A “LOSS OF COGNITIVE DISCOURSE”
by Michael Gaddy, ©2016, blogging at The Rebel Madman
(Dec. 12, 2016) — “Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.” ~ Thomas Edison
One of the great problems brought to us at the cost of billions of dollars, all courtesy of the Public Fool System, is an almost total loss of cognitive discourse when it comes to addressing problems we encounter as a society and as a country. We have abandoned cognitive thought for the much less demanding delusion by emotion, or how we “feel.” This, of course, has been reinforced by the print and electronic media and the ever-present email forward.
Last evening, in a discussion with an otherwise very intelligent lady, the conversation turned to government corruption. Throughout this elongated verbal exchange, the lady’s constant answer to each question asked or facts presented, was either, “I can’t believe that …” or “I won’t believe that …” Having been at that point in discussions on numerous occasions, I immediately recognized the no-win paradigm of “I will not change my mind regardless of how many facts are presented.” Thus, the price we must pay for the loss of cognitive discourse.
Part of the price paid is our inability to understand why imposing the failed concept of democracy on other countries and peoples, at the point of a gun or threat of a bomb or missile, is the ultimate expression of hypocrisy. Do we understand that this form of government we seek to force others to accept is a form of government we ourselves do not trust and are seeking to reject by peaceful means?
If you were a citizen of another country, would you readily accept implementation of our present dysfunctional government as a replacement for the one you have? Would you not reject the forced/violent implementation of a government of another country here in America, no matter what their claims of benefits?
Almost every presidential election, we throw off the existing tyrant in order to give power to another tyrant in waiting; political party affiliation means nothing. The problem is: the government assumed by the new executive is staffed with bureaucrats and other politicians who make the government corrupt beyond repair. The same people Patrick Henry called the “federal sheriffs” and claimed they would “eat out our sustenance” back in 1788.
While we readily seek a new leader for the Executive, we re-elect our legislative members at the rate of 90+%, even when their approval rating is less than 10%. Installing a new leader for this corrupt enterprise is analogous to giving a priest a machine gun. From the works of Robert LeFevre:
“Government is an agency of force which can and must be employed against every deviationist. And this is only to say again that the government must oppose the individual. Therefore the “good” man in government is like a priest with a machine gun. The mechanism does the harm. The man who operates it merely pulls the trigger.”
“It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”
What Bush II really meant was: our government intends to provide “every nation and culture,” by force if necessary, a crushing national debt, perpetual wars for perpetual peace, free stuff for those who produce nothing, regular scheduled attempts at disarming law-abiding citizens, an ever-growing and tyrannical police state, health care administered by bureaucrats at prohibitive, unaffordable costs, complete and total indoctrination of the children in the Marxist Socialist concepts and rejection of the governing principles upon which the country was founded.
Can we really question why the people of other countries would resist the spread of such a government? Our Founders certainly did; they fought a revolution to throw off a government eerily similar to the one we now have and are trying to force on others, using bullets, bombs, and missiles as encouragement.
Did we as a country not allegedly resort to war when Hitler and Stalin sought to force a tyrannical form of government on an at the time, free world? Do we deny to others that which we once claimed as our right and duty?
Several years ago, I sought to illustrate how hypocritical our position of seeking to deny various forms of weapons to other countries was/is. Our government and its shills in the media and elsewhere claim other countries should not possess the very weapons our country has in its possession. Is this not the identical claim made by many of the leaders of our own government and their shills in the media and Hollywood when it comes to our individual possession of firearms similar to those in the possession of employees of our government? (Federal sheriffs)
By any chance, is the government which other countries fear not the same government we ourselves fear and mistrust? We repeatedly claim our Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting, but about protecting ourselves from an out of control, tyrannical government. Would you deny the people of another country the right and weapons to protect themselves from the same government you fear?
At some point in time, I hope that we will begin to see ourselves as the people in other countries see us and that we will begin to understand that the government we do not trust, no longer represents the ideals and morality that the remaining good people in this country hold dear. Of course, this will require a return to cognitive thinking and the abandonment of the principle of emotion over logic; a small step with enormous potential.
“The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink” ~George Orwell, 1984
IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY