Monday, July 18, 2011

Great assumptions: Indirect propaganda

Andrew D Atkin

From looking at some popular science and other magazines, I have noticed they are already taking the position that the Anthropogenic Global Warming scare is totally real, and the science is conclusive. They make this assertion not by stating it outright, but by simply writing 'secondary' articles based on this assumption. They talk as though problematic AGW is a given as they discuss developing technologies to deal with its effects, etc, while paying no credence to the debate supporting it all.

Now this is interesting. Because regardless of what the truth relating to the AGW scare may be, if you have the media all calmly talking about it as though the science is in and the debate is over, then the public will, over time, not even question the assumption, and instead it will just become "common knowledge" that carbon emissions are a bad thing and must be averted. Most critically, people will form that assumption without any thought or knowledge relating to the science at all. This dynamic applies to the extreme for when people are born into this form of propaganda. Extremely challengeable assertions can so easily reach 'common knowledge' status, naturally sucked-up by the public like osmosis.

So with this kind of (indirect) propaganda you can win a debate without even having it. Indeed, you can get to the point where people look at you like you're a freak for even suggesting something as "bizarre" as the idea that we shouldn't worry about carbon emissions. And again, they may adopt that view without an ounce of personal understanding backing up their [socially reinforced] assumptions.

Do we have a clear example of this kind of misplaced propaganda today? By god do we what! Schooling. I have long noticed that pretty much every discussion on education that exists in the mainstream media has, since virtually forever, reinforced the assumption that child development should be institutionalised. We preach it everyday, directly and indirectly, but without ever really thinking about it. Have you ever looked into the science and history behind what we call education, and the facts associated with non-institutional child development? Of course you probably haven't. If you did you would quickly realise that we are having the wrong conversations, and those wrong conversations keep you locked-in to the wrong foundation assumptions. The debate that we never even had was won by default.

--Tip! The most potent propaganda never looks like what it is.*

The more our minds are tuned into the media, the more we become conditioned to those indirectly suggested assumptions. We form opinions that we don't even realise are not our own.
To a degree this is understandable in that some things must be assumed, so we can get on with our lives and function. But what is not acceptable (or dignified) is actively turning our backs on direct invitations to review those embedded assumptions, like they should be treated as sacred cows.

Well, at the least, don't laugh a controversial view off the stage just because the government told you to do so. Because if you're going to do that, then you might as well wear a t-shirt that says: "My mind is your b**ch".


*If propaganda looked like what it is, then it would trigger your critical mind both into the picture and on-topic, and that's exactly what a propagandist wants to avoid. Propaganda is about changing (or establishing) views beneath critical thought - not with it.

Further, this is closely related to hypnosis. Hypnosis works by suppressing activity within the front-left cortex so as to, basically, let the individual believe in their [externally directed] dream. It's the left-frontal area of the brain that tells you when you're in a fantasy. When it's off-line you simply don't even question what you subjectively experience as real. Again, just like when you believe that your dream is real while you are sleeping.


Addition 6-8-11: The great political assumption?

One of the most fundamental assumptions in modern politics, and this applies to New Zealand especially, is the assumption that we have no "shadow government" behind our government. And you had better sign up to this assumption if you want to get your editorial printed in the NZ Herald (and elsewhere) because otherwise you are a conspiracy theorist, and in turn your credibility is custard. Right? Obviously, yes.

The effect? Political movements that don't make sense are rationalised to the public on the premise of selfish political motivations, ideological thinking, or corporate backing etc. (If there's no higher-level governance then what else could the drivers be - right?). And all these rationalisations of which are based on that premise work to reinforce that great central assumption: There is no functional government behind our government.

But again, if there is in fact a functional government behind our government, then all those editorials will only be protecting it, not holding it to account. Because the idea that there even might be a shadow government is then assumed to be ridiculous, by default, due to that non-stop presentation of "secondary" propaganda.

Note: I am not saying that there is a government behind our government in this article as such. I am saying that we can see how the assumption that there isn't one is, incidentally or not, relentlessly reinforced as all conversation and thinking is based on this presumption.

It's interesting how cultures can potentially breed their own great delusions once and if they get on the wrong track. All you need to do is quietly isolate the rouge points of view, and the propaganda train will come to be automatic and self-reinforcing.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Is casual sex normal?

Andrew D Atkin:

It bores me looking at articles such as this, talking about promiscuity. They never get to what's behind the issue. The issue becomes trivialised into some kind of moralistic or feminist thing, which with better understanding we can see that it's not.

