FEATURE ARTICLE

Truth & Confusion Amid Cognitive Dissonance
 
David McElroy 
Date: 11-24-2010
Subject: Media: Internet

By David A. McElroy

Nov.24, 2010

 

Once upon a time, American families gathered around their tell-a-vision sets to hear “Uncle” Walter Cronkite tell them “That’s the way it is” in the land. And as all the other media were taking their cues from the same few corporate billionaires, like Cronkite did, they watched for signals from their flagship, The New York Times. Fleets of reporters and magazine writers were paid by gatekeepers, er, editors, towing the company line. I know. I was one.

I sat through meetings about how journalists should work with government, being advised by senior journalists that there was never any need to verify the word of the government officials with other more independent sources. I recall a news director from the leading tv station in America’s tenth largest 90 minute market, telling me if I didn’t care to report only the scripted news the elite wanted reported, how they wanted it reported, walk out the door. I walked. America was fat and happy then, couldn’t be disillusioned. Most of us know our life is torn between ethics and self preservation, building cognizant dissonance.

Once I was a small town newspaper editor, who dared to expose his publisher’s abuses of public trust. He owned a chain of newspapers, also radio stations, and was running for governor. I had been recently hired and found my page layouts and copy were often changed at the central printing plant in the big city. Front page stories about prominent citizens in my town were obviously fabricated and libelous, with no input or knowledge from me, the purported editor. I took the man to task about the rules of journalism, how such flagrant front page stories, like the one about the judge, were obviously false to the readers in my small town. He came right out and said he didn’t care what the rules of journalism were, as owner of the press, he had freedom of the press and would use it for his own political purposes. He would not confine his political efforts to the Op-Ed pages.

Quickly, I knew I had to stop wiping his egg off my face. In the next edition, I pasted my resignation to the front page of every copy distributed to underscore my lack of authority over content. The resignation was written carefully, so intelligent readers could read between the lines while I remained within the law. My resignation became a nation-wide news story carried by such as Paul Harvey. The publisher lost the governor’s race early on, as his own party abandoned him. When the trade paper Publisher’s Auxiliary put my departure on their front page Nov. 13, 1989, only the publisher was quoted, saying I was “bizarre” and trying to take over his corporation. I was smeared, my career ended, just about the time the internet was opening to the public.

Now the internet has changed the way we get information. With an internet connection on your cell phone, laptop, or desktop computer, you not only have a world class library, you have a vast array of personal, social, institutional, corporate and governmental news media at your fingertips. While the old “mainstream“ media is 95% owned outright by five or six corporate conglomerates, the internet offers thousands and millions of diverse and differing voices, creeds, viewpoints, opinions, data sets, photos, charts and graphs, truth, facts, half-truths and outright lies. The cacophony can be overwhelming.

When the truth is honestly posted, forces of evil put forth their confusing distractions and smokescreens, lead well-meaning “useful idiots” to cloud the issues with misinformation, spew defamatory innuendo to polarize people, ripen the conflict to reap political capital.

As the saying goes, “Seek and ye shall find.” Be diligent searchers of truth, taking time to sift the kernels of real data and facts from fictitious chaff and lore. Read widely from diverse sources, even the camps of the enemy. Compare notes, read between the lines, correlate! Do it again with family and friends. The internet has broken the “Top-Down” system of elite media dominance. Cross-talk among ordinary people from all walks of life has now exposed the deceitful, larcenous, fraudulent, murderous, arrogant tyranny of corporatists. As X Files Agent Mulder said, “The truth is out there”. It is not in the “idiot box”. But you do have to want it, seek it, and apply it. Civilization moves forward upon the basis of truth, not falsehoods. The internet is revolutionary in making our options for finding truth abundant, and enemies want to curtail our freedom to communicate. The beastly sorts fear cell phone cameras that might be posting their crimes on the world-wide web, but are so desperate for the GPS tracking of users those phones provide. The evil is busy sifting the internet also, hacking the sites of unbridled truth, seekers of justice and freedom fighters everywhere. Use the web while you can. Time grows short, and expect big changes soon.

What is truth? That is the question famously posed by Pontius Pilate, Roman Governor of Palestine, to our Lord in trying him unjustly. He knowingly sentenced an honest and innocent Jesus Christ to die by crucifixion as a matter of political expediency under the duress of the Sanhedrin. Would you claim truth if you saw it? It is dangerous to speak the truth when the government is lying!

