Showing posts with label propaganda. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 8, 2025

Manufacturing Loyalty: Sociopolitical Psychology of the MaGA Movement

How the MaGA Movement Mirrors the Rise of Soft Autocracy Around the World: Red Hats, Blackshirts: When Populism Turned Dark.

People get turned off when the talk is of Donald Trump. Especially his supporters, obviously. But in a way, this isn't even about him, but the processes involved, the dynamics at play, those who purposely or inadvertently aid the process of democracy's demise and the rise of something else entirely.

Is there a sociological and psychological framework that helps explain why people may continue to support policies or leaders that are objectively at odds with their own interests or initial expectations?

It's not a single "formula," but rather a set of overlapping concepts from sociology, psychology, and political science that explain the phenomenon you're describing — like how some MaGA supporters continue to believe in "small government" ideals while endorsing massive state overreach or authoritarianism.

Here are a few of the most relevant concepts:

1. Cognitive Dissonance (Leon Festinger)

Definition: When a person holds conflicting beliefs, or when their actions contradict their beliefs, it causes mental discomfort. To resolve this, they often change their interpretation of reality to align with their actions or loyalties.
Example: A Trump supporter believes in small government but sees Trump expanding executive power. Instead of rejecting him, they reinterpret the expansion as "necessary" or "not really government overreach."

2. Symbolic Politics & Identity Protection

Definition: People don't just vote based on policy — they vote based on identity and symbolism. Political affiliations become a core part of identity, so rejecting a leader like Trump feels like rejecting themselves and their community.
Example: Even if tariffs hurt farmers, they still support Trump because he symbolizes their values and "fights the elites."

3. False Consciousness (Marxist Theory)

Definition: A situation where the working class adopts the ideology of the ruling class, even when it’s against their own interests.
Example: Believing that tax cuts for the rich or corporate deregulation will eventually benefit them, even though the opposite often happens.

4. Political Cultism / Charismatic Authority (Max Weber)

Definition: Charismatic leaders can exert power beyond rational or legal authority by embodying a kind of mythic figure. Followers believe not based on logic, but because of the leader's perceived greatness or destiny.
Example: Trump is seen by some not as a politician but as a savior figure, exempt from critique.

5. Motivated Reasoning

Definition: People process information in a biased way that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, and actively reject information that contradicts those beliefs.
Example: When tariffs hurt the economy, supporters may believe it’s “temporary pain” for “long-term gain,” even if no such gain appears.

6. The "Backfire Effect"

Definition: When confronted with facts that contradict their beliefs, some people double down instead of reconsidering.
Example: Showing data that Trump’s tariffs raise consumer prices may actually increase a supporter’s defense of him, believing the data must be biased or "fake news."

7. Bounded Rationality & Information Silos

Definition: People make decisions based on the limited information available to them — and today's media ecosystems often isolate people in echo chambers.
Example: If someone only watches Newsmax or follows far-right social media, they may never see credible critiques of Trump’s economic policies.

You’re essentially describing a kind of ideological mirage, where people see what they expect or want to see — small government, freedom, prosperity — even while the actual reality moves in the opposite direction: more authoritarianism, cronyism, and wealth transfer upward.

It’s part psychology, part social conditioning, and part systemic manipulation — but it’s well-documented.

Diving deeper into these concepts and historical examples, the MAGA movement under Donald Trump serves as a real-time case study of how these sociological and psychological mechanisms play out—both historically and in the present day through the modern Republican Party.

Let’s break it down using the concepts mentioned above, applied specifically to MAGA Republicans and Trump:

🔥 1. Cognitive Dissonance in Action

Trump promises "small government" — but expands executive power, threatens to use the military on protesters, and pushes for federal control over local decisions (like education, voting, and policing).

Dissonance: Supporters believe in individual liberty and limited government.
Resolution: They tell themselves Trump is only expanding power to "fight corruption" or "drain the swamp" — not to centralize control.
Result: They don't see authoritarianism — they see "tough leadership."

