The World According to... Boring John

I know many people -- I call them cynical people, believe-nothing types -- who quite gladly refute any and every conspiracy theory that is out there.

Now, obviously, not all conspiracy theories are believable or true.

But do the cynics really believe that all conspiracy theories are fake?

If a person -- let's make that person a woman for argument's sake and let's imagine she might have married a famous, aging rock star -- can be labelled as scheming and manipulative, i.e. conspiring, then surely it is not above the wit of woman to consider that more than one person could get together in the history of humanity to conspire also.

Are we not all self-centred, scheming ba****ds, after all?

But, let's go back to the cynics viewpoint.

Let's assume that there's no such thing as a conspiracy theory.

Well, why does the expression exist then? Why have a word, or expression, for something that never occurs. Is that how words and expressions normally get introduced into the English language? Admittedly, chavs may stop existing at some point in the future, but then I contend that the word chav will stop existing at the same time.

No, not all conspiracy theories are fake.

And once you accept that, then you can consider "well, maybe, there's something to it" for each individual case(*).

And usually, so it goes, you have to ask yourself who benefits from what just happened?

So, to summarise my mathematical proof that not all conspiracy theories are fake (!). If...

• If women can get 'accidentally pregnant'
• If men hardly ever get convicted of rape
• If UK Big Brother can (allegedly) rig the voting system in 2006
• If some non-Republican voters are magically not included on the electoral roll, in the 2000 US Presidential elections

Does this just happen by chance, or has someone, or some group conspired, to make it so

Ask yourself who benefits, why don't ya!, and for God's sake start to believe in something other than the words of The People In Charge!

I thank you.

* And I thank Mr Socrates for explaining that line of argument to me, once (although not personally)