitimacy—the illusion of its legality in the eyes of the public. Sooner or later, the lack of legitimacy leads to the economic impracticality of holding onto power. The profits that the authority gains from providing public goods to the population are no longer sufficient to sustain itself. This is precisely what happens when the top cannot, and the bottom do not want to.
Summary: Power must possess legitimacy – it should be clearly and publicly recognized. Covert power is not power, as it lacks legitimacy.
In addition to the two factors described above—the inability to selectively access the public goods being created and the demand for public recognition—there is another factor that can be described as the “prohibitive level of transaction costs for large hierarchical structures.” Hierarchy is the natural and instinctively the only acceptable form of organizing human society. It is our biology, our inner monkey, demanding the presence of an alpha male, color differentiation in pants, or a national leader. Biologically and technically, hierarchy works well in groups whose size is comparable to “Dunbar’s number.” These are formations the size of a primitive herd. Once the number of individuals in a group becomes so large that no one can remember or recognize all the members, more efficient, chaotic systems replace hierarchy. This is how an ant colony operates, where there are no “main ants” giving orders. Everyone simply does their job within the program embedded in them. The “queen” of the ant colony is not a leader but just another resource providing offspring for the colony.
Why does this happen?
Power is technically unable to extend beyond the group of people who are aware of the ruler’s reputation as the strongest or most influential alpha. If each member of this group becomes, in turn, a ruler of their own group, then the members of the “lower” group will no longer be directly subordinate to the ruler. A vassal of my vassal is not my vassal. The ruler, considering the presence of not just subordinates but subordinate factions, must bear the costs of maintaining their power. They are no longer an absolute ruler but a person seeking compromises, remaining in power only as long as they provide a public good known as “peace and justice.” The ruler must constantly take into account the interests of their subordinates, continually spend time negotiating, and consistently gather and process information. All of this has a specific monetary expression.
If the hierarchy expands another level down, the costs associated with resolving internal contradictions and maintaining a stable hierarchy increase exponentially. Hierarchies can only grow under one condition: the ruler must delegate their authority or, in other words, deprive themselves of power, preferring the business processes of the hierarchy. A state-level leader typically possesses only the illusion of power and is more likely to navigate like a surfer, trying to stay on the crest of the wave rather than managing people.
If we envision a secret power of global puppeteers, we must also assess the costs of this power, which it incurs in maintaining a coherent hierarchical structure, forcing this global hierarchy to work towards some secret goal, preferably one so hidden that ordinary members of the hierarchy are not even aware of what that goal is. In more favorable conditions, when power is a) explicit, b) legitimate, and c) provides public goods, any attempts by the ruler to “push their agenda through a constructed hierarchy” are doomed to fail. There is not a single historical example of the effectiveness and longevity of large hierarchies. As for effective secret hierarchies, they have always lost in competitive struggles against explicit authorities, from the Templars to the Mafia. The lack of legitimacy has always provoked internal conflicts, leading to the deaths of “godfathers,” while poorly provided public goods, such as “security” and “smuggling,” did not guarantee the population’s confidence in the future, and the monopoly on violence was absent, representing “additional violence” in relation to what already existed.
So what is real then? Chaotic corporate collusions are real. The mafia is real, though not global. Cartels and defense alliances are real. Independent, simultaneous actions by players, driven by their personal interests and not requiring collusion, are real. There is a group of ultra-wealthy individuals who indirectly control a large part of the global economy and can negotiate with each other in their own language. However, it is important to understand that this is not about a global conspiracy. It is about constantly existing, momentary mutually beneficial and mutually risky agreements that bear no resemblance to the grand schemes imagined by conspiracy theorists, neither in terms of goals nor in terms of effects.
Any process in politics, economics, and many other fields is always the result of coordinated actions between two or more parties. These actions can always be interpreted as collusion or conspiracy. However, Adam Smith demonstrated that the primary motivating factor for actions in economics is the mutual benefit of each participant, while Karl Marx showed that politics is ultimately dependent on economics—it is constrained by its possibilities and directed by its interests.. (Wikipedia)
Of course, this text was written at the request of the reptilians, and the author received a very impressive reward for its publication. Envy and feel free to reach out if you wish to join.