portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article creative united states

election fraud | indigenous issues

Psychologist Discusses Establishment Election Circus

There's a theory that when it comes to social ideas colliding with economic interests, there are only two kinds of people: These who live their ideas, except when economic interests are attempting to pimp them, and these who have their ideas pimped, except when they come to live independent of economic interests. There's a theory about the theory which says this is exactly the description of the Sanders-Clinton voter fault line. While on the right it mostly is inherited configurations involved in the collision, that is a fitting general description of the happenings in the DEPOTUS. The hitherto nominee is of the second kind, with regard to the voter profile. It attracts voters who have more social ideas than inherited configurations, but it pimps these, in contrast to the minority candidate crowd which shares the common interest not to get pimped by corporations. The typical Clinton voter by carelessness is very very aware that there is an equality gap to be closed, but equally stubborn unaware that a horse race mentality is as insufficient a fix as any conservative treatment.
Psychologist Discusses Establishment Election Circus
Psychologist Discusses Establishment Election Circus
Robert Benedict says there is a striking academic precedent for these kinds of modern day barbarian power play, and it is to be found among the tribes on the Pacific islands that in the 20th century were sacrificed to theatrical atomic testing because they had nowhere else to go. On the coral islands, there were coast tribes and bush tribes. Sometimes there would be food scarcity or whatever and the uncontacted tribes would be at war. Already in times of peace there was regular intermarriage between different tribes specialised for different environments. But in times of war, religious leaders would switch sides with either environment whatever the situation required in order to dethrone a corrupt oligarchy or overthrow a metastasising conspiracy.

There would be situations where even a sailing expert would rather surround himself with bush people than participate in a species extinction, and vice versa. The coast people would have to cease hunt down that fish population when they wanted their human valuable back, and that not by ransom but by individual choice. Or, the curare specialist would be out with the canoe crew until the collective craze had flared down. Strike was not an exception but a vote. As a result, tribal war was more of a system of checks and balances than the colonialist onslaught which had come to hit it. More precisely, it was checks and balances without the unchecked imbalance of the monopoly powers of capitalism.

It is easily understood that the anthropological analogy on the two party system is destined to hit a nerve, since it tells of a natural incarnation of a dichotomy that in the described instance is merely artificial. The anthropological report argues that what made the coral island swing system work on a completely different level than later colonialist fiction writers would dare to draw up is the plain reality of the measure. The swingers would walk to the people of the other tribe, live with them, drink their water, eat and breathe with them, in short, implement very profound but deliberately reversible changes for themselves in order to make crystal clear they would not allow their way to be influenced by monopoly.

The most interesting aspects from the angle of the modern anthropologist are the misunderstandings: When the coast person, who grows up swimming the ocean, is with the inland people, who never go bathing in anything bigger than a coconut, and word of mouth goes around to explain what that means, all kinds of curiosities may appear such as chattering tribesmen turning a hurricane warning for a specific situation into a general taboo to get in touch with water, or vice versa, just because they do not understand the difference. Nevertheless the water man remains a water man even in the driest bush. One researcher noted neither tribe had a word for resignation of swing leaders because they were instead using the word for retreat, with all the spiritual implications thereof. It might just mean that someone bearing responsibility was waiting for an obviously appropriate public change of behaviour and apology to be made.

If you insert Clinton and her characteristic pimp appeal into the coral island tribal scenario, says Benedict, she would be the spoiled trader's daughter nurturing the most totem-conservative men so fearful of the other tribe that they would easily be tricked into not swinging away by magnetic promises of participation expected to be fulfilled from synergy effects alone. Magnetic promises are promises that keep sticking even when they are unlikely to ever be fulfilled. Clinton's political agenda is that of a pimp, spending a lot of money at once and who gets how much without a debate depends on their behaviour. Yet such a role relies upon private property in a context of capitalism, with the pimp being the one to decide over it, and if there is no monopoly economy as in the tribal coral islands before the advent of colonialism then the only such spending that might be found there would be that of an entity that is not meant to be part of the respective situation.

Benedict said he did mention Clinton in the tribal context only for contrast, citing an example of a New York subway train in the days after ground zero where he heard someone behind his back talk gibberish about tribesmen in a cinema film, and when he turned around it was a tattooed alcoholic squeezed into a security guard uniform. As self-organised and responsible public, Robert Benedict argued, we need to understand that where ever these potentially dangerous short-cuts happen to occur out of a hands-up culture of collective fear, more of it may be in store for us, with Clinton feeding from the deliberate abuse of the emotional needs of must-voters drawn in by her sheer noise. She is the kind of person whose lies can be identified from their sheer amount of repetition.

