I’m really intrigued by this anonymous comment left on a Rigorous Intuition article exploring possible connections between aliens and occult workings.

Rigged markets as far as the eye can see - sure.

Shadowy, ruthless government-corporate alliance bent on ruling the world - sure.

Intelligence agencies running drugs and guns - sure.

Coups, rigged elections, assassinations, death squads, false flag terror attacks - sure.

Widespread ritual pedophilia by the rich and powerful - er, well, maybe.

Flying space eggs from a hyperdimensional portal - gimme a freakin break! Were they piloted by shape-shifting lizard men with crystal skulls, perchance?

Of course, anyone can talk about anything they want to, and sometimes it’s fun to discuss far-out ideas. This just strikes me as the sort of thing that makes it easy to paint conspiracy theorists as loopy fruitcakes who’ll believe any old crazy story, the more fanciful, the better.

Jeff’s article is actually really interesting (and Fantastic Planet has an excellent follow-up to it). He doesn’t of course, say “UFOs ARE REAL AND THEY ARE COMING FOR US!!!” or anything even remotely close to that. In fact, he doesn’t assert any of this to be objectively “true” at all. Instead, he’s cobbling together different pieces to see what might be gained from the act of exploration. In fact, that seems to a large extent what his site is all about (plus it’s just freakin’ awesome if you’ve never read it).

Anyway, the comment above reflects a very “typical” problem that comes up in conspiracy theory circles: namely how far are you really prepared to go? Some people are perfectly happy to rigorously question and see past the mundane aspects of reality into hidden motives, alternate agendas - things like that. Which is great. It’s a much bigger step than 95% of the rest of the populous cares to partake in. Others use questioning to transcend the mundane and extend their quest to include such seemingly “fantastical” topics as UFOs, occultism, etc. In my mind, this is essentially the conspiracy theory equivalent to the metaphysical question, “Why are we here?” or something along those lines. It’s not - as is claimed above - necessarily a descent into lunacy and departure from any semblance of reality. Instead, it’s an all-out embracing of the drive to find out what’s really going on.

People who take up this banner basically say: “Fuck it! I’m just gonna pull out all the stops, put all my cards on the table, and see what’s what.”

I think the best rendition of this problem I’ve ever seen was in Jeremy’s Gnostic “Whack-A-Mole” analogy:

Within the context of Gnosticism and conspiracy theory, understanding reality is like playing a game of whack-a-mole. When it comes to understanding the nature of reality, those of us who choose to play are handed mallets, told to stand in front of the machines and whack away. Occasionally we’re able to knock one of the little bastards back down, about as often as we’re able to glean valid information from mainstream sources.

Most people, after playing for some time, get tired and give up– after all, why bother with a silly game that seems so pointless? The conspiracy theorist, however, thinks to herself, “well, I could get rid of these moles by trying to bash ‘em, or, I could try to dismantle the machine and stop them at the source.” She then attempts to remove the game’s casing (often drawing the adverse attention of the arcade management) and understand the mechanisms that cause the moles to rise and fall, and stop them by shorting the circuitry.

The Gnostic goes a step further. We could dismantle the case, but then we should find out where the game is made, who made it, and why the heck they’re forcing us to play the damnable game in the first place.

It seems to me that the further you go towards the “gnostic” end of the conspiracy spectrum, you begin to court the realm of the unconscious mind and the archetypes - as I started in on yesterday. Stuff like UFO’s and satanic and occult rituals obviously begins to cross this line. It may be objectively real, or it may have a subjective reality in our psyches - or it may be both, which is the creepiest option of all. As I’ve said elsewhere, gnosticism bridges this treacherous gap in the search for truth:

It counters the conspirators mantra, “The Truth Is Out There” with the equalling stunning revelation that “The Truth Is In Here” too.

Besides gnosticism of course though, I think Jungian depth psychology offers another excellent bridge into this realm. Not surprisingly, Jung himself was heavily influence by the gnostics and their heirs, the medieval alchemists. I think the real problem that occurs when most conspiracy theorists make this leap from the objectively real to the subjectively or psychically real (or possible) is that they don’t have a bridge. They don’t have any clear system with which to evaluate and organize the content and characters they encounter. Most end up hopelessly lost in a maze of “creative” logic and outright paranoia. Of course, I don’t think this has much to do with Jeff’s articles on Rigorous Intuition. To me, he’s one of the few who bridges the gap successfully and challenges us all to race across back and forth with the glee of discovery.

Somebody else later added to the comments on Jeff’s article:

Stuff like this just guarantees that we’ll never really find out who shot JFK’s head apart, who killed MLK, or if “Bush Knew”. Wear your tinfoil hat with pride because it may be all you’re left with.

There’s a possibility this person’s right. More than likely we will never know any of that stuff. But say we did find out? What then, would we then be able to sit back and relax? Never! We’ve got way bigger fish to fry. This goes way beyond politicians or even UFO’s to the nature of reality and of ourselves…

Anyway, I always think it’s hilarious when people exclaim with a red face “Stop! You’re giving conspiracy theory a bad name!” It’s ridiculous. If it had any credibility with the mainstream, then it would immediately lose all kinds of value as a banner for counter-culturalists of all stripes. I, for one, am cheering Jeff on wildly and think he’s doing a kickass job “bridging the gap” in an always intelligent and thought-provoking way.