Archive (4/5/2009): The Proverbial Russian Roulette

Or in other words – How to rule the world! (Thought it was a bit presumptuous to make it the title...)

I came across the theory of Emotionalism vs. Rationalism, the idea that human beings adhere to their emotions rather than good old fashion common sense whilst reading and just because I’m a complete nerd, decided to apply it to the people around me. As it was, I ended up slotting into the back of my mind as the most important tool of any political campaign – Human beings aren’t rational, and you can win almost anyone over if you can tell them what they want to hear. Bugger if it’s true or not (hell, those seniors still haven’t gotten their fuel cards), it’s essential for people to believe they’ll be supported.

This is probably the main reason I’m joining the Liberal Party – their lack of a solid, coherent ideology could possibly make them the most powerful party in the system. It allows their policies to be reactionary – it allows them to be an “anti” party – as in they can be anti anything they bloody well want according to the current social, economic and political climate trends. Take for example the ALP – if in the next few years the Trade Unions get too far ahead of themselves, demanding too much, getting it, and coming close to running the bloody country, the ALP is in a hell of a predicament; Labor is for the proletariat, campaigning for a solid welfare state – being far too left for my tastes – and favouring the worker over the employer. If the government was to be usurped by the Unions, it would mean a bloody hard time for the business owners, but it would go against the Labor ideology to reject them, allowing the Liberals to open fire on them. Now, as evident under the watchful eyes of Johnnie “I-don’t-apologise-for-anything” Howard, the worker was kicked up the backside with “Work Choices”, which was probably a deciding factor in their campaign loss (That and the fact that Costello is an ass). The conservatist Liberals hate the Unions, favouring big business over smaller ones and not really giving a rats bloody ass about the worker. The Liberals can govern with limited ideological restriction (they can’t rightly turn Commie or Fascist though), however one of the prominent reasons they aren’t in power is their inability to get their act together – the party divisions are deep and far reaching, Malcolm Turnball is weak to the point he fears colleague Colin Barnett, Julie Bishop hasn’t actually done anything of value except rip off other people’s work and Troy Buswell’s a chair sniffing, squirrel grabbing, crude sexist creep. Then there’s the whole ETS debate...but that’s for another time.

I think I’ve gotten severely off course here...

Anyway, the point of this rant is to deal with the idea I brought up in my Religion rant: Emotionalism vs. Rationalism. If a speaker can harness this, it would ensure full audience support, no matter what ridiculous point they were pushing. It most probably originated with Machiavelli’s ideas of submission; that it is to be better to be feared than loved as a leader and that one must govern by his own rules, not the ones set out for him (Liberal Party mate...). He coined the idea that a leader needs to make use of the “crowd”, to sedate them. A powerful orator knows his audience and can therefore manipulate them.

The one good thing about the “hollywoodization” of society is the fact that people remain stupid. Illiteracy and blind anarchy allowed Russia and Germany respectively to be ruled by dictators. Ignorance is the illiteracy and anarchy of the 21st Century. It’s what allows Julia Roberts to stand up and say George Bush was an idiot, and have people reply with “Yeah, that’s true”. Okay, not that I’m saying he wasn’t, but who the bloody hell is Julia Roberts to say anything? Last time I checked she wasn’t a historian or political analyst, or anyone who had the right to publically say anything. If I’m put on the chopping block for the things I’ve written (which are all true... to my views on the world), then she can’t just get away scot free. The point is, that people believe anything, especially if it is someone society sees as “valuable” who says it.

I know people who have said some stupid things to me. I don’t mean stupid as in sarcastic or funny (my mates have stupid humour, though I do too...), but I mean genuinely stupid. No, I correct that, stupidly ignorant. Stupid ignorant twats who couldn’t see reason if it was hurled at them like vomit in Northbridge. Revenge on police officers for doing their jobs properly; voting for daylight savings just because everyone else is voting ‘no’ and going all “Crazy Christian” on me when I do the annual Christmas message rounds, wishing everyone a ‘Happy Christmas’ with ‘Heaps of Prezzies’ (because suddenly I hate Jesus Christ and have forgotten the meaning of Christmas...pfft...) just to name a few. I don’t claim to be perfect but come on, don’t go all Julia Roberts on me.

So, if you can tell the people that “We will make getting a job easier for you!” to a desperate crowd, they will believe you. It’s just the “But getting fired is easier too” part which is left up to the opposition to provide which keeps Australia’s government in check.

I just think it’s interesting that the new generation is now voting, and I’m guessing that not one would have even registered what that last paragraph meant, or what it was referring to, or how it affected the last election:

Or even how it affected them.

So, the message I’m trying to get across is that ‘not giving a shit’ is like playing Russian Roulette. It’s all well and good when you have the media, the opposition and ridiculously politically driven people like me performing checks on parliamentary activities, but as evident with leaders such as John Howard and Paul Keating, and War legislation in 1914 and 1939, censorship can be a powerful thing, and your ignorance might just end up shooting you in the head.

Okay, exaggerating just a titch...

xXx