Conspiracies exist. But they are not secret meetings in dark rooms.
They are systems of coordinated power operating in plain sight.
States pursue power. Corporations shape regulation. Finance influences policy. Big tech lobbies governments. Trade rules protect capital. Electoral systems entrench incumbents.
This is not fantasy. It is political economy.
In this video, I explain the difference between conspiracy theories and structural conspiracies: the coordination of wealth and power against ordinary people.
I look at regulatory capture, media concentration, first-past-the-post, tax havens, lobbying, and the idea of managed consent.
And I note the real danger is not paranoia. It is passivity. Democracy only survives if it is defended.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Do conspiracies exist?
Yes, of course they do, but not in the way that most people think.
The real conspiracies in this world are not about secret meetings in dark rooms. Those are the subject of conspiracy theories. Conspiracies are instead systems of power operating in plain sight, and they are what matters because the real question is not whether conspiracies exist, but who is organising power against ordinary people?
So let's just be clear. What is a conspiracy? A conspiracy is simple. It happens when people coordinate privately to pursue an agenda that benefits them and harms others.
States do this.
Corporations do this.
Political parties do this. The idea that powerful actors cooperate to protect their own interests is not a fantasy; it is how power works.
Adam Smith talked about this in The Wealth of Nations in 1776, saying that merchants conspired against people. This is part of our history, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about it.
And let's be clear, states pursue power.
Russia engages in cyber warfare and disinformation.
China is pursuing strategic economic expansion and influence.
The United States is using sanctions, tariffs, trade leverage, intelligence alliances, and military pressure to shape global outcomes.
These aren't myths; these are part of geopolitical strategy on the part of these states, and every major state does in some way advance their own interests by using methods of this sort. The ones I've just named aren't the only ones playing the games I mentioned. The idea that they are would just be naive. Look around you, and you'll see plenty of other states engaged in these games.
But this is not new. Throughout history, power has coordinated itself.
Monarchies did it.
Empires did it.
Church hierarchies most definitely did it.
Colonial administrations were built on the basis of such conspiracies.
Men with weapons and wealth have always organised to preserve dominance.
Democracy emerged as a movement of resistance to that coordination. It became the demand that power be accountable, but democracy itself is fragile. And let's be clear, democracy isn't only fragile in the face of the onslaught from the powerful within states at present. It's also fragile in the face of the challenge from business because it now conspires as well.
Big tech lobbies governments.
Finance influences regulation.
Energy companies seek to shape climate policy.
Trade agreements protect capital, but try to limit labour rights.
None of this is secret. It is about regulatory capture. It is policy design that favours concentrated wealth, and it happens every day.
The issue is that the UK has a particular problem managing this. That's because we only have a pretence of democracy. In the UK, millions of voters live in constituencies where their vote has never altered the result.
First-past-the-post entrenches two-party dominance.
Funding structures favour incumbents.
Media ownership concentrates narrative control in the UK, and corporate influence and funding heavily weigh electoral outcomes, but we still call this democracy.
But representation without choice is not real democracy at all; it is managed consent. And this system of democracy is itself a conspiracy against the people of the UK.
And there is another layer to consider within this concept of managed consent. The Roman poet Juvenal described the phenomenon of 'bread and circuses'. People were kept fed, they were entertained, and as a result, they were expected not to challenge power. Today, we have consumerism and algorithmic distraction instead of bread and circuses, but the point is, the outcomes are very similar. Streaming platforms and endless social media feeds, coupled with advertising that manufactures desire and entertainment that is far from neutral because it stabilises the idea of what is normal within our society, is all used to distract attention from the reality that power is challenging our well-being.
So ask a simple question. Who benefits from all this?
Wealth has flowed upwards for decades.
Asset owners prosper.
Tech monopolies dominate, and financial markets dictate policy constraints.
Meanwhile, public services are clearly being weakened.
Inequality is deepening and, rapidly, according to all reports, whilst precarity spreads. Literally, people are living with day-to-day vulnerability, and if this were accidental, it would've corrected itself, but it hasn't. This was no accident of outcome; this was designed.
So, should we believe in conspiracies?
Yes, in the sense that power coordinates to undermine our well-being. Clearly, we should believe in conspiracies of that sort.
But no, we should not believe in conspiracies in the sense of shadowy cabals, controlling everything invisibly. I don't think they exist. I think we should deal with the reality and not make up the fake conspiracy that is actually not there.
