Introducing myself via curiosity
Hi, just signed on the forum, been a plus member for a few months. Gordon White deserves the credit for this.
I certainly have a hunch that there's a difference between "official reality" and actual reality. However...I have yet to hear a compelling argument explaining how this is done by a small group of people. In my view, an animistic explanation is more feasible than the idea that a numerable group of shadow elites actively control the narrative. Logistically speaking, that just seems at the extreme edge of plausability.
I'd like to know more about the practical challenges facing such a theory and how proponents of this paradigm overcome these practical challenges.
I hope this is a good place to post this. I might also cross post to the THC+ forums.
Also, I am not erudite in this field of inquiry and am aware of my own ignorance. I certainly don't mean any of this as an attack, I honestly just liuke to know what others' perspectives are.
Looking forward to reading your viewpoints, reading recommendations and so forth...
Welcome. I love Gordon White. I don't even agree with him a lot of the time but he is so very bright and interesting and a wonderful communicator. You might be interested in reading his archonology series on runesoup.com
Hi, Yes I read the archonology series. I read all the articles he writes. I also ordered his two books recently published.
Welcome! Gordon is the man, and will be back on THC to talk about one of his new books in Feb.
I'm open to entertaining all types of ideas, and I get what you say about animalistic explanations...but I guess I'd say the most convincing argument for the paradigm of a "small number of controlling elite" across the board would be to point out that when it comes to media, scientfic scholarship, ivy league universities, energy compnaies, organizations like the FDA, and CDC, most "foundations" and big important clubs, the military industrial complex, banking, and almost every other industry, etc.....you'll often notice a pattern than what we perceive as entire fields or huge sectors are typically only made up of about 6 companies of interlocking board members and owners control the narrative. These groups at the top of each field often work with each other, at the detriment of the larger population.
I guess what makes it such a hard pill to swallow is this impression that there's so much diversity out there, but when you break down the companies and the shell companies and who owns what, you start to see a lot of smoke and mirrors and at the top, a near monopoly in every cookie jar.
But who knows really.
Ah yes. That does make it seem more plausible. I'm still looking for a how. That could be a goid topic for a show.