Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Cognitive Dissonance and the Theater of Politics

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 24, 2015, 9:43 p.m. EST by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Cognitive Dissonance - pioneered by psychologist Leon Festinger, it's the common, and often perpetual, brain-fart that occurs when reality clashes with your beliefs, teachings, preconceived notions, or brainwashing. Or as Richard Pryor once famously put it, "Who you gonna believe <expletive>, me or your lyin' eyes?"

The Body Politic - was: "We the People" (our founding fathers, ca. 1770), but now: "The bewildered herd" (Walter Lippman, ca. 1920).

The Theater of Politics - not to be confused with 'Political Theatre.' One concept suggests politicians, in their public persona, are by and large playing 'roles,' all the while furthering the objectives of private entities, with little if any regard to the wishes of their constituents (other than throwing an occasional bone). In the US for example, politicians play the role of "Democrat," "Republican," or "Independent" and will switch roles to achieve specific political aims.

Psychology has been weaponized. And it takes a particular set of characteristics - a healthy dose of skepticism, an ability to read between the lines, and making connections between seemingly disparate, even contradictory facts that set apart those that can see the bigger picture and sift thru the bullshit, from those that cannot. It's not a higher intelligence per se, although an extra 10 or 20 IQ points would certainly go a long way.

Two more integral pieces of the big picture are 'globalism' and 'collusion.'

Globalism - central because it's my view that it minimizes and seeks to eliminate the nation-state, and by extension the power and relevance of individual, and indeed blocks, of regional politicians, in favor of a unified whole. The individual politician becomes a figurehead, pandering to its constituents.

Collusion - a deal struck between two or more factions. When done publicly, often called "bipartisanship." And as Walter Karp compellingly argued in his book Indispensable Enemies cooperation between the so-called opposing parties (especially at the local and state levels), as well as outright sabotage of fellow party members, is not only commonplace but often seen as necessary for political survival:

(pg. 22): " . . . A party organization has no choice but to be self-serving. Should it lose control over elected officials, the power of those officials can only, in time, work against it. From the point of view of a party organization, every elected official is a potential menace.

"Suppose, for example, that a party's candidate for governor wins the election. Nothing in principle prevents him from ignoring the party entirely, from using his patronage to build up a purely personal following, from attempting to oust local party leaders, from bringing new men into the party ranks, from passing reforms that weaken the party organization, from winning public support so strong that the organization cannot deny him renomination. This was done by Robert La Follette of Wisconsin, Hiram Johnson of California and a half-dozen other insurgent Republican governors who overthrew Republican organizations in the Western states in the years before the First World War. So far from gaining power by the mere fact of winning an election, a party organization may see its power threatened and even destroyed. There are times, therefore, when losing an election becomes an absolute necessity.

"Should the party organization fail for some reason to prevent an insurgent candidate from winning an important primary, its first recourse is to prevent him from winning the election. When Democratic insurgents in Connecticut-former supporters of Eugene McCarthy's insurgent bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1968-succeeded in nominating one of their own, Reverend Joseph P. Duffey, in the 1970 Senate primary, John Bailey, the state boss of the Connecticut Democratic party, had former Senator Thomas Dodd run as an "independent" to split the Democratic vote and ensure the election of a Republican. In Vermont, in that same year, the Democratic bosses could not prevent the Senate nomination of former governor Philip Hoff, who had also supported McCarthy in 1968. Since his election would have strengthened the non-bossed fragment of the losing Vermont Democracy, the party bosses openly campaigned for his Republican Senate rival. This is nothing new. Throughout the years between 1918 and 1922, insurgent party candidates imperiled so many state party organizations in the West that dumping elections became a virtual routine.

"Party organizations cannot afford to take chances. They will even try to defeat a party hack if his victory would prove inconvenient. In 1956, Richard Daley, Democratic boss of Cook County, was still consolidating his hold over the Illinois party, and he feared that any Democratic governor might stand in the way. Unfortunately for Daley, open scandal in the Republican administration made the election of a Democratic governor highly likely. To help ensure defeat, Daley gave the nomination to a machine hack with proven lack of statewide appeal, namely the former Cook County treasurer. By mid-September, however, when it became clear that the Democratic candidate was faring well, the newspapers were mysteriously provided with proof that the former Cook County treasurer had been fiddling with public funds. Having supplied the proof, Daley now indignantly demanded that the guilty man step out of the race. In his place Daley put up an even more obscure figure, who averted danger to the Democratic organization by narrowly losing."

