I like 'conspiracy theories' to a degree. At least I find them entertaining. Often I find amazing bits of verifiably correct information that I probably would never have seen anywhere else. There are even times when the 'conspiracy theorists' turn out to be correct and the pooh-poohers wrong. There really are such things as false flag operations. They have existed at least since ancient Rome and the US government has been involved in their share of them, as revealed by their own de-classified documents, tapes, etc. Are you more likely to believe such things are true if you see them in the 'lame stream media' rather than the 'wackjob web sites'? How about ABC News? Operation Northwoods was a PROPOSED false flag operation, according to the story, that wasn't actually implemented, but could have been. Involved the US military destroying some of their own equipment and claiming Cuba did it as a justification for war on Cuba. "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," ... "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." Source.
You see how 'conspiracy theorists' get the notion that 9/11 could have been the same kind of thing...a public justification for war in Iraq? Given the power of the US government, I still don't get why anyone in the government would give a rat's ass about having a "public justification" for war or anything else. They can simply do whatever they please regardless of what "the public" may think about it. Apparently, for some reason they still want to maintain the delusion for a while yet that the US has a "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
I find it odd that most of the time if you really examine the conspiracy sites, you find that they also have strong religious beliefs. Not quite sure why that connection should exist but it does. You DO have to 'consider the source', but it's also important to not shoot the messenger. Automatically dismissing something just because it comes from a conspiracy site, without checking yourself for any truth in it, is a mistake if you really want to be fairly informed about the world.
For Those Who Want To Know seems to be one of the better sites for this kind of info. They have some connection to 'inspirational' stuff, but that shouldn't necessarily matter to the truth or relevance of the info presented. Of course you can also play at the dualing conspiracy sites Prison Planet, Info Wars (Alex Jones competes against himself), Above Top Secret, Jeff Rense at Rense, and David Icke. Sure they have stuff about bigfoot, UFOs, crop circles and alien lizard people, but...what else is there that might not be so far out? They also have loads of stuff on contemporary news events, politics, wars, laws, etc. Think of these as like those picture puzzles where the goal is to spot the objects that don't belong...some may be easy, some not so much. Is your mind up to deciphering which is reasonable and which is not?
The New World Order always fascinates me. It can mean everything from a professional wrestling stable to what George Bush the First said in that video clip, to a book by H.G. Wells, written in 1940 (which you can read free here). The first mention of the NWO in the US seems to have been referring to the establishment of the League of Nations, after World War I. (That "novus ordo seclorum" on the dollar bill translates as "New Order of the Ages", not New World Order.)
I am amused that so many people seem terrified of the notion of a global or planetary government. Seems to me, assuming humanity keeps going pretty much as it has been, that this is as certain a thing as tomorrow's sunrise. There were family groups, then tribes, then villages, cities, city-states, nations, and the next logical step is planetary government. Again, it seems there's a very strong religious connection involved in this fear. There's even such a thing as the Sovereign Citizen Movement which claims that an individual is "sovereign" and not subject to any laws. This is kind of like anarchy (though they would probably shoot you if you said so), and a great idea in principle, but it ain't ever gonna happen. No man can truly be an island.
This "loss of sovereignty" of nations seems to be the biggest fear about the NWO. If that happens the United States will no longer be a sovereign nation! Yeah...so? Would you want UN troops on your town's streets!? No, but I don't want American troops there either. An awful lot of folks seem stuck a century or two ago in their political ideology. There will probably be a North American Union at some point. There will be a global government. Given enough time there will probably be a Federation of Worlds of inhabited bodies within this solar system (our moon, Mars, moons of Jupiter,etc.), then maybe of the galaxy and eventually, just maybe, Carl Sagan's "citizen of the Cosmos". What I find sadly amusing is that so many people have the delusion that they personally have some say in whether or how these things happen. The more population there is the less your 'say' matters. It's kind of like that continual (so far) demoting of humans from being THE reason for the universe, to being only the tiniest of specs on another tiny spec among billions of billions of specs.
I've even had some folk think I've gone off the deep end with believing in 'anti-government conspiracy theories' cuz I like the Zeitgeist Movement (ZM) and The Venus Project (TVP). I think that's mostly a misunderstanding though. Far as I can tell there is nothing 'anti-government' or 'conspiracy' about those, at least not in the sense of the Montana Freemen kind of way. There has recently been a tiff apparently between those groups, a split, though I don't think it rises to the level of Martin Luther and his Ninety-Five Theses...more like the Independent Baptists breaking off from the Southern Baptist Convention, lol.
Naturally there are some who claim that ZM and TVP are variously "cults", "scams", "utopias", etc., though I have yet to see any support for that. Everything in the world, including these, involves money to some degree, but they sure don't beg for donations like televangelists, nor, as far as I can see, advertise for people to come somewhere and live in a commune. I sure don't agree with everything either bunch says, and damn sure am not a "believer" or "follower" of them or anyone else.
