The Quadrennial Exploitation Of The Moronic Masses

I said to a friend of mine the other day - "why can't people discuss politics anymore?"

The problem is polarisation.

No one wants to listen anymore. Instead they want to to say their thing, ram it down your throat and put you on ignore because you don't agree with them.

Its throwaway, soundbyte disposable politics and - heres the kicker - its easy.

Its far far easier to play on someones fears and tweak their curiosity with an allegation than it is to sit down, discuss the allegation, debate it and possibly refute it.

ATS is not the place for the former, it most definitely should be the case for the latter.

What can we do about it? The best advice i can give is in my signature

very nicely put neformore.

I'd like to add that you can always check out this thread

for insights as to HOW you can be the change you want to see

reply to post by neformore


neforemore....not trying to suck up, or anything....but your input on this thread has been outstanding! Someone should applaud you....that's what I'm trying to do.

I resisted the temptation to use the (!) as much as I could....

Oh...and I love the way you spell the 'Queen's English'....guessing many Americans wont't git that bit....but still...not sucking up!!

Cheers!!! (See! All of those silly exclamation points?)

Great stuff, really.....

potential edit....oops, I had a typo....but on second thought....STET!

[edit on 8/19/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by neformore
I said to a friend of mine the other day - "why can't people discuss politics anymore?"

The problem is polarisation.

AGREED. I have listened to and read a good deal about this.

Polarisation is exacerbated by the state of current news outlets.

The news used to be "loss-leaders" and every network allowed that they wouldn't be a profit center, but rather a "public service".

Once CNN and the talking heads came into play and showed the news could turn a tidy profit...well then you start thinking about demographics and selling commercials and thus start "choosing" stories and slanting news to appeal to your demographic. Downward spiral away from objectivity.

Now that talk radio and news outlets understand that you can make money by TELLING PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR...well objective news gets sacrificed on the altar of the allmighty dollar.

And the Right listens to Fox News and Rush, they feel warm and fuzzy having their beliefs affirmed rather than challenged...Ditto with the left and news outlets slanted that way. Everybody's views get affirmed and polarized.

Toss in the internet where people are able to choose their news outlet to a very specific, biased degree and the downfall of Newspapers...the reasons for polarization become clear really fast. It doesn't help that opportunistic politicians see this and play upon the growing divide to their advantage.

We hear what we want to hear and never has it it been more easy to do so.

FYI - I prefer National Public Radio news since it is non-commercial, though I understand much of the Right feels they lean left...I disagree, but who knows? I am on the left and might be blind to it. BUT at least they aren't slaves to the dollar and constantly playing to a demographic.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 21-8-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 21-8-2008 by maybereal11]

This issue with elections is only a microcosm of the problem , and is due to all sort of factors that the government have endeavoured to shape and limit the US public's general awareness with, including education, media manipulation, social engineering.. over many decades. To tackle the problem you mention here would involve a radical and fundamental change to institutionized doctrines , something you may never really accomplish.. short of a collapse of the present system and starting anew. And even after that , it'll take generations to see any great deal of change.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Gun Totin Gerbil]

I think the problem here is the corporate control of the media.Any canidate that
actually believes in the constitution is marginalized as a kook or nut.It makes no difference if they are a republican or democrat Paul,Kucinich(sp).The canidates who are given priority pay no attention to the constitution at all.Both McCain and Obama swore oaths to the constitution both vote against it.You will see no third party canidates in the debates.The two branchs of the corporate party,dems and repubs,have grown more and more visious in thier attacks upon each other for a reason.They take the issues off the table and put registered dems and repubs at war with each other.This in turn takes thier attention away from the fact neither one of those branchs supports the constitution,they both support corporate america.Jefferson told us this was comming and the moronic masses still pay no attention as the media fuels the fire.As long as the corporate media controls the morons we'll get corporate government for the corporations by the corporations for the corporations.

ATS has MSNBC adds that constantly run on the page. There are constantly anti-plain/McCain threads featured on the main page. The idea that ATS has balanced mods or ownership is completely laughable. I couldn't beleive when I read this thread from the owner of the site. The guy is obviously completely partisan, but is one of these guys who has convinced himself hes middle of the road objective. Its a joke.

reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius


No, what a joke is that a person that's been here less than 2 weeks is complaining about this. I was here for 2004, it was a mess. This time around we took the proactive stance not to play this BS. I applaud the Amigos for taking this stance. You claim "bias". Really? Look around, there is a much more active Repub. advocacy here than anything else.

