In many of my articles and blog posts over the past three or four years I have been attempting to convince people that freedom and decentralization are what’s necessary to have a genuinely civilized and prosperous society. However, there may have been too many times in which my own frustration has caused me to engage in too much name-calling, sarcasm, etc, and may have in fact pushed away those new readers I intended to sway toward supporting liberty rather than government (Yes, those two are opposites.)
Now, in his recent article, The Rationally Misinformed Voter, Thomas DiLorenzo just tells it like it is, much in the same way that I have preferred to be doing. He points out one item after another as examples of the cognitive dissonance that afflicts most Americans. But I doubt that if you have the average Obama supporter or Romney-Bush supporter read that article, that their minds will change at all. They will still be an Obama or Romney-Bush supporter, and generally continue to support the statism they have supported all their lives, the very statism that has been responsible for the ruination of America.
However, Paul Craig Roberts has this article, Does Truth Have a Future in America? in which he notes that
most readers read in order to confirm what they already think and believe. It is the same for the right-wing and the left-wing. They cannot escape their ideological boxes and are creatures of their biases. They want their prejudices vindicated and their beliefs supported. A writer who tells them something that they do not want to hear receives abuse. These readers cannot benefit from facts and new information and change their minds. They already know everything and only want information that supports their beliefs and advances their agendas.
If a writer makes the case so clear that readers simply cannot avoid it, the reader will intentionally misread the article or book and attack the writer for saying everything that he does not say. The chorus will join in the effort to shut down the unwelcome information before it reaches others.
Because of modern government-controlled education, many people don’t actually understand that the current President is a fascist. He certainly is not a “liberal” in any way whatsoever!
To me “liberalism” should be associated with “liberalizing,” or “liberating” others, that is, making people freer. But both sides, the Left-progressives and the conservatives and neocons have been supporting government policies that have taken away much of our freedom, especially since the turn of the 20th Century.
But, as Roberts observed, it is difficult to convince people of your argument when their own (albeit erroneous, incoherent or irrational) positions are firmly cemented, whether having been reinforced for many years by government-controlled education, the biased news media, and especially, government propaganda. A lot of people are never or rarely exposed to alternative ideas. When they are, they often dismiss the messenger as “fringe,” as many people have done to Ron Paul and his ideas (despite that many of his ideas are exactly those of the early Americans and Revolutionaries, while the very kinds of policies the Revolutionaries fought against are staunchly supported by most Americans today). So, many people know what they know, and that’s that, as I have noted regarding many people’s views on Israel.
For example, a lot of “liberals” support the current Social Security system. But how is it “liberal” to force people to have to participate in this government-run retirement scheme? Especially when it is based on a major fundamental lie, that a portion of your earnings taken from your paycheck against your will will be returned to you when you retire. At least, that is what has been intentionally implied. But it is a fraudulent scheme, especially when there is no “account” that your Social Security taxes go into for the future, as many people mistakenly believe. All the money the government takes is put into the general fund at the U.S. Treasury. And you don’t “put into” Social Security throughout your working years, as though that’s voluntary, it is taken from you.
And those are indisputable facts about Social Security that most liberals and conservatives probably know. Well, maybe many people don’t know. Many people prefer to go through life believing the myths, and they don’t want to hear the truth. But the truth is this: government bureaucrats and politicians have taken your earnings away from you, to spend on general government spending, from pork barrel crap to counter-productive wars in the Middle East. But I guess too many people just don’t want to hear these truths, and so they will continue to support these policies. That is what makes it difficult for me not to refer to people as “sheeple,” as they willingly and in many cases knowingly let themselves be bamboozled, robbed and enslaved by those who mask themselves as good guys.
We can see now how there is little to no objection amongst America’s conservatives to the reelection of John Boehner as House Speaker, despite his kowtowing to the Democrats on taxes, and his otherwise Big Government agenda. Regardless of his “fiscal conservative” rhetoric, he is just another Big Government Republican hack. And who are those Congressmen who voted for the new Obama tax-stealing legislation? This is why I can’t help but call people “sheeple,” although I apologize for that.
And also in the news has been the gun control debate. Well, it’s not really a “debate,” as the Republicans, the NRA, and so-called gun-rights advocates are going right along with Obama’s real agenda to disarm the American people.
Right now, it does not seem likely that I could convince very many people on the Left to support the right to bear arms. And they do seem so terrified of guns, supposedly. But they seem so much more terrified by a school worker or teacher being armed and possibly using a gun to protect children from an armed madman, than they are terrified of the madman himself shooting people.
Many on the Left — so-called “liberals” — seem to want all private civilians to be disarmed and defenseless, but only government police and government military to be armed. This is where their cognitive dissonance really shows itself. You would think that, after we increasingly see one incident after another, day after day now, in the news, on websites and on YouTube, of police harassing, assaulting, unlawfully arresting and incarcerating, beating, tasing and murdering innocent civilians, that so-called “liberals” might begin to question whether or not only police should be armed and not civilians. We saw what the police are capable of now during the Occupy movement, which apparently has now been stifled by the FBI. The gun control people are more terrified of any peaceful protester who might be armed than they are of these government criminal goons, which is basically what police have become now.
