Obligatory, 5.2.16; On the themes of the blog

This is a type of post that once again states my original purpose here: to figure out what the heck has gone wrong with this country.  But now, more than this: as it appears to me to be a case of what's gone wrong throughout Western Civilization in general.

A continual theme here as well is the saying that "the truth is a slippery thing".  This is particularly important to note when the subject matter is of such vast scope.  It is beyond the capacities of just one individual to understand what has gone wrong in all of civilization.  But it may not be too ambitious to say that finding the truth should be the beginning point.  However, there aren't many of these out there that I can tell.  Most people will say they are for the truth, but does that make it so?

The blog initially explored topics in which I had already made a determination.  Yet hasty conclusions do not a truth make.  It is almost as if I have to back up and start all over from the beginning.  It wasn't political, nor material, but a spiritual problem I found.  At least, that's where I think I am at this time.

Certain things didn't play out.  Cold fusion was explored, but that seems to have hit a dead end again.  Rossi's device didn't seem to work out.  He gets accused of fraud, but what if he's innocent?  I decided long ago to stop following that, and followed Kirk Sorensen's work instead.  There are other things in the works that I follow as well, but as of now, nothing besides fracking seems to be working and producing at this time.  Not saying that it couldn't, though.

Who I conceived of being the bad guys seem to be winning a lot of the battles.  How do you know who the bad guy is?  Some of the guys who seemed like good guys are now looking like bad guys.  That theme about truth being slippery strikes again.  If you don't know who to trust, then what?  Where do you go for the truth?  Can you depend upon anyone, even your own self?

Troubling questions, these are.  Answered, they must be.

I do not trust the left wingers.  They lie.  But they are not alone.   I think a number of others who I believed to be good guys seem to have a credibility problem.

I've gotten on Limbaugh's case because I think he loves money a bit too much.  That seems to be another theme.  A foundational type of theme.  Money is a corrupting influence.  If you can get free from the dollar sign, the credibility factor goes up a notch.  Liberals love their money, perhaps even more than the conservatives, because the liberals are primarily materialistic.  But that doesn't free conservatives from that influence.  Conservatives give lip service to the spiritual, but how sincere is it?

Those who are willing to die ( or suffer )  for what they believe have more credibility than those who must be paid for their support.  Yet this is not a determinant of what is truth.  Only the truth of what someone believes and to what degree.  If money is required, then the sincerity of those who required it can be questioned.  If blood is shed and the faith kept, then the sincerity of that sacrifice is not likely to be questioned.

History matters too, but there is hazard in that.  The victors write the history books.  Little remains of defeated and lost causes.  The victors will try to erase any memory of what those defeated were like, and if they were persuasive in any way. 

An example in the field of energy was with the molten-salt reactor.  Once that was defeated politically, it was nearly forgotten.  It is now being remembered, but that remembrance has not brought triumph.  The same could be said of cold fusion.  Can the defeated remain defeated?  One must take care not to be defeated then. 

This reminds me of another theme.  Being right isn't enough.  In Aesop's Fable, the lamb always loses the argument with the wolf.  In this world, force has the better of any argument. There can be no force greater than God, but if you don't believe that, then what?  We are all merely wolves and lambs.