Normal human consciousness dances between the physical and the metaphysical routinely - to the extent that we seem to inhabit the intersection between the two. The materialistic 'biological robot' mentality is a dogmatic denial of what should be self-evident. The denial is based upon awful logic - so bad in fact it is flagrantly illogical. It is not reason based and it is not information based. It is an existential dread dressed up to look like reason - and it looks like that only to people who share the dread. It looks like a ghoul to others. However materialism has done such a fine marketing job in convincing our communities that it is responsible for all the wonderful material benefits we enjoy. While that may be true in the exploitation of scientific knowledge and subsequent commercialisation, it is not true for the actual science. People who do the science work are not materialists as a class - and the very best science seems to have been done by people who are at the very least open to the spiritual and the metaphysical. But the average citizen doesn't know this. They validate the materialist propaganda because it seems reasonable. They buy the imputed authority and lose faith in their own experiences. They are persuaded that they must have misperceived, misinterpreted or hallucinated. And yet they harbour doubts. For many the alternative to materialism is only religion, and that has been subjected to seemingly just and rational objections. For me this is the worst crime of materialism - to cause mistrust of one's own capacity to know what is true and real and good and seek, instead the assurance of authority. It is a criminal enterprise adapted from dogmatic religion. This is, for me, Conspiracy#1. I think the materialist cause is dead in the water and starting to stink. But what is left is its impact in conditioning our collective and shared mentality and language. I am a great fan of Dynamo, Magician Impossible (check him out on YouTube). A witness to one of his impressive performances was a woman who did not appear to be especially well educated. Her response to what she had witnessed was to say that it "wasn't scientific". Others have observed that what they see isn't "proper" or "right". Who are these people to know what is 'scientific', 'proper' or 'right'? We understand their words, because this is the language of our age - conditioned by materialism and scientific rationalism. But did the woman who said what she saw was "not scientific" literally mean that? I don't think she did. She meant the performance violated her notion of normal and expected in an emphatic manner. She used the language of the dominant mentality, the same way, centuries ago, the dominant mentality was religious and the language reflected that. My point is that the widespread use of materialistic language is not evidence of materialistic thought. Even today an atheist will exclaim "For God's sake!" or "Christ!" and we will not take this as evidence of a conversion to the faith, will we? Are we still fighting the battle or are we on the battlefield in the aftermath of a victory? Its a question we need to ask and answer. The answer shapes our thought and language.