It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Cognitive dissonance

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:48 PM
Ten years have passed since that fateful morning on 9/11 and incredibly, your average man or woman on the street still believes the fairy-tale according to which cave-dwelling, camel-riding ‘terrorists who hate our freedoms’ eluded the most sophisticated defense systems in the world, suspended or violated several laws of physics, and forced us into a worldwide war against an intangible enemy. Now don’t worry, this is not about 9/11, it's about Libya.

Cognitive dissonance is the unpleasant psychological tension which comes from holding two conflicting cognitions in the mind at the same time. A person who has dissonant or discrepant cognitions is said to be in a state of psychological dissonance. Dissonance increases with the inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict created by these conflicting beliefs; when there is a discrepancy between beliefs something must give in order to eliminate or reduce the dissonance.

It is a sad and dangerous state of affairs when the overwhelming majority of the population is content with pretending to believe the lies they are drip-fed despite the fact that the truth is somewhat dissonant and because they prefer consonance among their cognitions.

This is also why what follows might make some uncomfortable. I'll try not to go off on a rant, but I can't promise not to either.

It really is high-time that we all agree on the following proposition, without reservations and no matter the dissonance: if television channels, newspapers, radios and official spokespersons say so, and everybody knows it is so, then whatever we are dealing with is with an almost absolute degree of certainty untrue.

The propaganda-blitz we are witnessing with regards to Libya is truly a spectacle to behold in disgust: the sheer volume of shameless, bald-faced lies, falsifications and forgeries being generated by the mainstream media is absolutely unbelievable.

I doubt anyone has been able to avoid hearing NATO’s version of events regarding the Libyan crisis. It really isn't that simple to avoid both the media and other people. Just about everyone therefore has repeatedly heard why military intervention was necessary and why Gaddafi needs to be removed. Something about protecting innocent civilians, I believe.
I could swear I've heard that somewhere before. The European Commission head Jose Manuel Barroso, a psychotic and morally bankrupt individual went so far as to call it a "moral duty". I'd wager George Orwell must be turning in his grave.

When the U.S. invaded Iraq on the basis of proven lies and outlandish public relations stunts , the entire U.S. elite, including major news services, academics, and politicians from both “sides” of the spectrum, lined up to cheerlead, appealed to patriotism and dragged the country into war.

Eventually, the lies were exposed, the liars identified, the manipulation denounced. That the malefic liars guilty of crimes against humanity went on to write books and sign lucrative public speaking deals instead of being held accountable is disgraceful and deserves a rant, but I won't otherwise I'm guaranteed to go off on a tangent.

Emotional testimony given before the non-governmental Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990, by a female who provided only her first name, Nayirah provoked worldwide outrage. In her emotional, tearful testimony, Nayirah stated that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die. In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabah, and that she was the daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States.

Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Hill & Knowlton conducted a $1 million study to determine the best way to win support for strong action and to determine the best strategy that would influence public opinion – in other words, how best to lie to us to greatest effect. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony was revealed for what it was: shameless wartime propaganda, or in layman's terms, pure unadulterated bull#.

In “Unreliable Sources”, authors Martin Lee and Norman Solomon noted that when a research team from the communications department of the University of Massachusetts surveyed public opinion and correlated it with knowledge of basic facts about U.S. policy in the region, they drew some sobering conclusions. The more television people watched, the fewer facts they knew; and the less people knew in terms of basic facts, the more likely they were to back the administration. In other words, the less someone knows about something, the easier it is to deceive them, and the more they are deceived the more they trust their government.

Meditate on that for a moment.

Lets get back to Libya. Let’s see how much lying is really going on.

Apparently, Gaddafi is a brutal dictator with an unapologetic history of funding terrorists, hijacking airplanes and bombing civilian targets. Since taking power in the 60’s after a successful coup d'état, Gaddafi has allegedly engaged in brutal power politics and genocidal ventures, seeking to impose Arab-supremacist views and unite the African continent under his rule in a way similar to how Hitler sought to dominate Europe. In Libya, Gaddafi has allegedly installed an oppressive police state, in which one in five Libyans is employed by the security apparatus (something akin to North Korea), foreign languages have been outlawed, dissidents are hunted down and murdered and executions are publicly televised. Beyond this domestic reign of terror, Gaddafi has allegedly engaged in various terrorist ventures on the international stage and supported such terrorist organizations as the PLO, IRA and Abu Sayyaf, whilst maintaining connections to some of the world’s most brutal dictators. Everyone knows this.

