REALITY CHECK: Can we get real for 2 minutes?
The 2016 Presidential Race has nothing to do with the struggle to repair this broken, malignant and disease-ridden country. You know it, I know it, and I’m about to prove it to most peoples’ satisfaction.
My prediction of how people would react to the 2016 Presidential Race heating up has been very accurate. I don’t usually make such predictions, however, this year I’ve been more interested in gauging our prospects for achieving a peaceful resolution to certain key problems than ever before. Rather than looking at political promises, key events or various forecasts, I’ve been looking more carefully at the demographics of Americans to estimate those prospects.
The system is so irreparably ruined by corruption, criminality and “cronyism” that only an intervention by people on the outside can bring it to heel. The 2016 election will likely unfold according to the script while Americans of all political persuasions are relegated to spectators. Which Americans have the best strategy to regain control, and as the cliché says, “take our country back?” The following is one, possible breakdown of the American citizenry and body politic. This is what we have to deal with; the reality as I see it.
The average American has been trending toward uninformed, with heavy reliance on their State, Local and Federal Government, and their related Agencies, to fix everything for years. Based upon major media polls and research firms, it is fair to estimate that this group constitutes a majority. For the sake of this report, I’ve chosen to lump them in with the totally neutral, apathetic Americans; the “blind following sheep” we’re always hearing about. In my estimates, this combined group makes up 50%, conservatively.
It might seem that we’re half way to completing our breakdown. But from here it becomes more nuanced. Isn’t it interesting that, as people become more intelligent, informed, politically aware, grounded in their beliefs and generally more complicated, they become an increasingly smaller minority?
It would be a safe bet that these (more informed) people are better equipped to deal with a smaller peer group as well. Might these, smaller groups also be inherently more conservative, have fewer children, be more competitive and more focused on the future as well?
The remaining 50% of Americans might best be distinguished as actually giving a rat’s ass. Although the degree to which they do varies considerably. For instance, a wandering Ron Paul supporter gives the most of a rat’s ass, while the feminist sent by central casting who’s going to vote for Hillary solely on the basis of gender gives only a slender, but highly vocal, slice of a rat’s ass. But what distinction can be used to best divide this group?
Would it be more accurate to divide the group simply along left/right paradigm lines? Or, would some other factor or characteristic outweigh this entrenched partisanship? This is not to say that Liberalism and Conservatism as generally defined don’t exist, as they certainly do. However, we will need to re-define them in very new and different ways and may even have identified a revolutionary biological or even evolutionary explanation for these fluent ideologies and some of the changes that exist within them currently.
I’ve thought for years now that the appearance of vast differences between our two political parties was thinner than a wet slice of single-ply toilet-tissue paper. If one were to review the actual voting records, platform stands and talking-points, one might discover that there is no significant difference at all. Once one gets past rhetoric and scare-tactics, the “establishment” starts to look a lot more like some as yet-undiscovered secret club. Let’s call it, Jerk & Jester.
In doing some in-depth research, I have concluded that there is one factor that overwhelmingly determines a person’s political ideology or general personality. For the sake of this report, let’s call this group the “creative thinking” or “imaginative thinking” people. These two thought processes also involve how a person views the world, whether they do so in a uni-dimensional or multi-dimensional fashion. In short, it seems that “creative thinking” people tend to think multi-dimensionally. For the sake of argument, let’s assume this is better.
CREATIVE CONSPIRACY POLITICS: A FURTHER BREAKDOWN
What really firmed up my theory was what I noticed about authors of both fiction and nonfiction. I’ve never been all that interested in fiction. I’ve long thought the reason for this was, as a creative person I don’t require creative “training wheels”. I see our collective reality and our vast history as being far more exciting and interesting than any fictional construct. By writing this, I mean no offense to the brilliant writers of fiction or even those who maybe aren’t so brilliant at it. To each their own; beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right?
My working theory is that, some writers of fiction are so horribly lacking in creativity that they become authors in an effort to either build something or at least build the persona of a creative individual, even if they really aren’t. It is actually quite depressing when one thinks about it.
However, taking a look at what mass publishers try to pass-off as exceptionally well written fiction, one can’t help but wonder just how shallow the creative-well is with many an author of the next “best-seller.” I digress; rather than go too far into this area, let’s circle back to how best to divide the remaining group of Americans.
