Subject:
Platonic & Aristotelian
Epistemology & Mind and Thought Control
Date:
Sun, 30 Apr 2000 21:58:25 -0400
From:
Jutta Schmitt <juschmi@yahoo.com>
To:
Franz Lee <franzjutta@cantv.net>,
Carl Zimmerman <czfz@bellatlantic.net>,
Carl Zimmerman <carlzim@philosophers.net>,
stellairis@yahoo.com,
stellairis@starmedia.com
Bill Lyne wrote:
Jutta,
As for the troubles, in retrospect I figure that, if I just get
50% of my time without such troubles, I am lucky. You, Franz and
Carl are still listed on my ICQ. My "disappearance" does not surprise
me.
I read most of your article on mind control, and would like to
offer some comments:
In terms of Aristotle, only his epistemology is all-important to
resist mind control. (Like Nietzsche, Aristotle must be taken
selectively). As you know, there are basically two epistemologies,
the Aristotelian and the Platonist. Aristotle's epistemology basically
holds that the senses are valid tools of cognition, that "seeing is
believing".
The Platonist epistemology --- that the reality we see is illusory,
and that
there exists a "higher world and a world of higher forms", which exists
"in heaven" or "somewhere" --- is inherently false. It is the
epistemological
basis not only for all religions and mysticism in general, but of all
totalitarianism and of mind control.
Tear a person loose from the reality of this world and the reality of
it, as
perceived by his senses, and cognized by his own mind, and you can
take
him anywhere you want.
That is the reason that the Nazis were Platonists, because it allowed
them to wallow a large hole in the credulity of the public, so the
Big Lies
could be dropped right into the minds of the public, just like any
kind of
trash could be dropped into an open garbage pail. They (Horbiger) invented
"Parapsychology" for this purpose. The same thing was done by the Communists,
by convincing the public that "the collective" was inherently (and
mystically)
superior to individualism. There was no basis for this assertion, which
not only was unproven, but which can be completely discredited, while
the opposite can be proven, that individualism is superior to collectivism.
Otherwise, we could all happily take our places as mind control zombies,
in
the
NWO collectivism.
With the Aristotelian epistemology, one simply says, "I haven't
seen, therefore, I refuse to believe, until and if I have seen (or
smelled, touched, heard, felt, etc.)". As Ayn Rand said, "Things are
what they are, regardless of whether or not one knows it; there are
no contradictions in reality; check your premises." If we think that
we
can believe in two or more contradictory things in reality, there is
either something wrong with our minds, with our perceptions, or with
our
philosophies. Granted, there may APPEAR to be contradictions, but in
reality, on closer analysis, there cannot be, if a true contradiction
has been asserted. As I like to say, "Every FALSE idea contains the
germ
of its own disillusion."
Hitler, when asked by the scientist Willi Ley, how he could
believe both the two contradictory cosmological theories --- Horbiger's
"Fire
and Ice" theory, and the Tibetan "Hollow Earth" theory --- Hitler's
answer
was, "We can believe in both theories, because we are superior."
That answer demonstrates the false concept that "superiority" entitles
one
to assert contradictions as the truth. It is obvious where the acceptance
of contradictions leads, either to some form of religious thought
control, totalitarianism, or to mind control. It is mystical, because
it requires a person to relinquish the discernment of his individual
mind in favor of an unproven or unprovable situation, usually
collective in nature, a belief system based purely on "faith" and not
"reason".
Unfortunately, in our world, "Die Gedanken sind
Frei" is a song
which is sung by those who have no other recourse, because they know
that that is the only freedom they have left, at least until they
have had even their minds and volitions taken over by the mind-engineers
of the all-powerful state.
Bill
Subject:
Platonic and Aristotelian Epistemology
& Mind and Thought Control
Date:
Sun, 30 Apr 2000 21:53:29 -0400
From:
Jutta Schmitt <juschmi@yahoo.com>
To:
Bill Lyne <billlyne@earthlink.net>
Bill,
thank you for your analysis and comparison of the respective epistemologies
of Plato and Aristotle, and
your observations on how Plato's cosmovision has served as the basis
for mysticism, religion, mind
control and totalitarianism, and how Aristotle's "seeing is believing"
expresses the importance of the
senses as tools of cognition and thus holds a key to resist mind control.
