Full disclosure: I was one of the lefties speculating that the alleged assassination attempt may have been staged. Whether by the campaign team of the alleged target, or by someone else who wants him to win, or who has other motivations for ramping up political polarisation in the US.

Do I believe this is what happened? No. I'm just not ruling out the possibility. Unlike the NY Times, who dismiss the mere "suggestion" under the headline "left-wing misinformation".

(3/?)

History records a plethora of political conspiracies. The ones we know about because the conspirators and their plot were exposed. In European history these date back at least to the stabbing of Julius Caeser in the Roman Senate. Arguably further, to the politically-motivated prosecution of Socrates in ancient Athens.

More recent European examples include the Reichstag fire (although historians differ on who was responsible), and Cambridge Analytica's role in the UK's EU referendum.

(4/?)

US examples include the Wall Street Putsch in 1933, the 1970s Watergate scandal (the origin of "gate" as a standard suffix for political scandals), and a series of plots to overthrow popular leftist leaders in Latin America, including Castro in Cuba, Árbenz in Guatamala, and Allende in Chile. More recently, Reagan's Iran-Contra affair, and Dubya Bush's post-911 "Weapons of Mass Destruction", now widely accepted as a neo-con conspiracy to justify the unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

(5/?)

Of course, that's not to say that conspiracy theories are true. They are, at best, speculation. If a conspiracy is proven - like the examples above - it ceases to be a theory. So conspiracy theories are, by definition, unproven.

When based on careful consideration of evidence, and modified as new evidence comes to light, a conspiracy theory can be worth considering. But never just believing.

(6/?)

Sadly, the conspiracy theories that get the most clicks are usually the most outlandish, or even paranoid. But as Kurt Cobain pointed out in Territorial Pissings;

"Just because you're paranoid
Don't mean they're not after you"

It's a fact that people conspire. Especially when they join forces to defend power and privilege. Accusing investigative journalists or pro-democracy activists of spreading "conspiracy theory" is a standard defensive tactic, eg;

global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202…

(7/?)

As the NYT surely know, an accusation of spreading mis/disinformation or "conspiracy theory" is itself a conspiracy theory. Like any other, they need to be taken with a grain of salt, but not dismissed out of hand. Unless they clash with well-established facts.

I mean *facts*. Not common opinions, party lines, or short-term news media consensus (again, see Dubya's "Weapons of Mass Destruction"). I mean claims that can be independently verified by anyone willing to take the time.

(8/8)