Creativity is the ability to form new images and sensations in the mind that are not perceived through the senses. Imagination is the potential of one’s creative ability, but doesn’t actually require that something be created. That is to say, imagination may or may not involve the creation of something new; it often doesn’t. It is sufficiently imaginative to consider or “imagine” a scenario that may even be a cliché. So long as it is uncommon or atypical, your thinking is imaginative. Simply having an open mind generally requires a well-developed imagination. If you happen to be creative as well as having an open mind, consider this a whopping bonus! The down side; just being imaginative doesn’t guarantee that you’re right in your thinking or any conclusions you may draw upon any inferences.
INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:
One of the techniques employed by government sponsored Internet propagandists is to take advantage of this inability to form a viable theory from what little evidence hasn’t been made secret. While debating, for instance who assassinated JFK you’re likely to be challenged to provide a comprehensive, alternative theory. You may feel guilty for even questioning the word of such political and cultural luminaries as Vincent Bugliosi, Geraldo Rivera and conspiracy-debunker, Mick West. So you may feel obliged to support your suspicion with a theory of your own. But you ARE justified in your suspicion, and DO have evidence to support it. The official account is impossible, ridiculous and amounts to painfully obvious cover story. Reject their challenge and make your argument on your terms.
Now consider imagination and creativity as it relates to what some have coined as “conspiracy theory”. This popular term is unnecessarily narrow and doesn’t fit all people with a conspiracist ideology. I’m well versed in conspiracy theory yet I don’t develop many. Maybe a better term to describe myself would be, “conspiracy considerate.” It’s significant to note, when a major event or phenomenon is viewed by many as a possible act of deception, other type of “cover-up” or the given details are contradictory, one can reasonably conclude it may involve conspiracy.
When viewing an event as a potential conspiracy, there’s no automatic ‘Ocean’s Eleven’ like theory resulting from it. It remains largely a mystery, from my experience. Some element of blame lies with most authority’s widespread practice of concealing whatever details they choose, preventing us from forming a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of events.
Today there is a larger than ever number of Americans who would label themselves, “Truthers” or otherwise self-identify as “awake.” Some are admittedly believers in conspiracies perpetrated by the US government. Others strongly suspect that the government is plagued by corruption and malfeasance, but have little to no suspicion of larger conspiracies. Given time, I think many will come to an agreement that greater conspiracies are taking place and the level of corruption is at critical levels. Of those that don’t share these views, many still share anti capitalist, anti-corporate, environmental and anti-war views that are nearly as radical as the conspiracy theorists, and nearly as revolutionary; imaginative.
THE OTHER HALF: THE SMALLER PARTS OF THE PIE
In researching further, I found the next fundamental division within the American body politic is between Statists and anti-Statists. ‘Statist’ just happens to be one of those rare words that Google claims not to know how to spell. The Statists exist on both sides of the left/right paradigm. Their ignorance of the paradigm is possibly a symptom of their support of the State and all its claims. Although they’re largely just acting out roles, the current presidential candidates or their characters are all Statists.
A fair assessment is that the Statist Left makes up the second largest segment of the American body politic. Not coincidentally, it also appears to be the largest segment of politically active people. Yet, their motivations are entirely antithetical to the goals most Americans share. It isn’t clear that their motivations aren’t actually demonic or at least wholly destructive. This group comprises those who are both blind to the obvious failings and criminality of the State as well as those that are entirely aware of it. The important distinction is that they all support the State at all costs.
There’s a little known but highly popular new idea shaking up political science. As stated prior, there is an explanation of what might account for the universal polarity in politics; the left and the right. There may be a reasonable explanation for what gives rise to a Liberal versus a Conservative and better ways to define them both. The new idea is rooted in r/K Selection Theory.
To broach this topic requires a quick overview. Don’t worry. This is all very interesting and very easy to grasp quickly. Here are two short quotes from The Anonymous Conservative…
“…if you provide a population with free resources, those who will come to dominate the population will exhibit five basic traits, called an r-selected Reproductive Strategy…competition and risk avoidance, promiscuity, low-investment single parenting, earlier age of sexualization of young, and no loyalty to in-group.”
“…the K-selected Reproductive Strategy…where resources are scarce, competition for resources is everywhere, and some individuals will die due to failure in competition, and the resultant resource denial that this produces. This produces the K-strategy, which is best seen in the wolf. This strategy also has five psychological traits – competitiveness/aggressiveness/protectiveness, mate monopolization/monogamy, high-investment two-parent child-rearing, later age of sexualization of young and high loyalty to in-group. This psychology is designed to form highly fit and competitive groups that succeed in group competition, all while capturing and monopolizing the fittest mate possible, as a means of making their offspring genetically fitter than those of competitors.”