(pg. 26): "The grass-roots political activity of the citizenry and its inseparable adjunct, the entry into public life of non-organization politicians, is a constant threat to party organizations. It spurs political ambitions outside their control. It opens new avenues to public renown. It encourages outsiders to enter party primaries and gives them a chance to win. It opens to officeholders themselves the opportunity to win public support on their own and thus render themselves independent of the organization. It is therefore the perpetual endeavor of party organizations to discourage and even squash grass-roots movements.

"... The moment Republican and Democratic leaders saw Senators and Congressmen scrambling to address peace rallies during the October 1969 Moratorium, the two national party syndicates again closed ranks like a drill team. Spokesmen for the Democratic opposition became spokesmen for President Richard Nixon's Vietnam policies. Hubert Humphrey pointedly paid a visit to the White House to demonstrate his support of the Republican President, and the Democratic Speaker of the House, John McCormack, had a House resolution passed to do the same. Uniting against the peace movement at the exact moment when it began attracting elected officials, the two party organizations then "took the Vietnam war out of politics," as the newspapers put it, for the duration of the 1970 election campaign, although every poll showed it was uppermost in the minds of the voters. The party organizations did not do this because they were afraid of the peace issue; what they feared, as always, was the independent activity of free citizens. Not until the peace movement was dead did organization Democrats come out against the war."

J. Davis, in his review of this book gave another prime example. From his review:

" . . . In the state of Florida in 1998, half of the congressional seats were not even contested (several other "contests" simply have write-in candidates with zero chance of winning). This was despite the fact that both parties knew winning an extra seat or two might well determine who controlled the next Congress. Unfortunately, this fact is overlooked by not only the public, but all of the so-called experts on TV. Right now, the public perception still is that the parties fight like dogs to win elections at all possible costs . . . One quote from former Democratic speaker Sam Rayburn demonstrates this principle; when faced with a coming landslide for his party and a gain of many seats for his party, he ruefully says :"I'd just as soon not have that many Democrats, they'll be difficult to control." (emphasis mine)

If one were to expand on Karp's original premise it becomes even more relevant now than it was when it was originally published in 1973. MNCs and the 0.01%, the TBTFs and the MIC - these are today's "party bosses."

Those remaining members of the body politic still hooked on DOPE (Denial of Political Existentialism) can often see and understand the individual pieces, but not the big picture. Trees and forests. Once they understand their problem is more internal than external and rid their minds and bodies of the poison that now controls them, well then maybe, . . . just maybe . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR9JMwzxybE

Disclaimer - the preceding worldview is solely the opinion of the author and should not be construed as being an official forum position, nor that of its individual owners, creators, operators, forum members, viewers, passersby, DNC or RNC operatives, hacks, shills, trolls, agents provocateur ad nauseum and may contain a slight bit of sarcasm. In these waning days of the forum, don't judge too harshly, heheh.

"To understand something is to be liberated from it" (from the close of the must-watch documentary "Four Horsemen")

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." President Franklin D. Roosevelt

"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic." Dresden James

~BumpyTheSock~

33 Comments

33 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by turbocharger (1756) 2 years ago

Incredible post. You should have been a writer for Carlin!

"Party organizations cannot afford to take chances. They will even try to defeat a party hack if his victory would prove inconvenient."

That is by far my favorite line from this, because it is just so true. Ive worked in a big one, and a couple of small ones, and its just so true. Its a tepid, terrified environment where not shaking the tree too much is the overarching policy.

Because we wouldnt want to offend anyone, that would be just horrible :)

"If you try to be everything to everyone, you will be nothing to them all"... Crazy Dude from the ROC.

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Bumpy has been rendered speechless by your compliment. Can't get much better than a reference to the late great Carlin, a guy who definitely "got it." So much so, that he was censured for years for speaking truth to, and of, power (Same thing happened to Buddy Hackett, he didn't know when to "keep his mouth shut."). Only because there was boatloads of money to be made did the "powers" finally relent and began hiring Carlin again for high-paying gigs. Once again, money rules all decisions.

