I receive many emails and some concern things by concerned people and don't always go down too well.
Such as the following message from my friend, Sven, who was being politely chastised for "spamming" a friend of his with "conspiracy theory" posts:
One of my friends wrote me this - my reply follows..
I love you dearly, my friend, but please take me off your distribution list. I don't set any store by conspiracy theories and find them mildly annoying to deal with while the world goes down the tubes by means that are in plain sight and from which conspiracy theories are an unnecessary distraction.
To which Sven responded:
My dear friend,
Although much or even most of what passes as conspiracy theory could well be false, it's important
to understand that "conspiracy theory" is always the first term the establishment turns to when they want to
quickly debunk an idea which threatens them. If these ideas were harmless to them they would probably be just ignored.
I have little idea of what is really true. (Who does ?) But there's one thing I'm pretty sure is true:
That the crucial power structures operate behind the scenes and are knowingly kept top secret by the owners of the media.
What is offered to us as the actual power structure (i.e. the president, congress etc) is the trick that is used to deceive as
to the truth of from whence the strings are actually pulled. (Obama is just part of the latest stunt).
Regards
Sven
My own take:
“The means that are in plain sight” are indeed the most insidious insults of all and while I don’t specifically see myself as a conspiracy-theorist, I am certainly a sceptic and the very basis of science, as acknowledged by scientists, is founded on scepticism – questioning everything all the time until the evidence can provide “proof” which can be replicated to support the original theory that began the process.
So whether one subscribes to the belief in science or simply trusts the sense of instinct, I maintain that most people’s belief in what’s going on in the world is based, not on science, but on the mainstream version of events as promoted by the media. Anthropogenic Global Warming is one such debate, the presumed correlation between HIV and the condition that presents as AIDS is another. However, rather than conduct our own research into these matters, most people I know certainly, and a consensus of people who seem to believe everything peddled by the media, simply accept what is being printed as being based in conclusive, empirical science and beyond debate. And to question that, as Sven does in his own style, sets one up to be ridiculed or ostracised by those too idle or stupid to seek the option of “informed choice” – i.e. reading what the other side is saying as well then deciding for themselves no matter how unpopular that view may be.
If anyone out there believes that the media in this or any other country for that matter, presents a balanced view of any particular subject whether it be environmental, health-related, fiscal or whatever then I have to confess to living in an alternative reality to the one those people gobbling up the media spin occupy.
Nowhere is the argument for and against any controversial matter given a balanced airing – the generally accepted opinion is presented as the “truth” and anything else, no matter how credible the argument may be, is dismissed as folly or falsehood.
It was not that very long ago that the majority of people inhabiting this spinning blue rock believed to their cores that the planet was flat. To say otherwise was considered heresy and people were burned as witches for promoting such blasphemous talk.
Yet, we all know now that the loony fringe who were saying the Earth was a ball, were actually right on that one. Just like they were right about scurvy and pellagra and swine flu and a myriad other devastatingly sound scientific facts that turned out to be total bullshit.
This was all promoted as unwavering empirical science in the journals of the day – and one of my favourites was the crème-de-la-crème of our academia awarding the Nobel prize to a surgeon named Moniz for drilling holes into people’s crania and destroying portions of their frontal lobes either by injecting alcohol into them or by means of a sharp steel spike – the frontal lobotomy. He was recognised and lauded for his work. And while there are people out there who probably deserve a spike through the noggin, that’s hardly the point is it!
The role of people like Al Gore, who promote a series of “theoretical” data to support a cause and guilt people into changing their lifestyle because we’re “destroying the planet” and causing “sudden and possibly catastrophic climate change” is a cause for concern. Not the alleged global warming issue – no, but why Gore has made it his raison-d’être and I don’t believe for one minute it’s because he wants to be remembered as the guy who made us all aware – bollocks!
I believe that it is more likely to sway the global populace into a way of thinking that prepares us for the introduction of new technology to eventually replace the fossil-fuel driven science of the day and initiate a relatively seamless transition from one to the other while the same moguls who have raped us financially using the old stuff will be the same dudes that continue to screw us with the new stuff. But it has to be managed otherwise the global economy is likely to collapse if we switch to cleaner technology too rapidly. Well, they blew that one as well, folks if anyone has been watching the global marketplace and the fickle house of cards that our most advanced financial minds put in place to manage our money. It isn’t founded on sustainability – it is founded on greed – that’s why we’ve not been using clean, sustainable technology that’s been around for decades, centuries in some cases – because it wasn’t viable (for the good fellows selling it) even if it was viable for the planet. Now, all of a sudden, they care about the planet – puhlease!
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have both sides of the debate (which are entirely theoretical either way) and make up my own mind instead of being made to feel guilty about what I drive, what I eat and what “ my carbon-footprint” is. It’s all theoretical shite.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t be ecologically and environmentally responsible – of course we should, but to promote this in the manner that the media and the politicians do is nothing short of insulting and disingenuous. But we’re an ignorant, lazy species for the most part so why not use that approach – it works!
So if questioning this stuff and researching it further to see what’s really going on catapults me into the realm of the conspiracy-theorist then that’s where I’d rather stay than feed on the drivel that is spewed up at us on an hourly basis in the hope that it will modify collective behaviour in the world.
But the sad thing is – it does.
And it’s not hard to see why.