The r/K Selection Theory had previously been a subject of research limited to Evolutionary Ecology. I’m very curious just how long it took before someone began to apply the theory to politics. It does seem to be a comprehensive and deeply rooted explanation for Liberals vs. Conservatives. One could easily apply this theory to events such as the mass-shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. The Sandy Hook event appears to have very strong r-selection ties as to who may have motivated it, the goals of the perpetrators and the politics of the characters visibly carrying it out.
The key thing to remember about the Statist Left, in my opinion, is that it is likely the group most responsible for the problems affecting the world today and probably throughout recorded history. Learning about what may be deeper, biological and evolutionary causes for the group’s r-selection tendencies can only reinforce one’s belief that this is a factual observation.
The Statist Right does not exclude those with r-selection tendencies, but is made up largely of people with K-selection tendencies. But, recall that both Left and Right Statists are supporters of the State. However, the Statist Right is far less likely to support the collectivist mindset of the Left and largely rejects Socialist-oriented policies.
In this group I would suggest are folks like neo-con middle-managers. The lords of Neoconservatism are almost surely Left-leaning Statists, but their subordinates are typically people who simply enjoy the authority that the State affords them. Were they to have no experience or prospects of working within the State, they might think otherwise. However, this group is still dangerous, as any group that favors unjust and unwarranted violence or respect for anonymous authority can be. One only needs to think of Erik Prince or Jack Welsh.
Those in the Statist Right are prone to achieve upper management roles using methodologies that sociopaths generally employ. What is perceived by non-sociopaths as gutsy decisiveness or coolness under pressure is quite often just a lack of concern for others and irrational arrogance. Thankfully, this group is relatively small and isn’t nearly as conniving or deceptive as the Left variety.
At this point you can probably tell this is not a personal analysis of the US government or the machinations of the ‘system.’ What IS being analyzed and dissected is the citizenry itself. There is good reason to suspect that there’s probably little, to no chance, that the government will do anything to improve our situation. To the contrary, it’s almost more reasonable to predict it will continue to worsen and may even self-destruct.
A largely understated, but important sub-group, and one I have much respect for, is the Anti- Statist Left. This group is driven by many of the same motivations of the Statist Left, but elects to achieve goals fairly and without trampling upon the rights of others. One can only imagine the amount of moral fortitude to choose not to cheat when the most effective cheating tools are within your grasp, conveniently provided by the State. Not to mention that your peers are mostly already engaged in cheating and would very likely welcome with open arms any Anti- Statist Left to join in the Statist Left gravy-train.
Why this group is relatively large in numbers, despite the inherent contradiction is possibly because anti-authoritarianism (opposition to the state) is currently more popular than ever. Considering all of this, it can be assumed that some people in this group have, and likely will, defect and join the Statist Right. In my opinion, that is a very plausible evolutionary path. However, it’s a move in the right (no pun intended) direction. I’m certain many Liberals likely would disagree, yet I don’t expect that any would actually present any convincing arguments to the contrary. Yes, in a nutshell I’m saying that I’m right and they are wrong on this particular topic.
If I were to make a prediction as to which group might ultimately make or break achievement of the shared goals of the American people, it’s this one. Numbering roughly 10% is a little misleading because this group technically includes the 3% of Creative Pioneers. SPOLIER ALERT: Creative Pioneers are Anti-Statist Right in political ideology for the most part.
Just because someone is right-leaning or conservative doesn’t require that they support a suppressive government. They are, from my experience and within the capitalist corporate structure supporters of freedom. Some on the left might argue that ‘freedom’ has veered off into negative consequences like corporate theft of public resources or environmental destruction, for example. I won’t fully disagree that this is one potentially accurate interpretation, with exceptions.
The larger question though is, should it be the role of government to legislate what the recommended daily allowance of freedom should be? Many people agree the freedoms of excess might necessitate some oversight to prevent any harm it might cause. When, how and by whom is the question, to which some suggest by default it be the government. When someone in the Anti-Statist Right supports a form of regulation or accountability, their suggestions are far less likely to include government.
Finally, we arrive at the lightest group; the Creative Pioneers. Examining this group shows clearly why it stands apart from the others, and it is from within this group that I expect to see real action to achieve our shared goals through creativity based on careful strategy. Not surprisingly, I consider myself part of this group.
Maybe now is a good time to identify what I think our shared goals are. I personally find this an odd thing to have to do. After all, our society has existed long enough to have settled on an agreeable set of goals to achieve our wants and conditions in which to live. Hasn’t it? For some of us at least, it’s not a matter of knowing what we want but remembering it often enough for it to shape our lives.
