It is also clear that conspiratology is fertile ground for legitimizing mass violence. All the horrors of the 20th century—communism, nationalism, and the like—rest on various conspiratorial ideas: the conspiracy of “world Jewry,” the “world bourgeoisie,” and so on.
It is equally clear that the habit of asking “who benefits from this?” instead of “why did this happen?” sharply reduces the quality of analysis and oversimplifies conclusions.
However, the most devastating consequence is probably the erroneous decisions and actions that stem from simple conspiratological thinking.
Let us examine our three examples: the conspiracy of voters against the people, the alternative to oil, and the monopoly on money.
The case of the voters’ conspiracy is not recognized as a conspiracy because the average person can distinguish between a multitude of voters and the multitude that makes up the people. Yet this case exhibits the classic hallmarks of a conspiracy: the consequences of certain people’s actions cause them rejection and indignation. It differs from an ordinary conspiracy only in that here the culprits are not Jews and aliens, but the very same people who suffer the damage. Moreover, most of these people recognize the causal connection. However, the subsequent development follows the same pattern as in other conspiracies. That is, instead of recognizing that the “elite” is simply a continuation of the people and its qualities—and that the problem can only be solved through changes “from below”—people continue to place their hopes on elections and a benevolent tsar.
In the case of alternative energy sources, the “problem” is that they are more expensive than oil. But in reality, we do not know how much oil actually costs. Supporters of alternative energy should direct their efforts toward complete privatization of subsoil resources. As long as these resources remain in so-called “state” ownership in the overwhelming majority of cases, oil companies engage in outright exploitation, with no incentive to conserve resources or search for better methods. They extract what they do not own. In rough terms, the “oil price” today results not so much from supply and demand as from political decisions, cartel agreements such as OPEC, and—most importantly—the absence on the market of a genuine owner who understands their own costs and prospects.
You will hardly find influential advocates for this position. Most of them demand and receive state guarantees, subsidies, and other handouts to “protect” themselves from evil oil companies. Thus, what emerges is not competition between oil and alternative sources, but competition between one price pulled out of thin air and another such artificial “ceiling” price.
And finally, the monetary monopoly. In reality, the consequences mentioned above do exist. But their causes are not conspiratorial. The cause is the natural behavior of people—and that is precisely why the author calls such a situation “worse than a conspiracy.” All people seek to improve their position relative to the present. Simply put, some—called the state—possess capabilities unavailable to others: a monopoly on violence, lawmaking, and income that depends not on work performed but on its presence or absence. The monopoly on money arose as an effort to improve the position of these people, just as the consequences of this monopoly did.
And again, if we believe in a conspiracy, to fight it we must nationalize the Fed (to the greater joy of the “elite”) or… join MMM. If we understand that everything is “much worse than a conspiracy,” then the goal becomes the elimination of the monetary monopoly itself.