I contend that people like you are just as dangerous as the conspiracy freaks. A healthy skepticism of the actions of and connected with our government and the ultra-elite members of international finance is actually mandated by our Founding Fathers. It’s no stretch to include the masters of industry and media in that skepticism. Such a skepticism would manifest itself by one becoming as informed as possible on many different controversial issues such as 9/11, the War on Terror, the Federal Reserve, various elite societies and groups, etc., and that means fully reviewing both sides of the story yourself. Not listening to what other deniers say about the “theories,” no, looking for yourself. And only then come to a conclusion. If you are too lazy or apathetic to research the issues, you’ll never know anything but what’s spoon-fed by the Mass Media and well, ignorance is bliss. If you don’t dare confront what is implied when you find evidences of malicious conspiracy, you’re simply a coward. If you’re too stupid to intelligently analyze information, you should have the self-awareness to know this and not form much of an opinion on anything.
To see the clear danger of those on both ends of the conspiracy spectrum, let’s look at extremes. Let’s say our population was dominated by a majority of people on either side–the conspiracy freaks who live in constant fear of reptilian shape-shifters and the Hollow Earth aliens, and the conspiracy deniers who live in a very comfortable cocoon of ignorance, carefully choosing what information to look at and whose first impulse is to contemptuously reject any and all conspiracies involving powerful entities such as governments, international elites, etc., despite their lack of a full understanding of the situations. The other variable in this analysis will be the reality of a major conspiracy of some kind or not.
In a society where no such conspiracy exists:
If it were dominated by conspiracy freaks, it would be more or less a madhouse where cultural progress would be seriously hindered by constant witch hunts and, out of fear, the stoppage of good and bad initiatives alike. Men could be rallied under all kinds of crazy causes. Under these conditions, however, those wanting to conspire against the people for their own selfish interests would be hard-pressed to do so. They’d need to get seriously creative (not that this would be a saving grace of this kind of society by any means–this society would be insane).
(Note that these “freaks” would have to be SERIOUSLY demented, as one can believe whatever he wants as far as conspiracies go and still function as a member of society. When his fears take over and he starts literally going crazy, he can be branded a conspiracy freak. In reality, most Hollow Earthers are pretty weird, but they still do jobs that you or I wouldn’t want, and as such are useful members of society.)
If it were dominated by conspiracy deniers, the society would operate just fine, however, such conspiracies could be easily formed by greedy men in positions of power as they would have nearly no risk of ever being discovered. I think we can all agree that bad men can become very powerful and that they have friends whose greed would supersede their conscience. They’d then have free reign to form all kinds of groups to forward their selfish ends. It’s a fair assumption that it would only be a matter of time before this subset of a conspiracy-free society full of deniers would turn into the subset below, a society full of deniers where such a conspiracy does exist.
In a society where such a conspiracy does exist:
If it were dominated by conspiracy freaks, the conspirators would have a hell of a time accomplishing anything. Cultural progress would be hindered as before, but the people would probably unite against their common enemy–the conspirators–which would give some sense of purpose and goals until the enemy is destroyed. Once the enemy was eliminated, however, we’d achieve the subset of a society full of freaks where no conspiracy exists.
If it were dominated by conspiracy deniers, there would be a comfortable social “veneer” maintained by the people to placate themselves. The conspirators would be thrilled as they would never be discovered and they could grow their power and influence by leaps and bounds with little to no true opposition. Whatever the conspirator’s ultimate goal, it’s safe to assume they would achieve it and the people may realize, when it’s too late, that they were wrong all along. Or they may never realize at all, adapting their perception of reality to fit their irrational urge to deny any wrongdoing.
So, as we can see, both extremes are pretty bad. If our planet didn’t contain bad men with bad objectives, it may not matter. But that’s not the reality. A society of conspiracy freaks may or may not be more uncomfortable than a society of deniers in the end if the conspirators’ plan is to create a horrible societal situation such as a fascist or Communist state.
A healthy medium, then, is rational, analytic skepticism of controversial areas, especially those that have great potential to affect our lives. A conspiracy of local fishermen in the San Francisco area to form a cartel to boost profits is probably not worth looking into, unless that would have some kind of significant effect on your life. A malignant conspiracy of the highest members of government, however, could profoundly affect your life (and many others’) and therefore merits review. The same goes for conspiracies of financial, industrial and media empires. The men at the tops of these empires have the ability to change millions of lives on a whim, for better or worse. A rational skeptic would not be illogically afraid of bogeymen, but would inform himself of all the facts presented, and would come to a conclusion without fear of discovery, bias or prejudice. When approached on a subject so reviewed, he could have an intelligent conversation as he will be informed and will also be open to new information and will revise his conclusions accordingly.
In a sense, it’s much like game theory. A pure strategy of “always deny” or “always accuse” is easily exploited by those in positions to do so, but there exists an optimal mixed strategy of denial and paranoia. In this case it’s an optimal mix of the denier’s hyperbolic version of “innocent until proven guilty” and the freak’s “they’re all out to get us.” Such a person could not be exploited by the demagogues that could run a society of freaks or the hidden conspirators that could run a society of deniers. Such a person would be the worst enemy of both.
My advice is to be brave enough to really look at both sides of the story in these controversial areas of “conspiracy theory,” because you don’t want to go through life a lazy, ignorant prole, rejecting everything you don’t want to confront and thereby opening the door for harmful conspiracies to be easily formed if they don’t already exist. And if they already do exist, you may find yourself waiting in line one day, waiting to be microchipped by the United States Police, explaining why the RFID chips are good because they help catch terrorists and win the 20-year-and-counting War on Terror.