Imagine inviting a group of co-workers or neighbors over to ask each a simple/general question;
“What do you want?”
My guess is that most will be stumped initially; however, soon the answers they give will be very revealing. Money will probably be one of the first answers to emerge. Possibly a Villa in the south of France might be given as a response; Consumerist sur-Mer. Given enough time, the responses will emerge with a deeper tone after more thoughtful reflection; world peace, living forever or perfect health are often common answers.
Each time I consider that same question and the requirement that it be universally applicable, my response undoubtedly ends up being “love and happiness”. Whether those are the most agreeable American “wants” isn’t the point. The point being made is to avoid the pitfall of making compromises before even needing to. Collectively as Americans we should begin to set goals with our most wondrous and child-like mind. Then, we can back away from there and settle on more realistic and sensible goals. Clearly love and happiness aren’t specific enough to be a road map for America’s future. But they are a great place to start.
Another approach in identifying our collective goals is simply to identify the biggest problems we all face. For example, it may be as simple as deciding to elect to fix our problems. The dilemma we all face, is the unknown, or the inability to determine what exactly they are (our biggest collective problems).
The elephant in the room is the one we could call the “problem of all problems”. Let me share a secret with you, and it will become a bit clearer. The “Problem of All Problems” is that key information is routinely being kept from us, thus making it impossible for us to know what the other real problems are. Is that too Rumsfeldian? Does that make sense to you, or do you still doubt government secrecy is that wide-spread?
DO YOU WANT TO KNOW A SECRET ABOUT SECRETS?
I once read an estimate that for every single public document published, five others are published and made secret. Try to imagine the enormity of documents published in just the past 10 years alone. Apparently, that vast mountain is but a mere hill as compared to the huge universe of secrets that exists, always just over the horizon and out of reach.
Along similar lines there’s the problem of the press failing miserably to inform the public. What is reported can easily be deemed propaganda, and totally useless as information from which to operate on, or form your world view around. What isn’t deliberate deception invented by the media for whatever reason, is likely a more harmful form propagated by government through the media.
This problem isn’t exclusively found in news media, but exists in all other forms of media. What was once assumed to be inflated claims in advertising is now understood to be multi-pronged deception campaigns. Sometimes they involve seemingly disparate business interests. However, buried deeply beneath layers of information protected by secrecy, lies the truth. For with each nugget of information the media publishes or broadcasts, there is an element of truth, with a more clandestine element of either deliberate deception or complete manipulation of the facts to craft a different viewpoint by the consumer (you).
There are long-established campaigns of deception dating back decades, so long that it becomes difficult to even comprehend how much harm it may be causing. American outrage exponentially declines over decades. One example is the vaccine industry. It began with the polio vaccine and continues to this very day with Obama’s planned 2 billion dollar Zika vaccine program. At no point has the true danger and ultimate purpose of these vaccines been admitted. What little has been leaked or uncovered is chilling. The responsible government agencies have been acutely aware of the dangers all along, and yet they’ve done nothing to inform Americans. After all, the true dangers in our world are for government to know and you to find out.
So, it would seem that one easily identifiable goal that would surely benefit every American in many ways is to take back the news media. The Free Press, as guaranteed by our Constitution, is a critical component of any free society. The continued operation of the present news media monopoly constitutes a clear conflict of interest. This effectively creates a news media void that American citizens must collaborate on to fill. Remember, this is an inherent, God given Right as protected by the First Amendment.
The US government and all 60,000+ sub agencies demonstrate with increasing clarity that they don’t view their role as servants of the people. Whatever the cause may be, the millions of people employed by the US government have failed in their duty to conduct the business of government honorably and to be responsive to the will of the people.
Hopefully at this point, we have identified two major goals shared by most Americans; to return the scope and authority of the news media to the People and to revoke the authority granted to irreparably corrupt government agencies. It’s both fair and legally right.
These practical, shared goals, when compared to our own personal goals are complementary. It is reasonable that removing the vast veil of secrecy, allowing Americans to educate themselves about history and present affairs would greatly improve our chances of experiencing love and happiness. Simply leveling the playing field by removing the privilege of concealing government’s criminality would do the same.
WOULD YOU MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT?
Ask yourself this: have you heard or read any of the current Presidential candidates claiming they will work with us toward achieving these goals? Have any at least addressed the problem of excessive secrecy? To my knowledge, that answer is no. Only one Candidate, Donald Trump, has exposed publicly that the mainstream media is corrupt. Even still, why would any of us think there was a chance they would tackle these problems once in office and woven into the State apparatus?
