The Naked Capitalist: An explanation of our times

Ahhhhh....I was watching Fox News again today and heard what I've heard about a million times now, "Democrats believe that..." "The liberal left wants us to believe that..."



I then changed the channel to MSNBC and heard, "Do conservatives and Republicans, as well as tea party nut-jobs, honestly expect us to believe that..."



And on it goes. On and on. On and on.



I watched a video called the Obama Deception a little less than a year ago and it made some pretty interesting statements that got me thinking.



It talked about the "false left-right paradigm" that is spoon-fed us by the media. Now, I could tell immediately that there indeed was a "left-right paradigm" in this country, but I had never before considered it to be false. Isn't the battle between democrats and those that tend to see big government as a good thing and Republicans with those that believe in limited government the only battle really going on here?



The Obama Deception says that is what they want us to believe. They say that behind the scenes of our government, there is a secret sub-government, which is actually a global conglomeration of "international investment bankers" who really run the show. They supposedly have their mitts into everything. They own the companies that own the major media markets and they own almost everybody in Washington; they control the money supply through the Federal Reserve system and intentionally cause inflation and deflation depending on their current strategies to assist them in establishing a one-world government which they unabashedly refer to as "the New World Order". These guys aren't Democrats, and they aren't Republicans. The play both sides of every political race as well as every war that plagues our world. By all descriptions of this group (which is known by different names, all of which may be legitimate since they require the assistance of so many people to pull off their plans effectively) they appear, if they exist, to be THAT GREAT AND ABOMINABLE CHURCH spoken of by Nephi in his vision of the latter-days. If they exist, they match the description of THE GADIANTON ROBBERS of the Book of Mormon which Mormon and Moroni claimed were the cause of the destruction of their people. THEY POSSESS THE KING-MEN MENTALITY OF NEHOR AND AMALICKIAH AND EVERY OTHER ASPIRING DESPOT OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.



It is a scary thought, indeed. Here is a group that has their mitts, supposedly, on the world's money supply, as they wield the printing presses that control inflation and deflation, on the water supply, as they pump them full of chemicals proven to be harmful to the human organism, the food supplies, as they increase regulation and requirements for food providers, growers, traders and sellers to meet their particular standards, regardless of the wills of local governments and populations, and on our elected officials, as they need money to run their campaigns, and so many of the aspiring leaders are plagued with the desire for money and power they are an extremely susceptible class of people. Besides, there are many patriots in America from all walks of life. Men who would gladly die for their country. But few of those, if you ask me, would be willing to let their families die for this country, and therein a weakness can be found when it's supposedly being sought by men of unfathomable means.



However, upon watching this film "The Obama Deception", and having first been confronted with the possibility that Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama were all working for the same multi-national conglomerate, I couldn't help but stop and think, "You know, this movie, although it might be right, who knows, it has a MAJOR flaw: The music is clearly there to create a negative feeling; the pictures are gruesome and are clearly meant to disturb the emotions, and the narrator (a great guy, runs a site called infowars.com) uses his "scary" voice the entire time and all of these things smack of propoganda and fear-mongering tactics, and therefore, tend to destroy the credibility of an otherwise potentially eye-opening (if the assertions made are indeed correct) film.



So I've done some research.



Did you know a Mormon guy wrote a book on this very thing?



It's called THE NAKED CAPITALIST and it's written by someone you've probably heard of, Cleon Skoussen.



No scary music, no flashy pictures here. Just a book loaded with fully-documented proof of pretty much every accusation made in the Obama Deception. However, where the Obama Deception was just released after Obama's election, this book was printed in 1970 (I think).



I am about half-way through it and it has really taken hold of me. I am curious if anyone else has read it, and if so, what are your thoughts on it?

Here's my basic thoughts on it, just in case you were wondering:



IF what Mr. Skousen is saying is true, I think it would be helpful for us as Americans, Mormons and simply members of the human family, to avoid the jargon that we are so used to using which reinforces the false left-right paradigm.



What are these terms? Well, just turn on Fox and CNN and you'll know.



No longer should we (I believe) use words that suggest that liberals are the enemies we are fighting (not that we necessarily think that right now, but that language tends to give that impression). I think we should be very careful about that, because many PEOPLE who call themselves "liberals" are really just people that are fighting the same battle we are (which is really between the common man and the international bankers, according to Mr. Skousen's book) but who are currently only able to recognize it in the Republican right because they too are taken hostage by this false paradigm and therefore can only see the bad that "the other team" does.



