If I asked you ‘what is a paradigm, or what are paradigms, I wonder what
you would say? (Not, I hope, that paradigms = 20 cents). Sorry. That’s an awful joke.
To avoid confusion I’d better work with a definition:
PARADIGM
- a framework containing the
basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly
accepted by members of a (scientific) community.
- such a cognitive framework
shared by members of any discipline or group:
(as in) the company’s business paradigm.
In short – the ways we have of looking at the world and our ways of talking
and thinking about it.
And why is it I can’t get James Cagney’s image out of my
mind: Whaddya hear, whaddya say?
That leads me to
BELIEF PERSEVERANCE?
Written by Pam MS, NCSP | Fact checked by
Psychology Dictionary staff
n.
a psychological phenomenon
in which there is a tendency to persist with one's held beliefs despite the
fact that the information is inaccurate or that evidence shows otherwise. This
contrary nature shows an unwillingness to admit that the initial premise
may not be true.
BELIEF PERSEVERANCE: "Belief
perseverance prompts a person to cling to previously-held beliefs even when
there is new evidence pointing to the contrary."
In turn, that draws
me to the seemingly obvious conclusion: if I change my mind/if YOU change your
mind about what might or might not be true, everything around us changes, too, because
we view them differently. And it is important to realise it. It might even
enable us to realise with real eyes the real lies that surround us.
(Question:
Is belief perseverance a form of stubbornness or is it bigotry even? In modern
speak – bloody-mindedness?). Maybe.
As always,
the test is to ask questions. Children do it all the time as they try to
understand the reliability of the words of parents and other adults, or other
children. They use the perennial ‘why?’ and sift the responses against what
they think they understand already, don’t they? We adults should, perhaps, do
the same. Question ‘why’ and keep asking.
* * * *
Who among us
believes that in UK we live in a democracy? Before I could consider your response
I would feel obliged to ask you to define what you mean by democracy
or ‘democratic country’. And then ask you why you believe your definition?
I put it to you that democracy doesn’t exist just because we have a
vote. People in North Korea live in what is known as The Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea (DPRK) and some get to vote, but you wouldn’t ever describe
it as a democratic country. The south, presumably after American influence, is
known simply as the Republic of Korea (ROK).
OK. What about ‘government by the people for the people’ as a
description? And to that I’d respond with: ‘what about I don't care
who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating – attributed to William M Tweed, also known as
Boss Tweed, an American politician who died in 1878’.
The idea persists. In 21st
century Britain prospective parliamentary candidates (PPC) are selected/nominated
by the local association/political party members with blessing by the national
party. Put another way, political parties don’t care who does the electing, so
long as they get to do the nominating. The same is true when a party chooses a
leader. The power lies in the nomination.
So . . . . . . doesn’t ‘government by the people for the
people’ really mean government of the people by a very limited, very select
few? Is that what you call ‘democracy’? If it is, it seems to me to be a very manipulated
condition.
If you are ready to have
second thoughts about your definition, your paradigm is beginning to shift.
(See George Bernard Shaw – above).
As an aside - here in UK
we’ve just listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s so–called Spring
Budget. The same man who was nominated and selected in 1997 by local
Conservative Party members to be the PPC for Runnymede and Weybridge, and is
now also a Privy Councillor – he gets to advise the Queen.
(Runnymede and Weybridge constituency
electorate circa 74,000, Local Conservative Association membership unknown.)
2015 election results:
Electorate 73,771; turnout 50,052; majority 22,134 and winner takes all. Now,
please, give me a definition for ‘democracy’. If you feel that you don’t need
to change the definition you’ve already suggested, you might need to reflect on
whether or not you are embroiled in Belief Perseverance.
* * * *
For goodness sake! Where does it end? Some people in
banking don’t care who writes the laws and some people in politics don’t care
who does the electing – as long as those ‘some people’ maintain their virtually
invisible controls. SO, DO YOU STILL BELIEVE WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY? I don’t. – (Michael)
* * * *
DID YOU KNOW?
The word ‘democracy’ doesn’t appear anywhere in the
Constitution of the United States:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.
The word ‘democracy’ doesn’t appear anywhere in the
Declaration of Independence, either.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes
necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected
them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them to the separation.
I find that interesting - (Michael)
* * * * *
Communique issued by
THE BRITISH
CONSTITUTION GROUP AND THE DEMOCRACY DEFINED RESTORATION CAMPAIGN
|
Since becoming Leader of the
Opposition and Shadow Chancellor, neither Jeremy
|
nor John
have ever mentioned the Bradbury Pound or the fiscal measure now known as
|
Sovereign National Credit
(interest-free issuance of credit and currency). WHY? For
|
nearly fifteen months, the
British Constitution Group, which champions this common
|
sense and
Common Law approach to money creation and money supply, have sought a
|
Yet, after every telephone
call, email and letter, nothing, absolutely nothing, has
|
happened.
Indeed, one very carefully arranged meeting in London was cancelled only
five
|
minutes before it was due to take
place with people having travelled a long way to get there.
|
Is it
because, as they are now Privy Councillors, they cannot endanger the
interests
|
and
profits of the Crown Corporation? Is it because they have been 'warned off'
by the
|
City
Remembrancer? Just what is going on? If, as good 'socialist' backbenchers,
they
|
supported
the Bradbury Pound to stop Austerity dead in its tracks, why can't they still
|
support it
now, now they are actually in a position to do something about it? It just
does
|
not make
any sense at all.
|
Why, as a
nation, are we borrowing from the private financial institutions and
|
central banks when they create
money completely out of thin air as debt - the Bank of
|
England has
even admitted this fact. If the debt-free and interest-free Treasury
|
Bradbury Pound was restored,
Food Banks would be ended overnight; Social Care for
|
all those
vulnerable people needing it would be assured; and the NHS would have all the
|
funding it needs. And our
essential services (police, fire, armed services etc.), strategic
|
industries
and local councils would all have the money needed to perform
|
effectively¼whilst at the same time the invasive and complex taxation burden on
all of
|
us would
be greatly reduced and simplified.
|
To put it bluntly, the Mother
of All Parliaments has become a Citadel of Tyranny.
|
All our MPs are effectively
pedlars of deception, entrapment and lies. They serve the
|
City of
London and the Crown Corporation before us, the people.
|
Restoration
of Common Law Is the Panacea.
|
Common Law
and our 1215 Great Charter Constitution proscribe (outlaw) Usury and Fraud.
|
Restoration of the
Constitution and its Rule of Law through the authentic Common Law
|
Trial by
Jury Justice System mandates the introduction of sovereign national
credit. With
|
supremacy
of Common Law restored, borrowing and lending-at-interest are criminalised
|
and there is no way government
could legitimately operate other than by issuance of
|
interest-free
credit and currency to the economy.
|
We the People are now gathering
to put an end to the tyranny of the status quo
|
peacefully—please
come to:
|
Conference
begins 10am on Saturday 22nd April 2017 at
|
The Albert
Hall, Nottingham, and will finish at 6pm.
|
Tickets
£10 — but please contribute more if you can afford it.
|
(950
tickets are available — please book early to avoid disappointment)
|
Please purchase your tickets online by visiting here:
|
In short – the ways we have of looking at the world and our ways of talking
and thinking about it. 
No comments:
Post a Comment