My dad reiterated that old adage, “Don’t believe everything you hear, and only half of what of you see.” With today’s digital technology, optical illusions, psychotronic and other hi-tech tools, we find it harder and harder to know what or who to believe. Our eyes can betray us, and if we’re not careful, our minds will be manipulated. Ah, yes, the wonders of diversity where people are cultivated like mushrooms, and kept under glass like low-budget zoo exhibits. Mainstream media will only toss you red herrings as if you were clapping seals barking for more bread and circuses.

Human progress can only proceed upon the basis of truth. Deceits and illusions can only lead to downfalls. Dare to be disillusioned. Freedom comes at a price, and in liberty we are yet responsible under God. Christ told his disciples “… ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” in John 8:32. Would you follow truth? Even amid organized religion, there are many agents of misinformation, cognizant dissonance, bold character assassins, distractions, charlatans and “useful idiots” twisting God’s Word and asserting a myriad of spurious translations and interpretations in both subtle and shocking ploys. I know Jesus has never lied to me, and His Gospel is simply expressed in the Golden Rule.

Amid all the confusion and polarization of arguments between any two camps in the old Hegelian Dialectic, many fail to note the “man behind the curtain”, the guilty third party orchestrating the chaos and conflict to satisfy his own wizardly ends by gas lighting us and amplifying scary messages with fiery oratory and fearsome images. That man is the parasitic corporatist who would be god, but puts his pants on one leg at a time like we all do. He can bleed like us, and that is what he fears most. For him, truth is anathema, like water was death to the Wicked Witch of the West. Pull back the curtain and light him up!

Confronting a practitioner of such frightening malpractices of public debate, I have had a running war of words with Frosty Wooldridge, a leading proponent of what he so often euphemistically calls “population control”. He insists there are way too many humans on the planet, and says a lot of us need to disappear in a rather short period of time. For a full copy of this debate, which included several other writers like SARTRE, go the members forum of BreakingAllTheRules.com (BATR Yahoo groups). This spilled over to some other web sites like Rense.com also. As Frosty has dared me to “lead, follow, or get out the way” after he defamed me as a “religious nut bag”, I carry on with this battle for truth. I hereby inform this insulting Darwinian Wooldridge that I do lead, and will not get out of his way!

Frosty Me Britches! This man leaves me cold because his debate tactics are spurious and he refuses to even acknowledge hearing any basic facts or scientific studies which run counter to his premise that human numbers must be drastically reduced soon. When I raise certain issues, he changes topic without addressing mine. When I raised the issue of corporatist dominion by the elite who manage the world to enslave us in misery and callously pollute our planet, he shrugged it off as something we can do nothing about. When I raise the issue of genocide, which is the only way humanity will be fast reduced by billions, he cannot speak to that, for or against. He just offers “plausible deniability” of his support for such draconian methods. Dr. Eric Pianka won an award for such a method after his fellow scientists applauded him for advocating the death of 90% of humanity by deliberate release of the horrid virus. Of course, Pianka will say he wouldn’t impose genocide, just that a pandemic could be a good thing, asserting his own “plausible deniability”. Frosty is mum on this thrust.

Cognitive dissonance was noted by Jimmy Cantrell in the BATR debate. Jimmy said “Frosty is obsessed with population control, and his ideology means that he cannot allow himself to see that he is on the side of major figures in the destruction of Western Civilization, which is actually Christendom.” Right on target, Jimmy! Frosty claims not to support such as George Soros, Maurice Strong, or David Rockefeller, yet I have declared him a “useful idiot” in serving their agenda for depopulation. An agenda of Freemasonry so boldly etched on the Georgia Guidestones, a huge monument to genocide and eugenics for which Frosty offers no response.

Like Jimmy’s BATR interjection, the following are also dated Nov. 18, 2010. It is not a pleasant debate, but one in which I got Wooldridge to reveal himself in the heat of battle. Some of Frosty’s remarks in assassinating my character are not printable in polite society.

Wooldridge wrote Never Argue with the Pope: he‘s ordained with the truth by God, in reply to my challenge. In it, Wooldridge said “God is the emerging creative force of the universe.” Nothing more, nothing less. Creates and destroys without a concern. No brain, no self-awareness, no responsibility. Just is! Doesn’t show love, give love or understand love. Could care less about any single entity on this planet or any other fluke of a planet that sustains life. God doesn’t love, hate or otherwise. God doesn’t care….” By these words he established himself as a Darwinian materialist, an atheist with no appreciation of the mind over matter in the prime cause, the Supreme Being’s Holy Spirit.