Cognitive dissonance (that which turns us off to statements that run contrary to previously held notions) keeps them from seeing the flaws and errors in their own party. We on the right, naturally suffer from the same human nature, and therefore rarely see the evil in our own party when it's going on, but see it bright as the sun, clear as the moon, and terrible as an army with banners when it comes from the "left".



So whenever we begin sentences that are INTENDED to help lift our country out of the clutches of conspiring men in the latter-days by whistle-blowing about their plans to others, with words like, "Liberals" or "Obama" or "Democrats", our problem is that we are arousing in our potential allies (Americans that identify with "the left" or "democrats") resistance that need not be there.



You see, the false-left right paradigm was created and is intentionally perpetuated based on the principle that an enemy is easier to defeat when it is divided. And make no mistake, if The Obama Deception and The Naked Capitalist and other movies and writings like it are correct, the international bankers see US as the enemy, and they intend to create discord and contention amongst ourselves.



If your purpose is to destroy the sovereignty of a nation and establish "Kings" or "Rulers" or "Monarchs' or something similar as overseers of the world, then wouldn't it make sense to make use of the principle that A NATION DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND?



I think that is painfully obvious.



They've got us fighting each other, but the battle is not with each other, but with them. And, in a very real sense, it is not even them, per se, that we are fighting, but it is the doctrine they adhere to that we are fighting to destroy.



We don't have to go far to find what that doctrine is. It is found in Plato's "The Republic". It is found in the writings of Karl Marx. It is found in the teachings of Nehor, Korihor, Amilickiah and the King Men, Kishkumen and Gadianton and their mighty band of Robbers....



What is this doctrine?



It is the doctrine of superiority.



It is the doctrine that some people are better then other people and more capable of ruling the masses than the masses are of ruling themselves.



It is this doctrine which I believe is the true enemy of humanity; the same doctrine preached in the premortal realm as described in the scriptures.



But we shall have no single man to be our ruler, but CHRIST shall rule all men if men are to continue and to live in peace one with another. And let not "CHRIST" be confused with Jesus of Nazareth, from the Bible and 3 Nephi Chapter 11, although he WAS given the title. (And up until now, if you have found yourself in agreement with me, here is where I anticipate the greatest possibility of that stopping. Cognitive dissonance was very probably activated just now.) No, I do not see a future where Jesus of Nazareth, called Christ, shall come back and sit on a throne in Jerusalem or Jackson County, Missouri and be a "righteous dictator", for those two words I believe to be contradictions. No, Christ will be king, but CHRIST, in the truest sense, is not a person, but is LOVE ITSELF. AND LOVE AND FAITH ARE SIMILAR AND SPRING FROM THE TRUTH THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL AND ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS. Love and faith are perfected through complete trust. What kind of trust? The same hands-off trust that God shows in each one of us every day to make the right decisions for ourselves. The kind of trust that keeps God from jumping down from his perch on high to stop us from making mistakes. That kind of love, faith and trust, when adopted by the whole human race in themselves and in their fellows, will lead to the kind of peace on earth described as a possibility in the scriptures. Christ will be King when love is the reigning principle in humanity.



And right now, we are not fighting against men, but against men's fear; against man's ignorance of love.



Martin Luther King, Jr said, "...the attack is directed towards forces of evil rather than people that are caught up in those forces. It is evil we are seeking to defeat, not the persons victimized by evil."



When we begin our arguments, manifesting our allegiance to the false left-right paradigm by using terms like "liberals", "the left", "Obama", and "democrats" as if the battle was with THEM PERSONALLY, we do harm to ourselves, I believe, because we arouse in others the basic human mechanism known as cognitive dissonance (We all posses that. It can be seen as both a strength and a weakness depending on how you look at it, I suppose). We accidentally close the minds and arouse resentment in those that could easily be our allies and do harm to our own cause, which is that of spreading the truth.



If Mr. Skousen and others that espouse his perspective are indeed correct about this modern-day group of Gadiantons, then I think we would do well to choose our speech carefully so as not to perpetuate the war amongst ourselves that our true enemy (which is that pernicious doctrine of superiority. Or you may call it "Satan" or "evil" if you will.) wishes us to engage in.



And again I humbly request your thoughts.

I've read the Naked Capitalist (not in depth, just skimmed through it).



