Why Are Unsubstantiated Conspiracy Theories Dangerous?

Based on decades of experience working in the Intelligence Community and technical environments where accuracy is critical to avoiding loss of life and large amounts of money, I've written extensively about numerous conspiracy theories. When I evaluate the veracity of a given theory, my focus is always on assessing the evidence by systematically confirming each major component of the theory with multiple independent, nonpartisan, primary sources. (This is in contrast to secondary sources, hearsay and subjective opinions.) This is the most reliable approach to establishing truth in a world that is increasingly saturated with untruths, partisan propaganda and blatant lies.

In contrast, many conspiracy theories like the Plandemic docudrama and the Trump Takes Over the Fed theory illustrate a creative narrative process that ignores the most basic scientific and forensic analytical techniques. The result of these conspiracy theories is not truth; it's a sloppy and dangerous mush of mental drooling that can have very dangerous consequences for humanity.

There are already good summaries on the Web about why the Plandemic docudrama is an unhinged, kaleidoscopic hodgepodge of unscientific gibberish. So here I'll focus on the Trump Takes Over the Fed conspiracy theory. Like the Plandemic docudrama, this is another conspiracy theory that might feel good to believe for people who distrust the Fed (including me), but it's not supported by any actual evidence. Moreover, much of what Mr. Tellinger presents as evidence is simply wrong and logically bankrupt. For example:

• Tsar Nicholas and Archduke Ferdinand were not murdered by the Rothschilds. They were murdered by peasant revolutionaries that hated the Rothschilds and certainly would not have been Rothschild mercenaries. That history is well-documented by many books that cover the revolutionary period in Russia between the late 19th Century to 1917 and Central European history during the same time period.
• Larry Fink has no meaningful incentive to turn the Fed into Trump's playground. As one of the most famous financial engineers in modern history, Fink is an internationalist (in the technical sense) whose allegiance is to capital, which has no national borders.
• The senior executives and largest shareholders of the private banks that own shares in the Fed think Trump is incompetent (based on many conversations I've had with senior bankers) and they stand to lose a lot of money if Trump literally took over the Fed. U.S. presidents often do influence and compromise the institutional independence of the Fed, but many bank executives and shareholders (especially those that are politically opposed to Trump) would be writing op-eds and screaming in the media if Mr. Tellinger's theory was true.
• The 12 regional Fed presidents all take their jobs seriously as independent stewards of the nation's monetary and banking systems. Regardless of how broken we believe these systems are (and they're definitely broken, which is why I wrote the book on Broken Capitalism), if the Trump Takes Over the Fed conspiracy theory was true, the power of all the 12 regional Fed presidents would be completely nullified. Thus, they would would be screaming, too. Those who think the Fed is a monolithic entity that Trump can wantonly "take over" should read How Does the Fed Really Work?

Then there's the man himself, Michael Tellinger, who has no meaningful business, banking, science or economics experience. Thus, he has no substantial education in logic and systematic analysis, which is why his analysis and conclusions are . . . sloppy. (I'm being generous.) Despite his claims that he is a scientist, his work bears little resemblance to the rigorous scientific reports and analysis of a real scientist. To the contrary, he's a politician, musician, self-taught "explorer" and creative author, based on his Wikipedia page.

Mr. Tellinger's only real-world experience with the banking system is being a defendant in a lawsuit against Standard Bank of South Africa for defaulting on his debts. He literally tried to claim that he should be able to print money "out of thin air" like banks do; and thus, he gave the banks a piece of paper that stated "Negotiable Instrument" and tried to pass it off as a debt repayment. (This act was based on several of his unsubstantiated and nonviable theories about the monetary and banking systems.) Needless to say, the judge wasn't amused and he lost the lawsuit.

At Gini, we are not fans of fiat currencies, which is why we published the Fiat Currency Graveyard: A History of Monetary Folly and many other articles and books that are critical of the monopolistic banks, the fiat banking system and the politicians and bankers who control it. It's also why we maintain one of the most extensive book lists about the evils of our banking and political systems that you will find anywhere on Earth. However, our disgust with the economic and political systems that dominate our lives today does not mean we automatically believe every conspiracy theory without doing our own due diligence. In fact, many of the articles and books published by Gini are the result of our rigorous due diligence process.

There's nothing wrong with presenting theories and hypotheses to try to make sense of complex problems and events, but creative narratives and cherry-picked, out-of-context historical events are not evidence. Presenting theories as facts without evidence undermines the integrity of societies and empowers politicians and giant companies like Google to implement ever-more draconian systems of censorship to prevent crazies from destabilizing our world. It's a vicious cycle, which is amplified by people like Tellinger and anybody peddling unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.