My favorite part of the post was the validation by Democratic speaker Sam Rayburn back in 1998, in Florida. And perhaps it's a bit of confirmation bias, but after reading 'jamespeterevenhoe's' recent post about Bloomberg getting knighted by the Queen, I had to look the guy up on Wikipedia and read this:

"A Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his party registration in 2001 to run for mayor as a Republican. He defeated opponent Mark Green (a Democrat) in a close election held just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Bloomberg won a second term in 2005 and left the Republican Party two years later . . . and was elected to his third term in 2009 as an independent candidate on the Republican ballot line."

Switching from Democrat to Republican to run against a fellow Democrat sounded strangely similar to Karp's examples:

" . . . When Democratic insurgents in Connecticut-former supporters of Eugene McCarthy's insurgent bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1968-succeeded in nominating one of their own, Reverend Joseph P. Duffey, in the 1970 Senate primary, John Bailey, the state boss of the Connecticut Democratic party, had former Senator Thomas Dodd run as an "independent" to split the Democratic vote and ensure the election of a Republican. In Vermont, in that same year, the Democratic bosses could not prevent the Senate nomination of former governor Philip Hoff, who had also supported McCarthy in 1968. Since his election would have strengthened the non-bossed fragment of the losing Vermont Democracy, the party bosses openly campaigned for his Republican Senate rival."

What a racket.

[-] 1 points by ImNotMe (1488) 1 year ago

''The Century of the Self'' [All 4 Parts]:

How politicians and business learned to create and manipulate mass-consumer society.

Adam Curtis' ''The Century of the Self'' tells the untold and sometimes controversial story of the growth of the mass-consumer society in Britain and the United States. How was the all-consuming self created, by whom, and in whose interests?

''Freud provided useful tools for understanding the secret desires of the masses. Unwittingly, his work served as the precursor to a world full of political spin doctors, marketing moguls, and society's belief that the pursuit of satisfaction and happiness is man's ultimate goal.''

fiat lux ...

[-] 3 points by lugano (1221) 2 years ago

https://www.popularresistance.org/ is what I'd like to add to this interesting post but I'll also add this link

to this piece http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/02/23/the-tax-wall-street-party-americas-answer-to-syriza/

Finally, after your You-Tube link - "Come Together" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axb2sHpGwHQ

[-] 6 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Too subtle for the shills? Perhaps more bold was in order, lol.

I highly recommend the Popular Resistance link, (as well as the "Associated Projects" in the sidebar), and the Tax Wall Street Party I find quite intriguing, although some of the minor details I may have issues with, such as "building an initial 5 million housing units" considering the glut of empty units now lying dormant. And I've always been concerned with using sea water as "fuel" but these are essentially non-issues at this point and can all be hashed out later. Their "mass-traction" demands I'm completely behind, and nationalizing the Federal Reserve? Absolutely! And putting millions of unemployed back to work (and therefore SPENDING money) is such a no-brainer it boggles that it isn't on the front-burner already. That alone would cause massive stimulus to the economy. Here's the link to Webster Tarpley's broadcast which was the genesis of the TWSP's outline:

http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/02/07/webster-tarpley-lessons-for-american-opposition-to-wall-st-rule-from-syrizas-victory-in-greece/

Also, I'd like to add The Kick Them All Out Project here for a little more meat. And for enlightenment:

And finally:

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same." Buckminster Fuller.

Ain't nuttin' subtle about that. ;-)

Peace and solidarity, my friend.

gno

[-] 5 points by lugano (1221) 2 years ago

(Corporations have too much power) {:} (Government has too much power)

{:} = ''Large Corporations lobby for the Government to have more power and in return the Government enacts laws and regulations favourable to large Corporations'' [From the Ven Diagram: "Collusion of Big Business and Big Government", above]

Thanks very much for a thoroughly thought provoking post and reply. I mostly agree with it, but my one addition would be to opine that what all of this shows (imo) the Democracy Deficit that we all live under but to varying degrees... on a range from Iceland to North Korea. Western 'Democracies' - are closer to North Korea than they'd like to think until and unless they can free themselves from the clutches of The Banksters. Democracy is the only answer but needs our attention, engagement and active participation.