I agree with you on the core
points you have elaborated on both epistemologies - the inherent falseness
of Plato's "illusory reality", and
the importance of the senses with regard to cognition, as stated by
Aristotle. I add the following,
additional remarks:
As far as Plato's epistemology is concerned, its center and heart is
the the "vision of the ideas". "Vision"
in greek is theoría, and originally expresses the epistemological
passiveness of the "consumer philosophy"
of the Greek society, edified and carried on the shoulders of the slaves,
who did not figure as human
beings, but as "speaking tools" (as Aristotle called them). Due to
the slave-labour basis of ancient Greek
society, production and productive action did not enter into the realm
of Greek philosophy. Hence,
passive receptiveness, which reflects itself epistemologically as "vision",
is the main "cognition tool" of
this marvelous world-at-rest. Accordingly, Plato's postulate, the ideas,
are the “original images” or the
archetypes, that stand for the unchangeable genus, the generic kind
or essence of all things, and so
constitute the real, that is invariable and constant world, the everlasting
true being, the eternal
truth-at-rest.
In order for this unchangeable, invariable "true being" to be "true",
it certainly must not change, must not
move, must not be in process. It must be and remain what it is, in
other words, it must remain identical to
and with itself, it must rest, it must be at-rest. Thus, being is "being-at-rest",
and only as such it can be an
object of cognition and identification. Hence, for Plato, cognition
is re-cognition, remembrance of the
invariable world of ideas that the soul has seen before being born
in an illusory world of transient things
in-motion.
Cognition as re-cognition is only possible, because what has to be recognized,
the true being, is the
unchangeable thus recognizable being-at-rest of the world of ideas
(topos ouraneos). If the world of ideas
changed and moved, it could never be an object of identification and
cognition, least re-cognition and
reminiscence, because, expressed in a simplified manner, how is the
"soul" supposed to recognize and
remember something, that has completely changed ever since it last
saw it? Thus, for something to be
identifiable and recognizable, it must be at-rest. Being as being-at-rest
has been linked with the notion of
“perfection”, which plays a central role in theology - "God" is not
in motion, not in process, but absolute,
everlasting - eternal in time and infinite in space, in other words,
absolute, "perfect”.
If being-at-rest is perfect, "true being", then, being-in-motion
is imperfect "false non-being". (We cannot
say, that being-in-motion is "false being", because being is, per definition,
never false and never
in-motion, but true and at-rest, so, logically, it is "non-being" we
are dealing with here). Non-being, in
Plato's cosmovision, is matter. Matter is matter-in-motion, non-being
in-motion.
The unchangeable ideas express and "duplicate" themselves in matter,
and so give origin to the illusory
world of sense deception. In spite of matter being conceived as mé
on (non-being) or tó kénon (the
empty), it still serves the ideas for the purpose of being their means
of expression. Plato does not provide
an answer to the question, however, why this is so, and why the ideas,
in first place, have the necessity to
express themselves in matter. So, another question arises, where matter
does originate from in Plato's
cosmovision. If matter is not postulated expressis verbis in
Plato's cosmovision, as are the ideas, it can be
assumed, that matter then must somehow be a "product", a derivation
of Plato's postulate, the world of
ideas. We have "A", the ideas, and derive "Non-A", matter from it,
simply because "A" is given, and not
because matter, "B", is an independent postulate, equally coexisting
with "A", ideas. Matter is not
postulated in Plato's philosophy. It just happens to be there, but,
as a "matter" of fact, it is actually
derived from "A", from the very true being, as "Non-A", the non-being.
"Non-A" (here: matter) is pulled
our of the magic hat of "A" (here: world of ideas), so that being can
have some sort of entertainment and
fun in it's otherwise boring existence - we assume.
Matter is that, what moves, what is in motion, what is in process, that,
what becomes and not that, what
is. Matter, as non-being in-motion, is not identical with itself (because
it moves), thus it is incomplete,
variable, restless, imperfect. Its non-identity consists of not being
identical to itself, of being different with
itself, which disqualifies it as an object of cognition. Matter, for
Plato, is only insofar an object of recognition, as the illusory material
world contains expressions of the perfect world-at-rest of the ideas, which
is the only thing that can be re-cognized, remembered.
There is an irreconcilable antagonism that excludes the two worlds of
rest and motion from each other.
