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.


Faction theories and Federalist No. 10

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:06 AM
History is tricky and we often underestimate it's tricks. Sartre quoting Lenin. I put that in my .sig shortly after I arrived here at ATS.

What I am about to describe is my own interpretation for Faction theory. Here is a wiki link for Federalist No. 10 which discusses amongst other things faction theory.

My ultimate purpose with this thread is not to tell you or teach you about faction theories. Instead, this thread is about making people aware that faction theories exist and they have always existed.

Small groups of determined men (or women) create history. This is a fact. I'll give you one recent modern example of a faction. PNAC. the Project for a New American Century

And I'll give you one ancient example of a faction in operation. The assassination of Julius Ceasar.

Factions can exist on paper or not on paper. Factions can exist for the explicit purpose of obtaining one single fruitful goal and then these factions can be immediately disbanded. A faction is an ad hoc conspiracy to achieve a certain outcome in reality.

Presently, on the internet, there is a Faction of identity phenomenon known as "Anonymous" which purports to represent certain views and to intercede into reality when "they" see reason to do so. This is a current, real-time example of a faction in operation.

For the bulk of this discussion we should concentrate on the identity of factions in historical terms and to evaluate their goals, the success of their projects and the real outcomes of factional decisions. Mainly, these factions will consist of bankers and power mongers.

Specifically, Federalist No. 10 deals with

No. 10 addresses the question of how to guard against "factions," or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community.

At this point I'd recommend to the reader to evaluate his or her own media consumption habits and thereafter to objectively evaluate his or her own susceptibility to the processes of Faction theory. We are all victims of propaganda in so far that we seek out justifications for our faction beliefs from a the mainstream media complex.

Other examples of faction theory.

Holy Roman Empire.
Paperclip and Apollo.
The Greater Middle-East Reform Initiative.

Finally, I would ask the patient readers to perform a self-evaluation with regard to his or her own loyalties to factions. A true revolution of values can only be obtained in this way.

Faction theory exists and historical observations have shown how it operates within establishment guidelines. My analysis concludes by saying that factions are related to every outcome we see in history.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:29 AM
I'm not quite clear on faction theory. Perhaps I'm interpreting it too broadly, but it seems that you're defining a faction as a group of people of any size getting together for any purpose. That can't be what you mean, or is it?

Or, are you talking about groups of people getting together to influence significant national, regional, and global events?

Would you mind (for those of us who aren't that bright) telling us what a faction is, providing some examples, and telling me whether you see it as a threat or a good thing (or both)? Perhaps a faction is just a force of nature, like a storm, that springs up, changes things around and disappears?

I'd appreciate any extra information you can pass along.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by charles1952

Take a good look at political factions,

Occasionally, the term "faction" is still used more or less as a synonym for political party, but "with opprobrious sense, conveying the imputation of selfish or mischievous ends or turbulent or unscrupulous methods", according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

To use a present day example we are sadly familiar with -- if you turn on CNN or FOX or read a major news publication like NY Times etc -- there is a strong political faction that is massively promoting a conflict with Iran. Unfortunately this faction has been allowed to operate for a few years now, every time they get a chance they are gaining new adherents to their cause.

The man on the street doesn't really understand why but he nonetheless chooses a faction out of the streaming news reports... and these news reports which are also dictated by factions.

Continuing the example.

This is a radical political faction that wants to "dictate terms to Iran" or "bomb Iran" and they are assisted in gaining traction by the next faction, the media complex. Didn't we already witness this same game plan executed with regard to Iraq in 2002/2003? These are very dangerous factions who are beating on the drums of war and creating more enemies to fight.

Going back to Federalist No. 10

Hamilton there addressed the destructive role of faction in breaking apart the republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of faction. He defines a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." He identifies the most serious source of faction to be the diversity of opinion in political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues such as what regime or religion should be preferred. However, he thinks "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property.

Essentially there exists in the USofA a living faction that desires a conflict with Iran. They say it has something to do with terrorism. It operates without a strong counterargument because this faction has monopolized the media. When a faction achieves control over the media to such a degree they are able to "make things happen" without opposition.