Democracy of course, has nothing to do with the 'choice of only two alternatives' - and when that is the case, then co-option of both alleged alternatives, guarantees that any possibility of 'democracy' is then subverted by illusions. The Corporate MSM is absolutely integral to this deception.

This can all then lead to 'Cognitive Dissonance', where a big difference between what we think we know and believe and what we can perceive, infer and detect in reality, occurs. This is actually really both an unintended AND an intended consequence - as 'cognitive control' is then possible.

So Mass Perception Management is the goal and its secretive gurus were people like Edward Bernays, Walter Lippman and very importantly to later events, Leo Strauss. Indeed entire 'academic PR research institutes' are dedicated to applying these very techniques to our 'democratic' western societies.~sigh~

It is enough to lead a person to drugs - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpH-HwtPD-I - but that itself could be a desired and manipulated result and better not to overdo it, so just say 'ok sometimes' ;)And despite all THEIR efforts - voting still scares THEM! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw so 'bottom up movements' are still possible as OWS, Greece's 'Syriza' and Spain's Podemos do show.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same."Buckminster Fuller. Excellent ~*~

[-] 6 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

I wonder which came first, co-option of the parties or cooperation, and if's Karp's premise is correct (he does give literally scores of examples) then our belief in what really drives American politics needs a complete rethink. If maintaining control of party power is the driving force in elections rather than simply 'winning' then at what point did the parties begin to collude?

Given my limited understanding of 'real' world history (rather than the propaganda taught in public "education") I'd guess it began in earnest during the latter part of WWII, when it became apparent that, post-war, the United States would be in a unique position to quite literally take over the world. It's the first time in all of history this was even remotely possible and I'm sure that fact wasn't lost on the big thinkers of the day. Only the USSR stood in the way and the concept of 'Shock Doctrine' suggests that quite possibly the Cold War wasn't exactly as it's been portrayed. Castro kicks the Mafia out of Cuba, we 'intimidate' the USSR to remove their missles from the island yet there was no counter demand from either Castro nor Khruschev for our military to GTFO of Guantanamo Bay? Really? (Note from the US Federal government: "Gno's right, we like our branch of the Mafia to remain on the mainland, else how we gonna get our skim, capeche?")

At what point did money begin to influence politics? (It always has.)

Seeing as the suppression of knowledge and information has always been paramount in the control of the masses, has public education ever really been anything more than an indoctrination machine? There's a purity to the Three R's and science so it's hard to propagandize them, but the general population only need be smart enough to work the factories and run the machines, but not smart enough to realize they're being played.

Perhaps there never was a 'dumbing down,' per se. Until recently, historically speaking, books were hard to come by, literacy was rare. Only once books were affordable to the masses did knowledge begin to spread quickly, and I'm sure it didn't take too long before the elites began to realize booksellers were, in fact, a 'bad thing.' I hesitate to use the word "dumb" in generalizing, but the bulk of human population has always been, well, let's say naive. Understanding this, snake-oil salesmen and sociopaths have enriched themselves.

As you know, propagandizing the American public really took off during the early 20th century with the likes of Bernays, Lippman, Laswell, et al when it became apparent to big business that infinite growth was impossible with a population that only bought what they needed, patched, fixed and repaired what they had and handed down what they no longer needed (for free) to friends, relatives and neighbors. Buyers were rebranded 'consumers, ' and 'want' had to become as important as 'need,' if not more so. Factor 'planned obsolescence' into the equation here (I have an interesting story about the automotive industry concerning this).

TPTB have always known that a sense of unity and community were antithetical to population control, so there began a concerted effort, post WWII to destroy this, first the community, then the family. Some say the Rockefellers engineered Women's Liberation for that very purpose, and the government was instrumental in the spread of illicit drugs. It is a documented fact the CIA introduced crack cocaine to inner city minorities. The John Birch Society demonized the peace movement by equating "hippies" with devil worship (My daughter went to a Catholic grade school <her mom's idea> and was told the peace sign was an upside-down broken cross!). At some point it became apparent to me that my generation, which 'came of age' in the mid-70's, differed from the previous generation mainly in the sense that we inherited their sex, drugs and rock & roll lifestyle without the 'burden' of all those boring "social issues." We really didn't give a shit about politics and environmentalism. Adolescent defiance of their parents became 'cool' (think Bart Simpson and the Connor kids of 'Roseanne') and played right into a child's natural tendencies.

