Prove a negative? I'll get right on it.
Ah yes that old chestnut - I've made a claim, but have a wonderful get out clause in that its about something I cant prove so I have no responsibility whatsoever. I can then use this get out clause to act smug around those that attempt to see "behind the curtain" so to speak and rally support from all the other supposed "thinkers".
The laughable thing is, and it is laughable, that people can make comments such as "There is no grand conspiracy" on anything really and that is practically the end of it.
No further discussion needed as though the very thought of conspiracy is almost impossible and should be immediately dismissed so we can all get back to whatever else we were doing. No attempt to even look into it or try and see if a conspiracy could indeed be taking place - but no, instant dismissal gets the job done with a "Nothing to see here people".
As an example, take the relatively recent LIBOR scandal in which a lot of international banking institutions were found to be conspiring to fix lending rates amongst themselves (with a report in the Financial Times stating that manipulation of this had been happening for at least over 20 years).
Now if say in 1998 someone suspected that this was taking place, how many people would have immediately jumped up with a "There is no grand conspiracy" response, almost as if they had been conditioned to react that way? I'm guessing quite a large number, and no doubt are the same people or types of people today who dismiss talk of conspiracies in other sectors as well - and expect that dismissal to be a satisfactory answer to someone's or some group of peoples' suspicions about the world we live in and its institutions and members.
As an exercise to the reader, take any revealed conspiracy from the past 50 years and think how you would have felt if someone had told you "there may be more to this" at the time before the big reveal came - same principles apply.
Now of course there is an argument that can be made that not everything is a conspiracy - things sometimes can just happen without anyone or a group of people acting as a guiding hand - but can you say this is definitely true in all cases ? Should not at least a cursory investigation take place to examine the merits of whether a conspiracy is taking place or not before being immediately written off ?
Or must we all take the view point that "Conspiracies never happen" except when shown years later that that is false and have been happening all along. No doubt at some point I'll be hit with the Occam's Razor notion as well - which a lot of the people mentioned in the opening of this post like to use as well - again to stifle any sort of debate.
The simplest theory - the one with the least assumptions may not always be the correct answer. Again you are dealing with humans and human systems which we know from daily experience to be overly complex - eg the banking system, the systems of government, multiple levels of bureaucracy - how can you choose a "theory" which is the most simple to explain the inner workings of complex systems - this is how conspiracies can take place - they rely on the masses to accept a simple answer without ever doing the digging to find out if this simple answer is a cover for something deeper.
It really does grind my gears in the worst way when I hear someone whether in person or in an Internet debate on message boards / forums say something like "Which is more likely ... some simple reason for an outcome, or a deep conspiracy involving multiple government departments, institutions and companies across a single city / country / continent to make that outcome happen" without ever considering that in some cases yes the complex answer is the correct one, but using the notion of "well the first one has the least assumptions it must therefore be right" every time.
If the people of this planet, regardless of where in the world they are from, would stop accepting the bull***t that is foisted upon them every day by media outlets, governments, "the great and the good" and always choosing the simple answers and explanations for outcomes and situations we could start to have a much better world for everyone.
We know that politicians are corrupt, we know that media organizations hide and distort the truth and have no problems lying to their citizens (and I am talking about media companies on all points of the compass), we know bankers are thieving parasites that have no problems feathering their own nests at the expense of people being thrown out of their homes. We know that at the end of the day certain personality types are attracted to certain positions and a greater than average number of people that run corporations and that are in positions of power show the same traits as psychopaths who have no remorse and would do whatever it takes to further their own goals - whatever they might be.
But as soon as suggestions are made that these same people use their connections and resources to collude in conspiracies that is immediately rejected ? Someone is being rather dishonest if they don't take into account the full range of human traits, and stop approaching the situation from a "well I wouldn't do that, so therefore it cant happen" position.