My outlook:

Yes, casual sex is normal. No it's not "supposed to be" normal. Yes, people should screw around if they want to. No you shouldn't celebrate that they do. Yes, casual sex is not unhealthy in itself. No it's not an expression of health.

Human sexuality:

The human animal more than any other is dependant on a stable family to grow up in (properly), and that requires well-attached parents. Human sexuality is an intense part of that attachment.

-We all know this, though politicised scientists might always "prove" something else.

If casual sex is so natural, why then are people so universally devastated when their partners cheat on them? Why have we been biologically programmed with this response? And if a stable family is not what a child needs after all, then why are kids traumatised by a broken home? And if we are not supposed to attach in sex, then why does the attachment process (in normal conditions) occur, as well described by people such as Desmond Morris? And most significantly, as a species we never evolved with contraception. So it would seem strange that sex should be casual by nature when the consequences of the act (children) have, historically, always demanded attachment.

Nope. Casual, promiscuous sex is not normal normal. It's now common and culturally normalised, but not normal in the human meaning of the word.

So where does casual sex come from?

It comes mainly from the effect of deprivation. A child that does not attach to its parents will not attach to anyone as an adult (in a real way), because the function of attachment has been locked out of consciousness (repressed). People like this can easily engage in casual sex because, basically, they hardly have sex at all. As a subjective process they literally can't have 'normal' sex.

Another possibility is peer pressure. This is ugly and no-one should tolerate it. Having a mass of neurotic children who can and do screw whoever/whenever is one thing, forcing other young people to be pressured by them is another.

And another possibility still is with schools providing bizarre forms of sex education that serve to "normalise the abnormal", and at an age when children can't know any better.

-How about some real sex education? Why not teach the impact of child abuse and infantile damage on human sexuality, and also the pervasiveness of that damage? And throw in a special module on incest too, as it represents the most extreme way to destroy someones sexuality.


Let people do whatever they want with their bodies - just so long as it's sincerely mutual, they don't get pregnant in a messed-up state, nor spread too many diseases. If people are promiscuous then the damage has already been done, so there's no point in crying over spilt milk.

But don't celebrate promiscuity. See it for what it is. It is still an expression of a more serious problem relating to deep damage within early childhood. And the latter is what our society needs to be talking about - not this moralistic trivia.

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Is this Real?

Andrew D Atkin

I'm trying to put the pieces together as to how my world really works. Trying to understand the bizarre policies governments forever insist on employing. Policies that fly in the face of what makes a healthy, free, sustainable and prosperous society.

So the following is an assertion. I might be wrong - or not quite right. For me this is still hypothetical. I invite any contributions because I don't know how tight all my facts are on this. Regardless, I have a developing suspicion that NZ politics works something like what I explain and describe in the following.



We know that the USA has a famous constitution that protects individual rights. How exactly does that constitution work? Like this: The leader plus the senate passes a new bill. The bill is then sent to the supreme court. The supreme court determines if the new laws contained within the bill are consistent with the Constitution (constitution = constant law, regardless of government will). So what if the bill is not consistent? The supreme court then throws the bill out and tells the executive branch to try again. So, the constitution is in fact the highest law of the land - higher than the president. The constitution is (and was) designed to protect the public from the ever-present danger of governmental corruption or stupidity.

Point being? Treaties are functionally the same thing. When your nation signs an international treaty they give up a part of their sovereignty, because the government is bound to make no law that is inconsistent with the treaty.

Yes, treaties are serious business. In theory you can sign a nation into oblivion with them, because once employed there's nothing that your democracy can do to (legally) rebel from them. Again, like constitutions treaties ride above governmental power.


New Zealand and its treaties:

The following paragraph was extracted from the international treaties list, dated July 2011, obtained from the New Zealand Foreign Affairs and Trade website.


New Zealand is currently party to approximately 1,500 international treaties. As many treaties are in force for a limited period of time, New Zealand has been party to a total of almost twice that number. Each year, New Zealand is engaged in a multitude of international negotiations that may result in the conclusion of new treaties. In addition, existing treaties may be amended as international circumstances require.


Are we looking at New Zealand's real functional government i.e. that mass of treaties? I'm not too sure. I have requested a comprehensive (though condensed) copy of our treaty list which I hope will be posted to me soon.

