Let’s suppose the world is run by X omnipotent conspiracy group. The intention of X group is to enslave and kill us. This X group can be Rockerfellers, Jewish bankers, Free Masons, Illuminati, NWO, Rothchilds, Bilderberg, ect.
The burden of proof for proving such a claim typically lies with the party making the assertion. However an argument from ignorance whereby the opposing party assumes the claim is false due to lack of proof doesn’t disprove the claim either.
With conspiracy theories about omnipotent secret groups, the proof for a claim is supposed to be secret. Since the proof is suppose to be secret, having proof actually invalidates the claim because this shows that the group is not omnipotent. Whereas lack of proof validates the group’s omnipotent secrecy.
In this scenario both parties can be called skeptical, but neither party can disprove the other’s claim. Does this matter? I think not. Let’s suppose we accepted X group does exist. What are your options?
(1) You can decide to fight X group, except X group is secret so you have no one to fight.
(2) You can commit suicide, this would end your slavery to X group. However X group would go on enslaving your friends and family.
(3) You can accept that you’re a slave and try getting better rations for friends and family. This can be done by stealing other people's rations.
By default anyone who’s living is doing (1) or (3).
As of now my stance is that I oppose such claims but cannot disprove them. If I did believe such a claim that an omnipotent group existed I would choose option (3) since most of humanity is no better than the X group.
A problem with construing the issue may be your concept of normalcy. If at almost any other time in history someone had said that society was run by and for a certain family, the response would have been something like "Duh, obviously". The idea that we are born with a clean slate and that the ship of state is a passive inert thing whereby if you pull the right knobs you can get the same outcome as anyone else - that is a really radical and bizarre notion.
I think the more important question is does accepting or rejecting such a claim change a person's actions. Whether society is run by one brutal family or a myriad of independent selfish market forces my approach would be the same.
Well, like any fact, it may be relevant your actions or it may not. For example, a relative of mine thought he had the right to free speech. After all, his country had made a big deal of this so-called right. Him being dumb enough to exercise it resulted in years of persecution. There is also the issue of how you want to relate to the establishment. Say they have you marked for extermination. You can go on interacting with them as normal, and chalk their psychopathic behavior towards you as bad luck, or you can realize what is going on, realize what you need to do and behave appropriately.