Killary Clinton, The Donald, or Jill Stein: The US Election

[Approaching Infinity]

Fascism is most often associated with segregation policies. It's a good word to use I think because no better word can remind people what happened because of those policies. Claiming it's a meaningless word is a perversing of the lessons that are carried within it's context.

I get what you're saying, but I still think it would be better just to start using the word pathocracy instead, citing fascism as one specific example. Just look at the definitions offered for fascism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism. There was a lot more to fascism than segregation policies, and if you look at the original fascist nation, Italy, it's debatable whether they adopted any kind of racial policies before Hitler's influence. Italian Jews were disproportionately represented in the original fascist movement there, for example.

Depending on the feature you have in mind when you use the word "fascist", you could just as easily use a different word: communist, apartheid, manifest destiny, expansionist, genocidal, mass murdering, racist, totalitarian, etc. The essential features that made fascism evil existed before fascism as a political ideology/system, and they cross political boundaries.

But still, calling someone or some country fascist is emotionally satisfying, and I do it myself from time to time, simply because 'fascist' has acquired the connotation of "evil Nazi @#$%!" I think one of the reasons it is such a popular word is that people automatically associate fascism/nazism/Hitlerism with features that are essentially pathocratic. That is, they can 'smell' the essence of what fascism ultimately became, but just never had a really suitable word to describe that essence.

[quote author= Approaching Infinity]Groups like Daesh could not do what they do without "true believers". At the same time, the "inspirational source" of the group will be essential psychopaths who simply use the ideology for their own purposes. In the case of Daesh, this would apply to certain leaders within the group and certain Western backers/handlers.

Those ''true believers'' are psychopaths ''living the dream.'' Everything ISIS has to offer comes natural for psychopaths, and with 6.5% psychopaths across the planet that's a huge market to tap in. Normal people go to Disneyland, they go to places where they can murder indiscriminately. They are rather ruled by their own pathology, not religion.[/quote]

That's not really the meaning I had in mind when using the term 'true believer'. Psychopaths don't 'believe' in their ideologies. Sure, they're 'true believers' in manipulation, lying, cheating, stealing, oppressing, controlling, etc. But psychopaths are not fanatics. They can and will change their 'beliefs' on a dime, because they have no emotional investment in those beliefs. The 'beliefs' are purely for public consumption. And the psychopaths only make up a fraction of the total 'pathocratic elite', which includes people who actually believe in the ideology (e.g., schizoids, characteropaths, authoritarians). There's a lot of relatively 'grey' areas between normal (i.e. the Disneyland types) and psychopathy. In the case of Daesh, there really are people who believe in the theology, prophecies, etc. Same as you have with fanatic radical Jews and Christians. And they're dupes of the psychopaths who manipulate those beliefs to their own advantage.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Approaching Infinity]That is, they can 'smell' the essence of what fascism ultimately became, but just never had a really suitable word to describe that essence.[/quote]

The word ''Pathocracy'' describes it perfectly. It also directs to pathology and psychopaths which is the essence of the problem, and we can't fix anything without confronting the root of the cause.

Sadly ''Pathocracy'' isn't such a common word most people are familiar with. But it has to start somewhere, it would be indeed correct to use that word.

Thanks for replying.

 

[Alada]

US election: Anger over Donald Trump gun rights remarks

Republican Donald Trump has sparked anger by appearing to suggest his supporters could stop his rival Hillary Clinton by exercising their gun rights.

He said that Mrs Clinton would put liberal justices on the Supreme Court if she wins the presidency in November, threatening gun ownership rights.

Speaking at a rally in North Carolina, Mr Trump hinted that gun rights advocates could stop her taking power.

That sparked an online backlash, many accusing him of inciting violence.

He replied that he was only urging gun rights supporters to vote in large numbers. ...

Getting back to the main theme of the thread. I think Trump knows exactly what he’s doing with such provocations. It provides the primer and emotional driver for both those who will love the implied sentiment (and you only need one of them to go off at the right time/right place), and those who consider themselves more thoughtful, who will latch on to the 'explanation' and blind themselves to what he’s actually doing. He’s done this again and again and it works!

So what happens now, with all of these values being constantly primed as acceptable, as the new normal? Whether he wins or not, for a lot of people those values will remain, he is making them acceptable, making them seem reasonable even, and stirring the feelings behind them.

There’s a whole lot of conscious manipulation going on here, seems to me.

 

[truth seeker]

Getting back to the main theme of the thread. I think Trump knows exactly what he’s doing with such provocations. It provides the primer and emotional driver for both those who will love the implied sentiment (and you only need one of them to go off at the right time/right place), and those who consider themselves more thoughtful, who will latch on to the 'explanation' and blind themselves to what he’s actually doing. He’s done this again and again and it works!

