it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope

Expanding on an earlier post.

"Conspiracy theorist" has received its negative connotation as a pejorative label largely from the Corporate Military-Industrial Government-Media Complex as a means to limit "acceptable" opinion and to end debate on a given subject, such as the proposed North American Union or the reality of the American Empire.

This method of limiting "acceptable" opinion is a self-reinforcing model. People who subscribe to these limits of rational debate, either consciously or unconsciously, serve to reinforce the model, collectively and individually. Many people think that because their arguments conform with the "mainstream" limits of debate, that their rationale is rational and sound. This situation amounts to mindless groupthink and is, together with representatives who have not obeyed and continue to disobey the Constitution, part of the reason that, as Ron Paul has articulated, our Constitutional Republic is in remnant status today.

Too many people do not question their government or hold their elected representatives accountable. How else can we expect for our representative democracy and our Constitutional Republic to survive? Shall we simply put our faith in the politicians? In the media?

No.

We have familiarized ourselves with the chains of bondage that we have prepared our own limbs to wear. We have been summarily betrayed by what can only be called a corporate/government media cabal. Are we to continue to look to our abuser for aide? I say think for yourselves.

It is disconcerting that the control model that I have described serves to generally discourage rational debate in the sense that people who would otherwise vigorously debate a given subject, such as the NAU or American Imperialism, are dissuaded that they will face the scorn of the "mainstream" (however that is arbitrarily defined today) and the stigma of any of a sickening buffet of pejorative labels (kooky, lunatic fringe, conspiracy theorist, "not serious," etc.).

Nonetheless, rational people have agreed throughout history and continue to agree that there is a singular Truth to discernible reality. For instance, American Patriot, Patrick Henry:

"This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it." -Patrick Henry

How would the venerable Patrick Henry have responded to today’s standard of arbitrary limits of “acceptable” opinion and debate? How would he have responded to the grand manipulation and mitigation of the freedom of debate? How would he have “hoped” to arrive at the truth?

I sense that our nation was founded by “conspiracy theorists.”