Submitted by Pachamama
‘There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.’ Harold Pinter (1958).
In philosophy there is a branch of thinkers who consider themselves as critical realists. Critical realism seeks to separate what is real from what is false. At the same time we live in a world where many people have been labeled as ‘conspiracy theorists’, for decades, even after they have been proved correct by the passage of time, studies, official admissions and insider exposures. However, this term persist as a potent weapon of disparagement. We now have clear proofs that the FBI invented the term ‘conspiracy theorist’, in the early 1960’s, as a device to deflect criticisms of US government’s involvement in the death of Robert Kennedy (POTUS). Our duplicitous existential reality suggests to some that we must therefore question all utterances by ‘official’ sources. This questioning mindset must have, as its point of departure, the assumption that we live within a tapestry of lies.
Today in the news, a future king of Barbados and most of the Caribbean, Charles ’Mountbatten’, from the House of ‘Windsor’ (HOW) is reported to have had several secret meetings with senior government ministers, and prime ministers to insulate his personal interests from government actions, or influence government, to operate in ways that would be beneficial to him. However, the reality that has always been fed to us always purported that the political elites where accountable to the people who voted for them. We always believed that there was a firewall between the political mechanism and Buckingham Palace. That meetings between Buckingham Palace and the political elites where merely informational and nor strategic or operational. That the Guardian Newspaper has had to go to court to get information about elected official having ‘working’ relationships with the HOW about their personal commercial interests may tell us that the artificial separation we once presumed is not real. Many people have been making this argument in the past. Other unofficial statements range from claims of ‘reptillianism’ or ‘shape shifting’ to a Royal conspiracy within the HOW over the death of Princess Diana to questions as to whether the second son of Diana was fathered by Charles.
Also in the news today are Ladar Levison and Nicholas Merrill, the owner of Lavabit, an encrypted cloud email provider and an ISP provider respectively. Merrill received a National Security Letter (NSL) from the FBI requesting information about some of his over 400,000 subscribers. He attracted their attentions because of unknowingly providing an encrypted email account for Edward Snowden. When one receives such a letter you cannot even admit that you have – to anybody, not even to your lawyer. It can be issued by an FBI agent alone, there is no possibility for a challenge in court and represents a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the USA. Not even the FISA court needs be involved. Even if you want to get a lawyer you have to get the permission from the FBI. Could you imagine this? Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. These were the central arguments made against the USA law for warrantless wire tapping by, a then, Senator Obama in the well of the United States Senate. As POTUS he has taken a diametrically different view. Levison, instead of cooperating with this unjust law choose to close his business instead of cooperating with the FBI. Merrill was wrapped up in court battles for seven years against a government that wanted to avoid a US Supreme Court judgment but was willing to surreptitiously pick and choose particular lower courts which would reliably find in their favour. And we like to think that the USA has an impeccable legal system. What is the difference between this behavior and that of the proverbial ‘Banana Republic’? How can average people stand a chance against this oppressive governmental apparatus? Why has Obama changed his mind about this matter in particular and a long range of other issues? Is it possible that other forces are at work with incrementally more power than voters? Does it really make sense to vote in the first place if we are powerless anyway? Is there a hidden government operating in our world? And if so could stories about culling billions of people, be a matter of reality?
We are less than a month from the anniversary of ‘September 11’. The official narrative tells us that 19 men with box cutters hijacked four air craft in ‘terrorist’ acts against the USA. In the interregnum serious doubts have been raised by a broad range of professional, eye witnesses and whistle-blowers about the veracity of that tail. Yet, the official narrative predominates. Nobody knows, for certain, all the information about what happened but certainly there is much evidence, not proof, to suggest that the official story is a monstrous lie. And many more lies are still being unearthed. For examples, there is the obvious issue of Building Seven. It was not struck by a plane. No major debris of the Twin Towers fell on it and yet it collapse in a similar manner. This was a manner that resembled the ‘pulling’ of substantial buildings. Are there people out there who are so confident in their beliefs, or possessing the ability to enforce a false narrative and that we are morons that would ever accept this tail? Is part of their agenda to test us with these events preparatory to some larger objectives? How can we know what is real and what is a lie when evidence which contradicts the official narrative is never considered?
Some so-called conspiracy theorists argue for the presence of a global government. They contend that such a governing system provides a wide range of political, social and economic ideologies to cater to all currents in populations. So it matters not whether you are ‘B’ or ‘D’, Republican or Democrat, capitalist or communist, environmentalist or Islamist, Zionist or Gentile, they argue that we are serving the same some small group of people – oligarchs, old families, old institutions, lodges and other ‘fraternal’ institutions. We have no firm evidence to support this contention though some may argue that the proof is all around us. Some contend that the real powers, that be, are brazenly flaunting their unrivaled power and dominate the landscapes. However, when we see how easily dangerous international regulations like the WTO could be implemented almost universally and hardly any opposition, we wonder. When we see how a false banking crisis could be manufactured to envelope the whole world and not one single banker goes to jail, we wonder. When we see how artificial, non-organic, economic ‘bubbles’ could be created, time after time, as though to unduly pressurize the people, we wonder. When we see how politicians come and go and the people never get what they expected, we wonder. When we see Obama doing things which he knows is against his better judgment, we wonder. When we see how dangerous medicine, poisons in the food chain, millions of preventable death, idiotic religious conflicts, stupid wars and more, we wonder. We wonder about the nature of evil in this world and whether average people really stand a chance against these forces. Is this a reality that is desirable? Why must so-called ‘conspiracy theorist’ not be just another observation that is to be subjected to further investigation?
There can never be enough zettabytes of official lies that pass for what is real. When, is the right time for the peoples of the world to serious question what is real and what is unreal? What is true and what is false. So-called conspiracy theorists have not always been right. Maybe there have been wrong most of the time. In fact, there are lots of looneys out there that should be avoided, but this avoidance could be no different than searching for any other truism. But what we are talking about is not the meaning of the label as constructed by the FBI in the 1960’s to cover up the killing of Kennedy. We are basically writing about situations where evidence was made public that was initially denied only to gain acceptance long after events sometimes and other times not so distant, point in case – the Snowden revelations. Even after the revelations, so far, officialdom in Washington was denying things we knew were true. They were lying. How are we, as a society, to weigh evidence from fringe elements in the future? Is there a case for bringing people we previously called conspiracy theorists out of the cold because they have been proven right several times in the past? How are we to assess the nature of a society that condemns truth tellers and when they truths become ‘official’ that very officialdom pretends the character assassination never happened but seeks to change the issue to one of criminality instead?