For the above reasons, quite obviously, he 'must' be overthrown and removed from power.

I suspect that will be somewhat difficult seeing as he is not in power! Yes, you heard me correctly, Gaddafi can't be toppled because he holds no formal position; he is a guide and a mentor, a patriarch who advises his people but does not rule them. Here is the definition of a dictator:

dic·ta·tor (d k t t r, d k-t -). n. 1. a. An absolute ruler. b. A tyrant; a despot. (Merriam Webster)
Gaddafi holds no such absolute authority, so it cannot be claimed that he is a dictator. To affirm that Gaddafi must step down and relinquish power raises an interesting metaphysical question, namely whether someone can actually relinquish something he doesn’t possess in the first place.

As Gaddafi relinquished power and resigned to a symbolic position in 1977, it is definitely high-time to quit spewing idiocies in favor of stating facts: the secretary general of state in Libya is Baghdad Mahmudi, not Gaddafi.

In exactly the same way, the Libyan people can’t overthrow their government because they are the government!!

Libya is a direct democracy with institutional arrangements to give practical effect to the concept. Since the Libyan Revolution of 1969, roughly 2000 conference halls have been built in which people come together to decide local policies and appoint people’s commission to implement these policies. (...)

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:48 PM
The decisions implemented reflect the sovereign will of the whole people, and not that of any class, clan, fraction or individual.
At these assemblies, locally and nationally, people participate directly in decision-making and in the implementation of decisions, and use their right to control the results. You don't get much closer to direct rule than that.
Gaddafi has never been immune from criticism during these meetings. Moreover, there are cases in which his suggestions were turned down by popular vote and the exact opposite was adopted and recommended for legislation. For instance, Gaddafi repeatedly suggested the elimination of capital punishment but the people’s congresses decided to maintain it for some crimes, and the latter prevailed.

By no stretch of imagination, no matter how good your drugs, is the above the description of a dictatorship, which should lead those of you capable of critical thought to wonder why the Libyan people would want to relinquish their system in favor of what passes for democracy in our countries, but which in fact is corporate fascism.

Having ascertained that Gaddafi cannot relinquish power he doesn't have, and also that the Libyan people are in all likelihood not screaming for a system of democracy far worst than their own, then the immediate justifications for military intervention appear at best somewhat tenuous...

...which brings us to the question of human rights violations, and it quickly becomes apparent that what we have been told closely resembles the incubator and weapons of mass destruction fantasies and other assorted delusions.

I have to ask: if Gaddafi is such a gross human rights violator, why was Libya elected by other African Nations to lead the Human Rights Council of the United Nations in 2003?

The following extract is from a UN Human Rights Council meeting dated 4th January 2011:
" During the interactive dialogue, statements were made by 46 delegations. A number of delegations commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the preparation and presentation of its national report, noting the broad consultation process with stakeholders in the preparation phase. Several delegations also noted with appreciation the country’s commitment to upholding human rights on the ground. "

If you check the footnotes to that report, you will find a list defining the 'several delegations' in question: Denmark, China, Italy, The Netherlands, Mauritania, Slovenia, Nicaragua, The Russian Federation, Spain, Indonesia, Sweden, Norway, Ecuador, Hungary, South Africa, The Phillippines, Maldives, Chile, Singapore, Germany, Australia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Angola, Nigeria, Congo, Burundi, Zambia, Rwanda, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, and Zimbabwe.

I guess a lot can happen in a month. I’m not making this up, you will find it here:

How do we reconcile the fact that, whilst the mainstream media decries Gaddafi’s human rights record, the very same record is commended at a UN Human Rights Council meeting?

It's rather easy actually. Most, if not all of the accusations being presented to us by the media come from one organization alone: "Human Rights Watch" an American based organization. A closer look reveals that their biggest contributors are George Soros (this is the man who destroyed the British pound and made $12 billion in profit in the process) and Saudi Arabia (one of the biggest violators of human rights in the history of mankind).

Uh huh, ok.

A cursory examination of Gaddafi's economic achievements and wealth distribution is just as problematic to those who hold to the lies that we are dealing with an evil dictator who must be removed. It is impossible to the sober observer to deny the achievements of Gaddafi and their benefit to the Libyan people.