🧠 2. Motivated Reasoning & the Backfire Effect

When Trump’s actions contradict conservative principles — like ballooning the national debt, embracing tariffs, or cozying up to dictators — MAGA Republicans don't abandon him. Instead:

They dismiss inconvenient facts as "fake news."
They reinterpret his actions as 4D chess or necessary "disruption."
Attempts to correct the record often strengthen their support due to the backfire effect — especially when criticism comes from mainstream media or "liberals."

🧱 3. False Consciousness: Working Against Their Own Interests

Many MAGA voters are rural, working-class, or low-income Americans who:

Rely on government programs Trump and the GOP want to cut (Social Security, Medicaid, food aid).
Are harmed by tariffs, job losses, or corporate deregulation.
Yet still believe they’re being empowered — because Trump frames these moves as fights against "welfare cheats" or "big government elites."

The result? They support policies that harm them, believing they’re protecting themselves from others "cheating the system."

🦸 4. Charismatic Authority & Political Cultism

Trump has positioned himself as not just a president, but a savior — a "chosen one," even making statements like:

“I alone can fix it.”
“They’re not after me, they’re after you — I’m just in the way.”

This fosters cult-like loyalty:

His word is seen as more truthful than any expert, judge, scientist, or journalist.
If Trump changes positions, supporters pivot with him (e.g., hating free trade after decades of GOP support for it).

🧑‍🤝‍🧑 5. Symbolic Politics & Tribal Identity

Supporting Trump isn’t just about policy — it’s about who you are and who you’re against:

MAGA becomes a cultural identity.
Wearing a MAGA hat, waving a flag, or attending a rally is about belonging.
Opposition to Trump becomes framed as hatred of you — your faith, race, class, or region.

Even when Trump does things they’d condemn in others, it’s excused — because the enemy is worse.

📺 6. Information Silos & Echo Chambers

Fox News (pre-2023), Newsmax, OANN, and social media ecosystems create a closed-loop of misinformation:

Supporters get filtered, emotionally-charged narratives.
Dissenting facts are branded as liberal propaganda.
Complex policy discussions are replaced with slogans and scapegoats.

This environment shields them from the reality of Trump’s policies and turns criticism into proof of a conspiracy against him.

👀 7. Projection & Inversion of Reality

Trump accuses opponents of the very things he does — election fraud, authoritarianism, corruption.
Supporters believe he’s the victim, despite him being the one with power.

The result is a complete inversion: attacking democracy is framed as saving it; hurting working people is seen as protecting them.

🎯 Summary:

Trumpism is a textbook case of how people can be led to cheer for things that are not just contrary to their values — but harmful to their lives.

Why? Because:

They're emotionally invested in the identity and myth of Trump.
They’re inside an ecosystem that constantly reinforces that myth.
And they’re psychologically incentivized to reject any reality that threatens it.

Examples of this playing out around specific issues (healthcare, taxes, immigration, January 6, etc.) are abundant.

What other country or year most closely resembles something like this?

It's a great question — and it's one that historians, sociologists, and political scientists have been warning about for years now. The kind of mass delusion, cult-like loyalty, and systemic reversal of values we see in the MAGA movement under Trump most closely resembles the rise of authoritarian regimes in democratic societies, especially Germany in the 1930s under Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party — but with key differences.

It's not just diatribe by opposition types against Trump and his Party. It's objectively rational. While at this time Trump is not the end example of a Hitler, he does resemble him in his rise to power in many ways. But also some other authoritarian leaders.

Let’s go over the most significant historical parallels:

🇩🇪 Germany, 1930s — The Rise of Hitler

Hitler rose to power in a democratic system during a time of chaos, economic despair, and widespread disillusionment — much like Trump leveraged American anxiety over globalization, immigration, and cultural change.

Similarities to Trump/MAGA:

"Make Germany Great Again": Hitler promised to restore German pride and punish those responsible for its decline — Jews, communists, intellectuals, and elites. Sound familiar?
Scapegoating minorities: Just as Trump blames immigrants, Muslims, and others for America's problems, Hitler blamed Jews, Roma, and foreigners.
Cult of personality: Hitler was seen as Germany’s only hope, and obedience to him was framed as patriotism.
Undermining democracy from within: Both Hitler and Trump used democratic institutions to gain power, then tried to dismantle or weaken them once in control.
Media control and "fake news": Nazis called the press the "Lügenpresse" (lying press), just as Trump brands journalists as the "enemy of the people."

