Normally uncertainty sits very comfortably with me. I can cope with not knowing quite well.
But Itś strange how the sinister nature and magnitude of a scenario, drives up the urgency to feel certain.
Some may opt for denial, others for alarmist retaliation. But regardles of itś manifestations, many people seem to crave certainty.
I tend to feel a more intense desire to find out. Call it UBER-CURIOSITY, if you like. Even then, I can´t know what I don´t know and I know it.
I wonder if curiosity is the only emotion that proffers an alternative to certainty.
I´ve just been trying to find out as much as I can about this strange New World Order idea, in the wake of the National Defense Authorization Act debacle. As a consequence I happened to watch the Alan Jones documentary
¨End Game¨. I can honestly say, that film this only left me with
even more ambivalence than I´d previously had.
Also, I notice a common pattern in conspiratorial rhetoric. It often seems to depend hevily upon, circumstantial evidence such as establishing some motive. It also does what fundamentalist religious propaganda often does, by starting with a conclusion and arguing with full force for a preordained conclusion. Starting with pre-ordained claims they wish to assert, then finding evidence that suits the conclusion, whilst employing confirmation bias, by neglecting any mention of contrary points, reasoning or evidence etc. Isnt this another manifestation of that
desire to be sure? To
believe that we know.
I mention this as I find it somewhat annoying, when attempting to approach an issue in earnest, with an open mind, only to find the issue clouded by, or drowned out by a horde of baying drones trying tenaciously to push their conclusion by whatever divisive and dishonest means possible. Any shred of truth it may contain, is thereby undermined by the least critical and most pernicious rhetoric.
Let me give three examples:
The first was the moon landing hoax. I had leg up on this one, with a long standing interest in astronomy and cosmology. The least convincing of the numerous claims made. was the lack of stars in the background of the lunar skyline. The explanation is quite simple. There is no atmosphere (which here on Earth makes the sky appear blue) on the moon. You can stand on the daylight side of the moon, look up at the sky and it will still be black. Nevertheless the ambient light is still too bright for stars to outshine. You don see stars on the daylight side of the moon for the same reason you don't see them on the daylight side of the earth. Mystery solved. Now just a quick memo to all the Moon hoax websites and the misunderstanding will be corrected right?
Not likely. I noted that when it was well refuted that the hoax theorists would either not counter the point, or retort with something like: Well if you´re so smart, why is... [change of topic - insert new contention] ...blah blah blah... The websites didn't seem to care to revise their miss-information either.
To me, this has the effect of ringing alarm bells. If the mainstream populists of this idea, had a shred of intellectual integrity, their little misunderstanding would be corrected. If they wouldn't even do that much, then I´m not about to listen astutely, to a myriad of their other claims, expecting them to be one iota more honest.
The 9/11 ¨truthers¨ were not so easily dismissed in my mind. Even still, there was a particularly poorly thought out and well refuted argument put forward (never mind the details). I remember thinking just the same thing. These people won´t admit when they are wrong and their worst (and fully refuted) arguments are as tenaciously clung to as the underside of a flat earth. I would like to know if there is a vestige of truth in any scientific social, economic or political theory, but there are many interests to pursue and issues to be concerned about. I´m not going to sit there, discussing wildlife safety strategies, with the boy who cried wolf.
This is one of the main reasons I have barely ever gone near the issue of the New World Order. Apart from being a little too... er...
political for my taste, it positively wreaks of conspiracy theorist BS.
Discovering bitcoin and the more sane side of the dialog, my perspective was widened somewhat. I was already a do-it-yourself libertarian at heart, with a healthy contempt for authority and a disdain for corporate monopolies and the wretched governments they manipulate. But bitcoin cracked the door open a bit on financial economics for me; then I watched the animated documentary,
¨Money As Debt¨ and that just blew the whole damn door off it´s hinges. Even in my mid forties, I seem to be forever re-assessing my credulity.
