Thursday, September 19, 2013
FORMING OPINIONS, PERSPECTIVES AND CONSEQUENCES
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.