And it’s not just the police, many of whom are drugged up on dangerous steroids and other drugs, some illegal, but the military as well. The military have been trained and deployed over in Iraq and Afghanistan where they have done a lot of murdering of innocent civilians over there. Many of them are psychologically screwed up, with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other serious issues, physical injuries and brain trauma. Along with the police, do “liberals” really only want military and vets when they return here to be armed, but not everyday, honest, peaceful civilians? But what if there is economic collapse, and civil unrest, and martial law? Do you really trust and feel safe with only police and military to be armed but not your next door neighbor? (“Liberals” might want to refresh their memories on how police and National Guard behaved during Hurricane Katrina.)
This brings me back to my earlier assertion of Obama being a “fascist,” which many people, liberal or conservative, don’t really understand. A lot of people have this mystical view of Obama, based on his rhetorical skills (when the teleprompter is working), and his “charm,” etc. But because a lot of people don’t really pay attention to the news (and even those who do pay attention, it is to government-mouthpieces like the New York Times, CNN or FoxNews, etc.), they don’t know that Obama has deported more immigrants than all the other presidents combined, and that he has stepped up the drug war including cracking down on medical marijuana. Obama has also stepped up the drone war, with his CIA drones bombing and murdering many innocent civilians in Pakistan and other countries. The Obama regime merely labels “all military aged males” as “combatants” or as “militants” as their rationale for their murders. How could “liberals” be supporting this?
And I’m sure that many “liberals” do not know about Obama’s many fascist and unconstitutional Executive Orders. I wrote about that here, but there have been more since then. If it were George W. Bush doing this, the “liberals” would be calling for his impeachment.
And it’s just as difficult to reach conservatives as it is so-called “liberals.” Like the Left, there is also cognitive dissonance with conservatives, such as when they support a socialist Willard Romney and refer to him as a “conservative” or a “capitalist,” when he is neither of those things.
And there were those who actually call themselves “conservatives” who believe in Christian moral values who actually “booed” Ron Paul’s suggestion of applying the Golden Rule to U.S. foreign policy. I’m sure that, during the many times that I have challenged the idea of “American Exceptionalism,” and criticized the war-supporters and Bush supporters, that I probably lost some readers, mainly the conservative ones. But, I want those who believe in this Exceptionalism thing, who believe that America is “exceptional” or special, and has some extra rights or God-given powers that other countries don’t have, to try to see the irrationality in that as well. If you believe in morality and the rule of law, and that all people must be equal under the law, then you couldn’t believe that it is acceptable for the U.S. government to invade and occupy the territories of other countries who were of no threat to us, but not acceptable for other countries’ governments to invade or occupy the United States.
Many people accepted without question the U.S. government’s reasons for starting wars against other countries, such as Bush 41′s 1991 war on Iraq, and Bush 43′s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and then 2003 in Iraq. But all those initiations of invasions and occupations did was to provoke foreigners to act against Americans. And waste a lot of money. In fact, because these government bureaucrats are just that: government bureaucrats and government central planners with a monopoly in Washington and no incentive to be accountable under the law, it might be best to assume that when they do want to start a new war or enter Americans into someone else’s war, that they are lying. And don’t let them do it.
And that brings me to 9/11. There have been some readers who found my blog, either from LRC, Strike the Root, or other places, or from comments I left on other blogs, and who liked some of my posts or articles, but when getting to my article on the biased news media, or on questioning the government’s word on 9/11, would then reflexively remark that “oh, he’s a 9/11 truther, so much for that guy,” etc. And that is because they react emotionally to the suggestion that what the government told us about 9/11 may actually not be the case, and some people just want to blindly and obediently believe what government bureaucrats tell them.
Well, I believe that the truth is important. As Justin Raimondo noted, “the opposite of a truther is a liar.” And the government is full of pathological liars. So I’m not referring as “liars” to those who believe the government’s propaganda and assume that everything the media reports from government press releases is true and unquestionable, but it’s those government bureaucrats — they are the liars, and the “presstitutes” as Paul Craig Roberts calls them.
I just wish that people would take the time to look at this video by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is an organization of over 1,700 professional architects and engineers who assert with valid evidence from 9/11 and demonstrations to back them up, that the collapse of the World Trade Center towers could not have occurred in the way the government has officially explained to us. You can also see this information on 9/11 whistleblower Susan Lindauer here, here, and this interview of her here. And this information from whistleblower Sibel Edmonds here and here. I’m sure those more closed-minded amongst readers won’t bother, and in their blind faith of everything they know to be true that the government and its media spokespeople have told them they will just dismiss what I’m saying as “conspiratorial” or “crazy.” But those who consider themselves to be more open-minded might take a look.