Good question - 'healthy paranoia' is an oxymoron, but I guess I was going for the paradox-easing-the-birth-of-truth approach by alluding to the fact that there is also an unhealthy absence of paranoia. For example, imagine you were shown a video of your Prime Minister performing a high masonic handshake. Unhealthy absence of Paranoia (UAP turpmaak), involving as it does the assumption that there are no grand conspiracies/no high-level plotting - merely random uncoordinated power struggles more-or-less as transparently presented by the media, would lead to a 'so what?' reaction. Having UAP would mean that you would be sure that even if it is a masonic handshake, it has no real significance as they are just funny chaps with aprons, and they donate a lot to charity. Well, maybe - but if you allow for the possibility that something could be going on (healthy paranoia - as opposed to unhealthy paranoia, which would mean that you would be almost 100% sure that you know a dastardly plot is afoot and exactly how it is working), then if you had the time and inclination, you could delve a little further - Who are the masons? How many of them are in the City of London? What is the City of London? Why did Gordon Brown give full independence to the Bank of England and deregulate in 97? Why did Ed Balls advocate it in 92? Why was half of the UK's gold sold at rock-bottom prices? Was it connected to a Goldman Sach's short position? What are the links between Goldman Sachs and the UK government? And so on, and so on..

In other words, healthy paranoia means your mind is open to the possibility that the world is working in ways not often presented to us. It is as healthy as your ability to apply logic and reason to what you uncover. If you just want to cherry pick to find facts that support your thesis, then you know you are straying into UHP (unhealthy paranoia), BUT if you dismiss new, maybe disturbing discoveries too quickly, I would say that you are loitering in the realm of UAP.

Okay rambling over - I hope you understand broadly how I view it.

Re, the ability to influence events from 'high up', I would say that as long as the direction is set, how it is achieved, implemented at lower levels doesn't really matter so much. I would draw the analogy of a river: if the course is set, it can meander here and there, get blocked in places by beaver activity, but sooner or later the waters will run more or less as desired.

(Reply to this) (Parent)