The Quadrennial Exploitation Of The Moronic Masses

Yes... as you can tell from my avatar, I'm fatigued with frustration.

And yes... as you can see from the new logo top-and-left on the board, we are in distress... we need help.

Despite brief moments of hope, as seen in KrazyJethro's brilliant thread, Disgusting election taints ATS... Stand up and shut up!, I feel the strings of the expert puppet masters at play on ATS once again.

Way back in March of 2005, I wrote: Dark Days. (The black band on ATS), in response to a similar graphic display of distress.

Make no mistake, you are being expertly controlled. Even here, in this venue that should be beyond the puppet masters' strings, we have succumbed to the subtle manipulations of thought and reason. Instead of looking in agner toward the puppet masters, you yell at the puppets.

So here we are again, suffering the daily madness of the The Quadrennial Exploitation Of The Moronic Masses, otherwise known as the U.S. Presidential Election Season.

Who would have thought, in this bastion of enablement that brings unimaginably diverse people together in an environment of civil and open debate with a mandate of fierce focus on issues and not each other, that we'd encounter the choreographed flotsam of manipulation. Here, right here on our beloved AboveTopSecret.com, we see...

-*- mindless repetition of divisive spoon-fed political talking points

-*- patently false information about candidates presented as truth

-*- exaggerated disaster scenarios if one or the other is elected

-*- shameful racism

-*- shameful bastardization of candidate names

-*- shameful focus on personalities instead of issues

-*- pathetic fear mongering

-*- embarrassingly little focus on real, important, vital issues


With this type of activity here on AboveTopSecret.com, the only thing it's proving is that, nearly four years after I first wrote about it, "they" are winning.

Make no mistake, "they" want you to be focusing on bickering over pointless and utterly meaningless personality disputes.

"They" have a vested stake in an absolute 50/50 split of "conservative" and "liberal" mindsets across the nation.

"They" want to ensure your presidential choices are down to the lesser of two evils.

"They" are pulling your strings, guiding your thoughts, and directing your words.


If you/we/us don't snap out of this mental fog brought on by The Quadrennial Exploitation Of The Moronic Masses, there can be no hope.

Stop bickering about divisive ideological abstract positions for the sake of bickering about abstract ideology, and pick up a real issue and examine it with cold honest neutrality.

Stop being so overwhelmingly focused on which "side" wins an election that you can't remember that there are no "sides," only the singular future we build from the legacy of great men.

If neither of the two choices presented to you by "them" thrill you, make it known. Shout it. Tell it. Maybe there are more like you.

And most importantly, cut the damn strings, and find your own original voice... and deny ignorance, please!

Amen SO! In my opinion, it speaks volumes about the masters view of the masses to think that we the citizenry will continue to fall for this gladiator mudslinging newstainment. MSM is quite guilty of the rush to the gutter.

I love you Bill.

In a totally non-partisan way.

Totally Agreed With!

Couldn't put it better myself!

I wish we could just follow the motto more: Deny Ignorance!

I would not disagree with the premise of this what so ever.

its been the efforts of quite a few threads in this forum alone (aside from the other political boards)

But i would like to say that believe that there are many threads in the decision 2008 forum that exist that discuss these issues of an election.

Which brings me to a true question - and i do not "ask this out of spite"


When discussing something like this - the 2008 POTUS election.

At what point can you discuss the issues in a neutral stance without taking any sides?

Certainly saying that one candidate is too old, or another candidate is from mars, does not fall within the realm of real issues.

But if candidate A supports Topic 1, and you support Topic 1 - should you discuss topic 1 and how you like it - or should you discuss what candidate A says about topic 1 and how you agree with it? And how candidate B opposes Topic 1 and how that disagrees with you.

its a question i've asked every time these issues come up

For lack of a better way of putting it

How do you discuss viable candidates for POTUS in a neutral manner? (again - not asking that spitefully or condescendingly, so please dont take it as that kind of approach)

Sometimes I think I am so alone when I see all this madness... your post has brought tears to my eyes... tears of joy knowing I am not the only one who sees the strings attached to the puppets.

Thank you S.O.! You made my day!!

I have tried to ignore these threads, but they just keep multiplying every day. I try to refute or correct the ignorance... and the thread just festers and brings even more idiots to spout ignorance and prejudice to the forum.

Can't we all just get along?

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
For lack of a better way of putting it

How do you discuss viable candidates for POTUS in a neutral manner? (again - not asking that spitefully or condescendingly, so please dont take it as that kind of approach)

Sticking to the issues at hand and NOT the mudslinging irrelevant "mentions" intended to distract from such.
(?)

