My problem with conspiracy culture is its tendency to devolve into unbridled paranoia.
I think any decent grasp of history tells us there are always multiple games being played. Innocents, deluded by noble lies, and driven by poverty, are induced to become players in the games of the 'dark elite'. We saw this in World War 1, and in the Gulf wars. Had citizens ignored the grand games of the the plutocrats those awful tragedies would not have unfolded.
I understand and agree with some of what you are both saying. There is a lot of unbridled paranoia, utter nonsense, and cointelpro/disinfo in the so-called "conspiracy world." I agree that THC and other "conspiracy" outlets often have a "blend of well-founded concern mixed with really naive analysis" (or intentional disinformation). At the same time, his-story is full of so-called conspiracy theories later revealed as fact. But why do we even have the benefit of knowing this much "truth"? Because various brave (crazy?) individuals were willing to go against the official narratives and tell a different story. You, Michael, only know about the "multiple games being played" or lies/propaganda being told because
someone else objected to the official story on
something (whether wars, political coups, MK Ultra, the dangers of particular vaccines, cigarette smoking, psychotropic medications, genetic engineering, experimentation on humans without their consent, etc.). If everyone simply sat back and felt that dark agendas weren't worth actively challenging and pulling apart and resisting, I suggest we'd be in even worse shape than we already are. We wouldn't have the benefit of
skepticism towards any official narrative if someone wasn't willing to be ridiculed and dismissed and targeted.
It just gets a little tedious - particularly on this forum -- that instead of actually discussing which "conspiracy theories" might actually be based in truth/reality, the discussion revolves around "the problem with conspiracy theories/theorists" -- as if this is a big amorphous community of paranoid dipshits incapable of adding 1 +1 correctly. Ah well, clearly I am on the wrong forum -- and yet, Alex seems to share much of my world view and I've been particularly enjoying the latest interviews. I too, didn't go looking for conspiracy -- it found me. It actually started while doing intensive research on a health topic -- and many primary sources, books, studies, and even personal interviews with scientists in the field later, I was far more knowledgeable about the depth of government deception -- and forever changed in my world view.
Like Alex, I too think that the world is run on conspiracies, in the sense that people are constantly conspiring to commit illegal or immoral acts, from industry price fixing to insider trading to rigging LIBOR markets to blowing up/flying planes into buildings to get buy-in for middle east interventions and draconian surveillance laws. But I would argue, Michael, that "most" people do not, in fact, have a decent grasp of history nor do they see the multiple games being played. In fact, try to discuss (in ordinary company) the Gulf of Tonkin or Operation Northwoods or the 2016 whisteblower at the CDC who confessed to fixing the data on the MMR/autism connection -- and see what happens. "Conspiracy theories" still need to be discussed and given serious consideration for the very reason that you touch on above -- so that the "grand games of the plutocrats" do not, in fact, lead to Innocents being led to slaughter fighting Rich Man wars. (which I also happen to think are ritualized sacrifices).
In this interview (or was it the one with Tim Freke?), Alex suggests that Donald Rumsfeld, in his absurd denial of Building 7, was taunting those of us in the know -- as well as laughing at those still in ignorance. One layer of this response is basically Jack Nicholson's "You Can't Handle the Truth" -- a communication to those people who will accept the official narrative/explanation, no matter how ridiculous, if it keeps them in their first world comfort zone. In fact, I would argue that David's response above to my list of articles regarding weaponized technology suggests he's in that very category. I could post twenty more links to articles and books that might lead some genuinely open-minded person to deep dive into the history of mind control and the nefarious uses of technology by government/elites, but there will always be someone who doesn't want to know the truth. Instead, that person will just keep demanding more "evidence" from someone else so they can categorize and dismiss it (without doing their own research). There will always be someone who reads about the ability to put voices in people's heads...and then calls it humane crowd control. (?!!)
Because having the actual ability to put voices in people's heads shouldn't alarm anyone, right? It doesn't matter if several of those "lone shooters" we've been hearing about claimed to have "voices in their heads telling them to shoot people"? No, that's just a crazy conspiracy theory.
Maybe Alex was right -- maybe what those in power are really saying is: "You Don't Deserve the Truth."
But please, carry on with the discussions of Idealism -- and unicorns in the afterlife.