The REAL Poly-Sci Conspiracy in the USA...

The actual conspiracy in American Politics today, IMHO, is the party system. Cultish at best and gobsmackin' evil at worst.

Let's review the financial facts first:

2 major parties control 99% of the money for ALL political campaigns in the U.S..

The money *IS* the key to victory period. You can't get your "message" out if you can't buy T.V. air time/print space/radio time. You can't hit the streets and press the flesh if you can't afford to fly commuter airlines much less charter a jet.

If you are relegated to commuters you have lost already due to impossible scheduling.

You can't hire "volunteers" if you have no money to print up posters/ad copy or buy/lease telephones, computers and office space.

Since the two majors control the money they control the ad space/T.V. Time/radio time, etc... effectively enough to buy up all the prime spots and still shut you out should you get lucky enough to get a few wealthy supporters.

That covers the money bits (it's all been said before I know...) the following is the part that really disturbs me...

Now let's look at the "people side" of the issue, the psychological side if you will.

Many is the time I've heard people say, "I'm a (enter either party name here) so I always vote the ticket. Those rotten (enter either party name here) will sneak up on us if we don't vote the whole party line."

This is changing VERY SLOWLY, it seems nuts to us because we are involved with a group of people, via this website, who are vastly more astute politically than 98% of the rest of the country.

Another protocol of the psyche part of the equation is the rabid supporter/rabid contrarian. These two thrive off of eachother and I am pretty sure a significant number of them are plants, that's the "conspiracy".

A CLASSIC EXAMPLE was recently exposed in the Whitehouse press office with the Jeff Gannon/Guckert affair. This is just one that got found out, it runs to the CORE of BOTH parties.

It's the perfect methodology to get your talking points raised, and control how the other party looks since BOTH sides of the argument/debate/conversation are being conducted by your own people (the plants at the press conference you called).

This is simply good business tactics and running a political party is BIG BUSINESS. Heck, running a single national campaign is BIG BUSINESS.

As long as the average American is in the dark (and they ARE in the dark)about the real workings of the powerhouse political parties things won't change.

Now I ask you, gentle reader, the core of our community's interests are conspiracies and politics, here we have a REAL political conspiracy that so far has been exposed by a Blogger just like you and me.

What collective research, fact gathering and general sniffing around can OUR group do to uncover more?

I have always beleived that once you understand how something works you can master it. We have the beginnings of understanding this 150+ year old conspiracy right here in this post, can we master it?

m...

I also am a firm believer, if you can learn and practice something you can master it.

I think the begining of mastering this is getting in the the media, I feel we at the ATS have our foot in the media door.

Great Post!

Great post springer. Thanks.

...BIG BUSINESS owns the big political parties - and the mainstream media - lock stock and barrel. IMO - the first step is to create alternate sources of information and another stream. Involves criticizing and deconstructing mainstream propaganda; linking and publishing credible alternative sources.

If media deconstruction and alternative sources are disallowed, we don't have a hope in hell of doing bugger all. ...We're just locked into the matrix.


.

I'd also add that "by the people, for the people" is a myth. I am a Brit but it's much the same system

Both main political parties are made up, for the most part, from career politicians and big-name families. Many of these people have ties to big business interests.
Both main political parties accept, either as a party or as individuals, huge amounts of money from "special interest" groups or lobbyists/lobbying firms (it's now big business). So, if they can double, treble or quadruple their pay as public servants/representatives by accepting payment for favourable laws and political favour, they are no longer representing the people. As soon as our leaders take 1 cent/penny from these guys, they are no longer, IMHO, worthy of office.

So, what we have in the two party system is a choice of two groups of rich, influential businessmen and lawyers, both of whom have the same corporate paymasters.

Some choice

Who was it who said something along the lines of, those who seek power are the ones who should never be granted it? I can't remember the exact quote but it's certainly true.

Springer
I agree with you 100% that partisanship is a conspiracy that feeds off the ignorance of the average voter. Inteligence is a major factor, education is another. The average IQ of Americans is 98. For purposes of contrast, the average IQ of a college graduate is 120 (83% of Americans fall below this line). A difference of five points can mean the difference between algebra and calculus, a 22 point difference is..monumental.

One of the categories that is most affected by this fact is the ability to discern when a politician is lying. Now, we all know politicians lie, they all do. They lie like junkies, and the fix they're looking for is power, pure and simple. Now, take two people, John and Jeff. John has an IQ of 120, Jeff has 98. Let's see what motivates them shall we?