- Education was completely free in Libya, from kindergartens to university. The annual fee for anyone pursuing higher studies at universities equipped to the highest international standards was 9$. Yes, that’s nine dollars. Compare that to the cost of higher education summed with the cost of the high-interest student loans available in the US and UK and then tell me if you feel raped.

- Water and electricity were also completely free for Libyans. Get last year’s bills out along with a calculator and tell me how much you are being shafted for yearly, just out of curiosity; also, the next time you stop by the gas station to fill the car up, consider that Libyan citizens paid 0,75 cents a gallon before the NATO aggression disrupted the distribution system.

- Health-care was of a very high standard and completely free. If medical care or health treatments were unavailable in Libya, the Libyan citizen's full expenses for travel, accommodation and treatment to wherever was required for treatment were covered by the Libyan government, as is usually the case with brutal repressive regimes engaged in human rights violations.

edit on 21-9-2011 by D377MC because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2011 by D377MC because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:49 PM
Of course I am using the past tense here because most of the clinics and hospitals in Tripoli and elsewhere have since been bombed by NATO in an attempt to protect civilians.

- Basic food items were subsidized by the State.

- When a Libyan citizen bought a new car, the government covered half the cost. I sincerely hope the reader never has to endure such tyranny.

- Gaddafi nationalized the oil companies and made sure each Libyan citizen received a share of Libya’s oil revenue deposited monthly onto their bank accounts.

- If Libyans wished to start a business, they automatically received a 20,000$ grant, interest free.

- When Libyan couples got married, they received approximately 64,000$ as a gift from the government.

- When these same couples had children, they received further gifts from the government in the amount of 7,000$ per child.

- High taxes and hidden fees were prohibited by law, and with regards to housing for example, the only possible relationship was a direct seller to buyer relationship. Brokering real estate for exorbitant fees was prohibited.

- Unlike some Arab states, women in Libya under Gaddafi had equal rights; not only as a philosophy, but in practice. Quite ironic considering.

- Any Libyan who wished to become a farmer was given land, a house, seeds and animals. Compare that with your own countries where the exact opposite is happening: corporations such as Monsanto are successfully lobbying governments for laws intended to force small farmers off their land and ensure total monopoly of the food production.
I mean, seriously, how is this not insane: ?

- In 1953, the search for new oil-fields in the deserts of southern Libya led to the discovery not only of the significant oil reserves, but also vast quantities of fresh water trapped in the underlying strata. Later, the GMR project - the world's largest engineering venture - transported water from these aquifers to the northern coastal belt, turning the area into rich farmland with the potential to become the bread-basket of Africa and solve the continent’s under-nourishment problems. Intended to be the showpiece of the Libyan revolution, Gaddafi called it the "eighth wonder of the world". This man-made river is a worldwide acclaimed achievement that stands as a testimony to Gaddafi's huge contribution to the economic development of Libya. Of course, NATO has been regularly bombing the infrastructure and pipe factories related to the GMR, in spite of the fact that this is clearly a war crime by international standards.

Let’s summarize.

In Libya, everyone was entitled to a home, food, water, free healthcare, a vehicle and the opportunity to pursue his interests. Libya was the greatest welfare paradise in the world.

I can see how they must of hated that. I'm nothing less than outraged that Libyans could be denied the same freedoms we all enjoy, such as the freedom to pay for everything ourselves, at grotesquely inflated prices through high-interest loans. NATO seems to agree with me.

At this point, most of you are probably having trouble comprehending why the Libyan people are protesting at all. It's a valid question and the answer is simple: they aren't. In order to sell this war to the public, the perception of a massive popular uprising had to be implanted into the public consciousness to be manipulated thereafter to greatest effect.

Here is the establishment's already biased version of how this all started,

"On the 15th of February in the evening, approximately 200 people began demonstrating in front of the police headquarters in Benghazi following the arrest of human-rights activist Fathi Terbil.They were joined by others later who totaled between 500 to 600 protesters. The protest was broken up violently by police, causing as many as forty injuries among the protesters. In Al Bayda and Az Zintan, hundreds of protesters called for 'the end of the regime' and set fire to police and security buildings".

Let me be brutally honest, the idea of burning police stations does have a certain appeal, but lets avoid distractions and try and get this straight: in a country of 6,500,000 people, only 600-800 showed up to protest? What's all the fuss about?

