This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Answer is 42
The Answer is 42
By
Cognitive Dissonance
Come visit a uniquely different website and enter the mind of Cognitive Dissonance
One would think that the answer is entirely dependent upon the question, and normally I would agree with that logical deduction. But when pondering sticky questions, particularly those that involve Cognitive Dissonance, the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’s famous “Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything” answer (“The answer is 42”) seems just as apropos as anything you or I could, and regularly do, pull out of our bums.
For example, why is there near universal agreement that politicians, (governmental) institutions and other ‘author-ity’ figures (those who author their own justification or rationalization to receive/take our power) lie, cheat and steal, with special emphasis on lie, yet we eviscerate them when they actually tell the truth? Worse, when they actually admit to lying (supposedly to keep the peace) why do we derisively condemn them every which way to Sunday?
I suspect people tend to panic when confronted with the truth because we’ve been so conditioned to accept their lies that when told the truth (which incidentally we intuitively know is the truth without seeking an external authority for confirmation) we panic, logically thinking that it must really be bad if they are being ‘honest’, or as close to honest as they can get without becoming tongue tied. I now understand that the answer to my question is (obviously) 42.
Case in point, a while back Jean-Claude Juncker, former Luxembourg Prime Minister and Head Euro-Zone Finance Minister, was quoted as saying “When it becomes serious, you have to lie.” For this little moment of clarity and truth he was unmercilessly pilloried in the mainstream press, blogs, opinion pieces and various international pancake houses for speaking the truth about lying when the shit hits the fan.

If his lips are moving.........
Of course the bastard lies, and often for the very same reasons our children lie to us and why we lie to our friends, children, bosses, spouses, strangers and ultimately ourselves. To save our asses from immediate consequences, if only for a short period of time
Bottom line the perceived benefits of (self) deception are often considered to be much greater than the perceived consequences of being caught, regardless of whether the perceived benefits are in fact ‘real’ or just imagined. For example, think about the benefits of having your bias confirmed as an ‘imagined’ benefit that supports further self deception. I’m getting that tingling feeling between my toes just thinking about it.
We all conduct a quick mental check before deciding to lie or not, a sort of Ben Franklin Close (aka The Balance Sheet Close) where we list the so-called benefits on one side of a sheet of paper and the costs on the other, though it is often done in real time with lots of presupposed assumptions (beliefs and ideologies) and outcomes plugged into the variables.
Often when the ‘believed’ consequences of lying are small (or the social acceptance of our little ‘white lie’ is high) the cognitive path to (self) deception is not only cleared, but there’s a tail wind blowing our lie in for a safe three point landing.
Other than becoming the laughing stock of the world for a day or so, exactly what consequences did Juncker suffer? Was his pay reduced or his bonus pulled after he admitted that he lies? Did he lose his position of power and influence? Was he sent to the nearest corner for some down time to reflect upon his transgression?
None-of-the above is the proper response here because Juncker suffered no lasting consequences and, dare I say it, might even have received some (extra) consolatory loving from Mrs. Juncker (but most likely his Mistress because he is European banker after all) for being so brave.
Before the Ponzi and its supporting control system became so blatantly obvious (to us we tell ourselves, everyone else still being too stupid to see the blatantly obvious) one needed to look and listen closely for the flaws in the control system. Nowadays the insanity is on display for all to see 24/7/365 and the proof is the endless material for WilliamBanzai7 to hit out of the ballpark at least twice a day here on ZeroHedge.
Let’s take a look at another example. Why is it that we can clearly see when foreign politicians are pandering to their ‘electorate’ (or indentured economic slaves as the case may be) for local consumption, yet we fail to recognize the exact same behavior when we are pandered to by ‘our’ own politicians? The answer (naturally) is 42. It never ceases to amaze me how brilliant we are when recognizing other people’s stupidity and how utterly stupid we are when failing to recognize our own idiocy.

The G8 Liars Club
How often have we read about this or that foreign diplomat or politician delivering a troubling speech berating those evil Americans/French/English/Germans (insert your own nationality here)?
Now…..if it was ‘our’ enemy doing the berating the politician/writer/news anchor would assume the proper righteously indignant tone of voice and declare the bastard our national enemy number one…..who was (of course) lying through his teeth to his own people about ‘us’.
By the way, since when did I personally piss off Kim Jong-un or Hugo Chavez (may his lying ass rest in peace) enough that they became ‘my’ own personal enemy? I have a hard enough time dealing with that prissy checkout girl at the local Wawa without worrying about some lying fool half way around the world whom I never met.
However if the foreign leader insulting ‘us’ is our ‘friend’ (I certainly don’t remember ‘friending’ the bastard, but what the hell) the politician/writer/news anchor assumes a consolatory tone of voice and soothingly assures us that the poor foreign leader, our bosom buddy and lifelong pal, was simply delivering a speech ‘for domestic consumption’ and really didn’t mean it. In other words, s/he was lying through his/her teeth to the local population in order to pander to the idiots, so ignore what s/he’s saying.
Ultimately we should be asking ourselves why we tolerate lies from complete strangers who just happen to be ‘our’ leaders. Or why we tell ourselves we don’t believe a lying word out of their mouths, then jump all over them for telling the truth about the fact that they lie to us. To be perfectly honest (pun most definitely intended) the reason we tolerate lies from others is because we want them to tolerate our lies. What goes around (hopefully) comes around, at least when it comes to lying.
Most dysfunctional relationships, and there is no doubt that the relationship we have with ‘our’ leaders is the epitome of dysfunctional, requires and encourages mutual lying in order not to be held accountable to each other while presenting the facade that we are. And make no mistake about it, accountability works both ways, not just from the top of leadership down to ‘us’ peons.

