(LifeSiteNews) – This all started in December 2022 when I noticed the term “conspiracy theorist” being used in a high-profile murder case in Queensland, Australia. It’s already obvious the term is being used to mock, discredit, and stop debate, but I’ve never seen it used like this in a murder case:
- Police in Australia examine conspiracy theories behind shooting deaths of two officers and four others
- Queensland cop killer’s bizarre conspiracy theory comments online revealed
A murderer’s online activity and content is obviously an important part of any investigation, but should such a broad and largely misunderstood term like “conspiracy theorist” be used to describe motive or murderous characteristics? It didn’t sit well with me.
My first thought was, “I have been called a conspiracy theorist several times in the media. What if we’re deemed criminals or terrorist?”
I made a video expressing my concerns. It might help to paint the picture.
I wondered…if we can’t combat the misuse of this term, how long until I’m back in jail?
If you dissect the term “conspiracy theorist,” or just look at the definition of it, it’s being intentionally misused. Even the google search definition doesn’t suggest anything sinister or outlandish about the term. Let’s start with the google definitions.
It specifically says that a “conspiracy theory” is a theory that a group rather than an individual, is conspiring on something that is not an isolated act. It also specifies that it’s a “disputed case or matter.” Who decides it’s disputed or not? Google? The mainstream media? Nowhere does it say that facts, data, and scientific evidence can be part of a conspiracy theory.
For example, many of us have a theory that the World Health Organization, World Economic Forum, governments, and mainstream medias are conspiring to bring about illegal, wrongful, or subversive strategies and policies to implement Agenda 30 and a one-world government.
We are called “conspiracy theorists” for thinking that…but it’s a fact! It’s not a disputed case. There are books, articles, and websites that talk all about it. Some of the people involved in the “conspiracy” openly talk about it at major events.
I would argue that there’s a missing sentence in Google’s definition: “If a conspiracy is proven to be factual, it could no longer be considered a conspiracy theory.”
Now, let’s break it down more.
If you put those two together, a “conspiracy theorist” would be someone who theorizes that an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act is taking place.
It’s important to note that nowhere do the definitions account for theories using past behavior to predict future behavior. For example, imagine if someone were to theorize that banks might have the ability to close or restrict accounts of political dissenters in the future. That couldn’t be a “conspiracy theory” because it’s not a disputed case. It’s happened with Nigel Farage and in Canada when the truckies shut down Ottawa. An elderly lady who just bought one hoodie had her account frozen.
If someone theorizes that the climate change narrative might lead to “15-minute cities” or “climate change lockdowns” and so on…that would be the same situation. The entire world experienced draconian lockdowns for a virus that has a 98.5% survival rate. It’s not disputed that governments have the power to lock us down with no evidence to prove why it’s needed.
Another thing to consider is that these definitions don’t allow for scientific or fact-based theories. If someone like Dr. Peter McCullough suggests the vaccines could be doing more harm than good based on his research and expertise, that cannot be considered a “conspiracy theory.” His commentary has nothing to do with groups conspiring or disputed cases. It’s basically a glorified product review – not a “theory” at all.
An example of a conspiracy theory that fits the definition and grammatical use could be when someone theorizes what the motive behind the global unified push for the COVID vaccines is. It’s already a fact that there was a conspiracy between big corporations, media, governments, and others who worked together on the rollout, but we aren’t 100% sure of the motive yet. Just to re-iterate, theorizing on their motive could be accurately described as a “conspiracy theory” – but that they did conspire is a fact, not a theory.
Never in history have there been so many people questioning mainstream narratives and being censored, bullied, cancelled, and even fired and imprisoned for it. Furthermore, there isn’t a clear shared attribute that identifies these people. They are regular, diverse, and everyday people from all ages, religions, and industries. They were just curious and suddenly they’ve been outcast and scorned for it.
In the past, critical thinking and curiosity were praiseworthy and even taught to us.
If this new group of people aren’t “conspiracy theorists,” what are they?
This was my journey before coining a brand-new phrase that properly explains what type of theorists we actually are.
We are not conspiracy theorists. We are RATIONAL THEORISTS.
What is a rational theorist?
A rational theorist is
A person whose theories and opinions are logical, evidence-based and debatable. Relies heavily on common sense. Often misrepresented as a conspiracy theorist despite their reliance on rationality and critical thinking.
The mission of this campaign is to differentiate rational theorists from conspiracy theorists. If your opinions are logical, evidence-based, and debatable, you are indeed a rational theorist!
If someone calls you a conspiracy theorist, you can politely correct them and say, ”actually, I’m a rational theorist.” They might ask what that is. You can tell them to google it.
If millions of us start using this phrase in everyday language, we can change the public’s perception on topics that we are passionate and knowledgeable about.
People who might have already joined us in questioning the status-quo might have been afraid to be labelled a conspiracy theorist along with us. But now, they don’t need to be afraid…because we are not conspiracy theorists, we are rational theorists!
Note – there is nothing necessarily wrong with conspiracy theories, but it’s important to recognize that they are just that: theories. They are not always logical, evidence-based, or debatable like a rational theory is.