So what happens now, with all of these values being constantly primed as acceptable, as the new normal? Whether he wins or not, for a lot of people those values will remain, he is making them acceptable, making them seem reasonable even, and stirring the feelings behind them.

There’s a whole lot of conscious manipulation going on here, seems to me.

Agree.

So perhaps while Clinton is responsible for the physical deaths of people, Trump will be responsible for the emotional death of them? If this is the case, then in his own way, Trump may be the covert side of the pathological coin.

 

[axj]

I think he knows exactly what he is doing, but more in the sense of baiting the media to get free advertising. He wants to get a larger turnout of 2nd Amendment supporters voting for him and with provocations such as this and the resulting headlines, almost everyone is reached (for free).

I don't think that he is consciously working on changing the emotional climate of the country, though who knows what 4D influences are working through him.

 

[bjorb]

Jill Stein being interviewed by a rude BBC shill. I think they tried to make it into a hitpiece but obviously failed.

She is just to compelled and takes every loaded question as a chance to inform the public.

Jill Stein Interview with BBC News Global 10th August 2016 (15 min)

http://<iframe width="1280" height=...hM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[NormaRegula]

Thanks for the Jill Stein BBC interview link, bjorn. Looks like Stein knows how to counter MSM shills more than just a bit.

The other day I was contacted by someone who is politically active in the Democratic Party about a local issue. A few years ago we discussed a potential Hillary Clinton run. He said Hillary would never be elected because her likability numbers were so low and she was a war-monger. Now he's fully in the Hillary camp due to fear of Trump. His attitude is like my conservative neighbors who are just the opposite as they fear Hillary. I mentioned Jill Stein and he dang near shouted at me "You're not going to waste a vote on Jill Stein are you?" I said Stein seemed quite reasonable, but I hadn't made up my mind. He got all bent out of shape and said a vote for Stein is wasted and would be like a vote for Trump!

Can't wait for this election to be over so I know what degree of evil I'll be dealing with. Surprises are probably in store, and not of the positive variety I'll warrant. One thing's for sure, this election has got people more divided than ever.

 

[Palinurus]

One thing's for sure, this election has got people more divided than ever.

That's precisely the point IMO and all is going according to plan aiming at civil war or something like it in the near future, to be able to (at last) usher in martial law in up-going gradations. OSIT.

I hope I'm wrong about this... :/

 

[axj]

I think this "wasting a vote" rhetoric is one of the core beliefs that keeps the two party system in place in the US. People pretend that their one vote somehow matters more if it is for one of the leading candidates, probably simply because it feels better to be "on the winning team". Or at least to be a part of a bigger team instead of a smaller one.

 

[A Jay]

I think this "wasting a vote" rhetoric is one of the core beliefs that keeps the two party system in place in the US. People pretend that their one vote somehow matters more if it is for one of the leading candidates, probably simply because it feels better to be "on the winning team". Or at least to be a part of a bigger team instead of a smaller one.

I agree that it's a belief embedded in the political system in the US that a third party vote is a wasted vote, and I think it's at least in part because of what Jill Stein said in the interview: Trump and Hillary get billions of dollars worth of free media exposure and Stein gets zero. Third party candidates are marginalized by the media, and people identify with this idea that that's just how 'politics' work in this country. Never realizing that their perceptions are being manipulated to not see other choices as viable options.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= axj]I think this "wasting a vote" rhetoric is one of the core beliefs that keeps the two party system in place in the US. People pretend that their one vote somehow matters more if it is for one of the leading candidates, probably simply because it feels better to be "on the winning team". Or at least to be a part of a bigger team instead of a smaller one.[/quote]

That's a really interesting observation I think. I have no direct experience with US elections, but from what I have seen people tend to be so fanatical about it. (Those who still vote at least) Choosing the opposite faction is like declaring war on the other. What happens when a family member goes against his own herd and chooses the opposite party? Is this tolerated?

I don't know, but the MSM makes it into a vile competition. (Divide and Conquer etc) And when it get's riled up like that, people can make it all about them, you want to win above else if you hate the competition. The truth about their candidates doesn't matter all that much; losing is just to big of a humiliation.

 

[meta-agnostic]

If this is the de facto Jill Stein thread, I caught her on MSNBC this morning in a medium-length interview segment (was around family who have it on incessantly ):
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/should-third-party-candidates-join-debates-744057411934
Nothing particularly groundbreaking but it did give her some mainstream exposure. She sure does mention "climate" a lot. Not surprising for a lefty environmentalist candidate but if she advocates the usual man-made CO2 model isn't that just going to vector more people down a dead-end path?

