Conspiracy Theory, Conspiracy Fact, and Conspiracy Fiction
I shared a Facebook memory from July 12, 2015, written under my pen-name Rich Garvey Banton, and it hit me how little the argument has changed. Back then I was asking how a marijuana activist could scoff at so-called conspiracy theories while living inside one of the longest, most obvious government conspiracies in modern American life: the 90-year war on cannabis.
That is still the line for me.
If you understand cannabis prohibition, you should understand why people question official stories. You do not have to believe every theory. You do not have to swallow every rabbit hole. But you cannot look at the history of hemp, marijuana, federal narcotics propaganda, Schedule I classification, asset forfeiture, prison time, raids, ruined families, and decades of official lies, then turn around and act like conspiracies are impossible.
The U.S. government did not merely make a mistake on cannabis. It built a machine around deception, fear, punishment, and market exclusion. The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act helped turn a plant into a federal target. The 1970 Controlled Substances Act kept cannabis in Schedule I, officially treating it as having no accepted medical use while millions of Americans knew better and states slowly proved otherwise. That is not a fringe fantasy. That is institutional history.
The Word "Conspiracy" Is Not The Problem
The problem is not the word conspiracy. The problem is intellectual laziness.
People use the phrase "conspiracy theory" like a trash can. Anything uncomfortable gets thrown in there. Anything that threatens the approved story gets smeared. Anything that asks who benefits, who lied, who hid records, who controlled evidence, who shaped the media narrative, or who had motive gets treated like mental illness.
That is not thinking. That is social obedience.
And yes, the phrase has a real history. It existed before the CIA. The CIA did not invent the words. But after the JFK assassination, CIA dispatches did encourage assets and friendly contacts to answer and discredit critics of the Warren Commission. That matters. The term became a weapon, whether or not the agency coined it.
So I break conspiracies into three categories.
1. Conspiracy Theory
A conspiracy theory is not yet fact and not yet fiction. It is a theory of a conspiracy.
That means the correct response is not worship and not mockery. The correct response is evidence. Ask what is known. Ask what is inferred. Ask what is missing. Ask who benefits. Ask what documents are still sealed. Ask what witnesses changed their story. Ask what institutions have a record of lying.
A theory can be wrong. A theory can be incomplete. A theory can also be early.
That last part is what the official-story crowd hates admitting.
2. Conspiracy Fact
A conspiracy fact is a conspiracy that has been proven true, or where the factual record establishes coordinated deception, concealment, or abuse.
Cannabis prohibition is a conspiracy fact. Federal agencies, politicians, media interests, police systems, and later prison and pharmaceutical interests all helped keep cannabis criminalized and demonized long after the public story had collapsed.
Watergate was a conspiracy fact. COINTELPRO was a conspiracy fact. The FBI surveillance and harassment of Martin Luther King Jr. was a conspiracy fact. The government targeting whistleblowers and then acting shocked when people distrust the state is part of the same pattern.
Edward Snowden and Julian Assange became public enemies for exposing things the public had every moral right to know. You can argue about methods, motives, and consequences, but the underlying lesson is simple: institutions hide what embarrasses power.
3. Conspiracy Fiction
Conspiracy fiction is a claim that has been proven false, or at least collapsed under the weight of bad evidence, fake documents, failed predictions, grifters, or pure nonsense.
That category matters too. If everything is a conspiracy, then nothing is. If every screenshot is proof, every anonymous account is an insider, and every coincidence is a smoking gun, then truth dies in noise.
We need the category of conspiracy fiction because disciplined skepticism cuts both ways. It questions the government, and it questions the guy selling panic for clicks.
JFK And The Records They Still Did Not Want Us To See
JFK is the most famous presidential assassination in the world. The official story says Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Many Americans have never believed that, and the government has spent more than six decades proving why distrust was rational.
Records were withheld. Agencies protected themselves. Intelligence failures and surveillance questions were buried under redactions. Even in 2025, new or newly unredacted JFK assassination files were still being released and argued over. That alone should embarrass every person who says, "Just trust the official story."
Do I need every JFK theory to be true? No.
I need only one basic fact: a government that hides evidence for generations has forfeited the right to demand blind trust.