I don't put much stock into it. Maybe such a thing could have existed in the past, but in today's age, where top-secret information ends up in the newspapers before the government can do anything about it, the idea that any group that powerful can exist in complete secrecy is ridiculous. And if they do exist they aren't nearly as powerful or secretive as these sources suggest, because otherwise Skousen and the creators of this film would have been hushed up pretty fast. It's the same idiotic paradox behind most conspiracy theory these days---the fact that you are able to read about it on public websites means that the government isn't as powerful and secretive as you're suggesting, period.

Haha, WOW.



That was maybe the LAST thing I expected to hear. Okay then, to each his own I suppose. Wow, indeed.



So let me get this straight, something like this COULD have existed in the past, but not in today's day and age, because of newspapers? This sounds strangely familiar...



"...yeah, and also that these our great cities shall be taken from us, that we shall have no place in them. And now we know that this is impossible, for behold, we are powerful, (WE HAVE THE INTERNET AND NEWSPAPERS AND TELEVISION) and therefore our enemies can have no power over us." (Helaman 8:5-6)



And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't kind of a REALLY big purpose of the Book of Mormon, according to Mormon himself, to warn us about these secret combinations and the threat they pose to our society, which he claims to have already seen in a vision of our day? Did you REALLY just say we are now immune to that because of newspapers and internet?



Look, I can respect that perspective, or at least I could, if I knew you had already taken into consideration the possibility that much of our mainstream media could easily be manipulated by such a group if it existed, especially considering so many of the men mentioned in Skousens book are owners of corporations that own the media today. I mean, come on. You DO know SOMEBODY owns Fox News, right? As well as CNN and MSNBC, where Americans go for nearly ALL their news? You don't see that as a potential problem when you take into account that what is reported in the news and how it's reported can have MAJOR impacts for corporations? You don't think the corporations that own those news outlets have maybe a TINY interest in spinning things to fit their own corporate aspirations?



I just think you're taking this a little too simplistically.



What does anyone else think? Does everybody think like Sammich, here?

Hmm.

dave, cool down my friend, you asked for peoples opinions and then you write up pages of material telling you they are wrong when they give it? It's not likely to spark a lot of talk about this subject if you flood the conversation with your side and accuse people who don't believe that there is a giant, world-wide conspiracy to control the whole world because of a Skousen book and some youtube videos.



Take it slowly and try responding to his intial objections in a concise manner. If there is huge, all-powerful corporation that runs the world how did they allow this book to be printed and these movies to be made?

hawkwing wrote:
dave, cool down my friend, you asked for peoples opinions and then you write up pages of material telling you they are wrong when they give it? It's not likely to spark a lot of talk about this subject if you flood the conversation with your side and accuse people who don't believe that there is a giant, world-wide conspiracy to control the whole world because of a Skousen book and some youtube videos.



Take it slowly and try responding to his intial objections in a concise manner. If there is huge, all-powerful corporation that runs the world how did they allow this book to be printed and these movies to be made?

Thanks Hawking. You're right.



Hmmm. Since you've phrased it as a question, I'll make an attempt. First off, the question as you just phrased it presupposes something: It presupposes that I and others believe in a "all-powerful corporation that runs the world". That's fundamentally false. I can see how that might look like what's being said, but a more accurate portrayal would be a VERY powerful corporation (if it were all-powerful, and they were against any and all dissent, then how WOULD they allow such a book to be printed and these movies made, indeed?)



But that's not what has been said, by Skousen, or anybody. All-powerful? Certainly not. Very powerful? Now that's fine. And being VERY powerful, rather than ALL powerful, naturally leaves a little bit of leeway for dissenters. (That should answer the question just fine.)



What's being said that a very powerful multi-national corporation, or network of the same, whose GOAL is world-domination (as Austin Powers as that sounds) has a large INFLUENCE in most major governments and industries worldwide. However, it may also be said that a major deterrent to their accomplishment of that goal can be found in a couple of things: One of those would be the advent of constitutional (or Republican) democracies. These exist because the belief that all men are created equal (contrary to the belief that rulers and leaders are inherently superior in some major ways) and are therefore as capable of running their own lives and societies as anyone else, and therefore the running of their own lives is their right and prerogative. The laws and constitutions built around people of this philosophical persuasion (such as Americans) makes it more difficult to gain total domination according to their own wills and timetables. Thus, the control of money that they have been able to seize, although it has gotten them intertwined into most positions of influence in the world, they have not yet seized from us many of our rights. It's apparently a delicate game. Like that frog in hot water analogy. You can't come on full-force and in the open and try to subjogate millions and millions of people with liberty burning in their hearts, but you move quickly and quietly as you can and usurp power and control subtly, with the hope you do not arouse too much suspicion, that one day we might wake up and wonder what happened to our freedoms and the way of life we grew up believing in.



