image_pdfimage_print

cognitive dissonance
▶ noun [mass noun] Psychology the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change.

Today’s post is mostly around the inordinate pressure our Prime Minister finds himself in. The recent bushfires, while we are not even out of the woods yet, are being discussed at great length in the media. What is surprising is that parts of the left media have gone strangely silent, while, the conservative media is now running multiple pieces encouraging the Prime Minister to implement significant legislative change to supposedly manage the environment.

Having the legislative sausage machine produce new laws for every situation with all of the vagaries, is delusional at best, absurd to the extreme. Why do we even think that passing laws will have some effect on our environment or alleviate the threat of bushfires, when past Royal commissions have made so many recommendations and these have not been observed?

The mayor of Kangaroo Island recently tweeted: the cause of the fires was poorly managed national parks. He went on to highlight that the required ‘prescribed burns’ was never achieved and that the fuel load was enormous. So once ignited by lighting there was no way to put the fires out. We just witnessed more than 50% of the island burnt.

No doubt, it is quite difficult to clarify what is actually going on, but if you take a step back from the situation you can see a definite pattern emerge. It is one of mass manipulation to achieve certain ends, revolutionary in their origin.

My personal experience of fires in my local area brings me back to 1984. Interesting date. The hills to the east of Adelaide were aflame and the smoke was apparent to everyone within 100 kilometre radius. I witnessed the moment a fuel station ignited. My eldest son, who is now 38, was a toddler in my arms at the time.
Several weeks after the event I toured the fire zone and saw the damage. It was as if I was driving around the moon. Everything was burnt, no foliage, just the trunks of trees left standing. Within a couple of years the regrowth was prolific. I now regularly drive through that same area looking for blossom to place my bees to harvest the nectar.

The fuel load is enormous. Should it ever get going again, with the wrong wind direction, Adelaide’s outskirts would be under significant threat and very difficult for people to manage. So the task before us all is one of adaption.
We can’t change the weather. If the temperatures are extreme, and the wind direction and speed is adverse, we will have more fires. Paying more taxes, or having a more centralised government, won’t change the situation one iota.

I could go on here about providing potential solutions for fire management, but that is not the real question. The real questions are: How do we orientate our thinking to decipher fact from propaganda? How do we identify the source of propaganda at its origins?

The title, or subject of today’s blog is cognitive dissonance: – attempting to reconcile inconsistent thoughts, decisions or attitudes. It is a psychological method to confuse – brainwashing. Saving the environment by promoting firestorms. Achieving better government by handing power to world authorities. Securing freedoms by promoting monopolies. All irreconcilable to each other. Safe schools is also another example of cognitive dissonance.

Centralised government in all its many forms, i.e. communism, fascism, monopoly-capitalism (laissez-faire, liberal-democracy), are all dictatorships and will never provide a solution for securing freedoms, achieving better government, or saving the environment. Their philosophy is orientated around materialism – dialectics. Conflict is their method to progress. But it is not how mankind develops. Individuals, not as a collective but as independent entities of single people, is where creativity is nurtured. The collective can do no better than follow its primal instinct and follow each other over a cliff.

I can’t even collect my thoughts to write this blog unless I set myself apart. Too much background distraction and I can’t clarify or place into the written form, my thoughts. I have to set myself apart. All my study and observation are usually by myself. I am fortunate that I have a quiet place I can go to, to think, to consider, to logically place my thoughts down in writing. If I just process my thoughts without consideration like a sausage machine, then all I am doing is responding, not considering, like a trained parrot. This causes me to consider our methods of education. If our children being educated, are tested to the amount of their retention of what they being instructed, then, is not this the same thing? Real education is about following thoughts through to conclusion.

The scientific method substantiates or disapproves a theorem. The key is ‘to pursue to substantiate or disprove’.
So, will I achieve better government by handing more power to the world socialist dictatorship? Has it ever happened in the past? Can it be demonstrated to be working successfully in any country? Has there ever been individuals of such high calibre that they could be trusted with dictatorship? Will offering this dictatorship on a world scale achieve the results desired?

It’s ironic when it is put in this fashion that the obvious answer to all these questions is no, never! So we need to come back to what does work, what has worked in the past, what we would expect to work (as we put the necessary steps in place) so that it can be substantiated progressively as we move forward. But also, what does moving forward actually mean? Does it mean change for changes sake? Does it mean that the new ways of doing things is superior to the old ways of doing things? Can we reconcile opposites to take into account both points of view? That is probably the most important question because in it are the seeds of finding the right answer.

Government and freedom appear irreconcilable. With a limited constitutional government, if the power of the government is significantly restricted to an agreed limit, then freedom with personal responsibility is possible and demonstrable. The most significant point about what I just said is “with personal responsibility”. Freedom with no responsibility is anarchy. Libertarian freedom has no moral anchor, nor does Marxist freedom (some more equal than others). So, reconciling the paradox of government and freedom requires that they be held in balance, similar to a three legged stool. If it is only two legs it will fall, but with the third leg it stabilises.

Labour and Capital appear irreconcilable. But reconciled as Douglas did with Social Credit finance, they are placed in a position of balance.

Truth appears to be best understood when opposites are reconciled in balance. The false narrative which our Prime Minister finds himself in can only be found in truth. The media, working in tandem, left and right together, are doing their damnedest to hurl him and Australia with him over the cliff towards totalitarianism. He would do well to look at what works, what has worked in the past, what may work in the future. The nature of people won’t change. We all have within us these great human frailties. None can be trusted with great amounts of power – none, not even the angels.

Share the Broadcast