Why I avoid using professional "conspiracy theorists" as references
Now, this is an interesting Question, amayon / and should more properly be the subject of an essay or a chapter in a book in order to do it full justice.
In the first place, I think one must stand back from the field (morass? / swamp? ) of the professional “conspiracy theorists” – men like Alex Jones, David Icke, Jeff Rense & others – and recognize that in order for them to have arrived at where they are today, they have had to sell out & make compromises & ‘play the game’.
The “field” itself is a region within the greater dialectic where information is contained, formatted, & spun in such a manner as to make it unpalatable & repulsive to many thinking people among the politically aware.
Probably all of the “professionals” in the field are agents to some degree or of some stripe. There is a South African fellow named Sean Hross who married a Swiss woman, and got stuck in Switzerland & who is not properly a “conspiracy theorist” but rather a sort of latter-day Ranter who maintains that Alex Jones has been co-opted by the Swiss [Bankers].
That, to my way of thinking, is quite plausible - And Sean Hross supplies data to confirm this thesis. Here & here
Another Source, “The Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics” – run by a Dutch researcher, Joël van der Reijden, who is not a “conspiracy theorist” but rather an analyst - has more interesting information about the dicey-ness of Alex Jones and many other entities & things…
Now, with regards to David Icke; Icke presents a fair amount of truth - one could say too much truth. One point at which he discredits himself is his affirmation that the Royal family of Britain (the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) are actually Reptilians - and that that is the true relevance of the term “blue blood.” -A wingy, crazy idea. Thus, the rest of his analysis is discredited & contained. He does it to himself, by himself. This is not uncommon in this "game".
This one ( i ) do not follow the ‘professionals’ down their crooked paths of bizarre theories. I like to keep my feet firmly planted on the ground – in reality.
Here is an article on a sane website that reveals a few of the fallacies – and shady connections - of David Icke: Meet The Northern Ireland Intel Crew.
As I have said previously, I consider myself to be a disciple of the late Mae Brussell, who lived in Carmel Valley, and died in 1988. Mae Brussell was not a “conspiracy theorist” – though posthumously she has been described and discredited as such, by the likes of Wikipedia. Par for the course. Mae began her research in 1964 by studying the labyrinth of information in the exhaustive twenty-five volumes of the complete Warren Commission Hearings.
Mae wanted to know who killed John Fitzgerald Kennedy & why. In time, her research led her into an examination of the dark corridors of power, and the shadowy region of Anglo-American collusion in the Post-War period with Nazi War Criminals - the Reinhard Gehlen Organization - Networks that were assimilated by Allen Dulles into the OSS in 1945, and into the CIA in 1947.
Mae Brussell's methodology – of reading everything and working out the contradictions using higher logic, is the methodology of sane researchers, in mho.
The field of “conspiracy theory” has been posed, in the manner of a “controlled dialectic” by the controllers of the dialectic, in a very adroit and clever manner, against the “systems analysis” approach of Noam Chomsky & his cohorts at MIT and the CIA.
As far as I can discern, Noam Chomsky and the late Lyndon LaRouche (who was known, during the Viet Nam War by his Marxist nom-de-plume, “Lyn Marcus”) split what had been the Anti-War Movement into contrary factions, which did not fully emerge until after the War.
Both of those men were mentors to younger anti-war activists during the Viet Nam War, and both of them received a sum of ten million dollars from the Chase Manhattan Bank in order to set up their organizations and move their followers into the directions they subsequently traveled.