Usually when anyone talks about something that really sounds good, it does turn out to be "too good to be true", though, with these outfits it's not because there's anything fundamentally wrong with most of their ideas, just that neither they nor anyone else has, or ever will have, the power to make any of the ideas reality on a huge scale. I love the Resource Based Economy ideas, and it would be mostly wonderful, but the powers that be, not to mention those addled by the same ideologies, will always be the powers that be, at least for the foreseeable future. I recently said something in a thread about there being no actual scarcity of most resources...that most of the "scarcities" are manufactured and manipulated by such things as planned obsolescence, mass advertising and marketing social manipulation, etc.
A guy told me that was the most ignorant thing he had ever heard in his entire life. Apparently he doesn't understand that it is entirely possible to build a car, for example, that could easily last 20 to 50 years or more, with periodic upgrades reflecting newly emerging technical improvements. The main reason no one does of course, is because of the monetary system...it would hardly be profitable to do such a thing. How many people would buy a new car every year if the one they already have is just fine and they could add various kinds of upgrades and improvements to it? It all comes down to the primary reason almost everyone does anything...to get money. If almost everyone did whatever they do primarily for their own satisfaction, edification, self expression, and simply to make society at large easier and better for everyone, seems obvious to me there would be, for the most part, plenty of everything for everyone. This kind of thinking just ain't in the human genome though, and ain't ever gonna be unless/until someone starts putting it there.
This might be interesting. There are several "independent city-states" within other nations. I suppose the most famous is Vatican City. Although it is geographically with the city of Rome, which in turn is geographically within the nation of Italy, legally speaking Vatican City is a sovereign nation, not under the laws of Rome or Italy or anywhere else. As far as I know this is the only truly sovereign nation in such a condition, but there are several other places which are not really nations or states, but not really part of the place they are in either. One is Washington DC. It's not a state and it's not a part of any of the 50 American States. It's wedged between Maryland and Virginia. It has a mayor but not a governor and it's citizens have no representation in Congress except for one 'delegate' who is also not allowed to vote on anything. "Unlike residents of U.S. Territories such as Puerto Rico or Guam, which also have non-voting delegates, citizens of the District of Columbia are subject to all U.S. federal taxes". Ironic, huh, being thought of as the seat of Democracy and all that rot.
Another is the City of London, which seems to be both a corporation and a political entity, completely different from the huge city of Greater London. Some conspiracy folk say these three little places comprise the religious or spiritual (Vatican), political and military (Washington DC), and financial (City of London) rulership of the world. Do they have a point? Sure, Vatican city is a tiny place, but you know how much wealth it controls in the whole world, not to mention influence over people? Sure, Washington DC is a tiny place, but it has currently dispatched troops on the ground and bases in most of the nations in the world. Sure, the City of London is only about a mile square, but within that space are the headquarters of most of the financial institutions of the world.
You don't like the Patriot Act? You ever read it, know what's in it? You don't know the half of it, according to Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). He says, "We're getting to a gap between what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says." Source. President Obama just signed an extension of it...even though he's in Europe. Signed it 'electronically'.
Did you ever actually read The 9/11 Commission Report? No, I didn't either. I would like to read at least parts if I get around to it. Do I know "what really happened" at 9/11? Of course not, and neither do you. I do know I find it extremely hard to believe that Building 7 pancaked down simply due to fires (It wasn't hit by any airplane). If that is really what happened, seems like some amazingly piss poor construction to me. Here's a site that talks about that and "debunks" the conspiracy theorists...see what you think.
ATTENTION! The following is a test of your intuitive cognitive abilities. One of these is factual, the other is fictional. Which is which? No cheating.
Air Force Space Command. OR United Nations Space Command. Surprised?
Is there really a secret group or society of Illuminati? Definition of "illuminati": "persons possessing, or claiming to possess, superior enlightenment." If the person or group is only claiming to be enlightened, they're probably just silly. If they really are enlightened, they are smart folk...either way, why be afraid of that? Yes, there was that Bavarian Illuminati secret bunch that was formed in 1776, but is there such a group now? If there is, they are so secret, I have no knowledge of them. If there are does it bother you? Maybe they are now called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). That sounds kinda like some governmental outfit, you know, like the Federal Reserve. But just like the Federal Reserve is neither federal nor has any reserves, the CFR is not really a government outfit, though many government types are in it. Under the "resources" tab on the web site there are links for Business, Congress, Diplomats, Educators, Religious Community, etc. Are you surprised that NBC anchor Brian Williams and Angelina Jolie are CFR members? I'm pretty sure they don't let folks who live in trailers be members though.
Alright, alright, I'll stop here and start a different bog. No, it ain't a typo.
TRB
No comments:
Post a Comment