Re: Food for thought

you still have to pick and choose. and what basis do you use to do that?

It is comments like that that reinforces in me the idea that you and I are probably closer to being in agreement on things than we are in disagreement. I've asked myself that very question many times - one what basis do you use to pick and chose from a wide & deep sea of information that is often contradictory? This also lead me to ask myself - what is proof? What, in my mind, constitutes proof? I tend to start off by taking a more strict and literal approach. From that view, very few things of significance in this world can be proven, but the question then becomes - proven to who? There are things I've seen with my own eyes. To me, this is proof enough for me. Can I convey this kind of proof to somebody else? No. The best I can do is tell them, after which they have proof that I told them, but they do not have proof of what I told them. It is for this reason that I've come to realize that "proof" in the context that people often demand it, is a grail, one that generally does not exist. Where does this leave me? Well, it left me with the need to have some sort of semblance to rely on , a frame work, one that might generally be one that is good enough to be good not just for a single person, but for people at large. This is why I always rely on history, it is the way I sort of find my center whenever I get too deep into certain topics. We have history. We have public records of history. I do not necessarily believe these constitute the kind of hard core proof we all like to have when we can find it, but it is among the best we have. Public records like the Congressional Library and the Congressional Record are about as close to the only thing we have that many people would agree, basically "yep, I accept that as a kind of proof of historical events".

The bottom line as I see it is, there is no one single solitary source of proof that will satisfy the masses as it concerns the conspiracy, but at the least, public records of history provide a frame work. Just the public records on the history in this country on central banking paints a fairly clear picture. It is not a totally clear picture, but a clear picture nonetheless.
This country has experienced 3 rounds of central banking. The first round began during the same year that the Bill of Rights was officially approved. Think about that! Some of the very same people "founders" who were involved in penning the Constitution, were still around a few years later when the first round of central banking politics took place. The Constitution provided no basis in authority for central banking to exist. 4 years later, some of the very same people who put together the Constitution agreed to float the idea that a central bank operated by private, foreign interests, was a good thing to do. How does one attempt to reconcile such contradictions? Recorded history provides plenty of clues, but it does not provide an iron clad answer; "proof". So, the avid conspiracy student makes note of this situation, unexplained contradictions and inconsistencies duly noted, and moves on to another branch of history; wars. We have the history of the Civil War "northern aggression". Popular versions of history insist this was about slavery, period. Less popular versions confirm that this war was about many things, including slavery to an extent, and these many things were in large part involved competing agendas between banking interests in the north and banking interests in the south. These interests marched under various banners, some British, some Scottish, some French, some Spanish / Portugese, some German, some Irish, some Italian, some Austrian, just to several of the many particulars. Collectively, they were content to place the nation as a whole, brother against brother, unwittingly placed squarely between the forces of their competing interests.... like a nut or juicy fruit placed into a vice to be squeezed. Follow the trail of wars through WWI/WWII and all the way up to the present to find that even though the public was outwardly told different reasons why we have all these wars, pull back that veil to see that all along it has been the same basic pattern repeated by being foisted onto the unsuspecting masses time and again, without fail. How does one attempt to reconcile such contradictions? Recorded history provides plenty of clues, but it does not provide an iron clad answer. So, the avid conspiracy student makes note of this situation, unexplained contradictions and inconsistencies duly noted, and moves on to another branch of history; pick one..... press/media....  medicine ....... education ...... science.......religion ..... commerce..... politics. What, if anything, do these institutions share in common? I'm not asking from the view of things that are concealed, or hidden or covered up. I'm asking, as far as what can plainly be viewed by any average person so minded with eyes willing to see, what common thread[s] do these institutions all share? Is this "proof". No. Such proof does not exist and is likely to never exist on the physical plane. Where does this leave us? This leaves us in a world where lots of things happen for which individuals may have their own unique experiences of having bits of proof, but for the people as a whole, they can prove very little if anything of significance. Such is life... and then we die. Who knows, maybe the real proof comes after we die....or maybe humans were invented to never know the real proof that would explain all of the strange things that happened while they were alive? Maybe we were made to not know. Maybe we were intended to be blissfully ignorant from our lack of knowledge of good & evil... ?