When to Call Something a Conspiracy
And when not to.
Photo by Rūdolfs Klintsons: https://www.pexels.com/photo/grayscale-photo-of-a-dollar-7097099/
I’m going to start this article with a pretty clear statement of record: I am, quite categorically, against believing conspiracy theories. I find their logics flawed, their grifters compromised, their messages mixed, and their whole “aura” stinks of marketing campaigns. This article will largely be about how I think Yarvinism is very much not a conspiracy, rather, it’s a dangerous ideology masquerading as a business opportunity.
Conspiracy theories operate, largely, on one believing they have access to some special, unattainable knowledge which is unavailable to a wider public. An inoculated individual (and by inoculated, I mean “figuratively vaccinated against bad ideas”) need only follow any of the most popular conspiracy theories (JFK, Flat Earth, Vaccines, 9/11, etc.) in order to see where the breaks in logic are papered over with jargon, shadowy names, and information which is no longer available.
What I find so compelling about the Network State “conspiracy” is that it is clearly, boldly, and calmly stated by the perpetrators as some kind of inevitable “thing” which is going to happen. The Network State doesn’t even follow the traditional Anatomy of a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory is most often categorized as some “entity” which is witholding important “info” from the public in order to achieve an “agenda.” Here’s an example (Just to be clear, I’m using the following example only to illustrate the anatomy of a conspiracy, I am not purporting this to be factual):
Claim: The earth is flat
The “Government” is trying to cover it up.
Conspiracy theorists are trying to “uncover” the “truth.”
That is the “traditional” conspiracy theory: There’s inaccessible information, and the conspiracy theorists have access to some of it, which is how they possess some “special” knowledge. The “conspiracy theory” is ultimately an exercise in justifying one’s own arrogance. Conspiracy theorists are arrogant. They think they are smarter than others, and they want “evidence” to support that claim.
But watching interviews with Srinivasan or Yarvin or any of the others, there’s no conspiracy about it. They plainly say democracies must die so that their tech-broligarchy nonsense can live. They sell it as a few things, be that a simple inevitability, or an opportunity to make money, or a grandiose project for the future.
I think the reason why there’s so few views on Network State videos is directly related to this fact. They aren’t trying to hide it. They really do think this is the correct course of action for society. There is no “coverup” to be “exposed.” There are hundreds and hundreds of videos, many of which have shockingly high production values or feature big names. They have also shockingly low view counts for something so radical. Becket U, some random YouTube channel I found after searching “Network State” in the search bar, has a well-put-together video outlining the concepts of what a Network State is, and very calmly states it’s authoritarian like it’s a positive thing. This channel has 66k subscribers. This video has 695 views and two whole comments after two years of publication.
And it’s not just this one video, either. Most of Srinivasan’s own work has fewer views than one would expect. People, on the whole, care about Network States even less than cryptocurrency, I guess. I personally think the crypto-fiends pushing for these ideas expect that to change if they can establish true widespread cryptocurrency adoption, but that remains to be seen.
I refuse to put on a tinfoil hat, here. Do I think these videos are being suppressed for some ulterior motive? No, I just think people don’t care. “Ah, weird tech stuff,” the viewer says, and so too does the almighty algo. Do I think the oligarchs pushing for this care that their videos don’t see a lot of views? Nah. Their plans can work largely independent of public concensus. Hell, we saw Musk run around a stage with a chainsaw the other day and we are not, as it turns out, in a movie.
And that leaves me with a question: if it doesn’t matter for the oligarchs to have public support, and they aren’t trying to cover anything up, why post anything at all? Why make these plans known? My answer to this will probably sound dismissive, but I genuinely think it’s pure naivete. I think they really think we would like to worship them as our leaders. They think we like them. I’m not really sure how they got that notion in their heads, but it’s the only explanation that seems fitting to me. I couldn’t care less who the exact owner of any given social media platform is. If Musk were supplanted by an AI-CEO today, I don’t think it would change much about the user experience of Twitter, other than I wouldn’t have to be annoyed every day when I’m reminded Musk exists.
Where I think there may be a real conspiracy, though, is in the rhetoric. What I really want to know is how these videos and oligarchs come to their conclusions. That will be another article soon, but the gist is:
Oligarchs argue that the west is decaying
My response: Why do you think that?
Government can’t save the west from decaying.
My response: Why can’t democratic governments save the decay of the West? And don’t say bureaucracy, because the East has just as much bureaucracy.
Only big tech can propel the west back into competition with the East.
Why does the plan to “save the west” involve breaking it up into a million little monarchies which are run by billionaires?
Follow up question: How does this plan get the “West” back into a competitive stance against the East? It seems to me like it just furthers the goals of the East.
These purportions are what I really fear. For whatever reason, your average, every day westerner seems to just read that message and say “Yeah, I guess the West is decaying.” Like unto reading an article about migrant crime, only to dig one inch deeper and find that the supposed migrant crime is overblown, being dealt with by the requisite institutions, and was also 10 years ago. There’s a post on the UK subreddit today about a stabbing. The comments section is filled with people saying their country is not for them anymore. This stabbing took place in 2005.
The commonality of these talking points is spooky, though. It’s spooky enough that I’m writing about it, after all.
The common person cannot beat tech billionaires. They cannot argue them into defeat. We cannot ridicule them into defeat, either. We’re seeing how that battle is playing out literally every single day.
The calling card of the condescending liberal is dismissive ridicule. This condescending ridicule is only ever met with a galvanizing of the mind virus which has taken hold of so many of the folk in our midst.
It is my belief, that the only way to defeat the innately bad Network State idea is to ask it sincere questions, over and over and over again. Get them to articulate their points without deviation. And the reason I think this, is because we still live in a post-truth world with no light at the end of the tunnel. Pundits who represent the interests of billionaires exist in the formless and glib world. They offer nothing concrete, only obfuscated half-truths (or outright falsities) twisted to push a narrative.
Political leaders make things up. Their media defends that their words aren’t true. Words have no meaning. Stances and positions change by the day. We don’t know what to do.
“Isn’t that interesting,” is a question I never want to hear uttered sardonically again for as long as I live. This non-question is not meant for truth seeking. It is accompanied with a fully formed narrative in mind. It is the dog-whistle for the conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theory thrives in this pile of muck called “discourse.” A conspiracy theory can never be answered, because then it ends, and that’s not the goal of a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory must always carry forward, so that it can propagate. When evidence in the affirmation or denial are presented, they’re both false. The goal of a conspiracy theory is to live for as long as it can. We need to immediately get this out of our heads in regards to Yarvinism.
Remember, we are not working against a coverup. We are not trying to reveal anything. All the relevant material is revealed. It’s published. The publishers are doing interviews daily.
It’s just that the wider public haven’t yet connected the rise of the Network State, Yarvinism, etc. with the current administration’s blatant attempts to subvert the governing principles of functional democracies.