That's kind of the idea. And if the Book of Mormon accurately portrayed the downfall of the Nephites, this concept shouldn't seem too far-fetched for us. I would think.



So there is still a great deal of freedom that we possess, and there are a good deal more than just Skousen blowing the whistle here. But if I had to guess what the wisest way for this supposed enemy (assuming they exist) to not be too bothered by people like Skousen, they wouldn't want to arouse suspicion by simply...eliminating them. That wouldn't be very smart. But discrediting? Now that seems like a more effective method.

Have you read Trevayne by Robert Ludlum?

taekwondave wrote:
Haha, WOW.



That was maybe the LAST thing I expected to hear. Okay then, to each his own I suppose. Wow, indeed.



So let me get this straight, something like this COULD have existed in the past, but not in today's day and age, because of newspapers? This sounds strangely familiar...



"...yeah, and also that these our great cities shall be taken from us, that we shall have no place in them. And now we know that this is impossible, for behold, we are powerful, (WE HAVE THE INTERNET AND NEWSPAPERS AND TELEVISION) and therefore our enemies can have no power over us." (Helaman 8:5-6)



And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't kind of a REALLY big purpose of the Book of Mormon, according to Mormon himself, to warn us about these secret combinations and the threat they pose to our society, which he claims to have already seen in a vision of our day? Did you REALLY just say we are now immune to that because of newspapers and internet?



Look, I can respect that perspective, or at least I could, if I knew you had already taken into consideration the possibility that much of our mainstream media could easily be manipulated by such a group if it existed, especially considering so many of the men mentioned in Skousens book are owners of corporations that own the media today. I mean, come on. You DO know SOMEBODY owns Fox News, right? As well as CNN and MSNBC, where Americans go for nearly ALL their news? You don't see that as a potential problem when you take into account that what is reported in the news and how it's reported can have MAJOR impacts for corporations? You don't think the corporations that own those news outlets have maybe a TINY interest in spinning things to fit their own corporate aspirations?



I just think you're taking this a little too simplistically.



What does anyone else think? Does everybody think like Sammich, here?

It's not that news and the internet preclude the possibility of such an organization existing, it's that if such an organization existed, there would be more information (and more public information) out there on it than just a couple "in-the-know" people uncovering some vast, deep, and long-lived conspiracy. For me that is always a warning sign for conspiracy theories---if you're hearing about it from your wild-haired neighbor and nobody else can verify it, chances are pretty good that it's not real.



As for secret combinations, I have no doubt that they can, will, and do exist. I even wouldn't be surprised if some cabal of international bankers was attempting to push world politics to their advantage. What I doubt is whether their influence is as significant as these sources claim. The forces that drive political divisions are more fundamental and deep-seated than the frenzy you see whipped up by the media about it. If some outside group is pushing buttons to fan these flames, it's only because they're easy buttons to push.

kitic77 wrote:
Have you read Trevayne by Robert Ludlum?

No I haven't but I'll look into it. Ludlum's a stud.

Sammich wrote:

Haha, WOW.



That was maybe the LAST thing I expected to hear. Okay then, to each his own I suppose. Wow, indeed.



So let me get this straight, something like this COULD have existed in the past, but not in today's day and age, because of newspapers? This sounds strangely familiar...



"...yeah, and also that these our great cities shall be taken from us, that we shall have no place in them. And now we know that this is impossible, for behold, we are powerful, (WE HAVE THE INTERNET AND NEWSPAPERS AND TELEVISION) and therefore our enemies can have no power over us." (Helaman 8:5-6)



And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't kind of a REALLY big purpose of the Book of Mormon, according to Mormon himself, to warn us about these secret combinations and the threat they pose to our society, which he claims to have already seen in a vision of our day? Did you REALLY just say we are now immune to that because of newspapers and internet?