Let’s approach the issue from a different perspective. From the present array of Presidential candidates, are any capable of performing any better than the average American? Could you do a better job? What a strange question to ask. Am I simply being arrogant to ask it? Let’s ask a different question then. Do you personally know anyone that you think would do a better job as President than any of the current candidates? I can think of no less than a dozen.
Were I to run for President, I would not make promises, but I would have a decisive position platform that I would make known. Once in Office I would work without taking a vacation during the 4 year term. It is a very obvious way in which to demonstrate one’s respect for, and acknowledgement of, the gravity of the Office. I wouldn’t accept gifts while in Office, nor accept payment for services based solely on status once out of Office. I would spend more time listening to American citizens than probably the past 10 Presidents combined.
I would rarely speak directly to the press, rather, I would invite Americans to witness Cabinet meetings and other activities of the Administration directly. I would advise the independent press to limit their time spent reporting on press conferences where ideas are merely expressed and more time reporting on actual legislation and the voting process itself. I could go on, but you get the idea.
I know you’re concerned about what your friends and family would think were you to become a Revolutionary. That might be because you aren’t exactly sure what a Revolutionary is. Do you think they are typically concerned about the approval of friends and family? If you are, are you underestimating the political savvy and common sense of your friends and family? Every brilliant thinker is first deemed a lunatic before their revolutionary ideas are accepted and eventually lauded.
But what of YOUR common sense and political savvy? Are you stumping for Bernie Sanders? Do his economic views or apparent appreciation of subsidized health care and equality appeal to you somehow? Or are you a fan of Donald Trump? Does his corporate experience or the possibility of running the government like a business sound like a fresh idea worth trying? Does Hillary Clinton’s extensive political experience and awareness of International affairs seem to elevate her above the other candidates? Do you ever wonder why Ron Paul withdrew from the race so abruptly last time around?
It’s unfortunate that you’ll never get the chance to ask the candidates a question like, “Do you think NASA may have lied about some programs or accomplishments?” Neither you nor I will be able to ask, “Does the Federal Income Tax apply to people who don’t work for the government?” Certainly we won’t be allowed to make requests like, “Would you allow the public to audit the contract in place for telephone service at the White House?”
Therefore, all we know about the Presidential candidates is from the few sound bytes that are given to us by the Establishment’s PR Directorate. Maybe we’re just beating around the bush in the first place, since you may already suspect the President is always chosen in advance and in secret. It is only now, we are learning of some of the inner-secrets of both the Republican and Democrat parties with their Delegate electoral process without actual citizen votes (GOP) and Super-Delegates to coronate a particular candidate (DNC).
Are we just wasting our time and foolishly ignoring what is as obvious as the nose on our face? I suspect that this group, I’ve labeled “Creative Pioneers” are well aware of the obvious truths and have moved past the trap of wasting time by ignoring them. You may be among this group. But realize that, to be a part of it you must understand that the responsibility of achieving the goals I’ve outlined is in your hands. Attempting to motivate the other 97% to act or even to help is likely a fool’s errand. They may even inadvertently get in the way.
The “Creative Pioneers” aren’t interested in the Presidential race, outside of what minimal insight as political theater it might offer. Those among this group are likely to have been equally disinterested in the 2008 election, and probably suspected Obama was a well-groomed saboteur before he became the Democratic front-runner.
The “Creative Pioneers” face a daunting challenge that I doubt ever existed before in modern history. When a challenge is unique and no template for success exists, how reasonable is it for anyone to claim to know the solution? How firmly should the solution be crafted based on our past experiences? After all, those American experiences have been largely constructed to mislead us. Even our very language has been partly crafted to curb anti-establishment ideas.
I haven’t written this to admonish anyone, nor do I claim to be right about everything I’ve postulated. I’m no expert in any of the fields where it might help in this regard, like political science, government administration or sociology, for example. To what degree can we rely upon the sciences as practiced these days anyway? Ponerology, or the science of evil is so new as to barely be a blip on the radar.
What I’ve written and my breakdown of the political and personality composition of Americans is, I hope interesting and promotes further analysis and discussion. If the best assessment deems it a disjointed and sophomoric, albeit creative attempt to encapsulate the political and social landscape, I will be pleased. After all, I think solutions to the pretty nasty mess we’re in will require creativity and imaginative thinking. I hope that you will join with other Americans, avoid the pitfall of unnecessary compromise, use your imagination and create those solutions.