MLK, Charlie Kirk, And The Narrative Machine
Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination and Charlie Kirk's assassination have obvious differences. Different eras. Different politics. Different suspects. Different movements. Different legal posture.
But the similarities in the narrative machine are hard to ignore: a public political figure is murdered, the emotional story hardens fast, institutions tell people to stop asking certain questions, and anyone who notices gaps gets pushed toward the "conspiracy theorist" box.
With MLK, the public record is already complicated. James Earl Ray pleaded guilty and later recanted. The King family did not accept the lone-assassin story. In 1999, a Memphis civil jury found Loyd Jowers and unknown co-conspirators liable in a conspiracy to kill King, while the Department of Justice later disputed that conclusion. That is exactly why serious people should be allowed to discuss the evidence without being mocked into silence.
With Charlie Kirk, the case is still active. Tyler Robinson is accused of killing him at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, and prosecutors have presented messages, video evidence, and other material in court while the defense challenges parts of the case. I am not pretending to know everything. I am saying the public has the right to question timelines, security failures, institutional incentives, and media narratives while the case unfolds.
Why I Am With Candace Owens On Asking Questions
That is why I am with Candace Owens on questioning the narrative.
I am not saying she is right about everything. I am not signing my name to every claim, every implication, or every conclusion. I am saying she has made real points, some of which were dismissed too quickly and later looked a lot less crazy than the media wanted people to believe.
I applaud her for asking questions. I applaud her for refusing to let social pressure become a muzzle. And I applaud her for doing what I believe Charlie Kirk himself would have wanted: keep debating, keep challenging, keep pushing the public record, and do not let institutions convert grief into obedience.
That is not disrespect. That is the opposite. If a man spent his life in public argument, then the tribute is not silence. The tribute is more argument, sharper questions, and a refusal to let anyone turn his death into a closed file before the public has seen enough.
The 2015 Flashback
Here is the core of what I wrote on July 12, 2015:
Show me a marijuana activist who does not believe in conspiracies. I will show you either a cop, a fraud, or an ignoramus.
For 80 years the government has had a conspiracy going against consumers, growers, and distributors of hemp and cannabis. Yet every once in a while, I find someone who calls themselves a cannabis activist but balks when you say there are conspiracies against the people.
What about the conspiracy facts that were just theories before they became facts?
I like ideas. I like hearing other people's ideas. I ran a radio station for years and invited people to come on my show and share their ideas.
I do not have anything to hide. Examine me, I do not care. That does not mean I will stop talking about what they are doing.
That was eleven years ago. I would say it cleaner now, but I would not retreat from the point.
Question Everything, Including Yourself
My position is simple: question everything, including yourself.
Question the government. Question the media. Question activists. Question influencers. Question agencies. Question billionaires. Question anonymous accounts. Question me. Question Candace. Question the court record. Question the redactions. Question the motives. Question the money.
But do not let people shame you out of asking.
America's last century is full of conspiracy facts that began as forbidden questions. Cannabis activists should know that better than almost anyone. We lived inside a conspiracy of law, propaganda, enforcement, and economic protectionism for generations.
So no, I do not trust people who automatically balk at the thought of conspiracies.
I trust people who can separate theory from fact, and fact from fiction.
That is the Disruptarian line.
Sources and Further Reading
- AP: Charlie Kirk killing preliminary hearing evidence
- AP: FBI found 2,400 new JFK assassination records
- AP: Release of federal documents related to MLK's assassination
- National Archives: JFK Assassination Records
- DOJ: Investigation of Recent Allegations Regarding the Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
- DEA: Drug Scheduling
- Congress.gov: Controlled Substances Act of 1970
Related Reading
Similar posts
2026-07-10 · Commentary
Tyler Robinson Is the New Lee Harvey Oswald: Why Candace Owens Is Right to Keep Asking Questions
A Disruptarian response to the evidence questions around Tyler Robinson, Charlie Kirk, Erika Kirk, TPUSA, and why Candace Owens is right to keep asking.
2026-07-09 · Commentary
Tyler Robinson Hearing Day Two: Why Candace Owens Was Right to Ask Questions
Day two of the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing did not prove a conspiracy or clear Robinson. It did show why citizens and independent media were right to keep asking questions.
2026-07-29 · Culture