Gates-Musk paradox revisited

Well, I asked Gemini to explain my Gates-Musk paradox. Its answer was illuminating to me: people fear an organized power structure that seems remote, cold and impenetrable, while they love erratic, individualistic, anti-establishment even irrational behavior in a powerful public figure. 

This was in the context of another question I'd set Gemini, why there's so much historical hatred of Catholics and Jews. Its first answer was about Catholic policies, ethical differences etc. I had to point out that the policies and politics and ethics that people object to are not reasons for hatred. Those might be post hoc excuses or justifications-after-the-fact for the hate. There must be some deeper explanation for what engenders the hatred in the first place. 

Gemini then linked the Gates-Musk paradox to this hatred: Catholics and Jews are organized, remote and orderly (its word was "cold" which sounds like academic theory language from whatever theorist Gemini was plagiarizing, maybe Mathew Crawford? Weber?), like the Gates foundation. These orderly, closed, organized institutions inspire distrust among those who are left out. 

This seems right to me. Look at the Fed -- those who most distrust it don't understand what it is or does except that it manages not just money, but the money system, which they also don't understand. That's remotest of remote, and it's the arch-villain target of conspiracy theory. 

Musk, meanwhile, displays his erratic behaviors unedited, like Trump. What did Trump say about himself?  He could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and he'd still be popular. The means to popular support does not in the least depend on morality or good decision-making, it's whether you belong to us or to the remote, closed, organized, entrenched, techno-mastering, controlling and mysterious them. They are viewed as secret societies where every sort of perversion and nefarious plot is practiced in hiding while ruling over the rest of us. Folks are okay with the perversions and the rule as long as it isn't closed, orderly, coordinated and remote. 

So there it is: Gates inspires distrust because his philanthropy is institutionalized and orderly, collaborating with government and law and other mysteriously entrenched, remote institutions. Musk, the libertarian who endorses and embodies self-promotion, is trusted because he is erratic, irrationally headstrong, unpredictable except predictably selfish or self-promoting, and above all, his idiosyncrasies and even flaws are public. 

I don't think it's the whole story. So far as I can tell, many admire Musk for his ideas, even though all the good ideas are not his, like rockets, electric cars, satellite service and digital payments which all existed prior to his investment in them or purchasing of them. And his own ideas are laughably stupid -- like the transit tunnel. Gates, by contrast, doesn't seem to take credit for his ideas or success. He publicly recommends other people's books. And the books are about science, energy, public policy, not "12 steps to being a genius" or "do we live in a simulation?", that is, his recs aren't catering to popularity.  

And then there's Peter Thiel. Why isn't he the target of conspiracy ideation? He's plenty remote and most conspiratorial of all these cats. In any case, as mentioned in the original post on the paradox, conspiracy theory isn't about danger, it's about distrust of information.