In what sense is this conspiratorial?

The reason people do not accept a conspiracy is that human beings do not work that way. What reason is there to assume that a complex mode of governance is somehow beyond God? Especially when the divine “interest” in concealment is clear — that there be room for a test.
If I do not see a deviation from nature, why can I not assume that what happens is decreed by the Creator in that particular case being sampled? Of course, then we return to the idea that the Creator hides Himself every time we check, in a cat-and-mouse game… but the point of Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto’s mazal approach is that the typical and ordinary narrative of life according to the laws of nature as they are is not random/chance — that is, it is not that God does not exercise providence there and simply left behind purposeless laws — but rather that it is openly known in advance what will happen to a person in every situation, and that itself is part of the divine plan for that person. In that situation, choice is limited, or else it is “released,” and then a person has the possibility of deviating from the narrative — in situations of free choice — but still within normal conduct and under the laws of nature. This time, of course, it will be up to him.

As stated, neither this approach nor the other is necessary; I just wanted to suggest another possibility that is not impossible.

It is conspiratorial in the sense that it proposes things that nobody sees as driving what we do see. I also suggested the demons theory — is that a conspiracy in your eyes?
We see with our own eyes nature operating consistently and without deviations, as far as we can tell. You are offering theories like the demons one. The fact that Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto gives it a name and builds a theory that has no basis other than trying to reconcile his thesis with reality does not change the situation.

I understand, thank you Rabbi

There is another option.
Your definition of reward and punishment is distorted and does not match reward and punishment in nature.

Hello Rabbi, following our conversation… I am coming back to you after someone discussed your approach with me. I thought to present the argument, because I also did not know what to answer.

The following passage is from Ezekiel chapter 18:

“What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? As I live, says the Lord God, this proverb shall no longer be used by you in Israel… The soul that sins, it shall die… And if a man is righteous and does justice and righteousness; has not eaten upon the mountains, has not lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, has not defiled his neighbor’s wife, and has not approached a menstruant woman… walks in My statutes and keeps My ordinances to deal truly — he is righteous, he shall surely live, says the Lord God… But he fathers a violent son, who sheds blood and does any one of these things… and behold, he fathers a son who sees all his father’s sins that he has done, and sees and does not do likewise… he shall not die for his father’s iniquity; he shall surely live… Yet you say: Why should not the son bear the iniquity of the father? But the son has done justice and righteousness, has kept all My statutes and done them; he shall surely live…”

It is crystal clear from the verse that God tells the prophet about the saying that had become common among the people — that we see there is no providence of reward and punishment in this world, at least regarding life and death — and God says to them, “What do you mean by this proverb,” and really condemns the statement, saying that the wicked will die and the righteous will live in this world.
How can we claim otherwise than what the verse says, especially when the whole point of it is to condemn the idea of “abandoned governance,” of God forsaking His world? And if you want to claim that this refers to life and death in the spiritual sense, then why does it later say, “For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dies, says the Lord God; therefore repent and live,” and also, “Do I at all desire the death of the wicked, says the Lord God? Is it not rather that he should turn from his ways and live?” — whose meaning is clear: God wants him to repent, and if he does not return, then his sentence will be death. So it is obvious from this verse that the wicked person will be killed, and it is impossible to take the words out of their plain meaning. And if we want to take them out of their plain meaning, then we can do that with every verse, and then no prophecy or verse has any value, so why were they given and said at all? He could have just brought a summary of the commandments and that would have been enough. And why, moreover, prophesy to different prophets in every generation?

Thank you very much
Happy holiday
Or

P.S.:
“And it shall come to pass at that time, that I will search Jerusalem with lamps, and I will punish the men who are settled on their lees, who say in their heart, ‘The Lord will not do good, nor will He do evil.’ And their wealth shall become plunder, and their houses a desolation; they shall build houses, but not inhabit them, and plant vineyards, but not drink their wine. The great day of the Lord is near; it is near and hastens greatly; the sound of the day of the Lord is bitter; there the mighty man cries aloud. That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of devastation and desolation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness, a day of trumpet and alarm against the fortified cities and against the high battlements. And I will bring distress upon men, and they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the Lord; and their blood shall be poured out like dust, and their flesh like dung. Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them on the day of the Lord’s wrath; and by the fire of His jealousy the whole land shall be consumed, for He will make a full, indeed sudden, end of all the inhabitants of the land.”

The entire Hebrew Bible is full of the idea of meticulous providence in this world during periods of manifest divine presence, and you come with fine points in Ezekiel? I saw on the news that Muhammad Abu Antazi was director of the Egyptian division for ship movement in the Suez Canal, and from this it should, in my humble opinion, be inferred that there exists a country called Egypt, for otherwise what is the meaning of “the Egyptian organization”? Even though this can be rejected, it still seems to me that this is the plain meaning.

I did not understand the question. Does the section “And it shall come to pass, if you surely listen” not say this too? I have explained this in dozens of places. I suggested a thesis of a change in God’s policy. But that is only a suggestion, of course. First and foremost, what brings me to it is observation of the world and common sense. The explanations of the verses come afterward.

I am relying on exactly that assumption of common sense when I interpret the verses. So precisely for that reason this seems so difficult. The plain meaning of the verse points to the exact opposite of the conception you are presenting.
Why would God condemn them specifically for taking the world as they saw it? After all, He is condemning precisely this matter of what they saw — “the fathers have eaten sour grapes…” And did the divine perspective and what He is strict about also change? Or do you want to claim that not everything the prophet says is true? (Which is already a different topic, about the authority of the prophets.)
I emphasize: he is not condemning them for transgressions, but for their very worldview, which sees the world such that the rich man’s son will be rich and the poor man’s son poor, not according to the reward and punishment of each individual.
What I am saying is that the change you could claim is not a change in policy but a change in divine ethics: not how He actively governs the world, but what He marks for condemnation or praise.
I hope my struggle is clear.