Here is how these factions "make things happen" : False flag and Western support for Islamic militancy. alse_flag_operations=western_support_for_islamic_militancy_tmln_alleged_us_false_flag_attacks

That is why it is important to formulate an appropriate response to dangerous factions *before* they can "make things happen". By forming another faction. And this in itself is a project of "faction creation" that has been going on in history since the beginning of history itself.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:14 PM
According to Federalist No. 10 the founders of the constitution well aware of the dangers of factions.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.

Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people.

This pretty muich summarizes the quality of leadership around the world ... biased, factious tempers, sinister designs, corruption and betrayal.

Economic factions, media factions, military factions, industrial factions, violence-seeking factions, religious factions, etc, all utilize the same modes to accomplish their goals. But the gathering of multiple factions together for a unique and profitable goal is understood.

Populations have lived under the tyrrany of brainwashing by the media control factions, they are controlling the conversation and are able to fully program domestic populations through this media. The focus is generally on putting individuals into a situation of "helplessness" where the only safe place is - with the faction.

And that is a loud cry from the factions : " You are either with us or you are with the terrorists. " Notice how beautifully biased that statement is? Notice how the statement like this is meant to confuse your self-image and belief system? Or perhaps, the purpose of that statement is to redefine your mind by automatically framing the appropriate responses?

Now hopefully my short expansion of the faction theory will get people to look at the problem in a different way.

Take again the example of the ongoing, centuries long problems associated with the so-called "Holy Lands". Certainly the factions are happy with the conflicts for economic reasons; they are producing the problems from the very beginning by defining this piece of ground as "holy lands"!

Redefining the "Holy Land" takes power away from the most violent factions and this appears to me the most conservative and viable method to extinguishing the menace of religious terrorism that has operated these corruptible factions for ages. Is it sounding like a good solution?

Summary: No faction is allowed to be a judge in his own cause.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:32 PM
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Dear SayonaraJupiter,

I feel like a failure here. You cleared up a lot by telling me we were looking primarily at political factions. I have a glimpse of the dangers of them, but I have no idea how to avoid factions.

They can be based on our neighborhood, our work, our faith, so many different identifiers. And people like to be with "their own kind." I can't see how to stop it or negate its effects, other than with a checks and balance system pitting one faction against another to achieve a balance.

Please fill in what I'm missing.

With respect,

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:28 AM
reply to post by charles1952

No you are not missing it at all my friend
.. The founders also had difficulty with how to deal with these factions. Placing restrictions on liberties was not acceptible to them so they encoded freedoms into the documents they wrote.

As you noted

checks and balance system pitting one faction against another to achieve a balance...
is of course the immediate remedy that comes to mind.

However, we seem to be presently captured in a phase of history which doesn't balance out. Certain factions are making gains by exploitating the state of affairs.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:47 AM
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Dear SayonaraJupiter,

Are those factions so powerful then, that they cannot be balanced out without creating an entirely new faction? Of course, that new faction would have to be at least a national one, and one far more powerful than we are used to having. Would citizens throw in their lots with a new "machine" that promises to save them from the old machine? I presume the new faction would have to be citizen based, rather than based on the strength of businesses, government, or the military.

If the threat is not recognized widely, then I don't see how that new faction could be created. Certainly OWS can't do it. Nor, although it is stronger, could the Tea Party do it.

I'm afraid I'm at a loss for a solution.

With respect,

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 02:22 AM

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

If the threat is not recognized widely, then I don't see how that new faction could be created. Certainly OWS can't do it. Nor, although it is stronger, could the Tea Party do it.

I'm afraid I'm at a loss for a solution.

You mentioned the OWS & Tea Party and it got me to thinking about how both of those movements came about, and they both were formed spontaneously in a uniquely democratic way; as assemblies for the redress of grievances. This is definitely a faction and it's also protected in the Bill of Rights.

Well, it's a good start. It's the best solution that we have. The timing with the 2012 elections is a great opportunity for these types of democratic insurgencies! The founding fathers predicted it!

"the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property."

edit on 12/30/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: to add

new topics

top topics


log in