Thursday, September 19, 2013
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;
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.
Monday, September 2, 2013
I'VE JUST GOT TO SAY IT
For days now, we have been bombarded with commentaries and research into the Syrian political situation/gas attack situation. One of the best, (not the only good one) was on Zero Hedge on Monday morning. http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-09-02/surreal-sadistic-syrian-subterfuge
George Ure on Monday morning had some interesting perspectives on Syria.
This article points out, AGAIN, how what we read about and what is put in front of us in the mass media is not how it is, not the whole story. Further, it pointedly makes the assertion that the folks making the actual decisions on actions in that part of the world are not the political figures we associate with these decisions. As we all pretty well know now, what is motivating all of these actions is the money interests, the really big money folks concentrated in the international banks and petroleum interests. The wars over energy control have gone up several notches.
If the U.S. and it's allies are not able to control the situation, (through the military of course), all hell could break loose, ala a large regional war. There are so many actors in this drama and so many conflicting interests that I find it impossible to keep it all straight in my mind.
I don't remember where I read it, but one commentary suggested that the NWO folks want the war so as to be justified in imposing controls on everyone planet wide. Fits right in with the agenda 21 papers, create a huge cluster fuck and then enforce the solution and the Mid East situation sure appears to me to fit that billing.
No matter who the actors, no matter what outcome, this will not be good for the lower economic 95% of the worlds population. While the top 5% of the worlds population can largely insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions, the rest of us can not. This also fits in with the agenda 21 population reduction concepts.
Another commentator suggested that we are already in a nuclear war. He points to depleted uranium munitions that have contaminated large swaths of land areas with drastic horrible consequences that will last many generations. So, through our war munitions we make more land areas uninhabitable for an increasing world wide population. That works.
I came across some demographic information lately concerning birth rates. It is asserted that when a geographical area (such as the U.S.) falls below 2.1 birth rates per women, that area is doomed for its future ethnic population and no country has survived this below 2.1 birth rate for very long. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.html This article postulates that the world needs an increase in birth rates if civilization is to survive. Of course, all these postulates assume resources will always be available and that capitalistic expansion is a good thing. Which also leads to the question of availability of resources for an expanding population, which implies the sources of energy. There is much verbiage and arguments revolving around resources. Those advocating increased usage seem to assume that the planet's resources (particularly energy) are virtually limitless.
I assume that for most of us, we can agree that we have had a corporate take over of the country. It also appears that this take over has happened in all of the “developed countries”. This has world wide implications. I'm not very enthusiastic about corporate control over my life and have spent years trying to avoid it. Nearly impossible to do on a large scale. Smaller less industrialized countries have seen the writing on the wall and taken steps to limit this takeover. Their success or failure will be a part of our current history. This limitation seems concentrated in South America. The mid eastern countries seem to be caught up in the corporate takeover. Overt and covert destabilization of a bunch of countries has led to an obvious destabilization of the whole area. I cannot help but assume that this is going according to some master plan that the banks and corporations have cooked up. I look again at agenda 21.
I suspect that the situation with Syria and the entire mid east is a pivotal point. If the corporations are successful in the complete domination of the mid east and its energy supplies, the rest of the world should be a cake walk. If however, they tip over the molasses jug ( see Briar Rabbit) and create a really big messy situation, it could go against that takeover. Also, if enough populations see the danger in this takeover, it could change their time schedule considerably. However, it appears to me that this takeover has been advanced for many years (a truly magnificent conspiracy) and will continue no matter the mid east outcome. The only thing that would stop it in its tracks would be a large explosive change in the populations value system and abolishing of our hierarchical system. Considering the 5000 years of recorded history, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
I just finished Joe Bageant's book “Rainbow Pie”. I think he is dead on right. Better than “Deer Hunting With Jesus” even. Bageant has been one of the best spokespersons for the underclass for very many years. And just who is the underclass you might ask? That includes you and I folks. If you are not at least in the middle class for income and have adopted the middle class life style and value system, you are in the underclass. In “Rainbow Pie”, Bageant spends a lot of pages talking about what it was like to grow up in the underclass in the post WWII years in Appalachia. He makes a strong case concerning class struggles for equality, for equal chances at the “American Dream”, and mostly how it has failed miserably. My understanding of the historical context in class divisions of society indicates it has been a continual struggle for most of recorded history. Even our founding fathers and the folks that drafted our Constitution had contempt for the lower classes, that contempt kept slavery going for 200 years and women and the non elite from voting.
Until societies get over the knee bending and homage to folks that claim to be better able to tell us how to live, it won't change. Until societies decide to empower themselves and stop this nonsense, most of society will remain in some form of bondage, contributing to the fortunes of those that haven't the practical brain power to stop pounding sand down a rat hole. Only when and if we take away the declaration that the state has the sole right to use force to reinforce its dictates, it will continue. Only when we declare that our lives are ours to live, and we must allow others the same, it will not change. When the citizen become apathetic or disinterested in how their government is run and by who with what agenda, you then can observe the escalation of croneyism, cynicism, contempt, and subversion of those values that make life interesting and enjoyable for the rest of us. Until we get over accepting our roll as consumers and adapt a different value system, nothing will change.