In brief 

• “Out there” beliefs are often called conspiracy theories.
• There is often no “conspiracy” whatsoever, just a number of like minded people. 
• It can be zealots or people jumping to conclusions. 
• Either “side” may even have a “need” for intrigue to liven up their lives.
• The final answer could be decades away. Judgement is key.

A lot of assumptions is how conspiracy theories happen

For instance, a lot of people assume that large international organisations have some sort of extraordinary power. Instead, the reality may be that they are just an organisation, like many, trying to influence or sell their wares. 

There are many problems with drawing these types of conclusions. First off, they are vast generalisations. Any time something seems to support the theory, it reinforces the idea, but any time it doesn’t it can be ignored or downplayed. 

Also, it is often about something happening very far away, or behind closed doors, that you really know very little about. So how would you have any insight except through others? Do they really know or are they just convincing speakers? Oftentimes even the most suspicious things are very grey. That is why courts require evidence and give both sides a chance.

The harder something is to believe, the better evidence you need. Sorry, your friend has a friend, who used to have a pet Bigfoot, is not going to cut it.

The World Economic Forum is a real world example 

Let’s consider Prime Minister Chris Hipkins meeting with the head of the World Economic Forum recently. Without jumping to conclusions, it seems safe to say he went there willingly, so he must be at least somewhat aligned. There are many that wouldn’t go. 

Perhaps he is thinking of his offshore political future and chumming with the/his “right” crowd. That is easily believable, as well, and he would almost be remiss if he didn’t take that opportunity. But none of that suggests he is in their spell and will do whatever the WEF wants.

You can and should draw inferences about how a person thinks from what they do and who they do it with, but this is just very big picture. There are usually all kinds of competing priorities. Instead of theorising about what might happen, isn’t it better to just respond to what does happen? And particularly things that you can potentially affect, like NZ centric results that you can factor into your vote. 

The bigger thing about Hipkins and the WEF is that the MSM, which often covers the trivial about our leaders foreign trips, chose to give it very little coverage. They must be aware that, for good reason or not, the WEF is a bit of a flash point for many voters in NZ (and elsewhere) who don’t vote left. MSM should realise not reporting it just fuels the very suspicions they want to discourage.

Some conspiracy theories end up being true 

A very fertile ground for saying something is a conspiracy theory is when something is very hard to prove one way or the other, but one side of the argument feels it is essential to make a decision or take action. That side often then tries to silence or prevail in some manner over the other. These can carry on for decades or more. One side usually gets the high ground and claims they are the consensus opinion.

A good example is the argument about amalgam fillings which has been going on in some manner for well over a century and still continues. 

It can easily be that what was once the conspiracy theory ultimately prevails. History is full of examples, such as the earth is flat, the earth is the centre of the universe or numerous ones with religion.