Mildly interesting, but not explanatory
Reader comment on item: [Michael Barkun on] Old Conspiracies, New Beliefs

Submitted by morpheus (United States), Feb 5, 2004 at 13:37

I understand what you're saying, but if things work the way that the 'authorities' claim that they do, then why is the world totally screwed up? If everybody claims that all the alleged higher institutions of western society are being honest with us, then why does war proliferate, wealth continue to be held by a very powerful minority, chaos appears to reign. Although I hear lots of banter from people with 'conventional' views, why do these explanations explain nothing? The simple fact of the matter is that they are only 'feel-good' rationalizations that keep people fat, dumb, ignorant, and complacent about their place in life, and the condition of the world, while allowing vacuous images of failed ideologies to dominate their thought patterns. This is why the dysfunctional status quo continues to be reproduced by new generations, and is also why the same problems in societynot only never get resolved, but they actually grow and proliferate.

... I'll just briefly state a few more things regarding this topic. I'd like for you to show me where in the mainstream there is any greater viewpoint higher than one from a social, cultural, or national perspective. It appears to me that these are the only levels where critical analysis of what is happening on this planet occurs in mainstream thought. Unfortunately, the lack of an honest analysis of this country or planet from higher perspectives, such as from a planetary, or even universal perspective, is the critical flaw in all of these mainstream opinions. I don't expect you to pursue this, as you are already ensconed in the status quo. One tip if you do decide to embark on this journey: always ask the question 'why?'. Honest answers to this one question will take you as far as you dare to proceed. Are we brave enough to pursue the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.