We all make excuses for the things we love. Our bratty children are free spirits; cranky grandparents are loveable curmudgeons, and all the characters of our epoch-spanning space sagas have rich narrative purpose.

That is why you may have heard of a controversial new theory about Star Wars that is currently riding high online. It claims that Jar Jar Binks – that all-digital stumbling goofball with the floppy ears and inexplicable cod-Jamaican accent – was intended as the secret evil puppetmaster of the Sith. Indeed, that he may reappear in the upcoming The Force Awakens – the first of the new Star Wars films since Disney paid creator George Lucas $4bn for the franchise – as a villain that has been referenced but not pictured: the sinister Supreme Leader Snoke.

Reddit user Lumpawarroo (the name of Chewbacca’s son from 1978’s justly maligned Star Wars Holiday Special) has written a hypothesis that sounds ludicrous but, as with all bizarre theories, gradually comes to seem more plausible from weight of circumstantial evidence.

So, what is the case? It’s that Jar Jar was the secret overlord pulling the strings from behind a facade of oafish goonery.

Before you mock, remember that Lucas pulled this trick before: Yoda was introduced in The Empire Strikes Back as a cackling irritant before unmasking himself as a Jedi master, and the trope of the inauspicious-character-who-is-secretly-powerful is as old as the myths on which Lucas based his space opera.

JK Rowling used the device in the Harry Potter series – when Ron Weasley’s pet rat was revealed to be evil Lord Voldemort’s agent Peter Pettigrew. It’s a classic twist for a reason.

Evidence for Lumpawaroo’s theory from the Star Wars movies includes:

• Jar Jar is present at all key moments in the prequels, despite being ostensibly useless.

• He survives – indeed, succeeds in – numerous battles, regardless of his apparent clumsiness, which suggests a Jedi-level connection with the Force, if not specific training in combat similar to the discipline of “drunken fist” kung fu.

• Jar Jar’s gestures when speaking are similar to those used by Jedi when performing mind control, suggesting that he’s manipulating characters as required during the films.

• The Emperor keeps Jar Jar on hand even after he’s no longer politically useful, suggesting that Binks is more significant to the Sith than he appears.

The argument continues that Lucas planned Jar Jar as a Yoda’s dark-side equivalent, but was put off by the vitriolic response to the character after the release of The Phantom Menace and hastily wrote in new baddies (the Sith Lord Count Dooku and the cyborg General Grievous) to fill the gaps in the two subsequent instalments.

And in the spirit of fans desperately wishing the best of their beloved Star Wars, it’s perfectly reasonable to want to explain away poor writing and continuity errors as dramatic choices.

He’s behind you … Liam Neeson and Jar Jar Binks. Photograph: Allstar/Lucasfilm

We want to give Lucas the benefit of the doubt and assume there’s a reason for the objectionable Binks to exist – beyond the fact that George thought he was funny, or that Jar Jar accidentally taking out battle droids while in a panic hinted at a more than mere slapstick.

However, Lumpawarroo argues there’s no in-film reason why Jar Jar could not still be the ultimate villain of the piece. That’s where the proposition goes from interesting fan theory to full-on wackiness.

“It stands to reason that one of [Disney’s] primary goals will be to reinvigorate and ultimately try to redeem the prequels in the eyes of the fanbase,” Lumpawarroo concludes. “If you are able to somehow change the nature of Jar Jar from embarrassing idiot to jaw-dropping villain, suddenly the entire prequel trilogy must be seen in a new light, because it becomes the setup for the most astounding reveal in film history: Jar Jar Binks is Supreme Leader Snoke!”

Lucas is no longer involved with Star Wars, and if director/co-writer JJ Abrams could pull Binks-as-Snoke without the audiences collapsing in hysterical laughter followed by cinema-destroying rage, then he would, indeed, be the master storyteller of our age.

But that’s not going to happen … right?