John has a greater capacity for learning, memory, complex problem solving, and abstract thinking - he is a difficult sell because he can see a larger picture, and needs things like facts and logical deductions to make his decisions. He also won't come over to the side wooing him, if he thinks the candidate is less inteligent than he is, that's a no-brainer. no pun intended.

Jeff on the other hand is easy to fool, he likes the word freedom (it sounds important and makes him feel good when he hears it - proven biological response), he likes the concept of values (The particulars of the values in question don't mean nearly so much as the word itself, studies have shown), and he has a limited ability to perceive the world outside of the immediate surroundings (so local issues will take precedent over international policy). To appeal to Jeff, symbolic automatic-response words like values and freedom and justice are enough, they instill in Jeff a sense of comraderie with the politician. If politician X comes to town, uses those strong emotive words, and talks about local issues (regardless of his intentions on keeping those promises made), Jeff is sold.

The voting body of America is 75% Jeff, and 17% John, the rest fall between and below the two. Is it any wonder we're in such a pickle?

Parisanship is a joke, and an un-funny one at that. The only people laughing are the thieves taking our lives and our money. America is a double standard, indeed capitalism is a double standard. You are told that you need money to survive, and should strive to earn it. At the same time you are made aware of the societal code of behavior, our laws derived from (mostly biblical) morality. The two are mutually exclusive.

Survival is worth killing for, certainly it's worth stealing for, DEFINITELY worth lying and cheating for, every animal knows this inherently. In capitalist societies, money is survival, therefore to survive you must be willing to do anything an animal in the wild is willing to do, otherwise you will have a reduced chance of survival.

Those inteligent enough to perceive this double standard, or instinctual enough to perceive it without inteligence, are rewarded with the highest degree of success. Those who believe all that tired control-mechanism crap about love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek, and don't have the IQ to perceive the contradiction, get run over before the finish line. Politicians take advantage of this to varying degrees, they play us for fools, and for the most part we deserve it, because most of us are fools.

I know this won't go over well, but I had to say it. The simple fact is that democracy is not a viable method of government unless a majority of the population is capable of inteligent thought. Otherwise it's like letting a gang of children drive the car, simply because there's more of them.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

I know this won't go over well, but I had to say it. The simple fact is that democracy is not a viable method of government unless a majority of the population is capable of inteligent thought. Otherwise it's like letting a gang of children drive the car, simply because there's more of them.

Excellent well-presented argument - if reconstituted. ...You may be aware of the movement towards "cognitive testing" of voters - and you've just made a fine case for it, plus, established the logical fundamentals for eugenics.

I don't agree with the assumptions - specifically, that intelligence is fixed, static and immutable. ...Just as cognitive abilites can degenerate, so too can they be built and re-built. Much current research proves it - and millenia of mystical traditions have established 'programs' that work towards individual and cultural development. For example, the alchemical 'formulas' for turning lead into gold are not about turning one metal into another - they have to do with 'awakening' peoples' consciousness and intelligence.

...I cannot accept your argument, primarily because it's the standard argument for establishing an elite super-class. IMO - an intelliipocracy would be just as flawed as an aristocracy - indeed, as per Galton's arguments, the aristocracy IS the intellipocracy, meritocracy and all that follows.





.

Originally posted by soficrow
Excellent well-presented argument - if reconstituted. ...You may be aware of the movement towards "cognitive testing" of voters - and you've just made a fine case for it, plus, established the logical fundamentals for eugenics.

I disagree with cognitive testing, and I disagree with eugenics, because I believe interfering with the random nature of the universe ends badly for all who attempt it..however..

I am in favor of a meritocracy. People should be judged on their merits, and their merits should be the determining factor in figuring out how much power they should be granted in our society. People who are smarter often accomplish more, but certainly not always. I have some MENSA friends doing hard time, and I understand intimately the fine line between genius and madness.

What about a compromise solution, whereby all citizens are allowed and encouraged to participate in local government, while exceptional citizens are allowed and encouraged to participate in national/international government.

Being smart doesn't guarantee accomplishments like community recognition, invention, valor, or kindness. Those things are merits, and should be rewarded. Having all the money in the world and still being a prick is not a merit. All these oligarchs would fade into memory in a true meritocracy.

Imagine a sliding scale of government subsidized payments to allow and encourage artists, inventors, medical practitioners/healers, and scientists. Imagine a lifelong education system, with monetary incentives to encourage advancement. Imagine if the quality of your life hinged directly on the quality of your character. That's what I'm talking about. That's my kind of society.

Originally posted by soficrow
I don't agree with the assumptions - specifically, that intelligence is fixed, static and immutable. ...Just as cognitive abilites can degenerate, so too can they be built and re-built.

I didn't make any such assumption. I know for a fact of case studies where patients who suffered severe head trauma, and catastrophic short term memory loss, were able to consciously affect cellular growth and pathway redirection in their own brains.

Originally posted by soficrow
For example, the alchemical 'formulas' for turning lead into gold are not about turning one metal into another - they have to do with 'awakening' peoples' consciousness and intelligence.

hehehe It has to go in the crucible, and you need a fair bit of luck. Nuff said.

Originally posted by soficrow
...I cannot accept your argument, primarily because it's the standard argument for establishing an elite super-class. IMO - an intelliipocracy would be just as flawed as an aristocracy - indeed, as per Galton's arguments, the aristocracy IS the intellipocracy, meritocracy and all that follows.

Aristocracy is based on blood lines and social caste manipulation, a true meritocracy would be based on individual accomplishment and contribution to society. With the resources we have in this country today, we could provide every man woman and child with a place to sleep, simple meals, and clean water. Medicine would be a little trickier, but a hairpin turn away from slave labor and dirty food would do a whole lot, and the rest could probably be accomplished using herbs and other natural remedies, like vitamin or oxygen therapy. The job you work, in my proposed system, is based on your level of accomplishment, and allows you discretionary cash (probably silver) to buy luxuries and other unnecessary things. Those who desire comfort, would be motivated to work. Those who desire contemplation and a meditative existence would be provided for. I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be, and it certainly isn't communism, because people are most certainly not equal in most ways.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

Originally posted by soficrow
You may be aware of the movement towards "cognitive testing" of voters - and you've just made a fine case for it, plus, established the logical fundamentals for eugenics.

I disagree with cognitive testing, and I disagree with eugenics,

Whew. I was beginning to wonder about you.

I am in favor of a meritocracy. People should be judged on their merits, and their merits should be the determining factor in figuring out how much power they should be granted in our society.

Many would say we already have a meritocracy, albeit flawed.

What about a compromise solution, whereby all citizens are allowed and encouraged to participate in local government, while exceptional citizens are allowed and encouraged to participate in national/international government.

Hmmm. Seems to me that's what happens now - representatives are 'tested' at the local level, and move on or not, depending on their record.

Imagine a sliding scale of government subsidized payments to allow and encourage artists, inventors, medical practitioners/healers, and scientists. Imagine a lifelong education system, with monetary incentives to encourage advancement.

I'd vote for that.

Imagine if the quality of your life hinged directly on the quality of your character. That's what I'm talking about. That's my kind of society.

Sounds good, but who decides what's "quality" and how is it determined? ...Many people lives truly beautiful lives very, very quietly. Would you disturb their privacy?

And what about the scammers - many people get by on charm and glib representaions of 'quality' without substance. Is there some kind of test for this?

Originally posted by soficrow
...I cannot accept your argument, primarily because it's the standard argument for establishing an elite super-class. IMO - an intelliipocracy would be just as flawed as an aristocracy - indeed, as per Galton's arguments, the aristocracy IS the intellipocracy, meritocracy and all that follows.

Aristocracy is based on blood lines and social caste manipulation, a true meritocracy would be based on individual accomplishment and contribution to society. With the resources we have in this country today, we could provide every man woman and child with a place to sleep, simple meals, and clean water. Medicine would be a little trickier, but a hairpin turn away from slave labor and dirty food would do a whole lot, and the rest could probably be accomplished using herbs and other natural remedies, like vitamin or oxygen therapy.

Galton proved statistically that aristocrats are smarter, more creative and possessed of superior character traits. His work has been repackaged as quantitative genetics to prove the same thing - and argue for "meritocracy." IMO - it's more of the same.

...In fact, sufficient protein and B vitamins go a long way towards "developing intelligence," as do uncontaminated environments, clean water and stress reduction - luxuries that are currently unavailable to most people.

Establishing a true meritocracy would require a couple of generations transition AFTER a clean up and decades of nutritional, educational and social equity. ...Else the causative inequities simply would be preserved.

Those who desire comfort, would be motivated to work. Those who desire contemplation and a meditative existence would be provided for. I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be, and it certainly isn't communism, because people are most certainly not equal in most ways.

I don't get the distinctions. Maybe I need more detail, maybe you have some kinks to work out. Not sure.


.

Originally posted by Springer
What collective research, fact gathering and general sniffing around can OUR group do to uncover more?

Not sure on that one, however when it is found, there should be no doubt those here, will remember.

Each individual can do their part, and when combined, becomes something to reckon with.