And yet we find, that Plato establishes a particular relation between
the two worlds, when he puts motion
in the service of rest in his Eros Principle or dialectical
method, where Eros personifies the motion from
imperfection (the material) towards perfection (world of ideas). Being
Eros the son of father poros
(richness) and mother penia (penury), of “father having” and
“mother lack”, he is both, having and
lacking, thus searching, longing. Eros has, and he lacks; if he was
only lacking, then he would have no
basis from which to search, he wouldn't even know he was lacking in
first place. Lack of something is
present as having and not-having at the same time. Having, of course,
refers to Plato's world of ideas
at-rest or topos ouraneos, which the soul has seen before birth, whereas
lacking refers to the imperfection
of the material world-in-motion, that must be gotten rid of and transcended
by means of recognition and
remembrance of the world of ideas. This is, how motion is put in the
service of rest (dialectics), and how
anamnesis, reminiscence, enters the scenery and persists until today
as Plato's heritage with regard to the
universal method of learning and studying, that is, mind control: Remembering
the absolute truths taught
by the system equals the value “true”, and anything else equals the
non-value “false”.
With his epistemology, Plato has laid the foundations for Aristotle.
The basic parameter setting with
regard to the truth as being-at-rest has been refined by Aristotle,
as expressed by his three laws of Formal
Logic - the law of identity, the law of contradiction, and the law
of the excluded third. Interestingly,
concerning contradiction, Aristotle does not deny it, and locates contradiction
in the realm of opinion and
discussion, but states it is forbidden, which is the very "raison d'être"
of dialectics ever since Plato,
including Hegel, Marx and Bloch: Dialectics lives from the forbidden
contradiction, trying precisely to
resolve contradiction and arrive at an absolute identity, putting contradiction
in the service of identity.
Now, with regard to the role of the senses in the cognition process,
and as you correctly observed in you
analysis, Aristotle states, that the determination of the essence of
something starts with that, what is right
in front of our noses, what can be noted by our sensory perception
and which directly points to the
essence of things. This sensory fact he calls óti, "that"
(latin: quod, quodditas). From the sensory fact, óti,
he distinguishes dióti, "because" (latin: quid, quidditas),
that, what establishes the context of relations of the sensorial facts.
Interestingly however, Aristotle distinguishes two moments of óti,
of the sensory fact itself: Firstly, "the
first thing in relation to the observer", and secondly, "the last thing
with regard to the nature of the
observed". According to Aristotle, the first thing in relation to the
observer, which is the sensory
impression, is the last thing with regard to the nature (essence) of
the observed; in other words, it is the
very faculty of thought, that discloses the nature of the observed
in its totality, and not pure sense
perception, according to the very Aristotle. And, not to forget, the
"nature" of things in the sense of
"essence" is still, for Aristotle as well as for Plato, the genus,
the generic kind, the "ideas" (Plato) or
"entelechies" (Aristotle).
So, "seeing is believing" is only the first half of Aristotle's cognition
tool kit, whereas "relating is thinking"
constitutes the second half, and here is where the problem comes: according
to which parameter setting
do we relate perceptions, do we think? If we "see" not only with our
senses, but with the totality of our
perception and thinking faculties, what do we see? What or who determines
those perception and thinking
faculties that we are supposed to understand reality with?
What or who determined the perception and thinking faculties in times
of Claudius Ptolemäus, when the
earth was flat, and sailors did not dare to sail to the brim of the
ocean, because they feared to fall off the
earth? What or who determined the perception and thinking faculties
in times of Galilei, when the sun
revolved around the earth and the earth was the center-at-rest of the
universe? What happened to those,
who contradicted these cosmovisions, then realities?
Why did the natives of the Bahamas not see the huge caravels of Christopher
Columbus casting anchor
off their shores, but only the conqueror's little canoes the very moment
they were lowered into the water
for to reach the shore?
If, from the questions above, we draw the conclusion that it is the
socialization process at a given stage of
the development of it's productive forces, with its corresponding norms,
traditions and education, that
determine the respective perception and thinking faculties of an epoch,
how do we escape the absolute
truths of any epoch imposed on us?
In this sense, a different light can be shed on your statement: "Tear a person loose from the reality of this world and the reality of it, as perceived by his senses, and cognized by his own mind, and you can take him anywhere you want."
Jutta.
Subject:
Re: Epistemology ...
Date:
Mon, 01 May 2000 11:37:24
-0600
From:
Bill Lyne <billlyne@earthlink.net>
To:
Jutta Schmitt <juschmi@yahoo.com>
References:
1
Jutta,
brilliantly said. Since I never took a course in philosophy, my "self-taught"
remarks are not so
thorough.
As for Plato, one cannot know his archetypes any
more than one can know anything else that doesn't
exist, even only as an "idea", because there is no "means through which
to know." Plato has placed the
ideas beyond the reach of knowledge. He has tried to turn reality on
its head, so that what he says is
"true" is unreal, while he calls the real world "illusory" and "transient".