You're going to need another chestnut than "media bias" here mate. It may fly with the MSM but it doesn't apply here.

reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius


MC....you seem to view this site through 'Red Colored' partisan glasses.

I'm sorry, when you have been 'brain-washed'....oops! That, in effect, is the WRONG thing to say! I now apologize...I could have 'deleted' it, but I left it, so others may come along and see it, as well as you.

MC....in my time on this site I have seen it to be one of the most fair, from a political bent. If you'd paid attention to the title of this thread you'd have realized that this Partisan bickering only happens about every four years....

I DO have to take exception to the use of the word 'Moronic'....except, it was not a 'stand-alone' word, it was used in a phrase.....and on further reflection, given the added word 'exploitation' I am prone to agree with the premise of the OP.

Speaking of 'exploitation'!! Has anyone been watching the news lately???

Well, in keeping with the spirit of this thead, I will NOT invoke my personal political opinions about the Upcoming Presidential Race.

I just hope that everyone pays close attention, and not just to FOX 'News' while they make up their minds....

If you don't know it by now, a majority were conned into voting for a non-descript candidate with extremely little or no background which has been deftly hidden. Its a shame when a candidate president-elect still hides the most important information that binds a a candidate to a preferred choice among the electorate. I say we and the people who voted for this candidate were bamboozled in to voting for a false messiah. A false messianic figure that portrays himself through external definers as a savoir for the masses. In the end said Prez-elect will not live up to expectations as have been done with past presidents. I call it mass hypnosis which will result in the mass indifference to the government.

On second thought I shall reserve my judgment my words have been up for a few moments now so i am sure some have already read them... But for now I shall edit my post to keep my mouth shut and to watch and wait and see just what you guys have in mind...

All the same good luck...and may none of us be moronic in our quest to deny ignorance.



[edit on 12-10-2009 by titorite]

Click here for more information.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I just wanna say that I am glad you brought-up the fact that there is no 2 party system. What are we, in high school? People still vote for their “click” thinking that is gonna make a change. Doesn't the constant bickering between these parties conveniently show us that we can trust one of them for neither can trust the other? There is a bigger bully in the school forcing all parties to play by his rules. Out of all the genious minds available in this country, we had a popularity contest for president. Bush then Clinton, Bush Jr. then Clinton's wife? Dictatorshipish (if a word) is the word that comes to mind for me. Father and son,husband and wife? When America “demanded” change, they threw us two women and a black man. A change in face, yes. But aren't we told to not judge by the cover? Bulsh, they need our fractured sense of perception to get THEM through the tough times. I am just 31,but have been disgusted in Washington's willingness to treat us like naive children, and our willingness to let them do it, for over a decade. This is literally my first ever post anywhere, and I kinda hope its not my last. But maybe if enuff people talk about it, we will get sick of hearing it an do something about it. So here's to you ATS for being a place where we can go to get our feet wet in the sludge that is our control system.

by Dr. Ali Sina

What is Narcissism?


The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) describes narcissism as a personality disorder that “revolve around a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and sense of entitlement. Often individuals feel overly important and will exaggerate achievements and will accept, and often demand, praise and admiration despite worthy achievements.”

The third and fourth editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of 1980 and 1994 and the European ICD-10 describe NPD in similar language:

An all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy, usually beginning by early adulthood and present in various contexts. Five (or more) of the following criteria must be met:

•Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
•Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion
•Is firmly convinced that he is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special, unique, or high-status people (or institutions)
•Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation, or failing that, wishes to be feared and notorious (narcissistic supply)
•Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favorable priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his expectations
•Is “interpersonally exploitative” i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends
•Is devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others
•Is constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her
•Is arrogant, has haughty behaviors or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People’s Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers’ souls, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don’t know it until it it too late.

I know its a long article but read it all and see where this is all going....

Obama ... Making of a Dictator, What is a Pathological Narcissist???

conspiracy theories have become commonplace in mass media. This has contributed to conspiracism emerging as a cultural phenomenon

Oh I see how this is effective to you

I'm glad that there's a heated debate because there are 2 sides.

There's one side who wants a massive government that controls and regulates everything and they want to redistribute wealth.

There's another side who want limited government and they don't want the government controlling every aspect of their lives. They don't want to be changed and transformed by Obama's ideology.