Look, I can respect that perspective, or at least I could, if I knew you had already taken into consideration the possibility that much of our mainstream media could easily be manipulated by such a group if it existed, especially considering so many of the men mentioned in Skousens book are owners of corporations that own the media today. I mean, come on. You DO know SOMEBODY owns Fox News, right? As well as CNN and MSNBC, where Americans go for nearly ALL their news? You don't see that as a potential problem when you take into account that what is reported in the news and how it's reported can have MAJOR impacts for corporations? You don't think the corporations that own those news outlets have maybe a TINY interest in spinning things to fit their own corporate aspirations?



I just think you're taking this a little too simplistically.



What does anyone else think? Does everybody think like Sammich, here?

It's not that news and the internet preclude the possibility of such an organization existing, it's that if such an organization existed, there would be more information (and more public information) out there on it than just a couple "in-the-know" people uncovering some vast, deep, and long-lived conspiracy. For me that is always a warning sign for conspiracy theories---if you're hearing about it from your wild-haired neighbor and nobody else can verify it, chances are pretty good that it's not real.



As for secret combinations, I have no doubt that they can, will, and do exist. I even wouldn't be surprised if some cabal of international bankers was attempting to push world politics to their advantage. What I doubt is whether their influence is as significant as these sources claim. The forces that drive political divisions are more fundamental and deep-seated than the frenzy you see whipped up by the media about it. If some outside group is pushing buttons to fan these flames, it's only because they're easy buttons to push.

You know, if it were just a "couple of people in the know" that were uncovering this vast conspiracy, I might think the same thing. But from the sounds of it, it looks like that to you because, aside from possibly the skimming of Skousen's book, I'm one of the only times you've even heard mention of it.



Considering that perspective, I'm not at all surprised that you don't think this is a problem. Actually, I was starting small by suggesting Skousen's book. There's a whole lot more out there than from him and that movie the Obama Deception, but given the choice between watching the Obama Deception and just reading that book, I would recommend the book. But this is anything but new. I'd be curious to see what you could find on it if you were interested.

taekwondave wrote:
You know, if it were just a "couple of people in the know" that were uncovering this vast conspiracy, I might think the same thing. But from the sounds of it, it looks like that to you because, aside from possibly the skimming of Skousen's book, I'm one of the only times you've even heard mention of it.



Considering that perspective, I'm not at all surprised that you don't think this is a problem. Actually, I was starting small by suggesting Skousen's book. There's a whole lot more out there than from him and that movie the Obama Deception, but given the choice between watching the Obama Deception and just reading that book, I would recommend the book. But this is anything but new. I'd be curious to see what you could find on it if you were interested.

No, I've heard about it before, but it's always from the same type of people who try to tell me that the government is using flouride to control people's brains or that we didn't land on the moon. Sorry man, but a circle of intellectually inbred conspiracy theorists doesn't count as multiple sources. It's not about the single theory---sure, maybe it's possible that we didn't land on the moon---but someone who believes it usually has a certain. . .mindset, that in my mind tends to discredit the ten other hypotheses they're trying to pitch. I'm probably just waiting for new evidence to come from a source I respect a little more. Maybe that would be you if I knew you in real life, but for all I know you could be some crazy guy posting from a bed of guns in a shack in Montana. No offense intended of course, just trying to describe the source of my skepticism.

Sammich wrote:

You know, if it were just a "couple of people in the know" that were uncovering this vast conspiracy, I might think the same thing. But from the sounds of it, it looks like that to you because, aside from possibly the skimming of Skousen's book, I'm one of the only times you've even heard mention of it.



Considering that perspective, I'm not at all surprised that you don't think this is a problem. Actually, I was starting small by suggesting Skousen's book. There's a whole lot more out there than from him and that movie the Obama Deception, but given the choice between watching the Obama Deception and just reading that book, I would recommend the book. But this is anything but new. I'd be curious to see what you could find on it if you were interested.

No, I've heard about it before, but it's always from the same type of people who try to tell me that the government is using flouride to control people's brains or that we didn't land on the moon. Sorry man, but a circle of intellectually inbred conspiracy theorists doesn't count as multiple sources. It's not about the single theory---sure, maybe it's possible that we didn't land on the moon---but someone who believes it usually has a certain. . .mindset, that in my mind tends to discredit the ten other hypotheses they're trying to pitch. I'm probably just waiting for new evidence to come from a source I respect a little more. Maybe that would be you if I knew you in real life, but for all I know you could be some crazy guy posting from a bed of guns in a shack in Montana. No offense intended of course, just trying to describe the source of my skepticism.

