It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How is the minority able to control the majority?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 02:53 PM
In times where villages were the norm and everyone knew everyone else, if someone young and healthy didn't help out with chores or hunting, or were disruptive in some way past what was acceptable, the entire village got together and shunned them. Sometimes just for a while which was painful enough to the person involved, but if the behavior was really outside the norm and dangerous, they were banished which was essentially a death sentence. Even a highly skilled outdoorsman would be hard put to survive entirely on their own.

We've lost that social feedback loop; of knowing who is doing what, who is pulling their weight or contributing to society, and who is dangerous or disruptive to have around. And most of us don't have access to those 'in power' even to ask them questions. Even our so-called representatives ignore us but apparently pay plenty of attention to the corporations that fund them and the threats that keep them in line.

Have you ever worked in an office where there was a petty tyrant? Inevitably, they NEVER lose their job but good people, people who just want to work their 8 hours and then go home, come and go with regularity. Who wants to stay in a situation where constant drama, yelling, accusations and power grabs are the norm when you can leave? Only someone who felt trapped would stay for any length of time.

Until we're willing as a populace to hold the war mongerers and mass murderers accountable nothing will change. And yet the vast majority of the 'anti-war movement' types have to continually harp on how they're non-violent, lest they be picked up immediately as terrorists. Of course the US government and others like it worldwide are the real terrorists.

Think about this: The US government announces it wants to get rid of some democratically elected official or Saddam/Hitler type guy in some country somewhere. Do they surreptitiously assassinate the guy? Not usually, it would be considered impolite, and a violation of some spoken or unspoken rule somewhere. So what happens? Millions of innocent people get bombed who had nothing to do with that head honcho guy, all of that is called 'collateral damage' but meanwhile, millions go into the coffers of the military corporations.

I ultimately blame the people who work at GE and Monsanto and all the other death-producing companies. You know who you are; I also blame the people who put their money into the banks we all know are in collusion with this global scheme. At the very least, don't give them your silent approval. And have you thought where your tax dollars are going? Can you see any way to avoid that?

posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 03:32 PM
well we do know who is a danger to society these days Statistics speak for themselves. It is stupid PC folk that want to ignore it, like some group at Uof M,,,,saying is racist to say the race of alleged criminals. Because they are mostly black.

I didnt do the crime, dont yell at me.

posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 03:45 PM
we can divide ourselves into black and white or male and female or whatever all we like, but those tiny group of people running the show bcecause of our bigotries laugh at us.

posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 04:18 PM
reply to post by depleteduranium92

A good read on this subject and how it works would be Edward Alsworth Ross' Social Control: A Survey of the Foundations of Order, which is freely available to read via this link (just click the "full view" ilnk on the page):

In it, Ross basically postulates that there are 8 radiant points of social control. These radiant points are basically small groups within a society that hold influence over it. Basically, government, property owners, intellectual elite, creative genius (artists), the clergy (religion), military and etc. It's a really fantastic read. I heavily encourage any interested in how things work within society to read it as it also may serve as a blueprint for why the world is the way it is today.

Typically, however, social control over the masses is divided between those 8 radiant points according to Ross and when imbalance occurs, the other points exude their influence to basically reset the order. That's the way it's supposed to work, at least, in a typical society. So if the wealthy property owners are up to no good, it's reasonable to expect that the artists, press, intellectual elite and etc will actually kick into action to put them back in check. It's like a persistent tug of war but it may not always work out that way.

The US, for instance, is founded on a preference towards the protection of property owners. This kind of rhetoric is very easily noted if one peruses the Federalist Papers. The framers of our second Constitution were incredibly influenced not only by the French Revolution but also due to Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts. I believe Madison, writing under the pseudonym Publius that postulated in one of the papers (maybe #10?) that if there was any minority that, throughout history, was the target of a majority faction, it was the property owners. Hence, the US is tilted towards protections for property owners and those nods are actually somewhat palpable in the Bill of Rights.

The little extra bump of protections towards the property owners within the US actually could have quite possibly created a slight and persistent imbalance over time. Flash forward to today and it's possible to see the effects. Our creative geniuses are passed through the filters of wealth in Hollywood and large record companies. Our press, again, is filtered through 5 giants themselves. Our intellectual elite (phds, scientists and etc) can be bought to author papers that are steered towards the interests of those with wealth. Our military is influenced again by large and wealthy defense contractors. Yadda yadda yadda.

In my business ethics class, the relationship and power of government, society, and business was a hot issue because of this growing imbalance. What my professor postulated was that, over time, the business sector (wealthy property owners) have gained more and more influence within our government through election into what was intended to be a representative government and through economic influences/productivity of the nation. Because of this scenario, the influence that other sectors of society have upon our government has been largely reduced, as many can see for themselves, and it's a circumstance that may be worsening. Originally the idea was for the United States to be a land of opportunity; however, because of all the above, it is becoming increasingly stratified and more feudalistic in some ways.

Anyways, read Ross, poke around in the Federalist papers (also available online), and just look around. The answer as to why such a small portion of a population can exude so much control are all out there.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in