To some it might seem like I'm all over the map here, but all of these are pieces of the big puzzle, all are connected. All of them, and more, bring us to the dire situation we all now find ourselves in. And rather than ramble on with yet more pieces of the big puzzle, I'll end it here (for now) and thank you for your intelligent and timely reply (and dead-on in all repects) and post a few more links whose relevance here needs no explanation to the 'enlightened:' ;-)

And finally:

Keep fighting the good fight, my friend, and as an aside I'd like to say that, IMHO, the spread of knowledge trumps the agon, especially on a website where the true motives of the moderators are unknown.

Edit: if you click on the "sex, drugs and rock & roll link" and scroll down to the Home page link, then scroll down to the "Inside the LC" links, the story gives some eye-opening facts about the connection between the military, the elites and the "hippie movement."

[-] 4 points by lugano (1221) 2 years ago

A short response will have to suffice for now to your long but very interesting treatise but I do strongly recommend reading, exploring and listening to these links... http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674368279 and https://www.popularresistance.org/issues/ and ''spread knowledge'', without the agony!+See https://www.dropbox.com/s/jb3tvdcvysq7afp/Occupy%20Finance_secondprinting.pdf

[-] 5 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Treatise, heheh. Sorry for the long-winded reply, I got on a bit of a roll, lol. I think you know though, that responses like this are as much, if not more so, for the benefit of the forum at large since I know you're already wise to most of what I post.

Coincidentally, I just checked out the popularresistance.org link recently when I spent a few hours perusing their site and the Occupy Finance pdf, sadly will have to wait for another day (but downloaded to my burgeoning pdf collection, to be taken in small doses, time permitting).

Now, regarding the HUP link. I originally came across the info about Target a few years back on a 'conspiracy theory' website, which discussed this and included the NYT article from 2012, plus quite a bit more, but I couldn't find the actual page on there last night (they have no 'archives' link). What may be missing from Pasquale's book, possibly, is what I think is an aspect equally disturbing, if not more, and that is what the military and their cohorts in academia are doing with these profiles and it's something I touched upon a while back. Using these profiles to create virtual copies of us all to use in simulations (the military loves running their simulations, don't they?), meaning they'll know exactly what we'll do in any scenario. They'll know us better than we know ourselves. And considering this article is from 2008, it doesn't take too much imagination to guess how far they've taken it in the ensuing seven years:

And in a related note:

Huxley writes at length about the potential dangers of technology (and overpopulation), plus quite a bit about the use of propaganda to influence the masses in his 1958 book 'Brave New World Revisited' (short enough to read in an afternoon for those interested) and it'd be hard to pick something to quote, but this fits the bill pretty good I think, at least in relation to the OP, although a quote about propaganda would be equally appropriate, I think (from Ch. 6):


"Self-government is in inverse ratio to numbers. The larger the constituency, the less the value of any particular vote. When he is merely one of millions, the individual elector feels himself to be impotent, a negligible quantity. The candidates he has voted into office are far away, at the top of the pyramid of power. Theoretically they are the servants of the people; but in fact it is the servants who give orders and the people, far off at the base of the great pyramid, who must obey. Increasing population and advancing technology have resulted in an increase in the number and complexity of organizations, an increase in the amount of power concentrated in the hands of officials and a corresponding decrease in the amount of control exercised by electors, coupled with a decrease in the public's regard for democratic procedures. Already weakened by the vast impersonal forces at work in the modern world, democratic institutions are now being undermined from within by the politicians and their propagandists.

"Human beings act in a great variety of irrational ways, but all of them seem to be capable, if given a fair chance, of making a reasonable choice in the light of available evidence. Democratic institutions can be made to work only if all concerned do their best to impart knowledge and to encourage rationality. But today, in the world's most powerful democracy, the politicians and their propagandists prefer to make nonsense of democratic procedures by appealing almost exclusively to the ignorance and irrationality of the electors. "Both parties," we were told in 1956 by the editor of a leading business journal, "will merchandize their candidates and issues by the same methods that business has developed to sell goods. These include scientific selection of appeals and planned repetition. . . . Radio spot announcements and ads will repeat phrases with a planned intensity. Billboards will push slogans of proven power. . . . Candidates need, in addition to rich voices and good diction, to be able to look 'sincerely' at the TV camera."

