The Truth About Conspiracy Theories

“Only small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by the public’s incredulity.” ~ Marshall McLuhan

The flaw in the mathematical proof that large conspiracies cannot last long is simply this: It's based on the FALSE assumption that if even one member of the conspiracy spills the beans, the result can only be that the conspiracy is exposed and thus flouted. The truth is that that's almost NEVER the case when the conspirators have sufficiently high social status and/or have effective control over opinion influencers (e.g, the mainstream press.) That's the reason major religious institutions can maintain huge followings, not just for centuries, but for millennia, no matter what defamatory truths about the religion and/or its clergy might be exposed by former insiders who defect.

Effective large-scale "conspiracies" also use hierarchical and/or compartmentalized organizational structures, so that the secret knowledge only needs to be disseminated on a "need to know" basis, and so that those in the lower levels of the hierarchy can be told partially-false narratives that either leave out crucial details (e.g, the actual goals / intended outcomes,) or that replace parts of the true story with falsehoods. It's been standard practice in nation-states--especially in their "intelligence" agencies--to use both hierarchical and compartmentalized information dissemination to keep major secrets for as long as necessary--even for centuries. 

It's also standard "statecraft" ("tradecraft") to poison the well using what they call "limited hangouts." A "limited hangout" involves revealing part of the truth along with false information, so that the audience will a) misinterpret the truth, and b) hopefully be discredited by claiming the false information is true. Such large-scale "conspiracies" (e.g, the CIA, the KGB, the Mossad, the Catholic Church) can and do put out many different "limited hangouts" to hide the same hidden secret, creating a smokescreen that hides the core secret using a maze of false leads.

"It is much... more common, for the powers-that-be, if they are confronted with unpalatable truth, first to try to corrupt it and, if they do not succeed, to try to discredit it and, if they do not succeed in that, to silence it. The government’s ability to corrupt derives from its power to reward those who are willing to be corrupted. Its ability to discredit stems from the authority of power with which it speaks and from the influence it is able to exert upon the mass media of communications. Its ability to silence results from its ability to corrupt -- silence being a kind of passive corruption -- and ultimately from the ability to make totalitarian use of the police and the criminal laws." ~ Hans J. Morgenthau, from his book “Truth and Power”

People are conditioned to disbelieve the great conspiracies: They can't accept such a large, strategic, profound falsification of their entire worldview.

“Only small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by the public’s incredulity.” ~ Marshall McLuhan 

"The greater the crime perpetrated by the leadership, the less likely it is that the people will ever believe their leaders to be capable of perpetrating such an event." ~ Adolf Hitler

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~ Joseph Goebbels

"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation…. ” ~ Adolf Hitler

Police detectives, public prosecutors and intelligence analysts are all examples of professional conspiracy theorists whose work is sanctioned by the the ruling class. They're paid to distrust the narratives and claims of the people and things they investigate.

Legal proceedings and science both REQUIRE skepticism, distrust and adversarial contests between opposing sides in order to improve the odds that a fair and correct result is obtained.

The same is true of public discourse and debate over the best public policies to adopt—in contradiction to the self-serving claims by the ruling class that "Democracy requires a minimum amount of mutual trust among citizens, and conspiracism destroys it."

'Democracy' is not destroyed by adversarial debate, nor by questioning authority, nor by auditing the activities of public servants, nor by challenging the claims of the rich and powerful. No, it's the FAILURE to do those things that "destroys democracy" by enabling corruption and tyranny.

Just like any scientific hypothesis, or any charges filed in a criminal case, a “conspiracy theory” could be either true or false. Or perhaps partially true and partially false. One way to help discern the difference is this: A valid refutation against a "conspiracy theory" uses facts and logic..that stand up to criticism. An invalid one uses logical fallacies, such as ad-hominem, the genetic fallacy, or (typically) just dismisses it as a "conspiracy theory" without evidence or justification (false labeling.)

Another method is to consider the motives of all sides in the debate, especially including those involving power and/or wealth. “Follow the money” has always been a valid heuristic.

Also take into account which side seeks open debate, and which side avoids it—or even seeks to suppress or censor debate. Those with the facts on their side welcome free and open discussion. Those who know the facts are against them behave otherwise.

For a real-world example of how all the above plays out in the real world, I recommend the following article: Are “Conspiracy Theories” Tearing Society Apart Or Saving Us From Destruction?

Money quote: