I'm very sceptical about conspiracy theories - mostly I believe in unfortunate confluences of events and general deficiencies in attitude rather than shadowy überlords planning to take over the world. For one thing, there are so bloody many of them: freemasons, Bildebergers, Illuminati, Knights Templar, Rosicrucians, etc., etc.
The second thing is that I know a couple of masons and they are all painfully decent, horrifyingly nice people. Even those that seem to be fairly big cheeses. I don't knowingly know any members of other conspiracy-alikes, so I can't really comment on the rest of them.
One shadowy conspiracy group that is frequently mentioned in the UK is "Common Purpose". I looked at their website and didn't really see any indication of their Marxist, paedophile aims in the FAQ's. What seems to get people wound up is that Common Purpose meetings operate under "Chatham House rules", much like any organisation that might want to have "free and frank" discussions without dumping people in the shit.
It seems to me that the people who rail on about these "shadowy" groups seem to really hate the idea that people might want to have off-the-record meetings. It also seems to me that encountering one person from these groups who is a cunt tars every other member of these groups with the same brush, rather than accepting that you might have some utter shits in any group and some other very nice people in the same group.
But one thing that seems very common is that people who attack these groups come across as froot-loops and nutter-whackjobs of the very highest order. Every video I've seen so far attacking Common Purpose seems to be presented by someone who wants to be seen as the next David Icke.
This is all a long-winded way around of asking a question: does anyone know of a rational reason to object to Common Purpose that doesn't require me to believe that every member of CP is a lizard-man paedophile rapist of nuns?