I've been trying out "conspiracy fantasies" instead. I'm trying to clarify when my objection is to the plausibility, or lack of evidence, rather than deny the

I've been trying out "conspiracy fantasies" instead. I'm trying to clarify when my objection is to the plausibility, or lack of evidence, rather than deny the possibility of conspiracy. The 20th century was so much the product of conspiracies that it is childish to deny their power. The Bolshevik revolution, the Nazis, and COINTELPRO were all disturbingly successful conspiracies, and involved many secret plans despite their size. When the conspiracy fantasy is personal ("they" are out to get me, and screwed me at the DMZ), "paranoid conspiracy fantasy" is traditional. Not that this solves anything. People discussing ECHELON in the 80s were called fantasists. And many react to descriptions of room 641A the same way despite the pictures. Arendt's concept of reconciliation is a helpful tool for making my own sense of other people's sense-making.