I mean this is the thing I was trying to say to @DannyL - conspiracy theory arguments are in part unfalsifiable. They are designed to work that way. You show someone evidence xyz isn't the case and then they will cite an obscure footnote or an obscure article. If you have a life dedicated to debunking conspiracies it's like dedicating your whole life to finding a response to every argument for the existence of God. The key is to see where these crude personalisations of shadowy elites and the powers that be (this is why I use the more technical bourgeoisie btw because even that formulation in mainstream politics ranks of conspiracism to me.) It is dangerous to say for instance that theories of moral decline are fine when they are crude anti-elitist and a defence of the common man but not when they are reactionary and far right/disinformation related. This is why I linked that article, which talks about the nostalgism inherent in this sort of political thinking.