Editorial notes: This Essay was found as a ‘draft’ entry in Everything2. It was last updated on 17/04/2013.
Here’s an idea: What if a conspiracy does not need its members to be knowing participants?
What next? We could go ahead and define a type of conspiracies as being those entities whose members are unknowing participants (MaUPs) – and these we can call m-conspiracies – but that is obviously a disappointing achievement. Aside from the property of including MaUPs, m-conspiracies should include the other properties of conspiracies. The cabal, which is to name the members of a conspiracy, are those individuals that work towards a conspiracy’s goals. When people speak of a conspiracy, they tend to mean the end result of a conspiracy, whether it be a war, an economic or political move, or even a manipulation of the mundane world.
What is the difference between a conspiracy and a loose collection of individuals who unknowingly share a common goal?