Plato's "God" therefore is just as
unreal as his "perfect chair" in the "world of forms". Even though
he knew that the "shadows" on the
cave's wall were produced by real, physical phenomena which existed,
he chose to twist reality in attempt
to validate phony "spiritual" ideas and fake reality.
Though the senses relay the physical data of reality,
that say "existence exists" as an irreducible
primary, Plato's tortured "reasoning" was either an evasive tactic
of a fugitive from reality, or a cunning
and witting utilization of the Big Lie technique in ancient Greece.
So many weaklings are so easily
persuaded, yet today's practitioners of mind control are not, as you
said!
The earliest proponents of "modern" ("scientific")
mind control, so far as I know, were funded by John
D. Rockefeller, through the American Psychiatric Association (California),
and the Hogg Foundation for
Mental Health of the Univ. of Texas in Austin. The program apparently
consisted of several parts, one
being mind control and the other being eugenics and euthanasia ("population
control"), though I don't
know if euthanasia has been documented in the U.S., though it most
certainly is being used. Today,
instead of carta bleu gas in the mental wards, similar compounds are
being released into the atmosphere,
in medicines, and in foods and beverages.
This was all part of Rockefeller's plan to control
the human race through social Darwinism, eugenics
and religion. The Spencerian "Social Darwinism" principle had urged
eugenics. In California and
elsewhere, "mental defectives" were "sterilized" with X-rays, and the
program, as continued in the U.S.
up through WW II and the '50s, lobotomized
thousands and thousands of people, including anyone in the public or
the military who had witnessed
anything which the government did not want to be known. All it took
was the signatures of two doctors to
commit and lobotomize anyone.
Back in 1922, the Rockefeller-funded Americans had
gone to Germany and trained the SS in
psychiatric extermination techniques. By 1933 --- before Hitler had
come to power --- they had already
euthanized (i.e., "murdered") around 450,000 "defectives" in German
institutions, by the release at night
of carta bleu gas (a type of cyanide gas) in the wards, while the doctors
and orderlies were out of the
buildings. This killed the patients off little by little, so that the
public was unaware of the secret
extermination program.
The Rockefellers, through their psychological evaluator,
Dr. Ivy Lee, the world's foremost "public
relations" expert, retained by both the Rockefellers and the I.G. Farbenindustrie,
appraised the public
image potential of Adolf Hitler. Through Lee's recommendation, the
Rockefellers and the Farbens chose
Hitler from at least 30 other political candidates, to lead the German
people. Hitler's "mass psychology"
("Big Lie") program was formulated by the Rockefeller-funded group,
and used the "parapsychology"
techniques of Dr. Hans Horbiger, to stretch the credulity of the German
people so they would accept the
Big Lies of the Nazi regime.
After WW II, the experts of Nazi mind control programs,
and the vast body of new information and
techniques they had developed on the German people and the victims
of atrocities, were brought to the
U.S., under the C.I.A., to continue their work on the American people.
You are correct in your supposition that the mind
controllers have made a thorough study of how
humans can be controlled through mythical beliefs. After being induced
to believe a few lies, they can be
induced to believe bigger and bigger lies, until finally, they are
rendered incapable of knowing the nature
of reality, and can be led around by their noses by the controllers
through the mythology and
psychological triggers which have been embedded into their minds through
the mass media programming
designed by them.
Though it seems never to have occurred to Plato
to have an "integrated reality", in which one's
subjective concepts should be consistent with the non-contradictory
facts of physical reality, it appears in
retrospect that even Plato had a hidden agenda, and that his "cave
analogy" was just a trick to maintain
the status quo of a mystical/religious manipulation of Greek society.
After all, Socrates was forced to
drink hemlock because he asked too many questions. A strong and individualistic
public cannot be
enslaved, so the status quo of the Greek church-state was apparently
promoted and maintained for the
benefit of the oligarchs, by Plato.
Since the church-state concept is prohibited by
the U.S. constitution, the CIA circumvented the law,
and designed other strategies to covertly and illegally disseminate
religious, mystical, parapsychological
Big Lie propaganda, under the umbrella of the "plausible deniability"
provided by the "national security"
laws, which make it almost impossible for the public to obtain the
secret documentation to prove that the
government is behind these illegal programs.
Bill Lyne
Subject:
The Grand Chessboard ...
