After viewing a recent site filled with conspiracy theories on the London bombings and on 9/11 (http://www.wonderfulaintit.onesite.com/) and calls himself Grimley), I felt compelled to offer
my own counterpoint to the author's claims, the latter of which seem to advocate the dissolution of government today as we
know it. I did not wish to leave comments on his webpage and chose instead to blog them here on mine (primarily to avoid "guilt
by association," so to speak). Thus, the following is my response:
You make some valid points about deception
and corruption in a beurocratic society, yet I ask you this: does corruption at various levels of the government in the United
States or Great Briton make us necessarily wrong by default? I am referring to the war against Islamic extremism and governments
who harbor, aid and abet terrorists.
Ok, let's say "I" manipulate people to maintain power and support the status
quo. "You," on the other hand, hijack airplanes, strap on body explosives, etc and kill innocent civilians without the slightest
concern for their lives. Can one of us be said to be more dangerous than the other, more ethically corrupt? For me, yes: those
killing innocent people indiscriminately. To deny the bombing events as acts of terrorism is to completely ignore the thousands
of terrorist attacks that radicals have initiated over the decades since WWII. Past behavior is the best predictor of future
For example, if one steals something, rapes someone, burns down someone's property, trades stock on illegal
tips, etc then they go to jail for various numbers of years; but if one kills someone, they go to jail for life! Both of our
societies recognize that punishment for different offences must be different, and if one commits the ultimate crime of murder,
then that penalty is most severe. Anthropologists, historians and others have uncovered this differentiation in degrees of
punishment dates back far, far longer than any freemason or illuminati-type organization.
So, when anyone for any
reason - like Islamic extremists - decides they must kill people, it is MORE morally reprehensible than other crimes. Want
war against "corruption" and "evil" governments? Then go after legitimate military targets, not innocent civilians. It is
illogical to compare a beurocracy filled with inefficiency and corruption to organizations like Al-Qaida, who kill anyone
and everyone, for THEIR political and religious agenda. Do you think an Islamic fundamentalist world where women cannot be
educated and people are executed for religious differences would be any less corrupt than what we have today? Thus, corrupt
though all governments are, we still maintain the moral high ground. Truth is grey, not black and white.
it is because of freemasons and free thinkers (from the founders of the Magna
Carta to Adam Smith's "Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations") that we have the freedom today to even
debate such issues. Until the development of free market economies, women had no suffrage and Africans were still being enslaved.
Do you really think a return to the kind of economic and political system pre-dating the freemasons is a return to greater
freedom? Can anyone tell me an advantage of feudalism or commune-style self-government that does not lead to more problems
than those which they solve?
Every issue should be viewed in the historical, social, political and economic context
in which it is set, otherwise, espousing the sort of changes that you seem to be supporting is worthless if one cannot sense
the potential conflicts that may arise by enacting such changes. For example, to espouse Marxism today as a solution without
observing the history of how previous Marxist societies turned out (totalitarianism, not true "commune"-ism) is near-sighted
and works against, not for, social justice.
I am more than willing to debate you on the issues, facts, etc in a fair
and impartial manner. If I could just add, your grammar and overuse of capitalization and exclamation marks doesn't necessarily
aid your cause in convincing individuals of the validity of your claims. . Just like you said, change and power comes from within
us, not from without. You arguments, suppositions and debates are by definition antithetical to the very thing you purport
to do: convince us of the Truth. The very Aristotelian act of "beating" change into a person from without rather than nurturing
that knowledge from within us is in polar opposition to your stated goal of getting people to be aware of the Truth and is
as far from the Socratic Method as can be. It is a contradiction of logic that borders on morally weak sophistry. You could
certainly rethink the approach of your argument.
Additionally, there is an implied vehemence in your arguments that
hint at a lack of rationality or objective fairness. By spewing anti-government, conspiratorial rhetoric, you really hint
at a Divinci Code-like, multi-millennia conspiracy that is beyond rationality. The millions of individuals needed to cover
up such a thing over the course of centuries is a logistical nightmare. Perhaps fiction should be your calling.
open and free exchange of information is important in a free society, but don't think for a moment that I will espouse any
agenda that is potentially anarchical or treasonous to Western society. That kind of change is not for the better.
Be certain that in revealing and uncovering other people's deception that you are not deceiving yourself.
Enter supporting content here
All text and
html coding appearing on www.literarian.org are
intellectual property of the respective
author(s) and are protected under
international copyright laws. The intellectual property
may not be downloaded except
by normal viewing process of the
browser. The intellectual property may not be copied to another
computer, transmitted, published, reproduced, stored,
manipulated, projected, or altered in any way, including without limitation any
digitization or synthesizing of the images, alone or with any other
material, by use of computer or other electronic means or any
other method or means now or hereafter known, without the
written permission of the respective Author(s). By
entering this site, you are agreeing to be bound by the terms of this
agreement. Entrance to this site is
expressly on these conditions which embody
all of the understandings and obligations
between the parties hereto. To
secure reproduction rights to any material here,
and to contact the respective Author(s), send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.