There's also this about her running mate Ajamu Baraka saying "Je Suis Charlie has become an arrogant rallying cry for white supremacy":
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/08/steins-vp-pick-called-support-for-charlie-hebdo-victims-white-supremacy/
Not sure how damning that really is but if you're going to criticize it, why not just come out and say it was a false flag? Because that's taboo and will get you ostracized from the MSM completely? Well, maybe.

I'm no stranger to third party politics in the U.S. and if I vote for president at all this year, at this point it would probably be for Stein. But there are still enough lingering questions about her that I'm not sure I want to go around trying to convince everyone who's maybe on the fence to vote for her. It may send a better message than voting for the top two evils but what would a hypothetical "good" president even be able to do if elected? Start to dismantle all pathocratic institutions and immediately get JFK'd? If we could really believe he or she would be willing to do that I'd say sure, give them a shot. Otherwise is it worth legitimizing the completely broken electoral system if nothing is really going to change?

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= meta-agnostic]Nothing particularly groundbreaking but it did give her some mainstream exposure. She sure does mention "climate" a lot. Not surprising for a lefty environmentalist candidate but if she advocates the usual man-made CO2 model isn't that just going to vector more people down a dead-end path?[/quote]

I don't know if she is referring to the C02 model whenever she keeps mentioning climate. It could very well be but her green plan is tied in with her stimulants program meant to push the US out of this depression. Yes, she advocates ''free'' printing money but with zero presents interests to get it started. But return in investments + 30 million jobs could make it work. There is nothing wrong with ''free'' printing money when it is executed responsible. But it surely shouldn't happen to often.

Right now, the US needs a real stimulants program. Hers could work and the alternative is mass fracking across the US.

Wherever she believes in the CO2 model or not. Her policies goes against Entropy so it should have an positive effect on the real cause of climate change ;)


[quote author= meta-agnostic]Not sure how damning that really is but if you're going to criticize it, why not just come out and say it was a false flag? Because that's taboo and will get you ostracized from the MSM completely? Well, maybe.[/quote]

You can't accomplish anything if you don't somewhat play along with public opinion. Her plan to defeat terrorism is to stop funding and arming it. She makes no secret about the CIA’s role in this. That's already a huge step towards more truths if you ask me.


They will never allow Jill Stein to win. But her third party offers a good alternative and voting for her means more publicity. More publicity means a bigger podium for truth and less room for the PTB to maneuver from.

 

[Cosmos]

[...]
You can't accomplish anything if you don't somewhat play along with public opinion. Her plan to defeat terrorism is to stop funding and arming it. She makes no secret about the CIA’s role in this. That's already a huge step towards more truths if you ask me.
[...]

Exactly.

Even if Stein would know about the CO2 scam and false flag actions, it wouldn't be particularly wise for her to use that truth in her campaign, out of strategic reasons. I think there is no way to get anywhere near the top, in states like the US, if you are not pretending to play along with the "established truths" to a certain degree.

Putin wouldn't have gotten to that position either, without playing along the lines of the game to a certain extend. Such actions are similar to what Don Juan describes in The Fire from Within by "playing along with the devil" until you are in the position to strike back.

 

[Palinurus]

I think this "wasting a vote" rhetoric is one of the core beliefs that keeps the two party system in place in the US. People pretend that their one vote somehow matters more if it is for one of the leading candidates, probably simply because it feels better to be "on the winning team". Or at least to be a part of a bigger team instead of a smaller one.

I agree that it's a belief embedded in the political system in the US that a third party vote is a wasted vote, and I think it's at least in part because of what Jill Stein said in the interview: Trump and Hillary get billions of dollars worth of free media exposure and Stein gets zero. Third party candidates are marginalized by the media, and people identify with this idea that that's just how 'politics' work in this country. Never realizing that their perceptions are being manipulated to not see other choices as viable options.

It's not only embedded in the political system of the USA.

In the Netherlands for instance --notorious for its manifold party system-- a vote for a 'splinter party' which (supposedly) cannot win enough votes to govern even in a coalition government, is widely considered a wasted vote especially in mainstream reporting.

The main argument against the two party system and 'wasted' votes can be found in the United Kingdom where the third party LibDems (Liberal Democrats) gained enough electoral traction in 2010 to become part of a coalition government alongside the Conservatives. For sources, see here.

Apart from that, the UK also has a host of other parties -- 17 in total, according to this link.

A campaign to support Jill Stein certainly seems viable in a number of ways, as was already stated by previous posters. I concur.