EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE MAY BE WRONG

 

STATEMENT TO YOU, DEAR READERS of our blog and social media pages

YOUR WORLDVIEW MAY WELL HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED BY AN ELITE HEGEMONY and thus BE WRONG.

Our blog posts and social media posts are flavoured by Conservative Christian values. You may have noticed that we rail against the Western Imperialist System quite a bit, as exemplified by our criticism of support for Ukraine, the persecution of Christians and innocent citizens in Syria and Yemen, the starvation of children from Western imposed sanctions, the forever war actions and narratives, the government controls imposed on us plebs throughout the ‘pandemic’ along with the forced medical treatments and so on.

And yes, we have railed against leaders like Biden et al, ScoMo, BoJo, Macron, Trudeau, Adern and Albo……… the whole bluddy lot of them whether they are left or right.

Let’s get one thing straight.

In Australia, for example, true Conservative values have been destroyed gradually since Menzies. Successive leaders have destroyed our manufacturing of everything from Steel to shoes, from cars to clothing. These globalists signed our allegiances away to the U.N. and its affiliates from the old Lima Declaration right up until the present move to sign up to the WEF Pandemic Treaty. They have introduced school curricula to indoctrinate our future generation, including future leaders, into the anti-family globohomo narrative and in doing so THEY HAVE ABUSED OUR KIDS. The universities have been infiltrated by Hegelian and Marxist ideas in the Communist march through the institutions to indoctrinate young leaders into the gender fluidity paradigm, support the Alphabet Bloc to destroy marriage and family, to give rise to third wave feminism and to denigrate men as patriarchal extremists. And this is not to mention the promotion of importing foreign anti-Christian, anti-western, counter cultural migration that infects our media, for one thing, with anti-patriot ideals and counter culture methods to denigrate our heritage and traditional way of life.

I won’t even talk about America – the driving force in degeneration of standards that leads the ‘free world’ in corruption and pretence.

We do NOT live in a liberal democracy any more. It is not even Libertarianism on steroids. We now live in a Western world dominated by the globalist elites who destroy nationalism, patriotism, individualism and our sovereignty. WE WILL NOT STAY SILENT. We stand firmly with the humans of the world, whether they be in Alaska or Zanzibar, A to Z, Christian or not, especially with the defenceless in countries wracked by the Globalists’ wars and their sanctions that are designed to force regime change for sovereign countries to fall into line in the global financial and trade systems. THE WEST HAS BEEN INFILTRATED BY CULTURAL MARXISM OF THE TROTSKY VARIEY which defectors from the Soviet Union warned would happen to the West. It has happened and very few leaders have resisted except for the likes of Hungary, Poland somewhat and other Visgrad states, Brazil and some African states.

WHAT IS YOUR WORLDVIEW? Do we disrupt it by criticising what may appear to you as criticism of our valued Western idealism? If your concerns are with who gets married next on MAFS, or how much money the new government can put in your pocket, then we will leave you to it, with the hope that you give some consideration to our posts as well as the many other alternative sources that Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Government, and Big Banks continually manage to censor with their labels of fake news and conspiracy theorists. We will continue to support sovereignty and stand against a Western hegemony that has been hijacked by an elite few who want us under the thumb of their new world order.

And we leave you with similar thoughts, better written sentiments, from another Australian columnist, Caitlin Johnson ……..

” … If you’ve publicly challenged the official narratives of the western political/media class about any major issue, you’ve probably noticed that people can get pretty upset about it.

Like, actually upset. Not mildly annoyed like you might get at someone who is saying something that is obviously false and stupid, but burning hot emotional like you’d get if you heard someone insulting your loved one. Or like someone insulting you personally.

That’s the most surprising thing, when you first start speaking about this stuff. Not that people don’t believe you or don’t agree with you; that’s to be expected when every screen in their lives is telling them one thing and you’re telling them something else. But that people actually get deeply emotionally invested in it.