The classroom example for the malevolent effect of the Clinton campaign, Benedict said, were gender relations, despite of or precisely because of it being her flagship issue. If you regard Clinton as a feminist, you paint feminism as a public trough where fenced animals fight their food pyramid scheme with the biggest meat loafs getting on top of the biggest piles as to quickly decide who gets handed down what. It could be observed in any animal population fenced in for a while, he said, and if so at all was to be seen as an equal-opportunity offence towards men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, and other one-dimensional affinity groups alike.

Instead there should be a form of distribution which levels the playing field for well-intending women to get on top of the ill-intending ones etc., but that would very obviously leave someone like Clinton sidelined as totally insignificant. Clinton heavily preys on demonising Trump, yet selling a mouse as an elephant makes little impression from a distance. Trump goes mad once in a while, collecting all those who are it all the time. To make him appear scary one needs to completely forget Palin, the plainclothes teabagger that makes Trump appear mostly harmless. Clinton lives on victims' perceptions being clouded by fears. She is more like Cheney than Trump, although preying in the other direction.

But the scariest thing are the recommendations she draws, at least for those who thought Hildreth Nixon calling the expulsion of Taiwan from the Security Council the most democratic decision the United Nations ever made was scary. One high profile celebrity texted while Trump only represented a nightmarish variety of her national dream, Clinton was behaving like waking up in someone else's nightmare. On Egyptian state television, Gewindeberg once described her diplomatically as an empty Santa Clause costume without the reindeer. He was so polite to mention the depleted uranium in the packages.

Robert Benedict concluded that seen from the outside, the Unitedstates political landscape was in a rare chessboard constellation allowing for a bipartisan victory. Among tribal people around the planet, it was increasingly being seen as a proof of strength to be shown around for recognition to help the Americans get rid of this larger-than-life parasite. In case Clinton was taken out, either directly by a Michell Johnson type bomb carrier, or indirectly by an election booth ache resulting from any attack throwing commercial media coverage off track, it could happen that Trump was swept in so obviously by the immediate feelings resulting out of an incident, that in order to avoid election postponement or repetition he might be forced to retreat a step and offer the Presidency to a Democrat.

Elections have been interfered with recently in Greece, Turkey, and Britain, and when it happens only a quick fix can avoid enduring distortions, cramps and irritations. Bowling for Hillary has already been scripted, with the latest series of racist gun violence having been turned into a black veterans' mutiny in the faces of a shocked public. Johnson being extralegally assassinated signifies that Obama fears an American Justin Bourques more than Palin the Canadian one. And indeed, the one thing to shut up the shrill girl from Arkansas and grab those wacky wingers at their goose-stepping nerve is to bring up HAARP as an election issue. The incumbent might have found itself too weak to close Guantanamo, but here's a change that can be made at once even without strength.

Friday, Jul 29th 2016

2016 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign: One Big Psyop? 29.Jul.2016 17:37

_


When theory conflicts with expereimental results, ditch the theory 30.Jul.2016 05:14

Mike Novack

"These who live their ideas, except when economic interests are attempting to pimp them, and these who have their ideas pimped, except when they come to live independent of economic interests..."

STOP!

Any theory of behavior which conflicts with how humans actually behave is a poor basis for predicting behavior. The Homo economicus theory would predict results that run contrary to what happens when we set up some simple experiments. Humans do NOT always (and in some common situations) rarely behave as "best economic self interest" would predict. For example, consider this simple experiment:

There are two "players" and a given sum of reward. Player A gets to divide the reward into two shares and to assign one to him or her self and the other to go to player B. Player B gets to decide whether to accept this division (each get the portion as proposed by A) or to reject it as unfair (in which case both get nothing).

Economic theory (we act according to our best economic self interest) would predict that B would accept any non-zero amount since that is better off than getting nothing. But that is NOT what happens when you try the experiment (I mean if you try it with lots of pairs of players, the average result)
1) B will tend to reject a very unfair division, to punish an A who is too unfair.
2) A will divide according to an expectation of how much unfairness B will accept.
These are culturally dependent. Players from some cultures will insist/expect more fairness than ones form other cultures. There are even some cultures where an A will bend over backwards to favor B or where B will not accept a division too unfair in B's favor!

In other words, we are social animals with rules of behavior that are not based on simple economic interest. It's much more complex than that.