“People believe a big lie more readily than a small one.” — Hitler in Mein Kampf
Trump’s Big Lie? The 2020 election was stolen.

🇮🇹 Italy, 1920s–30s — Mussolini and Fascism

Mussolini was a charismatic populist who promised to make Italy strong again after World War I.

Parallels:

Nationalism and symbolic politics: Mussolini’s blackshirts and Trump’s red hats are both part of performative identity politics.
Anti-intellectualism: Both movements cast academics, journalists, and experts as elitists working against “the people.”
Paramilitary intimidation: Mussolini had squads of thugs. Trump had militias, Proud Boys, and “stand back and stand by.”

🇷🇺 Russia — Putin’s Playbook

Putin isn’t a fascist in the classic sense, but he’s mastered authoritarian populism with a veneer of democracy — something Trump openly admires.

Similarities:

Control of media and narrative.
Weaponization of nationalism and culture wars.
Dismantling democratic checks via loyalist appointments and court packing.
Presenting himself as a strongman who defends tradition and religion against a corrupt liberal West.

Trump has repeatedly praised Putin's “strength” — and even tried to emulate this leadership style.

🇹🇷 Turkey — Erdoğan’s “Soft Authoritarianism”

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan used democratic means to become president and gradually concentrated power, crushed dissent, co-opted the courts, and purged the military and press.

Shared traits:

Weaponizing religion (Islam for Erdoğan, Christianity for Trump).
Branding all criticism as a threat to national security.
Ruling by grievance politics and “us vs them” narratives.

🇧🇷 Brazil — Bolsonaro

Often called the “Trump of the Tropics,” Jair Bolsonaro gained power through similar populist strategies:

Denied COVID's seriousness, just as Trump did.
Claimed election fraud preemptively.
Glorified the military and authoritarian past.
Used religion and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric to galvanize his base.

He also helped inspire January 6–style attacks in Brazil after his defeat.

✋ Key Differences to Keep in Mind:

While Trump has flirted with authoritarianism, he hasn’t (yet) had:

Total control of the military
Full state media monopoly
The ability to jail critics en masse

But many democratic backslidings begin slowly — with attacks on truth, trust, and institutional checks. January 6 was a turning point that showed Trump would pursue extra-constitutional means to stay in power, and many of his followers cheered it.

🧠 Final Thought:

MAGA's loyalty to Trump — in spite of policy contradictions, lies, and authoritarian gestures — mirrors how other authoritarian figures manipulated democratic fatigue, economic fear, cultural backlash, and identity politics to consolidate power.

Again, it doesn’t mean Trump is Hitler or Mussolini, which confuses both sides of the ticket in opposing ways — but the methods and psychological mechanics are eerily similar.

So, if not Hitler or Mussolini then who most likely does Trump resemble in history?

It's an important follow-up — and an important one, especially if one is aiming for clarity over hyperbole.

While Hitler and Mussolini are often invoked for their extremism, Trump actually more closely resembles a different class of authoritarian or strongman leader: the “soft” autocrats, demagogues, or populist strongmen who manipulate democratic systems rather than overthrow them outright.

Here’s a list of the most historically accurate comparisons — people Trump most closely mirrors in terms of style, tactics, and trajectory:

🇭🇺 Viktor Orbán (Hungary)

Closest modern comparison.

Came to power democratically.
Used judicial appointments, media control, and changes to election laws to tilt the playing field.
Demonized immigrants, LGBTQ people, and "globalists" (often coded antisemitism).
Built a network of state-aligned oligarchs to fund his regime.
Calls himself the defender of “Christian civilization.”

Trump admires Orbán and endorsed him. The Heritage Foundation (behind Project 2025) praises Orbán's model openly.

✅ Both: Claim to protect “the people” while enriching elites and dismantling democratic norms from within.