Obama said in a 2001 radio interview that the Constitution was fundamentally flawed because it restrains government and it doesn't talk about the redistribution of wealth. Many progressives agree with him. There needs to be a heated debate because there's many Americans who don't agree with him.

The Founders restrained government so no man or government can control people's lives.

Redistribution of wealth is just a way to control people's lives. This is because a democrat will redistribute the wealth in a way according to his ideology and a republican will redistribute wealth according to their ideology.

So there needs to be a heated debate in this country. Do we want massive government controlling and regulating every aspect of our lives? Do we want an unrestrained government that redistributes wealth? Or do we want a limited and restrained government as the Founders intended?

The Progressives don't like the Constitution as it stands and this is why they want to change and transform America. If they were honest about this and debated the issue things would be less heated. The problem is when you call them on things that they have said, they try say they didn't say them or they were quoted out of context.

So we need a heated debate because we are talking about the direction of the Country. Where do we want it to go? Do we want European styled socialism and fascism or do we want liberty and freedom?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


When it comes to U.S. political madness, there has always been sides, from the very beginning. What was radical then, and remains so today, was the notion that people are capable of governing themselves. Further, a fervid belief in "puppet masters" only serves to undermine this radical notion that people are indeed capable of governing themselves. Where you see puppet masters, I see agent provocateurs, and where you see the "quadrennial exploitation of the moronic masses", I see individuals rise up from the masses, some of them moronic, some of them not, each however, rising up and daring to state: "I Am!"

What's a puppet master to do, when what they perceive to be puppets stand up to be counted? Of course, I am not as invested in this site as you are, so when the madness takes hold and the level of nonsense peaks, it is, presumably, easier for me to stay away and ignore it, than it would be for you. Even so, there are plenty of members in this site, some of them even gray no avatar but very pointed posters, who have attempted to create thoughtful debate with threads of their own, only to watch those threads die a quick death, while the level of nonsense remains amplified. I have seen these threads die a quick and unceremonious death on your watch. Of course, not every thoughtful thread created can hope to catch your eye, and even then, not every thoughtful thread that does catch your eye, will catch your fancy, but none the less, I have seen what I considered to be great threads die while you were online, and while the nonsense ran wild.

You complain of the "mindless repetition of divisive spoon fed talking points" seemingly unaware that this itself has become just another mindless repetition of divisive spoon fed talking points. Nothing is accomplished by pointing to a problem most everyone, including the so called "moronic masses", all ready knows exists. As long as this site favors sensationalism and shameful racism, shameful focus on personalities instead of issues, pathetic fear mongering and patently false information about candidates presented as truth, then that is what this site will get.

It takes time and effort to create a thread that urges thoughtful debate, and when such time and effort is made, only to see that effort ignored by the members who frequent the site, it should be understandable why so few threads of this nature are created. Even so, there are many who keep on trying any way, and collectively they represent all that is good and even great about this site. Where you see a "they" winning, whoever "they" are, I see us winning, the only way we know how, one post at a time. I see a diverse membership of thinkers, and I see friendships and alliances being forged with not just like minded souls, but with those who disagree passionately about the course of U.S. political madness. Those friendships are not forged because of party affiliations, or ideological sameness, they are forged precisely because of the willingness to debate with reason and actual data.

I see a site with members who care very much about their future, indeed the future of humanity, and I see them willing to engage in debate, not so that they may win the argument, but so that they may better understand the issue. I see what I consider to be bone headed ideas come from members I respect immensely and admire their intelligence completely, and conversely, I have seen what I consider to be brilliant ideas come from those posters I thought to be bone headed idiots. I have watched this vast array of members with their diverse political thought, engage each other regularly, and I have seen moderators do a remarkable job in keeping an environment, largely self governed, from disintegrating into some sort of melee.

Whether these people you speak of, these "they" who want, and whatever they want is their business, are genuinely attempting to keep the masses divided among "liberal" and "conservative" ideologies, or not, such an effort would not be so difficult to maintain. Consider the recent ruling by The Supreme Court in Citizen's United; this ruling undeniably divided the masses, and for those who actually read the ruling, there were still strong divides on its conclusion. For those who disagreed with that ruling, including the dissent of that Court, a "liberal" view of the Constitution was necessarily taken in order to reach that dissent, while those who agreed with the ruling necessarily had to take a "conservative" view of the Constitution. Either the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws such as the one that was struck down as unconstitutional or they are not. This is the simple debate between the divide, and it is a distinctly liberal/conservative debate, regardless of what "they" want.

