Being Misinformed: Misleadership (Part 1)
It has often been said that things may not always be as they seem. This is true. Perhaps even more often than not. It is also well known within leadership circles that the best way to get what you want is to create a situation where the people are led to demand what an agency desires to do. This series will be addressing this issue.
We are most likely only getting the information we are supposed to get; that is, what information we are to accept as factual, even when it isn’t. The question is, whose interest is being represented and/or protected and what is the reason for it?
To be sure, there has never been a shortage of liars, cheats, deceivers, and con artists to trick, dupe or indoctrinate us, but it seems to be far more prevalent today, than ever.
Many years ago, while I was a student at the University of Saskatchewan, there was no small stir among the “environmentalists” of the day when the government announced its plan to dam the Saskatchewan River near Nipawin, Saskatchewan.
The anti-dam lobby was eventually successful in stopping the Nipawin project from happening. For a while, it appeared like the whole dam idea had gone away and then the government announced that it had determined that it could get much more out of creating a series of dams on the Churchill River system in the far north of the province.
If you had thought the anti-dam groups were loud respecting the initial dam proposal at Nipawin, they went nearly apoplectic when this announcement was made. The Churchill River system was pristine, unmarred by human industry. To suggest putting not one, but a series of dams on this river was seen as a travesty of apocalyptic proportion and every possible group went to work to make sure that it did not happen.
As the government continued to move forward with their plan, announcing consultations, impact studies, assessments and so on, the more serious it looked and the more shrill the anti-dam movement became.
Then, just when it looked like the government was going to go ahead with its ambitious plan to put a series of dams on the Churchill River, it revisited the original plan to dam the Saskatchewan River, at Nipawin. This time, it was different. Wanting to save the Churchill River, the same “environmentalists” who initially opposed this project were now actively encouraging the government to do what was intended from the beginning.
There is always a story behind what we see or what we are given as information. Few people would know how the Nipawin dam came to be and as with every story, there were a number of events that connected to form the narrative that eventually led to a predetermined goal.
In other words, there is always an “ulterior motive,” a purpose or aim behind every narrative. The story line follows a pattern designed to help people reflect or conform to an overarching objective of some sort.
What does this mean? Agencies are more likely to get what they want by advancing a potential crisis in need of an urgent solution, which just happens to be what they intended to do from the start! There are so many cases like this that it is hard to imagine things as actually being as they are presented. In fact, most things are likely not as they seem.
There is good reason to be apprehensive of what we are given or told, especially when getting only minor variations of the same information and talking points day after day. Usually, the objective of these exercises is not so much to inform us, but to make sure we eventually adopt the narrative so that the agency advancing the information will come to convince the masses that they want what would never have been accepted in the first place.
For example, would the government have even a remote possibility of success in advancing a tax on carbon if not for the noble cause of solving the “global climate change crisis”? Just saying!
Not only should we be careful of whole-heartedly swallowing that which we are being given, but we should be paying particular attention to what is not being said as well. We should also take note of the scolding, usually in the form of accusations involving various “phobias,” “isms” and other derogatory terms, received whenever a particular narrative is questioned or challenged.
Seriously, if we are all entitled to our opinions, one opinion should not disqualify my right to have a dissenting one. How can limiting discussion or eliminating opinions respecting a particular matter be open-minded, or intelligent, for that matter? Or, is having an opposing view to a particular narrative seen as threatening and therefore not tolerated?
Nothing happens without a reason. There is always something to motivate action. What is the mission, the goal or the overarching aim or values behind what is being presented? What unrelated thing or which group is being used to cover up or mask the ultimate aim of the narrative? We are always given a clue when the “solution” to the “problem” is presented. Things make much more sense when evaluated this way.
Today, we can see how the proposed damming of the Churchill River system in the 1970s was used as a decoy to get what would have never been accepted in the first place.
The Nipawin dam was eventually built to “save the pristine northern environment,” but this environment was never actually in jeopardy. It wasn’t connected to the original goal, but rather used to accomplish it. Today, the Churchill River system remains pristine while the Nipawin dam complex has been generating electricity since 1985.
If we desire to know the truth and be properly informed of what is actually occurring around us so we can in turn be actively involved in not only making a difference in this world, but in protecting that which needs to be protected, then we had better be seriously questioning not only all the information we are being presented with, but also be making every effort to discover the ultimate purpose behind any given “narrative.”
If not, we will simply and unquestioningly become one of those “cloned voices” demanding something be done about things we have not given thought to and know little or nothing about.
Previous Post: Quit or Carry On? Quitting (Part 10)
Next Post: Being Misdirected: Misleadership (Part 2)