I don't know if the people who believe in this other stuff are believers in the faked moon landing too, but if they are then I can dismiss them out of hand. My stake president was one of the people who worked on the moon landing and he is convinced that it really happened, and I have never known a more honest, truthful, spiritual person. This is a completely unrelated comment brought up by Sammich's moon landing comments :crazy:

Sammich wrote:

You know, if it were just a "couple of people in the know" that were uncovering this vast conspiracy, I might think the same thing. But from the sounds of it, it looks like that to you because, aside from possibly the skimming of Skousen's book, I'm one of the only times you've even heard mention of it.



Considering that perspective, I'm not at all surprised that you don't think this is a problem. Actually, I was starting small by suggesting Skousen's book. There's a whole lot more out there than from him and that movie the Obama Deception, but given the choice between watching the Obama Deception and just reading that book, I would recommend the book. But this is anything but new. I'd be curious to see what you could find on it if you were interested.

No, I've heard about it before, but it's always from the same type of people who try to tell me that the government is using flouride to control people's brains or that we didn't land on the moon. Sorry man, but a circle of intellectually inbred conspiracy theorists doesn't count as multiple sources. It's not about the single theory---sure, maybe it's possible that we didn't land on the moon---but someone who believes it usually has a certain. . .mindset, that in my mind tends to discredit the ten other hypotheses they're trying to pitch. I'm probably just waiting for new evidence to come from a source I respect a little more. Maybe that would be you if I knew you in real life, but for all I know you could be some crazy guy posting from a bed of guns in a shack in Montana. No offense intended of course, just trying to describe the source of my skepticism.

Haha, I haven't bought even my first gun yet. You know where I could get a good deal though? ;)



I don't blame you a bit, bro. You know what it's like for me? I'm sure you saw the first Matrix movie. He tells him to take the red pill or the blue pill or something and he takes the one that wakes him up from the Matrix and he totally freaks out and pukes everywhere when he does. Dipping into the "world of conspiracy" is frankly a little exhausting. The problem that I've encountered is that there is just SO much to hear about, it becomes too hard to believe ALL of it, and since you don't know where to start (because you usually want to start with whatever is most important to YOU personally) it's tempting to just throw everything out. But as the old saying goes, "Don't throw that baby out with the bath water."



I think one of the best ways to piece through these things is to try to avoid latching on to other people's INTERPRETATIONS of the evidence they bring up. That to me seems to be a big key. Take that fluoride thing you mentioned. That would be a good place to start, I think. I heard something on the radio the other day about an effective way to find the truth about things. He mentioned three concepts: Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis.



Thesis is supposedly the "official word". Take fluoride, for example. The official word is that it does absolutely no harm to you, it's perfectly safe, and keeps you from getting cavities. It's a miracle substance in our water improving us in every way.



The antithesis would be the exact opposite of that. It would be what the "nut-job conspiracy wackos" automatically believe, which is, of course: It is a poison that does all kinds of harm to you. Kills you in ten years if you're over fifty. Makes your teeth worse. Hitler used it in concentration camps, Stalin used it in Russia, it's a plot by our government and those that really run it to make all of us sick so that we are dependent on them in every way because we're too sick and weak, etc, etc.



Now, the reality is that EITHER ONE OF THOSE IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE. The problem that many people run into is that they BLINDLY pick one or the other, depending on what they're prone to believe or who they're prone to trust or whatever, without actually looking at the evidence and arguments made for both sides.



What is MOST COMMONLY TRUE, but definitely not ALWAYS, is something in between the thesis and the antithesis, which is called SYNTHESIS. That means that the truth, more often than not, may not be as clear-cut as either side claims.



It's easy to simply hear that evidence has been presented which suggests we didn't go to the moon, and if you're the kind of person that likes to go against the grain maybe, you might just choose to believe it before you even look at the various evidence for both sides.



It's equally easy to simply go with what you've always just assumed to be true because you've already, to a great extent, allowed your reality to be solidified in your mind and you've found comfort in that reality and a new idea is seen as a threat or simply a nuisance and so you also refuse to look at any of the actual evidence being presented on either side and you go on thinking as before.



I think it's obvious that the preferable and most responsible stance for us to take would be the third approach, which is to constantly maintain an open mind by way of investigation and inquiry and after we feel we have collected sufficient evidence, form a tentative opinion to move forward with, but of course leave the door to that topic in your mind slightly ajar to allow for the considering of new evidence in the future.



As Paul said, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thess 5:21)