They

Have you ever heard of Delmore Schwartz? Probably not. He was a poet and short story writer who lived in the early and mid twentieth century, winning many accolades, including both a Bollingen Prize for his poetry, and a Guggenheim Fellowship. That, in and of itself, isn't all that important to my remarks, but what is significant is something he said: “Even paranoids have real enemies.” It's been attributed to others as well, however Schwartz seems to have been the first to enunciate it for posterity.

But what's wrong with paranoia? It's really an extension of care and caution. Without that caution, without instinct, animals would find themselves the victims of predators, but with it the same animals can be the predators. Paranoia is simply the assumption that others are plotting – often to get you – and that you have to be on guard to make sure they don't. It can be viewed as a logical consequence of the psychiatric concept of “ideas of reference,” with the subject convinced that whatever he hears somehow relates to him. And those whose hearing is deficient are likely to be certain that others are talking about them. It's normal. Though, as Schwartz said, it often reflects a real problem.

“They,” however, have given paranoia a bad name. They've tried to convince us that it's abnormal, and that those of us who are merely careful – or even cynical – are missing a few marbles. They tell us we're crazy (whatever that means) when their real goal is to get us to lower our guard and not notice the threats that are all around us. They subscribe to the idea that “forewarned is forearmed,” and they want us defenseless.

Paranoia, however, is the rage. Complain that there is a plot against you, or a group of which you are a member, and there will be a rush of “normal” citizens supporting your cause. Thus those who protest that “Black Lives Matter” are certain to attract the attention of other paranoids who believe that there is a conspiracy of racist white police officers against defenseless blacks despite the evidence that far fewer blacks are killed by the police than others, and despite the fact that the vast majority of blacks are killed by other blacks [see the writings of Heather Mac Donald, among others, especially “The War on Cops.”]  Certainly no preventable violence is justified, whether against blacks or whites, whether by police or by civilians. But caution and reaction are both necessary tools in defending our lives and our liberties. A measure of paranoia in the effort to protect ourselves is reasonable, and nature has served us well by instilling it within all of us. As long as that paranoia is based on rational risks, not on political dogma and expediency.

Rational risks. And instinct. That's what keeps all animals, including humans, on their toes. Perhaps it's better to term it “caution” than “paranoia,” however – even though they're quite similar. Sounds better that way. We'd be far worse off without it, irrespective of the blatherings of the psychiatrists and pop-psychologists among us. And we'd be crazy to ignore its warnings.

But, perhaps, the greatest advantage of paranoia exists in a specific group, one that most of us will concede is carrying the idea too far. The group is commonly referred to as “conspiracy theorists,” and consists of those who are convinced that everything they don't like is the result of a plot by “THEM.” There is a group of (generally unnamed and unidentified) people who are withholding information from the rest of us, and who are plotting either to help themselves or to harm others. They maintain that the group they fear has organized to accomplish its goals at their expense or that of others (historically, antisemitism is a prime example of this phenomenon). And their paranoia (or political agenda) is infectious – often the basis of a mass movement. For they have an advantage over those who may take issue with their positions.

The advantage is that conspiracy theorists are always right. Ask them. It's easy for them to prove. If you agree with their position, you've confirmed it. If you disagree, you're part of the conspiracy itself. And your cover-up is further proof that their view is true. Heads they win. Tails you lose. Whether their paranoia is reasonable is open to question. It is undeniable that governments sometimes hide the truth from their citizens, but suspecting such deceit all the time, and questioning the honesty of those who disagree with you, represents a paranoia of overdeveloped dimensions.

Some paranoia is good – in fact it's necessary. But not all. Mae West notwithstanding, you can have too much of a good thing.