"The political merchandisers appeal only to the weaknesses of voters, never to their potential strength. They make no attempt to educate the masses into becoming fit for self-government; they are content merely to manipulate and exploit them. For this purpose all the resources of psychology and the social sciences are mobilized and set to work. Carefully selected samples of the electorate are given "interviews in depth." These interviews in depth reveal the unconscious fears and wishes most prevalent in a given society at the time of an election. Phrases and images aimed at allaying or, if necessary, enhancing these fears, at satisfying these wishes, at least symbolically, are then chosen by the experts, tried out on readers and audiences, changed or improved in the light of the information thus obtained. After which the political campaign is ready for the mass communicators. All that is now needed is money and a candidate who can be coached to look "sincere." Under the new dispensation, political principles and plans for specific action have come to lose most of their importance. The personality of the candidate and the way he is projected by the advertising experts are the things that really matter.

"In one way or another, as vigorous he-man or kindly father, the candidate must be glamorous. He must also be an entertainer who never bores his audience. Inured to television and radio, that audience is accustomed to being distracted and does not like to be asked to concentrate or make a prolonged intellectual effort. All speeches by the entertainer-candidate must therefore be short and snappy. The great issues of the day must be dealt with in five minutes at the most -- and preferably (since the audience will be eager to pass on to something a little livelier than inflation or the H-bomb) in sixty seconds flat. The nature of oratory is such that there has always been a tendency among politicians and clergymen to over-simplify complex issues. From a pulpit or a platform even the most conscientious of speakers finds it very difficult to tell the whole truth. The methods now being used to merchandise the political candidate as though he were a deodorant positively guarantee the electorate against ever hearing the truth about anything."

What I did find on that 'CT' site last night was the article I read back in 2011 that first introduced me to the likes of Laswell, Lippman and Bernays. A good read for the uninitiated:

Keep spreading the knowledge, my friend. "Each one, teach one."

[-] 5 points by lugano (1221) 2 years ago

Arguably, 'Money' itself is the critical 'cognitive dissonance'! We know that it is An Abstract Creation of human imagination YET now it seems to have 'abstracted' itself into a kind of hyper-reality! It is like The Matrix (un)really! Also in this still shorter reply than your extensive comment deserved, please do try to see.. http://ecclesia.org/forum/uploads/bondservant/jfkP.pdf and http://www.publicbankinginstitute.org/

[-] 4 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

"Cognitive dissonance; when reality clashes with belief."

Yep, I can see how that fits when most people think about 'money.' It took me a bit to grasp the concept of fractional reserve currency, etc. (Thanks to YouTube for all they do, lol) and I heartily agree that economics should be taught no later than early high school. The fact that it isn't, I believe, is a deliberate act.

In regards to EO11110, I've heard both schools of thought on the subject, but haven't bothered to read the actual EOs regarding this, only because it's not in my interest at this time. Besides, legalese is deliberately designed to be vague to the uninitiated, and can often be interpreted two different ways.

And as with anything of a 'conspiritorial' nature (like the comment about the Rockefellers creating Women's Lib), it isn't necessarily the details that really matter, as much as the end result. With Women's Lib, for example, whether or not the Rockefellers had anything to do with it, in retrospect it does seem to have been instrumental in fracturing the family unit. And Kennedy was definitely 'whacked' by 'institutions' here in the US, because for a number of reasons, he did seem to be on the road to upsetting a number of very powerful factions.

Your second link about EO11110 went into much more detail than the 3-page pdf you linked to here, and shows why I always make a point of reading at least some of the comments. When I read the pdf, it did strike me that the author(s) seemed to be a bit selective as to the EO's they researched. This comment by Michael Schweitzer fills in an important blank in the article:

"EO 11110 is NOT still valid. Reagan revoked it in 1987 by EO 12608. And Congress repealed the legislative authority behind EO 11110 in 1982 by passing Pub.L. 97-258, so it can never be revived."

It makes perfect sense that the banksters would make moves to prevent any future executive orders from threatening their beloved Federal Reserve.