The real conspiracy is structural and works in plain sight. It is embedded in lobbying systems, campaign finance, trade law, tax havens, media concentration and electoral design. It's not hidden. It is normalised. Look at it for what it is.
So why don't we see it? There are three reasons why.
First, enough people are comfortable; bread and circuses still work.
Second, we're told we live in a democracy, so we assume accountability exists. It doesn't, but nonetheless, people believe it or at least want to.
And third, people are distracted, and when people are tired, indebted, and busy, just in the process of survival, they do not organise resistance. That is by deliberate policy. This is by structural design.
So what can we do? First of all, democracy is not enough, at least in the current form. Representation alone is also insufficient, although we do actually need it when we haven't got it already. But what we also need alongside electoral reform to deliver a real democracy is justice;
- legal justice,
- tax justice,
- trade justice,
- social justice,
- economic justice.
Without justice, democracy becomes theatre, and theatre does not restrain concentrated power.
What is the threat? The real threat is not that conspiracies exist; the real threat is that we accept them as inevitable.
Then we normalise upward wealth extraction.
Then we tolerate weakened public institutions.
Then we surrender accountability, and power survives through that passivity. It collapses under scrutiny, and that's why scrutiny is so important.
We can demand electoral reform.
We can demand transparency in lobbying.
We can push for corporate accountability, just as we can challenge tax havens.
We can challenge media concentration, which is so pernicious in the UK, and we can support independent journalism. This channel is a part of that, but there are many others. Give them your support rather than buying a newspaper.
We can push for progressive taxation.
We can refuse to be passive consumers of distraction.
And these are not revolutionary acts; they are simply democratic acts to stand up and say, we count, and our vote is against the power that is seeking to control us.
Most of all, keep your mind open to what is happening.
So yes, there are conspiracies against ordinary people. But they're not mysterious, and they're not supernatural. They are organised power protecting itself.
And the alternative is not paranoia, it is vigilance. Democracy only works if people defend it. If we want a better world, we must first recognise how power is structured against us, and then we must organise against that power that is seeking to abuse us. That is the basic rule on which we now have to live. Power has to be reclaimed by those who have a right to it, which is you, me, and everybody else watching this video.
What do you think? There's a poll down below.
Poll
Loading ...
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Thank you all for areally relevant article!
Might it be that the state education set up which, by not including, let alone making prominent, the awareness and necessary attitudes and skills for analytical and lateral questioning of powerful, too often greedy organisations, could be another factor in the passivity and distractabilty of so many regular citizens and their children?
P. S,” Privately educated individuals are significantly over represented in top UK jobs, despite making up only 7% of the general population.” (AI Overview article given below)
https://www.google.com/search?q=proportion+of+top+jobs+held+by+privately+educated+people&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCjU4MTM1ajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBdXwyBd0n2Xe8QXV8MgX
Might it be that some 97% of students/future citizens are indirectly and consistently taught to be passive concerning power and so made gullible?
Re the last, yes, of course.
My personal view on this over the year’s is as follows:
I think that the wealth has always sought to acquire more sometimes blindly with out thinking about the consequences (and after all, there never has been any formal ‘resource accounting’ to show them the effects of their short-sighted-ness – one of the best ideas you’ve ever brought to my attention) and also because some of them are suffering from pleonexia and are incapable of caring.
There is also the gambling part of wealth acquisition and power. If you know how a slot machine works, you will keep playing the slot machine to get the payout, you could say that in working it out you have also become addicted to it. To me, the way markets work is just like that slot machine – you know that you can just go in there with enough money and buy other people’s hard work and then it is yours to strip and do what you want with. Easy money – if you have enough money and if not, just place the debt on what you have bought as they do with football teams? It’s an incentive to do the wrong thing we have failed to deal with.
There is also a third factor in all this now. I think that global warming, population movement, failure to stop war etc has caused huge ructions and real fear in all levels of society – even the very top. No one knows what to do. Neo-liberalism has made us catatonic – there are apparently no ‘new ideas’. So wealth in my opinion is just grabbing everything it can for doomsday in the hope that it will be saved by a big wad of cash.
In all these three cases, wealth has always tried to work underhand with politics to get their way over the rest of us. But latterly what troubles me is that wealth knows that politics has effectively come to a standstill and is no use to anyone – even itself, so it decided to take it over – which it has. And BTW, there is no self reflection or accountability to be considered by wealth at all as to how pleasing them got us here.