Date:
Mon, 01 May 2000 16:55:09 -0400
From:
Jutta Schmitt <juschmi@yahoo.com>
To:
Bill Lyne <billlyne@earthlink.net>
Bill,
I don't have the impression, that your philosophic remarks are not thorough.
Your knowledge and your
capabilities of interrelating philosophical, political and historical
data is impressive, and I learn from every
one of your contributions. I also want you to know, that I am forwarding
our thought exchange to Carl
and Franz, because this is an enrichment for all of us, and it stimulates
further comments.
I would like to make some more reflections on Plato, which I consider
important for our general
discussion of Mind Control, as Plato, with his "doctrine of ideas"
is the very father of ideology (= lies). If
we take a close look at the totality of his philosophy, we find, that
Plato's epistemology matches exactly
with his political theory as exposed in "Politeia", which gives the
whole of his philosophical system an
almost cynical coherence.
Plato has introduced something into both his epistemology and political
theory, which we could call the
"graduation of being", that is, being consists of different degrees
of reality. You will remember, that I
have already pointed out the two extremes of reality: The degree of
highest reality, "Being" itself (idea, or
"idea of the idea"), which equals the value "true", and the degree
of lowest or even non-reality,
Non-Being (matter), which equals the value "false". I have also
indicated, that, for whatever reason,
Plato's ideas "express" themselves in matter, that they “mix” with
matter and so constitute the particular
things of the illusory world. Note here, that the more “Being” (idea)
is contained in this mixture of idea
and matter, the more true, the more real it is. However, the lesser
“Being” it contains, the lesser real and
true it is. Expressed in a different way: The degree of reality of
the material particular things depends on
the respective "amounts" of matter and idea they're composed of. The
more something expresses its
genus, the more “abstract” it is, or the more something approaches
the “original idea”, the more real it is,
the more true it is. Furthermore, this "graduation of being" determines
the degree of recognizability of the
world of the particular material things: Matter is only insofar an
object of recognition, as the moving
material world contains elements of the perfect world-at-rest of the
ideas, which is the only thing that can
be re-cognized and remembered.
The same “graduation of being” as exposed in Plato's epistemology can
be found in his political theory,
with regard to the human being, as exposed by Plato in his “Politeia”.
If we study this "applied maths" we find, that the more a human being
approaches the “idea” of the genus
(generic term) "human being", the more real and true it is. The nearer
a human being approaches the
world-at-rest of the ideas, by means of cognition and recognition,
the more real and true it is. In reverse,
the more a human being is part of the moving material world, the more
false and unreal, the less true and
real it is.
The individual human body, according to Plato, is graduated as follows:
The head is closest to reality and
truth, as it is the “upper being”, nearest to the world of ideas and
representing "logos", that is reason and
cognition. The breast is in-between being and non-being, as it is the
“middle being”, representing courage;
and finally the lower body (from the belt downwards), is the “lower
being”, representing "material
vanity", greed and instincts.
Now, society as a whole is, just like the individual body, graduated
into different degrees of being and
reality: The philosophers are the real (and only!) human beings, because
they are the ones who cognize
and recognize, they are the "interpreters" of the particular things
in the illusory world with regard to their
hidden truth, their essence that lies in the world of ideas. (By the
way, Plato's etymological studies
underline and complete this picture of the philosophers being the only
ones capable of "correct
interpretation" of the truth of words and terms.) Those, who represent
the "middle being" are the military,
who are supposed to defend this order with their courage and their
lives. Finally, there are the ones who
have to deal with the "dirt of the material world", the producers,
the craftsmen, whose degree of reality is
almost negligible. The producers resemble the non-being. The slaves,
on whose labour the Greek society
was edified, do not even figure within the graduation of the human
being, as they are not considered
humans, but speaking tools, as I have mentioned already.
Please note, Bill, that Plato considers "proper education" as the cornerstone
of his "perfect State", whose
citizens are to be educated with regard to the role they have to fulfill
in society, without ever questioning
it. Selective education, censorship and open lies go hand in hand,
and constitute the conditio sine qua non
for the perfect functioning of Plato's "Republic". Interestingly, one
of the golden rules he establishes, is,
that the members of the ruling class (here: philosopher-kings) must
never lie amongst themselves, but
always and categorically with regard to the lower classes. What Plato
elaborates in both his epistemology
and political theory, we denote as IDEOLOGY, and when we speak of ideology,
this is exactly what we
mean. Ideology, since Plato, is the deliberate elaboration of a sophisticated
system of lies in order to
justify an essentially exploitative, oppressive, discriminating and
alienating society.