And it's heartening to me that as more become aware of these issues they're coming up with a number of viable alternatives. I thought you might find this interesting, but I do have to agree with "Dr. Smileyface;" I think I'll have to read it two or three times, lol"

[-] 4 points by lugano (1221) 2 years ago

"Let Your Life Be a Friction to Stop the Machine" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2Xh5eN2fXY

I repeat the above because it uplifts + Re. - '‘Money’ is an invisible mathematical trap of perpetual debt'' http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/recursive-lending-analysis-money-invisible-mathematical-trap-perpetual-debt.html - it was a simply excellent short read btw and I will therefore excerpt the following -

''We, as a society, borrow from Peter to pay Paul and vice-versa, caught in an invisible mathematical trap of perpetual debt that has no escape except default. Past principal debt can only be paid with newly created principal, leaving the newer loan dependent on the next loan for available means of payment.

''Therefore, whenever the supply of new bank credit slows down, for any reason, it causes mathematically inevitable defaults. People lose their homes and businesses. Mass default and economic collapse can only be avoided by a constantly increasing flow of new bank credit.

''The good news is that it is possible to unwind this fragile situation constructively and without disruption. However, to do so, it is necessary to think outside of the box. It is necessary to convert bank savings into a different form, credits payable in goods and services only. Fortunately, this form of exchange and wealth storage medium already exists and is estimated to account for at least 20% of business-to-business world trade at the present time.

''Credits for products and services from specific suppliers would be secured savings backed by the full productivity of private enterprise, rather than unsecured bank savings subject to bail-in confiscation by a house-of-cards banking system. This straightforward change in the system would remedy the current system’s inherently unstable math, and would be highly advantageous to savers, businesses, the banking system and for rebuilding our economies. It would also free us from the growth imperative that is driving the planet to ecocide.'' + See http://moneyasdebt.net/

[-] 5 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

I remember watching "Let Your Life Be a Friction to Stop the Machine" a while back, probably when you posted it originally. Well worth watching again, though, although I only got a chance to see enough last night for it to refresh my memory. Will watch in its entirety tomorrow. But I just logged in long enough tonight to comment about the "Money as Debt" link, which I read completely (and, hey, the forum does need input right now, lol).

A fascinating and obviously well thought-out plan, I must say. Especially considering it's something that can be implemented, in Grignon's own words, literally right now. All four concepts are, or have, existed for a long time, nothing new. And it wouldn't take a radical change in anything, including the existing banking structures. Although no system is perfect and completely immune to some sort of manipulation, like possibly in regards to the RICI Index, it still seems like an ingenious concept. I'm thinking it may be worth its own post.

Anyway, until next time, my friend. Peace and solidarity. The second part is a given, no matter what the situation.

The peace part, though? We try hard, comrade. We try hard. But sometimes it seems like a losing battle, doesn't it?

With much love to all concerned (you know who you are).

gno

[-] 4 points by lugano (1221) 2 years ago

"Let Your Life Be a Friction to Stop the Machine" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2Xh5eN2fXY

is a short film, great shot in the arm and recommended viewing for one and all; young and old. I got http://moneyasdebt.net/ from the links embedded in your link above, which also incorporated this...

http://peemconference2013.worldeconomicsassociation.org/?paper=proposed-new-metric-the-perpetual-debt-level - from which...

''A critical metric in economics is missing: the Perpetual Debt Level. This is the amount of bank credit money in circulation that is not available on time nor free of any other debt, to extinguish the debt to a bank that created it. This creates a borrow from Peter to pay Paul and vice versa Perpetual Debt situation in which the amount of the principal involved can never shrink, and the timing of its delivery can never slow down without causing mathematically inevitable defaults. Therefore, to avoid such defaults, it is, in practice, necessary to maintain growth of the money supply at all times.

''I further claim that there is no escape from this destructive arithmetic problem within the concept of money as a quantity of a thing-in-itself, and especially within the current practice of money created as a debt-of-itself. The only remedy is radical, a total transformation of our concept of money.''

My advice to all (especially Greece!) is to really research ODIOUS DEBT; SOVEREIGN MONEY vs Ponzi Scheme, Fiat Debt Money created by Private Bankers and consider Old Testament JUBILEE!

And http://www.positivemoney.org/our-proposals/debt-based-money-vs-sovereign-money-infographic/ ~{~

[-] 2 points by ImNotMe (1488) 1 year ago

Viva OWS and "much love" back at you, yours and all ...