How could I have been so naive? Wait...That´s not really being fair... I´d really been much more like
willfully ignorant. I hadn´t wanted to know about the NWO, because It was clearly going to be a festering pot of BS and politics. Only recently have many of us come to learn about this ¨National Defense Authorization Act¨. It seems that Mr Jones has a couple of feathers to stick in his hat about how dire the situation actually is. I was surprised at the brashness of some of these crazy old fools, even to the point of openly mentioning their NWO. I hadn´t even noticed obvious clues. In my defense though, I had long felt that itś necessary for the world to become politically unified in some way, even though my concept was more organic and cooperative. Like, the grass roots organizations would eventually unite and make government redundant. The problem we are facing, is more of a monopolist (dictatorship), top down hierarchical NWO with tyrannical ruling class and a slave like subservient peasantry. (Not to mention the extermination program, if there´s any truth to it.)
I found the first part of Jones´s documentary ¨The End Game¨ compelling, but I noted an arbitrary sort of ´pick´n´mix¨ of other ideological contentions woven though it. Going from the fairly obvious shady, sinister plotting, of a secretive cartel of bankers, royalty and political puppets, to some planned extermination of 80% of the world population, seemed like far too much to swallow. Mind you, I would have considered the ¨National Defense Authorization Act ¨ highly unlikely too, if it didn´t actually happen. I was somehow surprised or taken aback, when the global statistics, for death by unnatural causes (stretching back through history) were mentioned. A healthy majority it would seem, are exterminated by their own state rulers. When looked at a particular way (assuming the stats arn´t fabricated), it doesn't seem likely, so much as, almost inevitable. A chicken will trust the chicken farmer, right up to the day he comes with an axe rather than a bucket of grain. Is our supervision of government, really so poultry.
Towards the end, I found my credulity and ire being tested once more, by the outlandish characterization of biological evolution and it´s association (by equivocation) to eugenics. Now I´m back in more familiar territory - all
too familiar. The ideas presented in the documentary, now suddenly seemed so much more preconceived, fabricated and cobbled together for the sake of a rhetorical construct. Many of us, according to this account, will be doomed to destruction at the hands of the elite and wealthy, or forced into labor camps. The anti-Darwin/Malthus/Huxley rhetoric, gave up the hopelessly impoverished intellectual rigor of the whole film. It was a vile, lamentable attempt at crass ad-hominem, as if dragging their names through the mud was a way to disprove their science. What credit Jones had gained for predicting USA would become a militarized zone, was shot in the foot by the loony, fundamentalist crackpot rantings that followed.
Another incongruous aspect, was the charges laid at the feet of various conservation organizations (Notably the WWF) that had allegedly been setup from the start to do the bidding of the evil empire, by creating massive global ghettos and exclusion zones, while helping to drive the propaganda mill for the global environmental science establishment. Seeeee how it all fits in? Apparently Mr Jones is a bit of a climate science denier also. The problem I have with this, is in the same the way a plot can be built top down, so can a conspiracy theory. Apparently it is too. When so many controversial ideas are packed together this way you might begin to smell fabrication. Isnt it remarkable that so many of these otherwise unrelated conspiracies that happen to be Mr Jones pick´n´mix all hapen to fall together in the same co-cohesive plot. I wouldn't have been surprised to discover the Illuminati had used NASSA as a front to somehow make the earth look spheroid. So itś not just a particular conspiracy, but an interwoven raft of mutually supporting crackpot ideas.
A construct such as this, is hard to believe, because it tests our incredulity on so many fronts and because it´s proponents fail to address inconsistencies with other know facts. The more crackpots tend incorporate multiple conspiracy theories, the more they demonstrate they hold a very broad brush of credulity. We´re supposed to be impressed by the way all these conspiracies fit together in such a mutually supporting way. But the plot itself (even if it were true) is deliberately constructed top down (either by the perpetrators or the conspiracy theorists themselves), so either way itś a fabrication, in the sense of a contrived plot. If the scenario can be created by one, it can be created by the other.
The big problem that comes with aligning oneself with crackpot ideas, is that when you DO have something important to say, you get treated like the boy who cried wolf. This scenario is a dangerous idea (right or wrong). I still very much suspect something is horribly amiss with the US Government, as itś hard to imagine any good justification, for any freedom loving, non-aggressive governments, to reserve such power against their own people. It´s just a pity we have to sift the useful information out from all the looney stuff, to work out what is really going on.
Cheers. Karmicads