What Plato exposed in his Politeia, philosophically backed by his epistemology,
has been and is still being
followed by the ruling classes, up to this very day. The famous
fascist principle of "identification with the
oppressor" has been carried through to perfection, thanks to ideology.
Make the citizens of the State
identify themselves with their role in society from the cradle to the
grave, and thus guarantee, that they
never even get a clue, that they are part of a game they do not play.
Make them believe they
autonomously guide and determine their lives, when in reality,
they are nothing but pawns on (Zbignew
Brzezinski's) "Grand Chess Board", being moved according to the needs
of the system. Make them
believe the society they live in is the best of all possibly thinkable
societies, and make them defend it by
diverting their hidden and open aggressions and frustrations to everything
but society itself; foster their
splintering into small, competing fractions, divide and rule, and make
them believe in a common enemy to
guarantee inner stability. Plato's "Politeia" is probably the first
political "Mind Control Manual" ever
written, openly promoting Social Darwinism.
This is, what we can cognize and recognize with and against Plato, and
this is where all the examples
come in, that you have recently given in your last two analyses.
Summarizing, we can, in fact, state, that
Plato's philosophy has mainly been a "cunning and witting utilization
of the Big Lie technique in ancient
Greece", as you most adequately put it.
The stunning thing for me still is, that it worked, and how efficiently
it did so. The fact, that immense
efforts have been made and are still being made in order to control
the thoughts, minds and bodies of
billions, shows, how much the systems fears a fearless thinking brain.
Jutta.
Subject:
Re: Plato, Aristotle: Epistemology & Mind Control
Date:
Mon, 01 May 2000 22:05:56 -0600
From:
Bill Lyne <billlyne@earthlink.net>
To:
Franz Lee / Jutta Schmitt <franzjutta@cantv.net>
References:
1
Jutta,
I don't think my comments would
be complete on this subject without linking the Platonist
epistemology which I have observed
being used in respect to the present-day CIA thought and mind
control programs, which are
generally known as "UFOlogy", "Paranormal Phenomena", and the so-called
"alternative press" publications,
which cover a wide variety of conspiratorial issues, both real and
imagined. The CIA has thoroughly
infested these publications with their writers, though a few good
articles may slip through. By
dominating the "alternative press", by insertion of their propaganda agents,
along with other external controls,
they are able to completely dominate the course of discussions. In this
way, the CIA diverts potentially
meaningful investigations into relatively harmless, though intrigueing
areas, mostly fabricated by
them just for that purpose.
Recently,
for example, I was contacted by a FOX network TV show, which invited me
to appear on it,
provided I had "...research
which documents the idea that the 'Taos Hum' is being produced by 'aliens'
at
a nearby Dulce 'underground
base'." In other words, here was another opportunity provided to me (there
have been several other similar
offers) to appear on national TV, not to present my own
(Aristotelian-epistemology-based)
investigative journalism, but instead, to support a preconceived, false,
CIA-Platonist agenda, which
would completely contradict everything I had ever said, all for the
inducement of being on national
TV. Incredible as it may seem, I have an actual tape recording of this
offer from the FOX network show.
The FOX offer
indicates that I am making a dent in their armor, but as one can easily
see, my
appearance on such a show, presenting
such CIA preconceived lies, would render everything I say in my
books completely meaningless,
and eliminate the only person who is telling the truth from the debate.
All of the
propaganda relating to these areas, disseminated by the CIA, such as that
disseminated
through "UFOlogists", is based
on the Platonist epistemology. Those who are duped by this propaganda
are held perpetually in a Platonist
epistemological limbo, in which they view exclusively man-made flying
saucers as "illusions", which
must exist in some unknowable "perfect form" only on some unknown
distant planet which is light
years away. The archetypal "aliens", which are induced fantasies, are likewise
unknowable except as vague archetypes
which exist only in the minds of the dupes.
I think I
will heretofore call these Big Lie mass-psychology propaganda programs
"Platonist
Epistemology Propaganda Programs"
("PEPPs").
I find this
propaganda easy to identify, since I rely on an Aristotelian epistemology.
On very short
exposure to it, it immediately
gives me the sensation that an attempt is being made to sever my ties to
an
integrated reality, through
the substitution of Platonist illusions, with a heavy emphasis on begged
questions based upon the Platonist
foundations which were laid in the UFOlogy field over 50 years ago,
and by the Nazis almost a century
ago.
Bill Lyne