Old School Psychopaths
Who reading this right now is actually willing to run this country, let alone try to ‘fix’ it, considering the present state of psychosis nearly everyone, not just ‘our’ leaders, are suffering from? Only a madman, a sociopath or someone suffering from NPD (narcissistic personality disorder in case you’re wondering) would beg to be put into the type of position where not only must they go along to get along, but they need to enable the other madmen and sociopaths or they might just find themselves taking a long walk off a short pier.
I’m not quite sure what is more outrageous, the fact that politicians lie to ‘us’, the fact that they actually desire the type of position that requires them to speak anything but the truth to the public or the fact that we tolerate, and at times enable, all of the above.
In fact I wonder why I’m outraged at all considering I’m just as insane as the rest of ‘us’ inmates in The Insane Asylum. The answer (naturally) is 42.
“The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”
-The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863.
03-01-2014
Cognitive Dissonance

Yeah.....what he said.
<What did he just say?>
- advertisements -


@nmewn
The Federal Reserve was "created by the central government"? Yes, sir. Your true colors showing.
It would appear "A scientist by education, training, and persuasion, I endeavor to understand macro-economics in the context of the complex psycho-social ecology of humanity." is upset at the levels to which I bored down into his statist existence to which he has become so accustomed to.
If you feel froggy, leap off the handle of your own indoctrination into the pan with me, don't be shy.
I'll even forgive your slanderous attempt on my person by not knowing the very laws that seem to bind you to them, if you will just meet with me here, alone.
As a practical example; President Carter told us we were going broke and turned down the lights in the White House and wore his sweater in doors to save on the heating bill as as example to the public; they hated him for it and vilified him. President Reagan came into office and told us it was a bright new day for a resurgent America and they couldn't get enough of this shit; of course we like lies, as long as they're the ones we want to hear, in fact they're the only thing we'll accept.
I'm not a huge fan of the P-nut man, but you do have a point. People make fun of him for the thermostat and sweater stuff, but that is what I do in my house and it DOES work to lower our energy dependence. When is the last time a politician told people they should save some money for a rainy day? They do have 401k, TSP and social security, but that is for looting, not making the populace independent.
http://www.ssristories.com/
re: "The Federal Reserve. Why was it created by the central government?"
Really? It may have been installed by 'representatives' serving in the central government. But I'm pretty sure it wasn't their creation.
See the Jekyll Island confab, and previous machinations by the private bankster cabal.
I wasn't going to do an entire treatise on the Federal Reserve when the subject matter under consideration is...lies.
I would have thought this covered it:"...even as this torrent of newly created "money" rushes into the pockets of the wealthiest of the ruling class."
The ruling class is both public & private individuals.
+1
Also...
The foundations and institutions they endow...
Daughter - "Daddy, tell me another lie so I can believe it's the truth."
Daddy - "There once was a man from Kenya Chicago who dreamed of being the first......."
This column could have come from a dissatisfied Obama supporter altogether excusing unconfessed lies of the administration and blaming us at the same time. Not saying that is necessarily the case here, but it fits the pattern of with what to expect in lieu of any actual confession, which our narcissistic perjurer-in-chief is incapable.
Does not fit.
What you fail to understand is that every President your entire life has been a perjurer in chief. All of them.
Depends on how old you are. JFK fired Allan Dulles, the head of the CIA, told his brother, the attorney general, that he was going to tear the agency to pieces and throw the pieces to the wind; planned to de-fang, or castrate, the FBI; and was in the process of printing a new series of Silver Certificates. The CIA, which has been making foreign policy for this country for generations now, is the single most dysfunctional agency in the world; the amound of human suffering that could have been avoided by simply wrapping it up and doing away with it is staggering. All of our Anti-submarine warfare secrets including the codes for the communications with the US Nuclear Subs were sold to the Russians by a CIA employee, who was obviously some kind of a problem; he had un-accounted for income up the wazzoo; The CIA decided it would be cute to arm and encourage the Moslem Lunatics in Afghanistan to damage the Russians; which created the Frankenstein Monster of "Enabled Moslem Fundamentalists"; the list goes on and on; with a CIA we don't even need enemies.
Y eah, SAT 800,
And he paid for with his life and we all lost under the only military coup in US history except,
hopefully, the one to come soon
I'm an oldman, but we have paid and paid and paid
and there will be no end for an 'africanized' state
is that why we ended up with obama?
I remember so well trying to find out anything about him
before his first election nothing on the web except his own words
It was fixed though, that election
First hillockry and then the mc caine mutiny starring sarah
who had a choice
except my eternal option of no vote until there is a choice that represents me
sorry, but thanks for the post----been talking to myself all night
the Kennedy assassination was the end of the US of A as I knew it
