Conspiracy Theory, The Pathology of Institutions, and The World Situation

"Every true secret must of itself exclude the profane. Whoever understands it is of himself, by rights, an initiate." ~ Novalis

A Democracy is a tyranny of the majority, in which 51% of the population can take control the other 49%. Americans do not live in a Democracy. We live (at least, in theory) in a Constitutional Republic, in which even 99% of the people do not have the right to take away the rights of the remaining 1%. However, since our nation's founding, and long before, there have been power struggles between those who want to ensure our rights and those who want to use and manipulate us as commodities; namely, the bankers and those in league with them. At present, we live within a system which is somewhere between a Constitutional Republic and a Plutocracy, leaning heavily toward the latter. This is a situation in which the richest 1% are, frequently, in a position to take away the rights of the remaining 99%.

In such a system, not being a victim means somehow being smart and/or skeptical enough to realize the profound effects that money (and those who care for little else) has on our institutional structures -- particularly media and government. It means waking up to the many ways in which you are being lied to. It means seeking out alternative, independent news sources, and ultimately acquiring a sweeping, historical vision of what's going on here. Having a vote means nothing if the information you are heeding is bull, so you have to be smart and self-motivated enough to find the truth. Not everyone can do that, -- let's face it, even some of the most savvy people are so overworked and distracted that they haven't the time or energy for this search (and, undoubtedly, it could be argued that this lack of time and energy is by design) -- but those of us who can search have a responsibility to the rest, to spread awareness and to find ways of subverting the flaws in this system.

The corruption actually extends to our medical institutions and practically all areas of the sciences. First, you need to understand that these systems are composed of individuals who need and want to keep their jobs, and many who want to make names for themselves. All of that creates bias, but it's how our world works. What happens is, a dispute arises between two or more factions, and people stake their careers on the particular theory or model that they support... A theory or model gains supremacy, not because it is more accurate, but, generally, because it has more influential supporters, and can make more money. Eventually, yes, the truth comes out, and the better system triumphs, but usually not before it is stigmatized and consigned to the scrap heap. When one theory gains dominance, the "anomalous" evidence in support of the contrary theory (or theories) is buried, and those in support of it are ostracized into obscurity. Some social theorists have called this process "knowledge filtration". Basically, they lose funding, lose their jobs, etc., if they don't tow the line.

Of course, most people tow the line because they implicitly trust the prevailing paradigm. If the dominant view, for example, is that drugs and surgery are the best treatments for Cancer, and that radical changes in diet are less effective, they will assume that this view is grounded in solid research. Books like "When Healing Becomes A Crime" and "Forbidden Archeology" can help shine light on the bigger picture, but they are not located on the beaten path, and most people will scoff at the premise without even hearing the arguments and evidence. In fact, most people are so entrenched in their cultural programing, that they have no idea how thoroughly they are being manipulated and victimized, and they will adamantly defend those structures which victimize them; stigmatizing anyone who attempts to pull back the curtain as a paranoid conspiracy theorist nut. So it goes.

Every time period has overthrown and disproven the prejudices of the centuries preceding it. Yet, every time period continues to cling tenaciously to the contemporary models as if they were the final word. What can we learn from this? Only that one should not dare to consider oneself a critical thinker unless one is equally as skeptical of the mainstream as of the alternatives. The methods and models of the future have always arisen, and will continue to arise, from the margins. History has shown that nearly every significant discovery was first disparaged and rejected by the established order of the day. Will we ever learn?

How is that, in the face of the sweeping historical perspective mankind has achieved, the vast majority of people still sacrifice their skepticism in the face of a university degree, and embrace cynicism as a response to anything not already approved by the established order? The fact of the matter is that at a university, one is far more likely to be indoctrinated than educated. True scholarship is an independent effort requiring a passionately inquisitive mind. Practically all that is necessary for a university degree is the ability to memorize and to regurgitate the views of the past and present day. In such an environment, progressive thinking is a hindrance, not a help. We must realize that the ability to unlearn is often a prerequisite for the ability to learn. We can learn nothing new when we are fixedly convinced of a falsehood.

History moves at a snail's pace. Innovations which require the abandonment of enormous institutions, and the restructuring of entire fields, like medicine, education, economy, etc., are not easily accepted. Just imagine it: Suppose a radical discovery is made in medicine which undermines the entire system. Do you think the medical schools will gut their curriculum overnight? That diplomas will be revoked from doctors everywhere? That billions, maybe trillions, of dollars worth of equipment will be destroyed? That organizations (and the thousands they employ) will gracefully bow out in light of the emerging evidence? Of course not! People will resist such sweeping changes; consciously or unconsciously, they will scramble to defend the structures in which they are ensnared.

And all of this is visible to a relatively miniscule percentage of the population. Though history illustrates these truths again and again, only a small number of people, far in advance of their times, have been in a position to grasp them. Like the legendary prophetess, Cassandra, they speak the truth and are not believed. The lyricist, Kurt Cobain, wrote: "A little tribe it's always been. And always will, until the end." Is this statement lacking in optimism, or does it just about sum up the historical predicament? Many believe we are coming into a time of greater awareness, when larger numbers of people will be receptive to these truths. I'm not so sure.