from Murph
Anyone that spends a reasonable amount
of time reading data, opinions, commentaries and news releases can't
help but be a bit confused about what the real story is about.
Some event takes place and immediately the MSM comes out with
editorials and explanations of what actually happened and what it
means., and often enough what you should believe about it. Soon
after, the alternative media (chiefly through the internet) comes out
with a different analysis and different facts/data which if not
outright contradicts the original narrative, at least casts doubt on
its facts and conclusions.
Lets take a look at some of what seems
to be noncontroversial facts;
1. The MSM is very highly controlled by
interests which have skin in the game to keep the current operative
paradigm circulating and business as usual and the population's
perceptions controlled.
2. The government and its bloated
bureaucracies flat out lie to us and have been for a very long time.
The evidence concerning this is overwhelming.
3. Enough documented evidence has been
presented over my entire life that show unequivocally that grand
conspiracies by the elites of this world are a fact, not just
theories. We may argue about specific facts, validity and
consequences on specific data but grand conspiracies do exist.
Read the agenda 21 papers, or the NWO papers that started in 1954
with the first Bildaburg meetings or the Cheney white papers, or the
“silent war” papers, or.......
4. The academic field that we title
“science” has become, to a large extent, untrustworthy when it
is used to determine public policy and perceptions. Way too much
research results are questionable or outright falsified, funded by
self interest groups (too a large extent in the corporate world) and
most noticeably in government funded research that is released to the
public that is the result of political expediency and agenda. Read
the research put out by Monsanto and Dow Corps on their products or
the original research that went into the prohibition on tobacco or
the use of Fluoride as a health issue.
5. It is true that the 1%-5% of the
worlds population that we call the “the elites” the “PTB”
that are in charge of most of the influential decisions being made
are obsessed with having control and have from the first of recorded
history sought to extend their control and make it absolute. It is
also true from documented writings, memos, articles and recordings
that these elites have only contempt for the non elites. Those in
power positions have (with only rare exceptions) always held to this
position of contempt and disrespect. Most of the folks that
drafted our constitution we in that group that expressed contempt and
disrespect for the “common man”.
I'm sure that we could make some more
generalized statements concerning what appears as a factual narrative
about what is true.
So, when we take these 5 points into
consideration on highly charged controversial subjects such as;
Climate change
Geo engineering
Nations in armed conflict (wars)
Freedom of individuals in a population
Taxing and all other governmental
policies
Honesty of those in charge (the
politicians)
The dramatic escalation of
concentration of power, money and influence
The educational system
The medical cartels (health/sickness
industry)
The military industrial complex
The “scientific research industry”
And a host of other issues that are in
our face on a constant basis, as individuals, we pick and choose what
we prefer to believe is true according to what we are deliberately or
accidentally exposed to. Our decisions in this regard are
controlled by our cultural conditioning, our preconceived
information, our preconceived ideas on morality, ethics and a host
of other variables. This is not necessarily a bad thing to happen.
Probably a result of being human. What does happen that is not
such a good thing is when we find out that what we believed is true
turns out to not be true and what we do about it. We have all met
other folks that no matter what information/facts are presented, will
cling to a perception that appears to us as unfounded or flat out not
true. Our blind side is when we personally do that.
Much of this choosing what to believe
is a result of our education, how well disciplined our mental
organization is, how objective we can be, how well we are able to
organize data and be critical of that data and how well we are able
to look at our preconceptions and discard the ones that simply are
not consistent with reality.
Take a short example. How long have
humans existed on this planet? If we take Bishop Ussher's
calculations as fact, it is around 6000 years based on his
calculations of the Bible family linage. Our current science says
much much longer. Which to believe? I have met folks lately that
believe the 6000 yr narrative absolutely and completely discount any
science to the contrary. These folks accept the absolute authority
of a collection of writings that date about 4000 or so yrs ago.
So, these folks reject one set of science but not others. They also
drive cars, use electricity, travel on airplanes, watch TV, have
computers, think Ronald Ray-gun was the greatest president and all
Muslims present an emanate danger to their way of life and the only
way to a good life is in the service to Jesus. If consistency of
thinking has value, are these folks dealing with reality? They vote
too.
I have come to the conclusion that
unless you spend a great deal of time in top top tiers of society, or
in the scientific community, you have to accept data and opinions
from those folks that supposedly are in the know. We may chose to
accept bad or corrupted data. We may chose to accept data that is
the result of political or control agendas. Any one of the issues I
listed above are subject to corrupted or bad data, misdirection,
misinformation, and outright lies.
Take the first one listed, climate
change. The scientific papers I have read indicate that weather
trends have changed and seem to cyclical over long periods of time.
Some folks deny that man can influence what the weather does. I
would take very serious issue with that position. But personally, I
consider the argument to be superfluous. In my lifetime, weather
patterns have changed, in some localities rather drastically, in
other locations, not so much. If we are in a cyclic cooling or
heating changes on earth, what is important is how this will affect
living on this planet. We have ample evidence that this planet has
gone through some really violent and drastic changes in the weather
in the past and have fairly conclusive evidence what the effects on
populations. For me, the important question is how we are going to
deal with these changes, not the argument about whether they are
caused in part or whole by mans activities, which obviously is not
going to change. The PTB have for a whole lot of years (since the
end of WWII) attempted to control the weather (geoengeneering) by
various means, and to a large degree, seemingly failed. We are
dealing with a system that is so complex that our present concept of
science simply cannot control it on a wholesale basis. Not so sure
it would be a good idea to do so. With the elites controlling the
weather you can be it would be used for social control and utilized
as a weapon anyway.
For me, I try to steer away from
absolutist statements about much of anything. There are some areas
that I will indulge in absolutist positions, but keep in mind they
may not be consistent with reality, particularly in dealing with
human behavior and its consequences. The scientific community has
its renegades who propose that nearly everything we think we know is
simply not true. Hell, we have evidence that most of the
“constants” we have accepted as being absolute, aren't. One of
the more recent ones is the decay rate of of particular radioactive
materials, and the “red shift” being an indication of receding or
advancing distances.
If our species can manage to stay alive
long enough, we will experience many more cosmic surprises.
For those that follow the archdruid's
writing, he has been examining belief systems and how hey work and
what causes them. He insists that the relatively new belief system
that permeates our society revolves around the religion of “progress”
that has taken on the same characteristic as what we normally call
religion. I find it interesting that humans generally seem to
need to believe in some far reaching future scenario, especially in
regard to their own existence. For those that buy into the belief
system of “progress” and “technology” that will save the day
for human existence, I say, that it does not seem to be consistent
with our reality. Whatever “progress” and “technology” has
contributed to human life has benefited a only very small amount of
human life on this planet, and for the most part has added to the
misery of most. Western modern civilization comprises only a small
part of the human population on this planet. Yes, the convenience
of that group has gone up dramatically in the last 300 years, and has
now begun an observable decline in in returns. To a large extent,
our “progress” has gone in the direction of convenience by button
pushing. I'm not entirely convinced that this is progress.