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I have to say that the Decision 2008 forum consumed an entire month of my existence. I forgot what it was like to be "addicted" to the internet until I stumbled on this specific forum.

Why? Because we as humans have an passionate desire to seek truth, deny ignorance, and feel "Right". No matter if we are correct or not. The importance is to "feel right", this is because it fends off the feelings of "insecurity".

This desire in myself has been exploited in this forum. I've never been addicted to sexual porn, but man did I get addicted to this political porn.

I eventually went off the rails and had to use the Ignore feature just to stay sane and wean myself off of the crazy vitriol that I had become habituated to responding to, and in the process... producing.

I know the mods have had a 2x Full time job on their hands with this fourm alone.

The irony is that, in much the same way that I was attracted to ATS as a way to balance out the constant signals received from the MSM, and the masses, I have become attracted to real life so as to balance out the complete insanity that I have found on this forum.

Don't get me wrong. I have learned a lot about myself in this process. But I've also wasted many an evening, weekend, and full workday.

I don't post much here anymore, (although it's like breaking an addiction not to), and I seriously can't wait until Decision 2008 has been made and we can all get back to the latest UFO sightings and potential disclosures.

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


I would not disagree with that at all.

I guess more-over, what you consider an issue - your neighbor might consider moot.

Certainly - the extremities i mentioned earlier (age, race, religion) are not issues.

What im getting at is - the decision 2008 forum seems to have a bad name. S.O. says its "embarassingly little acutal discussion of issues"

Personally - and non-confrontationally - i disagree.
I do agree that there are a lot of threads in this forum (on both sides of the political spectrum) that fit exactly what S.O. is talking about.


But unless im just reading too far into this thread - it seems that its actually much more rampant than i thought.

One mans issues is another mans non-issues.

So i guess - more over - im asking what would be considered an "appropriate" issue to discuss? Again - im not asking in a rude manner so please don't treat it that way.

I want people to enjoy the decision 2008 forums as much as i do.


I've always approached politics in a non-neutral way. And im not saying that i am in the right.
its very possible i've been wrong the entire time. I've always looked for which candidate i most agree with- and i run with it.


Thats where my confusion comes from.



Edit to refine:


my point is this.

This thread alone is going to recieve 80+ stars and 70+ flags. Im not complaining about that.

But this thread is built on the premise that issues arent discussed here.

But they are. They are just allowed to die. Its heart breaking.

I had created a thread not too long ago outlining a few threads that i believed were covering real issues. Not a single one of those threads will you find *still* active right at this moment. They all die.

So if people are fed up with 'no discussion' of 'non issues' then why is it that the threads created to discuss issues are being ignored? (asked in a non angry manner, mind you )


And my questioning on parts of this thread doesnt mean im in opposition.

Im not questioning S.O. at all - please believe me.

Im questioning the 'masses' and what they really want.

Because threads that say that no issues are being covered in this forum, recieve more attention, replies, stars, and flags, than the threads that actually cover the issues (again, refer to the stickies post at the top of the deicison 2008 forum for a short list of examples )


So in my head :

Its either that those threads don't cover issues that anyone wants to talk about

or

Everything has been said on those issues and people are bored with it.

In either case, other threads are bound to be created.

*i ramble too much*

so ill stop it there and see what kind of replies i get



[edit on 8/12/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

i have heard that since 1971... when the voting age got reduced to 18 years from 21 years
there has been a steady decline in eligible voters, or what you refer to as the 'Moronic Masses'

sounds like all these newly franchised voters actually seen the circus that is the presidential election.. and all the crud & smear thrown at
McGovern... and all the 'Moronic masses' realized they were spitting into the wind and decided not to participate in the rigged elections...


ever since that '72 election I've voted for the candidate that turned out to be the loser, too bad after serving a 3 year Army tour I was still not able to vote in 1968 or else i would be batting 100% wrong for the 10th presidential cycle this november.


the real moronic masses are the one's who helped elect any or all the elected presidents...who in turn took away the freedoms & constitutional rights...little by little each 4 yr election cycle.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by 12m8keall2c

 

I would not disagree with that at all.

I guess more-over, what you consider an issue - your neighbor might consider moot.

Certainly - the extremities i mentioned earlier (age, race, religion) are not issues.

Agreed... just as with Boxer over Briefs or Mary Kay as opposed to Oil of Olay. Yet these type discussions over absolute non-issues have seemed more prevalent and gaining further unwarranted ground all the while. It's pointless. Perhaps not so much the discussions themselves but more the injections of those type "concerns" and or "topics of interest"... many of which seem to be introduced or have full-tank "support" by various mainstream media outlets... again, pointless. Yet 'round and 'round they go.