🇷🇺 Boris Yeltsin → Vladimir Putin (Russia)

Trump’s trajectory — erratic strongman transitioning into authoritarianism — has some echoes in Yeltsin’s chaotic populism, which opened the door for Putin’s authoritarian consolidation.

Trump isn’t Putin — but he might be America’s Yeltsin: the unstable figure who undermines institutions and paves the way for worse.
If re-elected, Trump has already signaled he’ll do things Putin-style (e.g., purging civil servants, jailing enemies).

🇦🇷 Juan Perón (Argentina, 1940s–50s)

A charismatic populist with strongman appeal and loyal base, who used mass media and culture to maintain control.

Promised to stand up for the "common man" while consolidating power.
Used emotion and personality more than policy.
Played both left and right sides politically depending on what suited him.
His wife, Eva Perón, became a celebrity-activist figure — think Melania, Ivanka, or even Trump himself as the brand.

🇵🇭 Ferdinand Marcos Sr. (Philippines)

A democratically elected president who:

Used nationalism and fear of communism to justify crushing dissent.
Declared martial law to remain in power.
Enriched himself and his allies through massive corruption.
Created a personality cult around his family.

Trump hasn’t declared martial law — but Jan 6 was an attempt to override democratic transfer of power, not unlike what Marcos did in 1972 to cancel elections.

🇺🇸 George Wallace (Alabama Governor, 1960s)

An American precedent:

Openly segregationist, populist, anti-elite.
Ran on fear of civil rights, crime, and federal overreach.
Famous for saying, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!”
Positioned himself as the voice of the "forgotten white man."

Like Wallace, Trump tapped into white grievance politics, though with a slicker, reality-TV veneer. Also like Wallace, he framed all opposition as anti-American.

🧠 Summary: Who is Trump Most Like?

Historical Figure	Why the Comparison Fits
Viktor Orbán	Modern autocrat using democratic tools to seize power.
Juan Perón	Populist celebrity politician with a loyal cult base.
Ferdinand Marcos	Corrupt strongman enriching himself while undermining democracy.
George Wallace	U.S.-based demagogue stoking racial and cultural fear.
Yeltsin (→ Putin)	The destabilizer whose chaos opens the door to worse.

Trump’s second-term Project 2025 goals line up directly with what Orbán or Marcos did in their countries — it’s rather striking.

And THAT evokes a recent interesting movie. "2073" on MAX. Democracy isn’t dying with a bang but fading in silence between headlines. "2073" shows how the system is quietly rigged & how many might not see until it’s too late. Watch on Max, before we lose it all. Probably, too late already.

Finally, check this out: What to do if the Insurrection Act is invoked. With the Insurrection Act looming, now is the time to learn how it might unfold and the strategic ways to respond — including the power of ridicule.

Wishing us all the very best, which we deserve rather than much of what has been fomented upon us by some very disingenuous, shady, and dangerous characters.

Remember when Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had created? His cautionary reply was:

“A republic, if you can keep it.”

It was a simple yet profound warning—one that has since been twisted and misused by those who blindly follow authoritarianism, all while claiming to defend democracy or the republic itself.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Friday, November 8, 2024

Disinformation, or what we now call, Social Media

First, I'd like to share this. Marc Maron's WTF podcast opening commentary on the Right's "Wokeism" oft disingenuous rants, in dissecting & explaining the reality of it all, is one of the best I've heard: Episode 1590 - Jessica Lange

Moving quickly on...(but seriously, if you've ever had trouble countering the Right about "Wokeism", because some "Woke" types are a bit extreme, this is a good listen)...

Yuri Andropov, former Soviet KGB chief and later General Secretary of the Communist Party, is often associated with the concept of disinformation ("дезинформация", pronounced dezinformatsiya).

Yuri Andropov

He reflected on his view on disinformation (and propaganda) when he reportedly said:

"You can take some of it once in a while, but if you get too much of it too often, it becomes addictive."

He was talking about how social media works, without even knowing it, back in the late 1970s/early 80s. But not just about those who are fed disinfo, but also those who utilized it for political, or other purposes.