It's not as if they could call for health-care, housing, free education, subsidized food and a share in the oil wealth - Libyans already had all those things after all. What the hell were they bitching about?

A bit disappointing really, and as a matter of detail, weren't these supposed to be peaceful protests? Forgive me for being facetious, but were I to burn a few police stations myself, would I gain overnight NATO support, weapons and billions in funding? Why not?

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:49 PM
The propaganda blitz following these incidents was unrelenting . On the other hand, what was not reported by the establishment media was a gathering of approximately 1,700,000 million Libyans on July the 1st in Green square and the surrounding areas in support of Gaddafi.

Obviously, once the media had decided to misrepresent 600 hooligans as a popular uprising, then the 1,700,000 Libyan citizens openly reunited in support of Gaddafi would have been the proverbial elephant in the room, and could not be aired. At the same time, the establishment media had another problem, namely they were lacking images and coverage of the anti-Gaddafi protests, which I imagine could have been quite a headache seeing as there weren't any. The BBC came up with an incredibly elegant solution to the aforementioned dilemma, you will want to see this:

If you are still reading and you don't mind my saying so, you should be deeply offended that the BBC considers you too damn stupid to notice their blatant forgery, and too damn irrelevant for concern should you happen to be able to distinguish an Indian flag from a Libyan one.

That really is the height of arrogance although I expected no less really from a corporation that had the nerve to declare that to announce an event which has yet to happen, 25 minutes before it happens, is a mistake.

I call that either prophecy or foreknowledge myself.

Let's delve into the fundamental question of the identities of the rebels . Who exactly are they? After all, someone must be doing the fighting on the ground, because if Tripoli has been captured then it stands to reason that someone did the capturing.

It turns out they are all mercenaries, recruited, trained, funded and equipped by the CIA. Its hard for anyone not to get suspicious of a popular uprising whose participants receive salaries from the CIA, even the particularly stubborn should get a warning blip on the electroencephalogram.

The rebel leader, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, the man who is supposed to have led the rebel assault on Tripoli, and now the de facto military governor of the capital, spent time in one of the agency's secret prisons and is a member of Al-Quaeda. I wonder what kind of agreement they reached whilst he was their guest.

After a few weeks of fighting they created a central bank. When was the last time you heard of a central bank being created in a matter of weeks out of a spontaneous popular uprising?

Draw your own conclusions.

Independent reports also paint a totally different picture of the 'liberation' of Tripoli, which was in reality a bloodbath as NATO helicopters strafed civilians to clear the streets and mercenaries led by US, British, French, Italian and other special forces moved in executing anyone on sight.

NATO's moral duty to protect civilians apparently extends to beating them, raping them and murdering them whilst engaging in ethnic cleansing. Calling civilian structures command & control centers and then bombing them works too.
What we are witnessing is the organized massacre of innocent civilians.

If you have made it this far, I'll tell you why all this should concern you.

Our sanitized reality is somewhat similar to the game of musical chairs. Whilst the music is playing, everything is fine. As soon as it stops the thin veneer of civilization is stripped away ... and death and mayhem become the norm. Do you have any idea how quickly the music can stop for the rest of us?

That's the only relevant difference I see between Libyan citizens and the rest of us.

They are no longer under false illusions of safety. They are fighting for their lives.
They no longer believe the lies. Neither should we.
They no longer have the luxury of apathy.

Neither do we.
edit on 21-9-2011 by D377MC because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2011 by D377MC because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:40 PM
reply to post by D377MC

I had come to the conclusion that We were being sold the bridge with the "reporting" coming out of Libya. In fact, I thought it was ever so very odd that Gaddafi was left in place most of My life - and NOW We are just SO upset with how He's treating the Citizens... Like... What about all these past decades? Why weren't We on this then?

Probably, I figured, because there was no such problem.


posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:44 PM
Holy cow! That's a lot of text--most of which I read, and the rest of which I'm reserving for later. At least someone has finally put this all together in a single post, and I commend you. I also admire the fact that you had the self-control to use good grammar and correct spellings--and complete sentences. That's a huge bonus on this site! (I'd hate to read all that in the lower-case mis- or un-punctuated shorthand text that most people use around here.)

Anyway, thanks....

new topics

top topics

log in