Responsible Conspiracy Theorizing

Responsible Conspiracy Theorizing is an intellectual framework developed by Eric Weinstein for critically examining conspiracies without succumbing to unwarranted speculation or dismissal. It emphasizes evidence-based inquiry, historical context, and an acknowledgment of uncertainty while rigorously challenging mainstream narratives and societal taboos surrounding conspiracy theories.

Quotes

Who are these people who know all this stuff? Why am I out of this club? Everybody knows stuff about what's happening in November. I mean, the last time I was on the program I said, "It's a million years [until November]. Donald Trump was almost killed by an AR 15. Joe Biden has been suffering with some level of dementia that's been progressing through his entire term in office." Well, when was the last time you saw MSNBC with five geriatric neurologists watching his gait, his speech and telling you their professional opinions from publicly available data? You're in the magic show, baby. And the funny part about it is, the reason I don't want to hybridize with anyone else is that Responsible Conspiracy Theorizing is very much an adult activity. Responsible Conspiracy Theorizing is not based on saying, "well, I've got the certainty over here and I've lost it because I know I'm being lied to. So I can tell you exactly what is going on. It's the lizard people." Responsible Conspiracy Theorizing says, "I know that the story makes sense, and I know that I don't know how to correct it."

- Eric Weinstein on Chris Williamson #833 on Sept 2, 2024

Given that conspiracies exist in the world, why is it that we don't have people who are Responsible Conspiracy Theorists? My claim is that people tend to be pushed, once they start considering whether something is really wrong, to give their version of events. And my belief is that I don't have to explain—I don't owe you an explanation of what Jeffrey Epstein was. I can tell you what he almost certainly was not. He portrayed himself as a Currency Trader, with an extensive operation run out of I think Villard House in Manhattan. I do not believe that anyone has given a coherent picture of his trading prowess, who his counterparties were, where he did prime brokerage. I have heard no discussion of records recovered from Villard house. I don't believe Leave that it is likely that his fortune came from trading as he was portraying. I don't believe that he was particularly interested in either trading or deeply in science, although he's very interested in collecting scientists, for his for his intellectual life or social life or some purpose, it's not clear.

- Eric Weinstein on The Jolly Swagman #78 on January 30, 2020

I believe that if you would review the video—where is it from, Dubai or Abu Dhabi?—of the mysterious hit on the hotel guest—you ever seen this thing?—No. Oh, it's the assassination in 2010, 10 years ago, of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, something like that, in Dubai, where I believe 26 separate individuals on multiple teams are shown converging, coming in from all over the world on false passports, pretending to be tennis players or, you know, business people or vacationers. And all of these teams have different functions. And they murder this guy in his hotel room. And the Dubai guest chief of police security officer was so angered that he put together this amazing video that says, "We can completely detail what you did. We caught you on closed circuit TV. We don't know exactly who you are, because of your disguises and your false passports. But yeah, 26 people converged to kill one." No, I don't believe you. I don't believe, after CoIntelPro, and Operation Paperclip, and Operation Mockingbird—I don't know whether I should even bring up Rex 84—to not believe in conspiracies is an idiocy.

First of all, when evil wants to operate at scale, it needs to make sure that people don't try to figure out evil. When evil operates at scale, from first principles, you have to realize that evil must not want it[self] investigated. The most efficient way to keep yourself from being investigated, if you are an evil institutional player who needs to do this repeatedly, is to invest in a world in which no one can afford to say the word "conspiracy". You will notice that there is a special radioactivity around the word "conspiracy". We have provable conspiracies, we have admitted to conspiracies, you have been invited to conspiracies. There is no shortage conspiracies are everywhere. Some of them are mundane. Some of them are like price fixing cartels, you know, or trade groups are, generally speaking, conspiracies. So the first thing you have to realize is that all of us are in a memetic complex where you can be taken off the chessboard by saying "conspiracy theory". Get done. It's like a one line proof: "We don't have to listen to Lex. He said he was a conspiracy theorist on this show." Okay. That is partially distorting our conversation. If you want to ask me about Jeffrey Epstein, you have to agree with me that that is a logical description of what you would have to have if you wanted to commit conspiracies, is that you have to make sure that people are dissuaded from investigating....

My point there is Responsible Conspiracy Theorizing, where you look at the history of unearthed conspiracies, and just like you would with any other topic, just think about how different the rules in your mind are for conspiracy theorizing versus x theorizing where x can be anything. Right? It's like if I say to you— I can say the statement that "average weight is not the same between widely separated populations". You'd say, "Yeah", I'd say "average height is not the same between widely separated populations". You'd say "yeah", and I say, "in fact, no continuous variable that shows variation should be expected to be identical between widely separate—", "Of course, Eric", "Like IQ." "Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on." Right? So we have a violent reaction to specific topics. So the first thing I want to do is just to notice that "conspiracy" has that built into everyone's mind.

I just watched the film 1971 about my favorite conspiracy of all time, I highly recommend it. The film is titled "1971", and it's about the Citizens Committee to Investigate the FBI, which was run by a student of Murray Gell Mann, a physicist, and broke into FBI offices in Pennsylvania to steal files, which allowed Freedom of Information requests that discovered a huge conspiracy. It was a conspiracy that unearthed a conspiracy inside the federal government, a double conspiracy story, which launched multiple conspiracies. I think that the problem with modern Americans is that they are so timid, that they don't even learn about the history of conspiracies that we have absolutely proven. So with that done, Jeff Epstein, in my opinion, represented somebody's construction.

- Eric Weinstein on Lex Fridman #134 on Oct 29, 2020

Now I want to say, first of all, that I have absolutely no special inside knowledge of the situation. I know people who knew him and I met him once, but it is not like I have any particular line on information from any particularly interesting source about the situation. Furthermore, I don’t think that I’m going to be using any special kind of analysis that is known only to me, but I did want to talk to people about Responsible Conspiracy Theorizing. That is, in the minds of many, people believe that conspiracy theorists are people like Alex Jones, people who are spouting all sorts of crazy ideas-some of which might have some grain of truth in them, but in general it feels like an exercise in talking to the tin foil hat crowd. Now, I don’t know much about Alex Jones; perhaps he’s better than I think he is, but what I want to talk about is a different kind of conspiracy theorizing. So, without further ado, welcome to this episode of The Portal on the subject of Jeffrey Epstein.

- Eric Weinstein on The Portal #25 on March 7, 2020

Related Concepts

• Anti-Interesting
• The Invisible World is First Detected by the Visible World's Failure to Close