In particular what I'm interested in is the possibility of Auckland (and other councils) having planning policies which are now legally rooted into some form of international agreement. It would explain a lot.

For example, a few years ago I sent my article on Smart Growth [an older, smaller version] to Mike Lee, Chairman of the [then] Auckland Regional Council. He got back to me saying that although he did not agree with my position fundamentally, after reading my piece carefully he accepted that my points were valid. Weird! Many of those points in that article are pretty damn juicy. I couldn't see how he could accept my piece as valid in principle, yet still hold the view that forced intensification should be Auckland's future.

But then maybe I'm not talking to ideology after all, but law? Again, it would explain a lot. I still don't believe that our politicians are as dumb as they look.


The politics:

From here let's operate on the presumption that that mass of treaties we've signed up to is basically New Zealand's functional government. What, then, would be the meaning of the political show that we're exposed to?

Obviously its purpose would be public relations - upholding the fantasy that we're a sovereign nation.

A naive politician with good intentions might enter parliament and say..."Ok guys, I wanna do this"...and then have an official within the public service say back to them..."Sorry but we can't. It would contradict our international obligations (treaties). And doing too much of that would make us a rouge state which in turn may invoke UN sanctions. We still need to import that oil, Sir".

If that scenario is (basically) the game, then we can know that our politicians will be in no hurry to come out and tell us that our country's sovereignty has been too signed-away for them to take a major new action on our behalf. You would probably end up with riots in Wellington if they did this, and that would and could achieve nothing if the UN retains its power to induce maybe devastating sanctions.

-Remember I'm thinking theoretically when I state all this.



The power of the UN to enforce sanctions (that hurt) equates to the level of interdependence.

I have already expressed in a previous post that I see no reason why New Zealand needs to be so obsessed with developing its trade economy, considering we are so well endowed with the resources to take care of our needs locally.

But there is a good reason to advance the trade economy. It creates interdependence, and likewise advances the UN's latent power to hurt us with sanctions. Quite simply, the more we need to import fundamentals like oil, the more we can't afford to tear up our treaties.

Is this the real reason why top politicians have been pushing for a proportionally larger trade economy, and for so many years? I wouldn't be too surprised.

Independence institutes domestic vulnerability and in turn enhanced UN power. We should remember that interdependence can be a form of economic weaponisation.
(I understand that the UN has already starved many thousands of Iraqi children with sanctions. You're particularly vulnerable when you can't even grow your own food).


Justifying the treaties:

Most treaties, as I currently assume at least, are or will be based on that which specifically affects other nations. So you can justify the implementation of a treaty for where and when we deal with other countries. Likewise, the larger the trade economy (interdependence, again) the more "invasive" the treaty process can become, as you create larger grounds for their implementation and impact on our lives.

Also we have treaties on human rights and the environment, as these concerns can be interpreted as International.

Human rights:

Treaties on human rights are of concern because that would represent international law dictating to domestic-only operations. So although it can be justified as a defence for sovereign individuals, it is (or can be) distinctly intrusive nonetheless. Also, when treaties on human rights include sub-categories such as "rights of indigenous people" then things can get particularly controversial I believe, because you are then beginning to define the human rights-status of individuals on the grounds of their ancestry, which is philosophically spurious to say the least. My point is that toying with definitions can make international treaties step well beyond their mark. Slippery slope?


What we do domestically can have environmental impacts world over. Hence, in principle, you can justify treaties here. And as we know this is exactly where we are moving with the anthropogenic global warming scare. Because everything we do today depends on oil, we therefore have a basis for forming treaties that may dictate to nations to just about any explicit degree. Indeed is that the idea? Use the AGW nonsense scare to justify treaty-formation that cuts deep into the operation of nations?


Who signs the treaties?

The next question to my hypothesis is: "Who, then, signs the treaties?". Don't know. But if the goal is indeed the progressive subversion of national sovereignty, then it would have to be a groomed infiltrator working for the UN or maybe even a level above it. I understand that the UN is a private organisation? If so then who are the money men behind the UN, and how deep and pervasive is their reach?


The argument for it:

The rationalisation for an international government, that basically has existing nations under its thumb, is for many serious reasons sound. This is why I consider the move, if it's happening today, to be tangible.

And likewise if it's happening then it seems logical that creating a world bound by international treaties, and a world highly vulnerable to sanctions (interdependent), would be the most robust way of achieving that ends. Maybe even the only way? At the end of the day a functional world government must be locked-down into law. This, I think, is how you can do it.