True, but he was killed for it, so now what?
Your choices have expanded from liar-puppets to liar-puppets & those who get early-retirement.
Hmmm.
Still looks bad from where I'm sitting.
Long....
Rambling...
Garbage.
tmz.com welcomes rubes such as yourself
I guess...if you have the attention span of a gnat.
Yeah......well, your mother wears (Russian) army boots. ;)
42
Daniel Hannan MEP ripping a new asshole in the Prime Minister. Nice!
CD-
There are very few bright spots in the political class. When you mentioned in your article someone would have to be off-kilter to want a position where they had to lie to people, the only exception I could think of was Ron Paul. I don't agree with him 100%, but I don't feel he ever panders or tries to mislead. From what I have seen, D. Hannan appears to "speak truth to power" as the radicals used to say, but not mean.
Even if people such as Ron Paul or Hannan are not controlled opposition (some are, though I think neither Hannan nor Paul are) they are tolerated simply because they promote the idea that the system can be changed from within.
"See......there are people such as Paul and Hannah inside the system, so their presence proves change you can believe in is possible."
Bottom line they are window dressing at best. Neither Paul nor Hannan would/will ever get close enough to real substantial power to actually instigate 'real' change. Thus even if they are not controlled opposition they are still 'handled' as if they were. They are used to promote false hope, which keeps us chained to being inactive in the hope that 'the system' will willingly reform by itself.
At this point only a full collapse will afford any hope of significant change. Even then the powers that be will do their very best to use the collapse to consolidate their power and control the change. I hold out very little hope until "We the Human Race" mature a bit more.
I am starting to think there likely will not be a full collapse, ever within the overseeable future (15-20 years.)
There are actually 2 ways a significant change can happen:
1. A peaceful change (if no outside force intervenes) because the vast majority (>90%) of the people have come to understand everything they are being told is a lie, and they wouldn't believe their leaders anymore even if they were telling the pure complete truth. Including even the bullies for the system. Example East Germany 1989.
2. A collapse if the number of willing and able people -who at least grumpily accept the situation and continue to work to carry the status quo- drops below a required minimum (not sure what that level is, maybe ~20%.) This does not necessitate resistance, just non-productive complete passiveness.
So how is the current status for the US:
1. Nope, that recognition is far off for most. I estimate less than 10% so far are able for example to look beyond the red/blue facade.
2. While more progressed than first option, still far from happening because
a. most people at least subconsciously believe there is no way to make things better for regular folks with a different system
b. many, especially the big group of old folks, don't want to try out changes
c. technological progress might be continuously lowering the needed minimum of people to carry the status quo
Notwithstanding -
CD, keep up the great work!
Are you going to say this like 42 times?
42
This is Sparta. I had forgotten that scene in its entirety.
42
The Bears talk about Quantitative Easing. What ever happened to "Da Bears"?
42
You're hitting them all. "V for Vendetta" Bravo!
42
Thanks for the link to the short Federal Reserve video. The great thing about watching something from 2009 is how much further down we are into the cesspool then when the video was actually made. Mind boggling.
42
Nice link to the "I crashed a Wall Street Secret Society" New York Mag article.
“Chances, people tell you not to take any chances, then they tell you that there aren’t any answers, and I was starting to agree but I awoke suddenly in the path of a lightning bolt.”- Jake Bugg
“…when I learned when and where Kappa Beta Phi’s annual dinner was being held, I knew I needed to try to go.”
Congratulations on 50M views WB7.
There is no question you are the modern day cartoonist on a global scale. Your impressions will not be fully realized until reviewed in the rear-view someday. Much like we revel in graphics from the 1800's about this or that in black and white, your digital masterworks are indeed the stuff of historic record.
So, WB7 shows the REAL picture...
How much for a lap dance, William? Let me get out my credit card...
Damn.......And me fresh out of singles.
/sarc
42
I'm gonna tell them KISS MY GODDAMNED ASS. Just like WELLS FARGO, I ain't paying SHIT!
Excellent link. I almost forgot about Wallstreetpro's videos.
What is 7 X 6 for the win Alex? ;)
Edit: I had no idea each of your "42's" was a link to a different video or article. Bravo!
Where DID WallStreetPro ever go to.
42=
-The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863.
=
-Leo Tolstoy, Russian writer.
"It is well for that citizenry of nation are not understand banking and money system, if they are, I believe there would be revolution before Tuesday morning." Henry Ford, founder of Ford Motor Company
I believe the quote is really before "tomorrow" morning, but either way - spot on.
Henry Ford very much was against the concept of credit.
What needs to be understood by people today is that many times in history people understood the dangers of our banking architecture and either overtly or subvertly made their own cognitive impressions in history not for themselves, but for us to find, understand and build upon.
So, why is Tuesday for Henry Ford issue problematic?
This was so true, so true. And we in the US are going to pay big time for our ignorance.
I never lie,
I never tell the truth.
Stack On