While I can't nor won't dismiss the entirety of the '08 forum, it does seem that a significant percentage of threads, topics, and responses therein are being or have been focused on seeming irrelevant non-issues intended solely to further divide the voting populace... your mileage may vary.

???

I think this is a great point, and a fantastic goal...but I have my doubts that we could ever stamp out "The Quadrennial Exploitation Of The Moronic Masses." To me, people fall into these moronic behaviors for one of two reasons: either because they don't understand the issues, but still want to "win" the argument, or because they do understand the issues and become frustrated with those who don't.

We all will always have differing opinions; I think, if ATS really desires to affect change in how people think, perhaps they should organize a structured discussion on what constitutes original thought. That sounds silly, at first, yet I think it is the fundamental problem. Especially when we are talking US members of ATS, most have a background in an education system where rote learning is the only real learning method used, and so they, in turn, just parrot rhetoric when discussing these issues in their adulthood. I think a lot of people simple do not understand how to gather facts and make an informed decision, or how to construct a cohesive, living knowledge from the facts which they gather.

I know that might sound condescending, but I truly do not mean it that way. I just think that a growth in understanding concerning the nature of original thought might aid in resolving this ongoing issue, especially because it would be a great aid in helping members become better at separating facts from spin, rumor, speculation and conjecture. If we can shed these plagues of untruth, I think we all might find a great deal of common ground and a unity for a better future.

[edit on 8/12/2008 by saturnine_sweet]

No, my mileage doesn't vary.


As i said in my first reply - perhaps im looking too far into this thread.

Its not the first time i've tried defending certain parts of the decision 2008 forum.

Perhaps some of it comes from defending my own stances.... a feeling of defensiveness ?


I'm not sure.

And who knows, maybe S.O. is in 100% agreement with me?

Im not posting to oppose the notion that there is a LOT of filth smeared on the decision 2008 forum.

I am just posting to defend the threads that exist in there that offer discussion of real life issues that have been all but completely ignored.

Let me speak truth to power here:

What are you trying to suggest with this post? Yes, I empathize with you; you're right; I've struck the pose in your new avatar many a time - thanks for that.

But you're just whinging.

So there's political trolls on ATS. And members who, because of the divisive political atmosphere, act as 'virtual trolls' and distrators.

Surprise, surprise. Guess what, Media Is The Battlefield. And your baby is media, Bill.

You allow, and even encourage, candidate-affiliated political bickering on ATS. There's a forum called 'Decision 2008'. Yeah, like there's an embraceable 'decision'. How many members here do you think are really 'on the fence', choosing Democrat or Republican?

Frankly, there's nothing 'alternative' or 'conspiratorial' about the very mainstream puppet-show. Yawn. Why are you complaining about something you've chosen to allow as a valid subject on ATS?

And what are you suggesting? The thread you linked to suggested 'ignore them'. As you mention, yeah, like that worked. Volume volume volume.

Or should we 'fight back', and call 'distraction!' when we perceive such useless divisiveness? Well, one-line posts are against the T&C, and I really don't want to waste my time composing more detailed rebuttals, when the mootness is obvious to anyone whose opinion I actually care about. I may be more cynical than most.

And, have you noticed, 'fight back', argue, and it just makes the playbook bigger. Why point out irrelevant weakness in stances, when those stances assume a useless, contrived context? You just expand the breadth of that context by agreeing or arguing with it.

How about suppressing the garbage? Perhaps some kind of 'thumbs down', that stops posts to a thread from bumping it to the top of the recent posts list? Or how about a 'recent threads' list, rather than recent posts, as someone suggested recently? Or (dare I say it) meta-moderated star+flag ratings?

As far as I can tell, ATS has been against such 'self-limitation' for quite a while. And with good cause, given the nature of some of the controversial subjects here.

So, what's the action plan, chief? What are the tools with which we should do our duty?

As you can perhaps tell, I agree with you pretty much 100%. Thanks for listening; I needed to vent.

Assuredly, I do not think that this thread is designed to poke at any one individual.

It is more of a group hysteria type of effect that occurrs every four years. People will choose or select a candidate...but from only the options that are presented by the media. Even up to two years before a presidential election, the media starts making waves about candidates and the Democratic/Republican parties begin to parade their options and hopes for the future.

Has anyone here ever noticed that every candidate is always hyping on "change for the future"?

It's human to want things to improve!!

So, in essence, the candidates do very little beyond stating their stance on the issues (which often are more heavily influenced by corporate interest in Congress as well as Corporate influence on a Presidential Campaign Funding) and then it is nothing more then a public charade of posing for the cameras, presenting an authoritative stance and mudslinging anyone who opposes.