The second link abv is for another doc. on same matter.

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

we are certainly capable of not making anymore weapons

[-] 5 points by lugano (1221) 2 years ago

"Let Your Life Be a Friction to Stop the Machine" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2Xh5eN2fXY Very short reply to your treatise's second chapter ;-) More extensive response later no doubt. Adios.

[-] 3 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

world war two was great news for US steal

[-] 5 points by lugano (1221) 2 years ago

Please do not correct your excellent typo! Or was it a subtle but brilliant joke? Thanks anyway :) and fyi, please listen to this interesting link http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674368279

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

if goods and services and to be distributed to people|

they will need money to exchange

[-] 4 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Yep, and you have to wonder about the true intentions of a government that hasn't made job creation a priority.

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

people don't need jobs. They need money

[-] 4 points by Rollo (60) 2 years ago

"Jobs" is a 4 letter word. I think the word 'Job' has negative connotations. The 99% deserve a word that elicits more respect than "jobs". "Job" is more demeaning, short term and transient than "Career" or "Vocation".

The 1% get to decide what words will be chosen for official use. The only time the 1% use the word "job" in association with themselves is when they attach a glorified word with it. The 1% are "Job Creators". They use words for themselves that project the 1% as being godly. The 99% is led to believe that the 1% are supernal "Creators". WTF???

[-] 2 points by elf3 (3779) 2 years ago

This is an example ? Matts answer alluded to anarchy...without actually accusing ( he accused) it as well as convincing readers that lugano somehow advocated this when he said no such thing. Psychology is a weapon as i heard stated on the Forum recently...especially mass psychology.

As I read...lugano was speaking about abolishing corruption and dismantling the corp propaganda machine...not dismantling the ability to buy things or money.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

money can be electronically tracked and signed by individual identity

[-] 3 points by elf3 (3779) 2 years ago

Apparently...but they would rather track dissidents and identity can no longer be verified how do I know u are you?

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

direct communications

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1756) 2 years ago

Globalism, what a gut check.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2696) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Do you have a point????

[-] 5 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

How long have I been posting on this site, Winston? My posts always have a point, but I'm not at all surprised you don't get it. To paraphrase my first comment in this thread, "Must be too subtle for the shills."

I originally posted this out of frustration and a little bit of anger from coming on here every few days and reading the same crap from the shills claiming all we have to do to solve the world's problems is "elect more Democrats." The veracity of that notwithstanding, what irks me the most is that you guys just don't get the fact that this site, nor OWS, is about that. Numerous forum members (who DO "get it"), and well as Justine herself (!) have said as much.

And to quote the OP, "And it takes . . . a healthy dose of skepticism, the ability to read between the lines, and making connections between seemingly disparate, even contradictory facts that set apart those that can see the bigger picture and sift thru the bullshit, from those that cannot."

There's no doubt in my mind you (and, by and large, your cohorts) lack all the these qualities. Which is why I rarely, if ever, waste my time on you guys.

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (8780) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The author is an interesting person they sound so sensible yet they are so stupid they can't see how evil the GOP is, that is interesting.

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

I can only guess that this comment is a crude attempt by you to come to Smith's defense, but hey, thanks for the bump. ;-)

And since you just had to play the 'stupid' card (which you do with annoying regularity), I had a long drawn-out response ready for you, but decided against it. It's better if you just read my reply to Smith, since it applies equally to you. I mean, why waste my time with someone so clueless they don't even realize that England (where Shadz resides) has a completely different political system, doesn't share political parties with us and therefore it's residents (Shadz) have not a whit to do with electing Repubs, or Dems for that matter. So I'll leave you instead with a hypothetical scenario:

It's 2016 and the election is a dead-heat (what a surprise?) between Hillary running as a Democrat (obviously) and Kshama Sawant, running as a Republican, because, hey, Kshama's smart enough to know only Dems and Reps have a chance of getting elected to high office.

They're both neck-and-neck in the polls. Who are you going to vote for, facts? Be careful how you answer, though. It's a loaded question.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8780) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I will vote in whatever manner that has the greatest chance of keeping the damn GOP from winning, and anybody who doesn't is either a Republican or stupid as shit.