Questioning Authority

The chemtrails issue leads us into questions of an even more fundamental nature, not least of which concerns a malaise that may be striking right at the very heart of society itself.

Stepping back for a moment from the nitty-gritty of chemtrails, what is thrown into stark relief is the question of whether or not we trust the pronouncements, and actions, of those who should generally be regarded as authoritative bodies — State or Government Departments such as Public Health, Environment, etc; air traffic regulatory authorities; the Military; scientific and medical research establishments. The list is almost endless.

For at least the past fifty years or so (and perhaps longer) we have with increasing momentum been travelling down a path that advocates the distrust of virtually all individuals and bodies that hitherto were regarded as representing our best interests, such that the basis upon which authority itself rests has been almost completely undermined.

Neither, incidentally, has the process been confined to the political sphere. We see it in organised religion, we see it in the education system, in the health system, in the legal system, in the commercial sector (inevitably!), and we even see it in the decline of parental authority.

Traditional respect for those "in authority" has, for all intents and purposes, disappeared.

Justification for this trend can perhaps be seen in the host of scandals, shady dealings, and corruption that have come to light, not just recently but with increasing regularity for maybe the past couple of centuries.
That those entrusted to positions of authority abuse the trust and take advantage of their positions to further their own ends rather than honourably and with integrity fuflfil the obligations encumbent upon them is nowadays almost a given.

Accompanying this trend, and indeed as a consequence thereof, society is becoming hedged around with ever more complex rules, regulations, and laws, to the extent that this scepticism toward all things authoritative is being rendered impotent by the erosion of self-responsibility, self-determination, and personal freedoms, a process that transforms scepticism into much more closed-minded cynicism.

The entire process has been further compounded by a growing emphasis upon individual "rights" and "freedoms", and an escalating trend in commerce to promote the interests and imagined capabilities of the individual in preference to those of the wider community, all of which has tended to encourage ego-dominated situations at the expense of a more outreaching consideration for, and co-operation with, society as a whole.

This is not an appropriate place in which to speculate upon the true whys and wherefores of how we've come to find ourselves in this sorry situation, but it certainly is the place to reflect for a moment upon how the trend impacts on our stance regarding such things as chemtrails.
For its a major factor in predicting whether or not we'll ever secure a satisfactory explanation for chemtrails activities and what appears to lie behind them.

This question needs to be asked:

"For those people who are committed to, or have become convinced by, the idea that back of the chemtrails issue is simply yet another massive conspiracy or cover-up, can there ever be any 'explanation' that will be accepted as truthful and satisfactory?"

For the logical consequence of a culture that is cynical toward and distrusts everything is that nothing can be accepted at face value. All explanations are fudged or incomplete, if not deliberately misleading, no matter from whence they come. Even 'objective' scientific data may be fabricated. Essentially, nothing can be trusted.
In other words, even if we were given the 'truthful explanation', backed up by all manner of facts and figures, would we accept it? Would we even be able to recognise it? Is it not much more likely that someone, somewhere, would cry "Conspiracy" and, in the blink of an eyelid, we'd find ourselves once more as though walking on quicksand.

Let's make no mistake — if we persist in this sort of attitude we'll find ourselves embarked on a crazy helter-skelter journey that can only end in complete paranoia and the consequences thereof.
A fitting end for our species maybe!

Whilst not advocating complete trusting and an unquestioning acceptance of everything, any sane person must urge caution in this trend, for complete distrust and a default state of non-acceptance is equally as dangerous.

Reflect carefully therefore before the offhanded dismissal. For any given enquiry ask yourself at the outset these questions:

"What do I require for an explanation to be satisfactory?"

"What proofs would I regard as acceptable?"

"Whom do I trust to provide the foregoing explanation and/or proofs?"

"Even were my predefined conditions met, would I believe it?"

For the truth is, in the matter of the chemtrails issue probably the only people who will ever be able to provide the fullest and most accurate explanation are those whom we don't trust anyway.

Bit of a dilemma, what?