Re: The Superclass - who are they?

"its very interesting, especially since it makes the case that most 'conspiracy theorists' make without any allusions to the illuminati or reptilians or secret masonic orders, etc. "

This Rothkopf work looks interesting. Did he really makes the same case accorded to most  conspiracy theorists without the same allusions the latter is said to be known for?.... similar case, that makes more sense. Something, meaning, content, must have been reduced, eliminated, sanitized or avoided in the translation. Give it some time. It would not surprise to see that eventually "Superclass" will have become (if it has not already) just another one among an endless series of trigger words invented to prop up the increasing needs of reality phobes who have been conditioned to immediately have their critical thinking processes triggered into short-circuit mode at the mere mention of specific words.  This then will leave most conspiracy students - be they realists or theorists,  back at the same square one; looking for new ways to sneak important information past the invisible defense mechanisms unknowingly built into and around the minds of of reality phobes so as to avoid awareness of critical realities.

By my estimation, it doesn't matter what kind of  seemingly safe name word / label device is come up with. Eventually, a typical reality phobe will start to see where the discussion is goiing - towards discussion of the conspiracy for world control. At this point, it really doesn't matter what alternate name was thought up. We can go with Ropkof's  "super class "... or call it Barney or Bambi, Tinkerbell, sugar, ice cream, whatever warmNfuzzy name imaginable. Once the conditions necessary to trip  a given tip wiire have been put in place, about the only thing left to happen is for it to eventually activate, after which the automatic associations take place;  "world control by a relative few elite people... business men, entrepreneurs ... super class ?....  hmmmm, that looks & smells an awful lot like the same old silly illuminati notion for which it is not conceivable that any sane person would consider, ergo it must be yet another whack theory".

Don't get me wrong. I know that this is a challenging prospect,  one I've struggled with. I say this without making any assumptions that I am or am not among "most conspiracy theorists". There is an assumption involved; that people trying to make the case for conspiracy generally do so with the desire that other people will become interested enough in information that they then are motivated to continue on their own in learning / studying more on the topic.  Therein, part of the trick is coming up with a way of making a case involving a collective situation influenced by complex elements that does not put off the average person in some way. From my own observations, many people have become inclined to be put off topics simply because they do involve complex elements. This prospect is then made only worse due to familiar trigger words, triggers that have been embedded into people's minds unawares. Whether it's "illuminati"... "masonry" "reptiles"....."aliens", or even seemingly much simpler, safer words like cupcake, candy  and yes, even the simple word "conspiracy", a perfectly fine word in it's own right, any of these can be more than enough to activate embedded triggers

There are many people on who's behalf a case can be made as long as the person making the case has simplified the topic accordingly. My mileage with "simplified accordingly" may vary between yours, Rothkopf's, and pretty much any other next person. Eliminating some of the complex elements is certainly a way to simply a  topic accordingly.... after all, most of us are familiar with the mentality of "what you don't know won't hurt you". There are at least some people out there who have also learned that at times "what you don't know will hurt you". It doesn't help simplify matters any that "what you know won't hurt you"...sometimes, but other times it will.  

 
I am not attacking or dismissing what you say. Maybe Ropkof has come up with a really good way for minimizing or avoiding  a too-familiar situation; people put off at the mere mention of certain words. By implication, you know how most conspiracy theorists operate. I am taking you to task on that assertion since it is a pretty broad stroke to paint with. While I have observed that people trying to make a given case involving given elements of conspiracy  at times will introduce information generally interpreted at face value to be fantastical and or speculative, I personally do not have enough information and do not have enough of my own observations of this phenom to be confident in saying that I know how most conspiracy theorists operate in this context. There have even been times when I myself, either wittingly or unknowingly, was propagating conspiracy theory. Eventually I discovered that there is enough conspiracy reality to be concerned with that there isn't enough time in a day to devote to that plus any of many branches of theory out there. I can make this case without the need for any mention any of the trigger words "allusions" you cited. At the same time, I have also observed that there is a class - industry, of people generally portrayed (self-portrayed ) as placing themselves outside the realm of "conspiracy theorists", which certainly is convenient for them. After which, they promptly go on to devote lots of time attacking "exposing" those people which they have put inside the realm of this very device; "conspiracy theorists".

The media as a concerted industry is also tightly involved with leading the band / parade when it comes to the effort  necessary to subtly embed notions into the consciousness of the public parade at large, and subsequently nurture and reinforce these. Be aware that outside the familiar tv and movie outlets, the collective media includes broader categories of information provided as entertainment, all the way down to  Micky Mouse theme parks. National tv news outlets "magazines" are specially good for fabricating other people's frame of reference so that they can then tweak, poke, prod and exploit those frames of reference. . As a device, the media as a whole is well represented by TV, a device widely accepted by the masses as a routine visitor "friend" nattering away endlessly from some corner in a room, 24-7-365 . Outwardly, this friend only transmits "talks". It might be able to receive "hear" but generally gives no outward indication it is capable of such, and no, clicking a button on the remote to order a pizza or premium movie does not genuinely qualify in this context. TV has become the supreme author of thoughts to be churned into the stream of public consciousness that often masquerades as the face of popular culture. It's supporting personalities have become quite skilled at setting up the associations between elements of conspiracy - elements often based in reality and not theory, and through well constructed, well choreographed, uninterrupted speech/preach/dialog, use these - their own constructs, to then tear down other people, target people, for being in some way associated with the blame for all these bizarre, fantastical allegations ....connected with the obligatory masons, aliens .... reptiles and the like.

Some of what I say here is based on somewhat dated information. Maybe since the time I began to unplug, the tv & big screens and printing houses have changed their ways and transitioned away from these routine tactics. I don't for one minute expect that the Disneylands of the world have transitioned away from the the same kinds of tactics. This empire is wholly built and dependent upon allusions to words and ideas that strike unfounded fear into people's minds.... that's sort of what makes the entertainment world go around. They may not overtly exploit the most familiar, text book type of  bogeymen words, like "illuminati" and "masons", but I'm pretty sure that there is a wide cast of alien and reptiles characters in the repertoire they are bringing to bear to this day....for entertainment, of course, not to be confused with useful information.  The overall point is, there  may be more reasons than simply those that seem to be the most evident for why people who discuss conspiracy often do so by making allusions to words that many people have been conditioned to be put off by. Maybe this would not be such the routine phenom if just the news reporting sector of the collective media was to stop including this in the daily routine of it's craft.