P.S. — according to your view, then, is there no truth to the rabbinic assumption that prophecy was given for future generations?

Because they did not see it that way. In their time the world operated differently.

Thank you Rabbi for the quick response.
Because of my limited understanding, I will ask: in your opinion, in their time the world did not operate in a way in which providence was not visible (“they did not see it that way… in their time the world operated differently” — that is, it was actively governed), but rather it was clear to everyone that there is a Leader who watches over things and benefits the righteous and harms the wicked, and nevertheless they thought there was no providence in the sense of “the fathers have eaten sour grapes”?
How does this fit with what is said in the book of Job, whose whole point is that it is bad for the righteous and good for the wicked?

That is, from the book of Job it appears there is no active providence… so what exactly could they have been astonished about??
Or do we want to claim that the book of Job was written at a different time, when there was no active providence, and then in that case it is not clear why it received the status of a book written with prophetic inspiration, since there was divine hiddenness, and therefore apparently no prophecy, and the book is not holy with the sanctity of the prophetic books.
Or shall we claim that there are prophets like the author of Job who are prophets of periods in which there is no active providence?
This situation places us in a theory which, in my humble opinion, is more cumbersome than the approach of Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto that I presented.

That is not how it appears in the book of Job; rather, that is how they saw it, and that is what the criticism was about. My assumption is that in the biblical period the world operated in a way that made God’s hand clear, and whoever did not see that was blameworthy.

Reward and punishment is a principle, an axiom.
And from that it follows that if you see a righteous person who suffers, then apparently he is not righteous.
The various righteous people naturally preferred to spread the idea that the axiom is not exact and said that the reward is in the World to Come. But that is simply heresy against a principle.

History teaches that during the biblical period the world still ran according to its ordinary way, except for the people of Israel at the time of the Exodus from Egypt. I have seen no historical evidence that divine justice was evident in the ancient world.
Certainly not in the whole world; plainly nothing changed there… because people wrote, and these things would have appeared in ancient writings from all cultures.
Second, if we claim that this was so only among the people of Israel, then it is not clear what interest a person would have in denying it. Why commit a transgression if I will be punished for it immediately? I also do not see evidence from ancient writings that people were astonished at the state of recompense and divine justice as evident upon the people of Israel in the ancient world; this should have been something prominent.

Again, thank you very much for the quick response.
Or

I think about it the other way around: in our reality there is no justification whatsoever for coming to a person with complaints if he does not see divine involvement, because God does not appear to be involved in that way. If back then people were criticized for this, then apparently it was noticeable then. The fact that people chose to ignore it — that is exactly what they were criticized for.
You argue that if people did not see it, then apparently it was not there. But that is begging the question. I too am assuming what I need to prove, of course, but you are raising the difficulty and I am answering it.
There is an inclination to see reality without divine involvement, just as there is an inclination to worship idols even though people know it is not real. Today we do not have that inclination, so it seems strange to us, but that is an anachronistic perspective.
It should be understood that noticeable divine involvement does not have to come through open miracles. First of all, there were miracles performed by prophets, and that is certainly clear and noticeable divine involvement that existed then and does not exist today. Denying that is grounds for divine criticism and for the criticism of the prophets. But even “natural” events that were foretold in advance are noticeable involvement, and criticism of that kind can also be based on them.

Thank you for the response, Rabbi.
I will think about these matters seriously; they need a bit of incubation.

Rabbi, I would like to ask you a question, with your permission.
Some time ago you published an article in Tzohar in which you argued that today’s secular person should not be judged as merely erring unintentionally, but as almost exempt entirely (I will not go into the exact details, with your pardon).
I do not understand, then, what is the meaning of the argument that “we do not see that religious people get sick less.” Quite apart from verifying the claim itself, which I do not know how to do, apparently according to your own words there is no room to distinguish too much between religious and secular people. It would be much more correct to argue that, in accordance with belief in providence and its presence, one should conclude that people who are “close to God” — in the Maimonidean sense of the term — are the ones who get sick less, who are harmed less, as Maimonides and others state.
That is something for which I see no way at all to verify empirically, but there is no reason to reject it, and then apparently we need to try to understand from the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible what may be inferred on the subject, no?

First, there is no connection at all to what I wrote in that article. You are asking how to investigate this statistical question. Check a society in which everyone is atheist versus a strongly religious society and see whether there is a significant difference.

“First” implies there is also a second?
Besides that, in accordance with what I suggested, there is no place to compare a strongly religious society to an atheistic one. I have no reason to think there are such societies, and at least I am not familiar with any. Because if I accept my own criteria regarding closeness to God, then the “strongly religious society” would have to be at least one whose members prophesy on a daily basis. And besides, there are “atheists” whose atheism is more a rejection of idolatry than a rejection of the God in whom I believe.

At this stage we have already reached a wonderfully extreme denial of reality. About that I have nothing to say.

I assume those remarks were directed at what I said about atheists.
But the main point of what I said is at the beginning.
I would like to argue that it may indeed be true that we do not see religious people getting sick less, but can it be determined that we do not see people who cleave to God getting sick less? After all, man sees what is before the eyes, but the Lord sees the heart, and that makes this question impossible to judge by any empirical scientific tool.

Yes. It can absolutely be seen, completely empirically, exactly as I wrote. Among a group of atheists there is less cleaving to God than in any religious group.