If my words, in posts vehemently defending the SCOTUS ruling, were actually guided by "they" who are pulling my strings, then they have guided me in reading numerous Case Law rendered by the SCOTUS, they have guided me towards important documents and texts such as The Law by Frederic Bastiat, and while he remains an unsung hero of the French Enlightenment period, "they" have some how managed to guide me towards making a distinction in the so called Age of Enlightenment, between the French Enlightenment and the self named Age of Reason where a more distinct American view of politics found fertile ground.

These guiding lights who pull my strings, these so called "they", made damn sure I read George Washington's farewell address and his dire warnings of political parties, and "they" have insisted I read and re-read, and then read again The Constitution itself as a basic guide to politics. "They" have guided me towards Aristotle's politics, suggested I would be better equipped to understand politics if I understood the importance of ethics, and compared that with the moral relativism of works such as Machiavelli's The Prince. "They" have guided me towards Sun Tzu's The Art of War, but somehow further making clear that this alone won't help me understand the nature of war and politics, so "they" guided me towards von Clausewitz' seminal book On War, while miraculously guiding me away from the military and into more creative endeavors.

Of course, I don't believe it was "they" who have done this, and remain skeptical, Skeptic Overlord, that "they" even know who the hell I am, let alone guide my thoughts and words. What I do believe is that "they", whoever they are, do see the idea of self government as a radical idea not feasible as a form of institutionalized government, and I do believe that relying on language such as "moronic masses" helps to support such a belief. I further believe that this fear of self government is highly reactionary, and regardless of how intelligent any person may or may not be, no one besides the individual is better equipped to determine just what is in their best interest.

I believe there is no greater minority than the individual and that whoever this "they" are who threaten to "pull our strings", can not possibly believe in the power of the individual as fervently as I do. I believe there is a divide between those who argue for the strength of the collective, and those who argue for the protection of individual rights. I believe there is a great divide between those who see rights as self evident, and those who require a statute as evidence before acknowledging a right, and I believe that this is the primary issue to be debated "with cold honest neutrality"; whether rights are natural and inalienable or whether they are government grants or license. No other issue matters as much as this, because all other issues will be decided based upon the understanding of what rights are.

It matters not who we elect to "lead" our country, what matters is the freedom of humanity, and where you continue to advocate a future built "on the legacy of great men", I continue to implore you and others to simply be great yourselves. If we are to wait on the greatness of others to build this future, how would this distinguish us from the "moronic masses" so easily manipulated by puppet masters? It seems to me, we can wait for others to forge our future, or we can forge themselves, and if we are to forge our own futures, then it is recommended we be great. It is not easy to be great, if it were everyone would be doing it, but if we are to create the futures we envision, anything less than great is not an option.

If we are ever to become the self governed creatures I believe we are intended to be, it begins by tolerating the nonsense of others. If we are all free to speak our minds, then there will be those who speak rather mindlessly and those who will consider their thoughts, and there will be those who take turns doing both. This is the nature of diversity, this is the nature of politics, and this is the nature of humanity. If you want your site to favor the more thoughtful threads that encourage open and honest discussion, then do more to make this so. Do more than occasionally creating a thread scolding members indiscriminately for the level of childishness, that clearly thrives in this site. Be great Skepitc Overlord, hell be perfect! Forget complaints and blame as they are irrelevant, and even solutions are useless, find the answers you need and I have no doubt this greatness many see in you will rise towards perfection.

One must also be careful seeing as what a resource ATS is, any information is potentially subject to manipulation. Any information may be used to manipulate and cause fear, including information meant to shed light on abuses of power, the elite controlling our most lucrative and important industries, etc. It is quite feasible to see mass media propaganda infiltrate even the most blatantly non-conformist media on the planet. All i am saying is: poeple, use your brains...thats what they were made for!

what was considered a radical idea when this nation was founded, say, the establishment of a federal bank and reserve, has become the accepted norm. the individual sufferes at the hands of the state, which represents the majority view. America was initially meant to protect the individual against the deprivations of the majoty. When the checks and balances that were erected by our forefathers are torn down, then we will see radicalismadicalsim take over our great nation. The channels of communication are just the begininning.