If you place side by side the "sheeple" who blindly accepts every official story and the CTer who blindly rejects every official story, the former is undoubtedly the more intelligent person 99/100 times. Why? Because his approach is far more practical as he has more time and energy to invest in the local things that actually directly impact his day to day life whereas the blind CTer is crippled by a neurotic compulsion to dwell on remote things which are completely out of his control all at the expense of foregoing attention to that which actually is within his control, the result being zero actualization and perpetually frustrated delusion
Interesting theory. I'm not sure I agree, but I see the point you're trying to make, and perhaps you're correct in making it. Good post.
However, is it smart to give oneself over completely to a system that controls you as though you're no better than sheep? How is that practical, overall? It may be on an individual level, in some regards, for a short time, but I don't see how it's universally practical when speaking of the collective.
Those that buck the system often inspire change, at their own detriment. Those that willingly follow unquestionably, are easily used as tools to continue control mechanisms, bolster coverup efforts, and contribute to their perpetuation via their blind support.
Think of all the CTs that turned out being true, or all the daring ideas, seemingly extremely CTish at the time, that were condemned as heresy (Galileo comes to mind). The blind masses made it much harder for the breakthroughs to occur - as they act as buffers between those perpetrating the coverups and old ways of thinking, and those that would wish to see them torn down to make way for furthering the truth.
I think I stand by my original viewpoint that both extremes are equally "retarded". And I might even argue that it's the opposite of what you're saying in some regards. Either way, I don't think 99/100 is a fair assessment.
