> This is one of the keys that helped me get past many issues, because when it comes to conspiracy theories true or not, the real crux is the probabalistic like

> This is one of the keys that helped me get past many issues, because when it comes to conspiracy theories true or not, the real crux is the probabalistic likelyhood of truth which can be modified as more data points emerge, not some black and white true and untrue label. I think part of the problem here is that most of what we call conspiracy theories that are true aren't actually conspiracies per-se, except in the loose sense of "a conspiracy of silence", and don't particularly intersect with things like secret societies. I mean, sure, there are efforts made to conceal things from the public, and yes, there is a certain amount of coordination among powerful actors where their vested interest align, what else would you expect to happen in the real world? For every amoral person to act as a solitary megalomaniacal villain? But none of that particularly implies that this sort of thing is planned ahead or centrally organized in any particular way or there wouldn't be any need for in-person meetings like the Bilderberg Group (which didn't even meet in 2020). It certainly doesn't imply that such conspiracies deliberately interlock with each other except as you would expect simply from survivorship bias. I mean, organized crime is a conspiracy. A large corporation evading responsibility for a chemical spill is a conspiracy. Cartels doing price fixing is a conspiracy. The US military flexing in support of private interests is a conspiracy. Lobbyists getting exceptions and loopholes enacted into law is a conspiracy. Politicians accepting bribes is a conspiracy. So conspiracies as such aren't unknown. Such things come to light all the time in part because maintaining secrecy is so damn hard and there are many interests aligned in exposing them. We should encourage that where and when we can.