-------------------------------------------------------- From: "John Bunzl" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: rkm posting policy Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:27:38 +0100 Hi Richard, I was tempted to respond to your first message on this but refrained, I think because I sort of agree with both sides (typical coward! eh?). All the points you and others have made in support of your policy seem fine and fair enough. But despite that I have sometimes felt that there tends to be a preponderance to conspiracy theories where other far more likely rational explanations also exist. I can't recall specific examples now but I think one might have been the Asian financial crisis where, if I recall correctly, you imputed this to a conscious conspiracy of investors whereas it is in the very nature of the herd-mentality of markets that what looks like a conscious conspiracy is far more likely to be, simply, the herd mentality at work. Perhaps this view of mine stems merely from a differing view of the Matrix that is our world. Conspiracy theories tend to imply, by and large, that the Matrix is a conspiracy, is thus based in 'conflict theory'; i.e. in the belief that SOMEONE must be in control of it. This SOMEONE (group or individual) is therefore to be exposed and blamed and is consequently to be fought against. By contrast my own belief, by and large, is that NO ONE is in control of the Matrix. Despite the fact that there may undoubtedly be SOME genuine conspiracies at work here and there does not, for me, change the fact that, essentially, NO ONE is in control. As such, understanding this essential nature of the Matrix is probably the first and most crucial step to escaping it. All the best John -------- Hi John, Thanks again for another of your thoughtful and diplomatic messages. I'm pleased to have you as a subscriber. I am intrigued by your comment about 'conflict theory'. What you are saying, basically, is that one's model of the world arises from one's general psychology, or from one's understanding of psychology and sociology. For some, and it seems yourself, this may indeed be true. For people who base their beliefs on such considerations - whether they believe in conspiracies or the opposite - the actual events in the world have little relevance. Whatever happens, they can just stick to their theories, whatever they might be. The same could be said of people who believe the Bible is literal truth; such people perceive no need to investigate anything; they already 'know'. In my case, my understanding of the world arises from studying the facts. I don't _believe elites control the world, I have _learned, from long investigation, that elites control the world. The interpretations I present about certain current events, interpretations which you call 'conspiracy theories', are not the basis of my understanding of how the world works. Rather, given my understanding, which is based on historical research, I am using current events to discover the nature of current elite objectives, to illustrate how these elites are currently pursuing those objectives, and to show how they are covering their tracks with their Matrix fabrications. If the only thing I posted were these current-event interpretations, then I wouldn't be offering people very much. They can find better treatments of that kind of material on other websites, written by people who are good investigative journalists, which is not my calling. My reports of this kind are intended to supplement my more historical and analytical postings; these current-event reports are in many cases not very interesting, or persuasive, on a stand-alone basis. That's why I say most of my postings are for subscribers, rather than for general audiences. My latest article, on Apocalypse, is intended for general audiences. That's why the first section is devoted to historical background. Unfortunately, it is difficult to convey an entire and non-standard historical perspective in a relatively brief introduction to an article. I was able to present the perspective clearly enough, according to initial responses, but I wasn't able to also provide in-depth justification for many of my observations. I have however presented such justifications in earlier postings. I fully agree with you when you say that understanding the essential nature of the Matrix is the first and most crucial step in escaping from it. That's why I spent many years investigating 'how the world works' before I began thinking about 'what we can do', and why I continue to develop my understanding of the world by continuing to read historical studies. To be perfectly candid, I find it amusing how so many people put opinion at the same level as logical argument. Certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but there are many people - and I'm not referring to you here - who actually think that expressing a contrary opinion about a conclusion, without any substantiation, can serve as an adequate rebuttal to a reasoned argument. In this regard, I think that the horrible way in which mathematics is taught in schools is one of the most politically disempowering aspects of our society. Mathematics is the only subject taught in primary and high schools that has the potential to effectively develop logical thinking. Plane geometry, to take one example, is usually taught as if congruent triangles were the important part! Students are left to figure out how to develop proofs on their own; the teacher just tells them whether they got it right, not how to approach such problems. Since most youngsters cannot deal with the way math is usually taught, most adults suffer from logic-illiteracy. They respond to persuasive language without really internalizing the arguments they found persuasive. As they read different material they find themselves swayed first by one view, and then by a competing view, without developing their own internal models. In the end, they can only throw up their hands, thinking it's all too confusing to draw any conclusions. Confusion is uncomfortable, and people try to escape from it in various ways. Some say, "I'm not going to think about big issues; I'm just going to take care of my family." Some just choose a belief system that is comfortable emotionally, and take the view that one belief is as valid as another. Others find comfort in religions and other cults, substituting agreement for understanding. Most have few tools with which to resist the carefully orchestrated Matrix story line, and the carefully circumscribed 'range of views' that seem, by design, to be presenting 'all sides'. I do try to be persuasive in what I write, but I also try to present things in a way that encourages the reader to think about and understand the material that is being presented. In particular, I try to give people tools that can help them figure things out for themselves, and better resist the Matrix. This is a two-way street, by the way, as many of these 'readers' understand more than I do about various subjects, and their responses have over time added much to my own understanding. best regards, rkm http://cyberjournal.org