Wooldridge was told that “I agree the planet is a finite sphere and cannot accommodate infinite growth. I agree many people are crowded, starving, lacking proper hygiene or healthcare, even potable water or decent clothing. These things I do not dispute”

I said, “I have agreed with much of the problems you cite. It is the solutions upon which we differ. Population stabilization and genocide are very different things. Corporatist tyranny for the exclusive benefit of the selfishly arrogant elite is the cause I identify that you wish to disregard like an ostrich with his head in the sand.”

“You,” I said, “want to blame common people for household decisions in simple multiplication of numbers for issues and patterns of consumption, waste, and pollution into which they were driven like lab rats thru a maze by big corporate interests. You pedal their (corporatist) line in saying we, like lab rats, need to be ‘terminated’ at the end of the corporate trials. But I say there are adequate means to provide for all human beings on this planet for the foreseeable future. NOT infinite, unchecked growth, but provision for the foreseeable population of some growth within a very different management plan for resources, economies, politics, recycling, environment, agriculture, industry, etc.” Getting TO THE POINT, “I want to eliminate the problems, you want to eliminate the people. I want to serve humanity generally, and your plan is catering to the elite who wish to maintain their lavishly extravagant lifestyles in arrogant waste and tyranny. They wish to kill us to keep everything for themselves and relieve themselves of their management problem. Our difference,” Frosty, “is one of management plans,” or social goals.

I did not argue with Wooldridge on religious grounds, but he shot back that “So, when someone wants to argue with me on religious grounds -- I know I’m in for a heck of a useless battle of emotions. Then, they call me names like ‘useful idiot’ which gets my blood racing, but then they feel maligned when I return with a better and more scientific presentation. I think someone said ’Never argue with a drunk or an idiot because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.’” Gee, is Frosty getting a little emotional here? Is he using innuendo in character assassination? I am not a drinker nor an idiot. Is he deflecting the issue and using a straw man? Frosty also denies oil is abiotic, insisting that it is a fossil fuel even after the “Deep Horizon” oil “volcano” in the Gulf. How do you my readers assess this? There’s lots more on the BATR members forum with a complete blow-by-blow. It is rough and tumble! And as I said, parts spilled over to some other open sites.

In concluding that rant, Wooldridge insulted me saying “When I have to deal with religious nut-bags that think we can add billions more onto the planet, I realize that I am not dealing with a logical, educated, or rational mind. There is nothing I can do for you, sir.” I don’t suppose he would if he could. I won’t drink his Kool-Aid anyway.

I, of course, reminded Frosty I am NOT the Pope, nor even Roman Catholic, “And while I did not hide my Anabaptist Christian faith, my argument was presented upon factual grounds well documented by scientists as well as moralists…” I parried. “In one of your recent retorts you even disparaged me for speaking to problems you raise as I noted them being caused by elitist oligarchs, with you responding to say we can do nothing about them. The inference is none to subtle: we must bear the brunt of their tyranny and die when they want us dead. They are our masters. You are all too happy to do their bidding to win your own piece of the pie, eh, Frosty?”

I could go on. There are bona fide scientists who have offered solutions to every one of Frosty’s complaints about human suffering, proposals to meet human needs rather than eliminate the people. But Frosty won’t engage a discussion of those solutions. He is absolutely dedicated to seeing huge numbers of people disappear quickly, but is very disingenuous claiming I put words in his mouth to say he supports genocide. As I have told Wooldridge, I only said he was a “useful idiot” for those that do. And he has never actually said he opposes genocide or euthanasia or eugenics. After all, he is a scientist. Government funds almost all scientists either directly or indirectly, even corporate lab scientists. Grants, subsidies, and monopoly legislation see to that. Of course, population reduction is a major government goal, just ask Dr. Henry Kissinger.

If you have read Frosty Wooldridge’s writings over the years, you know he likes to boast of bicycling over six continents, including Antarctica. I wonder how many of the people he observed in those overcrowded cities knew he would like to see them gone? And while he talks about reducing our “carbon footprints” and such, how do you suppose he and his bicycle got across the oceans? Frosty speaks admiringly of the jumbo jets supplying McMurdo Station in Antarctica, big fuel guzzling behemoths belching toxic gases and operated at taxpayer expense. How expensive do you suppose it might have been for him to be posted at that frosty little science village so he can write about seeing penguins? Do you suppose he wants many of us gone in order for his exalted scientists and billionaire benefactors to maintain their wanton consumption uncontested? It is food for thought.

Have I well exposed a media shill, a misleader of men? Readers, how say you?