Old habits die hard, you know?
As empires rise and fall so do certain prejudices about those empires among the populace of their neighbors. Stereotypes might be right or wrong, but
stereotypes are just that, right or wrong; Conspiracy theories are indeed some form of "us versus them" and that can be a benefit to us, rather than
'them', but I think if Religions today have their basis in superstitions and the superficial differences each Empires population have in their
respective religions also parallel the popularity of conspiracy theories.
Before I take too heavily an attitude of you disagreeing with me when I type to prove to you what I say, I think Iconoclasm is great, my idol of
Anarchy is dedicated to such a power. I'm not an atheist, so I don't really have a problem with people revering idols, I'm an absurdist who claims
all idols are equally silly.
However I think as knowledge spreads in a sublime cultural context we come across people living at different wavelengths; these wavelengths are
somewhat reflected in the ability to use communications technology.
You could expect a teenager today with access to Google to answer more questions than a religious hermit being revered in the mountains. No matter
what kind of religious hermit is in the mountains, no matter on what continent that mountain range is on, teenagers with this new technology can
access a shared database of knowledge to maintain their religious beliefs, just as steadfastly as the religious Hermit. Redneck or Bhuddist they're
as out of touch as they predicted they would be, but as wise as they are they can recognize their place isn't meddling with children as they play
with their toys.
Apostasy, to both would be to believe me that they're not wrong, because all three of us can be wrong when faced with the future. We'd confront it,
if they'd Google it.
All the communication of conspiracy is devoted to iconoclasm of someone else's actions in their community. We don't believe they act in a common
interest, and they might not be, but if they are we are merely both wrong.
what does this have to do with wavelengths?
Change, change at a predicted rate is a culture thing. You predict when change happens based on the actions and words of those around you, so you
might expect those around you to have a similar rate of change happening on their minds. What it's worth to them is how deep these waves are, while
how often it happens is the frequency.
I believe this to be a problem, that many people expect differing wavelengths of change to be the right one for society.
We have a common harmony that can be tapped, for all our wavelengths with only slight adjustment. Because humanity is noisy in its demands to
harmonize we find ourselves often changing wavelengths based on interactions.
We silence our demand through constant wining. Perhaps this resonance wave would destroy society if we found it with empirical evidence.
If society is merely arranged around those who have power and those who don't, the fragility of society can be shaken and smashed by a common
agreement we share it, across the borders controlled by those who have interests in those borders being protected.