That’s your first clue that there’s something else going on beneath the surface apart from what you’re being presented with. You’re not just arguing about Ukraine or China or Syria or whatever, you’re touching on a psychological third rail that’s being ferociously protected.

Many of the people you’ll run into online or in person who defend imperial narratives from your criticisms aren’t doing so because they believe the US-centralized empire is awesome and great, they’re doing so because it’s much more comfortable than confronting the possibility that their entire worldview is made of lies.

You’re not going to believe what I’m about to tell you https://t.co/XwFjK9EOyl pic.twitter.com/QRSalVfuKK

— The Oatmeal (@Oatmeal) May 2, 2017

There’s a great comic by The Oatmeal which explains the psychological defense mechanisms humans have in place to protect their worldview from information that could destabilize it. Because of our tendency to select for cognitive ease over cognitive challenge in order to conserve mental energy, we tend to be heavily biased against consciously helping new worldview-disrupting information get past those psychological defense mechanisms.

And it doesn’t get more worldview-disrupting than questioning mainstream consensus reality. Because on the other side of that investigation is the realization that pretty much everything you’ve been trained to believe about your society, your nation, your government and your world, is a lie.

This is often what people are really pushing back against when they get upset at someone who is being critical of official empire narratives. It’s not actually super important to them that everyone believe the correct things about their government or someone else’s government, it’s super important to them that the world as they know it not come to a crashing halt.

Because that’s what it is, as far as their experience and perception is concerned. A lucid seeing that their entire worldview is based on lies would feel like the end of their world, because in their experience it would be the end of the world they know.

Having your entire understanding of the world and how it works torn asunder is a kind of a death, because it’s the end of your secure knowing of what’s real. In a sense it’s the end of you, too. It’s the end of the person you were. It’s all illusory of course, but that’s the way it feels…….” tbc.

Caitlin’s full post is here > https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/06/02/people-who-defend-empire-narratives-are-really-just-defending-their-worldview-from-destruction/

AND A BOOK RECOMMENDED ON THE SAME THEME IS “EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE IS WRONG”. https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Believe-Wrong-William-Briggs/dp/1087987156

William M. Briggs was born in Detroit at the height of its majesty. When he left, it went into the crapper. Coincidence? He later entered the Air Force and became Staff Sergeant Briggs. When he took off his stripes, the Soviet Union crumbled. Coincidence? He went to university and earned many letters after his name which wow the unthinking. After he graduated, they installed a Dean for Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity. Coincidence?He lived for many years on the isle of Manhattan during it brightest years. When he fled, the city’s Mayor instituted Vaccine Passports. Coincidence? Finally, he wrote this penetrating book. After you close it covers, you, dear reader, will find that you are based.Coincidence?

The U.N.: Guest Post by AFT

AFT

 

Mon 5 Oct 2015 09:29:28 am

Big lies as the UN suppresses truth with ideology

In his first month as Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull’s most decisive actions have been in cultural and international relations. His government has signed Australia up to the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, announced a bid for membership of the Security Council and declared candidacy for a seat on the Human Rights Council.

The multilateral moves have taken a nation accustomed to Tony Abbott’s more hawkish foreign policy by surprise. While the renewal of soft power relations with the UN may be viewed favourably, Australia’s new era of cosmopolitanism should be tempered by political realism.

Even ardent advocates of the classical liberal ideals that inspired the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are beginning to recognise there is something rotten in the heart of the UN. Since the turn of the century, it has been beset by corruption and a culture of profligacy which would likely elicit strong criticism were the organisation a private enterprise. But it is the emerging culture of dishonesty at the UN which poses the greatest threat to its legitimacy as an independent and trustworthy arbiter of human rights and justice worldwide.