That to me is the conspiracy I think you speak of.
We are in agreement.
Bread and circuses I like that phrases it’s very apt. I do think the media does have us under control. I am wondering how to put this video into action and I can’t think of anything to do I’m already subscribed to you but what else can we do? Can we get a list going, what three things can I do today to start. I’m fresh out of ideas ? I’ve tried writing to Mp (he’s a Tory) signing any petition going to the government and tried joining the Green party. I feel like more can be done but as I say fresh out of ideas.
If you want three practical things you can do today, I’d suggest these.
1. Change one conversation.
Pick one person you know, with a friend, colleague, or member of your family, and talk about one issue clearly and calmly. For example, explain how social security is something most of us rely on over a lifetime, not a handout for “others”. These myths persist because they are repeated privately. They are undone the same way. I will do a blog post about this for tomorrow.
2. Share one clear piece of information.
Not a rant, not twenty links. One short post, article or video with a sentence explaining why it matters to you. Repetition changes narratives. This is how we counter the media framing you’re worried about.
3. Join something local.
A tenants’ group, a credit union, a climate group, a food co-op, a union branch, a school governors, a political party. Make it anywhere where decisions are actually made. Real change grows from organised people and not just national politics.
None of this feels dramatic. But democracy is built from small acts of persistence. Bread and circuses work only if people feel powerless. The antidote is connection, information and organisation repeated patiently.
Oddly, Jacqueline and I spent ages discussing these issues this morning.
Good luck.
That’s great thankyou, I like this sort of thing if you could do more of 3 practical steps type of thing, it helps to have some ideas when you don’t know how to help.
Thanks
This is also relevant:
https://www.politico.eu/article/maga-friendly-european-think-tanks-donald-trump-funding/
Wealthy American facists and their anti-think tanks are feeding money to Euro orgs that want to mimic the facism unfolding in the USA.
This is UStRump attempting to undermine EU governments. The orgs taking money are mostly pro-Putin (MCC a Hungarian rabble being typical).
They are traitors and threats to European society and should be treated as such (& that includes the Deform hooligans).
I know the poll invites us to select the biggest conspiracy, but I’d really like an ‘all of the above’ box, because it seems to me they’re inseparable, and mutually reinforcing.
Accepted
With regard to church and colonialism, mentioned above, an article today from that well known religious news site The Canary…(Ha!)
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/news/2026/02/13/quakers-bring-reparations-conversation-into-parliament-amid-growing-debate/
The article mentions Rev Wale Hudson-Roberts of the Baptist Union, I trained with him in the nineties. A good man!
The moral resistance to established colonial narratives is thriving, in the very places where racism & colonialism were almost an article of faith.
Steve Bannon travels the world coordinating far right activity, and has told everyone what he’s doing and why. He’s been pretty successful, especially as very few except the far right and lefties paid attention, and the lefties were derided in the MSM.
I am concerned about issues raised in Parliament on February 10, 2026, by Members of Parliament (MPs) from all parties, about significant concerns regarding national security related to contracts awarded to Palantir.
These discussions focused on the implications of Palantir’s involvement in UK military defence and the handling of NHS confidential patient data.
The key issues were highlighted:
Contract award process was not open and transparent, particularly a recent £240 million contract with the Ministry of Defence, and a £330 million contract for an NHS data platform.
Switzerland has refused to use Plantir due to concerns over potential leaks and the company’s ties to U.S. intelligence agencies, which could compromise National security.
Former Government Ministry of Defence officials now work for Plantir, relating to data analytics and strategic decision-making. Notably, Barnaby Kistruck, a former director of policy.
Concerns were raised about Peter Theil’s influence, a co-founder of Plantir, and his political connections, including major financial support to Donald Trump and JD Vance; who advocate the military occupation of Greenland.
Peter Thiel’s has openly expressed his controversial views on NHS and the UK Health care system, which creates concerns about Plantir’s role in managing sensitive patients’ data.
Keir Starmer’s visit, with Peter Mandelson, to Plantir Headquarters in New York also raises questions about ethics, and scrutiny on Plantir’s operational management on UK health sensitive data.
The discussions in Parliament reflect a concern about the lack of transparency in UK Government’s contracts, and concerns about the interconnection between private interests, national military security, and public health data management in the UK; including the influence Peter Thiel has over politicians and Government(s) policy.