What the hell is that about?

Really, all we are arguing about is who puts up a better face.

We should be discussing

* Lobbyist records

* Voting records of the candidates

* Economic trends

* Political Propaganda and it's daily use and effect on the mentality of the average American.

* The voting record of Congress

*Corporate Influence beyond the lobby industry (there was a great thread regarding a Wal-Mart memo warning of a Democratic Majority, which in and of itself is a form of indirect propaganda)

* Other issue relevant aspects of the current governmental/political atmosphere.

Essentially, the point of this thread is to collaborate, not participate further in the divisive arguments that have served no purpose but lead to unproductive threads

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Well, if I could give an APPLAUSE to you, SO, I would.

I've tried to express this exact point of view here many times on ATS. I've expressed that I can not stand any politicians, because I see through their crap, lies, and abuses so easily, but if you express something small and trivial, like on for instance this thread :

Obama says if Americans inflated their tires properly we would save oil!

You get attacked as an "Obama-hater."

But when you do neutral thread like this :

You Know Those "The Complete Idiots Guides"? Well, Here's One On American Government

or this one :

Vote "None of the Above" Since They're All Liars

Doing it in as neutral a context and content as possible, you get crickets chirping.

The damage has been done skeptic-overlord. Even on this board blatantly obvious propaganda threads have popped up in their numbers and I was shocked to find that we have the number of members here support them without any question. Despite the lack of evidence from these threads, despite the bias sources provided by the OPs, despite the parallel these accusations and rumors hold to those made in 2001-2003 by the government, people will still believe them. It seems that these days people would prefer to believe what they want believe and not would they should believe.

Im all up for discussing the issues, I have always argued this but its like talking to a bunch of stubborn kids.

Originally posted by MemoryShock


We should be discussing

* Lobbyist records

* Voting records of the candidates

* Economic trends

* Political Propaganda and it's daily use and effect on the mentality of the average American.

* The voting record of Congress

*Corporate Influence beyond the lobby industry (there was a great thread regarding a Wal-Mart memo warning of a Democratic Majority, which in and of itself is a form of indirect propaganda)

* Other issue relevant aspects of the current governmental/political atmosphere.

Essentially, the point of this thread is to collaborate, not participate further in the divisive arguments that have served no purpose but lead to unproductive threads

* Lobbyist records
First Thread

Second Thread

Third Thread



* Voting records of the candidates



* Economic trends


*Political Propaganda and it's daily use and effect on the mentality of the average American.

[truncated]

* Other issue relevant aspects of the current governmental/political atmosphere. --

Who decides what is relevant however? This is my biggest problem. Below i give an expansion on what i mean

I realize that im probably preaching to the choir with these threads. But i'm not sure. I took some of the things you give as reasons to talk about ( and i agree with you, 100%!) and i linked them to appropriate threads found within the 2008 decision forum.

Every single one of them has died. Most of them have had attempts at resuscitation (some of which by me, repeatedly, and on more than one occasion)



It seems to me that people would rather complain about the bad content of the decision 2008 forum than to contribute to the good content.

"Sweep it under the rug" so to speak.

There's a lot of material in the decision 2008 forum that fits the standards set forth by our leader

And while im not suggesting that he's the one ignoring it - i am suggesting that the majority of the people who've flagged and starred this thread and krazyjethro's thread have - for the most part - done very little to try and help this forum back on its feet.

The threads that people say don't exist, do exist here.
They just choose to not participate in them

[edit on 8/12/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
Despite the lack of evidence from these threads, despite the bias sources provided by the OPs, despite the parallel these accusations and rumors hold to those made in 2001-2003 by the government, people will still believe them. It seems that these days people would prefer to believe what they want believe and not would they should believe.

Excellent points, previous posters.

Here is a suggestion: ATS is a tremendous resource, but it can be overwhelming, just by the sheer amount of information. Often, the same threads and trends are posted every few months, treated as if they're unique and new. This can lead to a constant roar of divisive rhetoric.

I propose a new forum, similar to the 'Breaking News' forum, in that each new thread must reference a source, and quote a snippet. But, instead of an outside news source, the source would be another ATS thread from at least six months ago.

The initial comment post by the OP would be a description of how the particular mentioned thread is still relevant, and can be related to new, current news topics and more recent issues and discussion.

I propose this forum be called: 'Doomed To Repeat It'.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Who decides what is relevant however?

That would be an interesting discussion...hint, hint...

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Every single one of them has died. Most of them have had attempts at resuscitation (some of which by me, repeatedly, and on more than one occasion)

That is indeed the problem and the crux of the issue. It seems that many people do immediately respond to the mud slinging threads.

That is indeed the problem.