Dishonesty and double standards mark the rise of the UN in the realm of 21st-century human rights. In Australia, Europe, Canada and the US, human rights commissions have undermined evidentiary standards by supplanting empirical truth with emotionalism, campaigned against border integrity, criticised national security policy, engaged in judicial activism and sought to censor freethinkers. They have been unrelenting in the pursuit of a neo-Marxist social agenda that respects neither parliamentary process nor the views of citizens who pay their wages.

The most pressing problem with UN human rights advocates, however, is their use of dishonesty to achieve political ends. When ­attorney-general George Brandis rightly criticised Australian Hu­man Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs for fibbing about the presence of armed guards at immigrant processing centres, he was accused of violating her human rights.

Rather than correcting Triggs’s misrepresentation of the truth, the UN defended it.

Michel Forst, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, asked the government to explain its actions while condemning its alleged violation of Triggs’s rights. The violation of truth was not raised as a matter of vital interest. While that may offend our moral sensibilities, it is consistent with UN values.

The UN has created a new value system where the truth is subordinated to human rights activism. For example, in the report Human Rights Defenders, it states that the “critical test” of a human rights defender is not to be correct — to base their case on objective and validated truth — but to pursue rights. Human rights have been transformed into a master ideology that transcends truth.

As history has shown, the supersession of objective truth with political ideology produces big lies. The big lie of the modern age is that secure-border policy produces more harm to humankind than it prevents. The UN is a powerful purveyor of the lie that effectively protects people-smugglers and frequently proves lethal to their human cargo.

In the organisation’s latest attack on Australia’s highly successful secure-border policy, UN migrant rights rapporteur Francois Crepeau whipped up a media storm on the false claim he was denied adequate access to immigration centres.

The leftist media reported Crepeau’s hysterical claims as though they constituted fact. Nowhere was his history of criticising conservative government policy reported. His recent attack describing defence of the continuous historical tradition of British culture as “bullshit” went unremarked. No one questioned his ability to conduct an impartial investigation into Australia’s immigration processing centres given he is one of only eight council members of the Global Detention Project, an activist group highly critical of such centres.

The Turnbull government passed its first test on border security by refusing to submit to Crepeau’s fantastical claims. But it faces an uphill battle to convince the electorate that deeper engagement with the UN is in the national interest and will produce return on investment.

The Syrian crisis has exposed the UN’s radical impotence in dealing with the major security threat of our age, Islamist terrorism. Its bloated bureaucracy is too dilatory to respond to the multi-ethnic civil wars that have emerged as the greatest global threat to human rights. Rather than realise the liberal universalist order out of such chaos, the UN appears beholden to its greatest detractors, communist and Islamist states.

Russia has emerged as the strongman of the UN in responding to the Syrian crisis and Islamist states now comprise the largest voting bloc at the UN General Assembly. The world’s worst human rights violators populate the Human Rights Council. The minority of UN members that constitute the liberal democratic world order which inspired its inception cannot compete with the sheer size and determination of authoritarian states to overwhelm it.

Turnbull has initiated a marathon of diplomacy by committing Australia to the UN until at least 2030, if our bid for Security Council membership is successful. We will undoubtedly hear more about how deeper engagement with the UN will form a part of Turnbull’s recast foreign policy strategy.

The easy route for the government would be to stage a UN love-in with the leftist media and ignore the warning signs about declining public trust in the liberal institutional order. But there is little point in denying that the free world’s relationship with the UN is rapidly approaching a tipping point where we must decide whether to dig in and deepen engagement, or declare it a lost cause and start anew.

The UN remains a vital part of the liberal international order, but it has abused public trust by elevating ideology over truth and defending the indefensible in a desperate bid to remain relevant. In its recasting of foreign affairs, the Turnbull government should embrace a critical and transformative approach to international relations, acknowledging the UN requires serious structural reform if it is to become a force for good in the 21st century.

Jennifer Oriel is a political scientist and commentator.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/big-lies-as-the-un-suppresses-truth-with-ideology/story-e6frg6zo-1227556738266