A majority of people in WA have a tendency to believe the old adage that the simplest explanation is usually the closest to the truth. These people are happier if they think they can easily distinguish between what they think is the right side and the wrong side and take the appropriate politically correct stance. The Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and finally synthesis is advanced at every frontier of interface between the MSM, government, industry, defence and the general public. In this way we are led into the psychological corral of politically correct thinking that severely limits our ability to collectively and/or individually appreciate the complexities of the conflicts that surround us.
This only benefits those who have the power to foster change. They dress that change up as a panacea for the various ills that they have helpfully identified and defined for us to worry about. When that change doesn’t have the effects it’s supposed to have we are just presented with a new dialectic, and so the long worthless (to us) charade continues ad-infinitum keeping the general population confused and feeling helpless in the face of these continuing threats.
Yes, society is in danger of collapsing into a warfare/welfare state.
Passing a load of anti-terror legislation has/will not change this.
Fail for the Hegelian Dialectic. That’s just one obvious example of the real time manipulation of our minds to evoke contradiction with authorities imprimatur.
We have this Terrorist threat that was always a manipulation from the start (There is ample evidence that false flag terror is a hallmark of the world of the spook or government intelligence agent) being used to bring in all sorts of draconian laws of control and surveillance that have effected a shift in the way we think about ourselves and others. We are a lot more suspicious of people of a certain appearance, and increasingly, of certain attitudes and/or opinions. Has the world become a safer place because of it? Because the answer is heavily debatable means to me that these laws haven’t been effective for their advertised purpose. But I don’t think they were ever brought in for their advertised purpose. It is not sufficient that the legislators who penned these laws will always use the excuse of unintended consequences to explain the various inequities caused by their law making. Not sufficient because it is just more excuses to write laws that are as much unhelpful as they are effective in combating any real or perceived threat conjured by these legislators. Not sufficient because these people are given the job with the implicit understanding that they can mitigate such unintended consequences.
Not sufficient because these actions by our legislators are destroying the economy in the process.
Anthropogenic climate change is another example of a failing Hegelian dialectic. People are looking to the geological record and recognising that climate change is upon us with or without man made CO2 emissions so the governments argument for radical economic change is blunted. For me the correct path is to recognise that a lot of the industrial processes that we use to create our built environment are intrinsically toxic to us. These must be phased out if we are going to survive as a species not severely compromised by the proliferation of the myriad of cancer producing substances released by these industries.
Orica chemical company is one such organisation producing substances they cannot contain but are still operating with only a temporary shut-down and meagre fines to annoy them when they accidentally spray carcinogenic materials from their Port Kembla plant in NSW. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/orica/3817916. or: http://www.sulphuric-acid.com/sulphuric-acid-on-the-web/Acid%20Plants/Orica-Port-Kembla.htm
I think we need much more affirmative action toward recognising and then mitigating these polluting industrial processes. Our governments focus on using the big economic levers to affect change look ever so good on paper but it has been shown that the reductions in CO2 levels will be negligible and can be circumvented because of the impossibility to regulate such a scheme effectively. It is really just a tax designed to prop-up the governments bottom line.
This is something that some will welcome and others not but I suspect for all the wrong reasons. I have no idea if we could survive without big government because of the enormous numbers of people already relying on a government cheque for their existence. Economies, being what they are now, a hybrid of globalisation and rank self interest, cannot be remade to fit a new untested paradigm. Individually we can only hope to resist the system that is causing so much pain.
Attack is futile and makes you appear the only aggressor when your opponent has overwhelming power and influence in a community.