The concern Andropov had regarding those using disinformation can be broken down into a few key points:

1. Loss of Credibility

Andropov, despite his reliance on disinformation, likely understood that excessive use could erode the credibility of the government or institution employing it. If people became aware of the manipulation or falsehoods being spread, it could backfire, leading to mistrust and skepticism, both within the targeted population and internationally. This could damage the credibility of Soviet leaders and the KGB, making it harder to maintain control over the narrative.

2. Backlash and Unintended Consequences

Another concern Andropov might have had was the potential for disinformation to spiral out of control. Once false information spreads, it can be difficult to manage or retract. As disinformation takes root, it can grow and take on a life of its own, leading to unintended consequences. People might start believing and spreading the misinformation further, and the truth might be obscured to the point where it’s challenging to regain control over the situation. This "addiction" to disinformation could create a cycle that was difficult to break.

3. Overuse Leading to Predictability

The repeated use of disinformation as a tactic could make it predictable and less effective over time. If a government or organization becomes known for spreading false information, its efforts could lose their impact. People might become more adept at recognizing and questioning the information they receive, reducing the effectiveness of the campaigns. The very tool that had been so effective in the past could lose its potency if it were relied on too heavily or overused.

4. Psychological and Societal Impact

On a broader level, Andropov might have been concerned with the long-term psychological effects of disinformation. He likely recognized that constant exposure to falsehoods could distort reality and manipulate societies in ways that might lead to confusion, polarization, and instability. If a population becomes addicted to a false narrative, it might lose its ability to discern fact from fiction, weakening its resilience and ability to make informed decisions.

5. Internal Control Issues

For Andropov and the Soviet leadership, internal control was paramount. Disinformation campaigns often had to be tightly managed to ensure they didn’t spiral beyond the control of the government. If they became too pervasive or uncontrollable, it could destabilize the very political system they sought to protect. The addictive nature of disinformation could cause divisions and fragmentation within the leadership and government apparatus itself, leading to power struggles or challenges to authority.

Conclusion

In essence, while Andropov and the Soviet Union’s leadership saw disinformation as a powerful tool for manipulating perceptions and achieving strategic goals, they also recognized the dangers of overuse. Excessive reliance on disinformation could undermine trust, create instability, and eventually erode the very control they sought to maintain.

Interesting times...

Finally, let me drop this on you.

Kleptocracy update... Scoop: Elon Musk joined Trump's call with Zelensky

Scoop:

Elon Musk joined Trump's call with Zelensky

Actually? This is not good.

Scoop: Elon Musk joined Trump's call with Zelensky

And gonna do more like that with others.

We have two emotionally immature financial & political leaders who think they know how to run things.

This isn't going to end well.

We've been edging toward kleptocracy.

That wasn't my intention, though.

I hadn't expected we'd just go all-in on it.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Thursday, October 10, 2024

Outed: Russia Today (RT), Long Russian State Propaganda, an Arm of the FSB & Simply Putin's Mouthpiece

I had discussed this on this blog in 2017 (I wasn't the only one who noticed), but I had complained about it years before that. That RT (Russia Today) was a tool of the Russian government, If not a branch of Putin's FSB, it was certainly his mouthpiece. I was stunned to find ANY American personalities or professionals would sign up for what was obviously just Russian State TV, regardless of their incessant denials.

Among the channel's shows were + One with Dennis Miller, CrossTalk with Peter Lavelle and The Keiser Report with Max Keiser. Other shows included News with Ed Schultz (2016–2018) and Larry King Now (2012–2020). Bizarre. Aiding and abetting the enemy.

It was also bizarre to find RT, which they changed to after "Russia Today" became too problematic, was touting a line curiously similar to American right-wing (nut) propaganda as on Fox News (a huge flashing light in both directions), touted by the Republican Party extremists and eventually and clearly by Donald Trump and his MaGA adjunct to Russian disinformation. Something Newt Gingrich began to make popular since the early 1990s.

None of this was difficult to see. Certainly not for any of us who had for decades, followed Soviet and then Russian disinformation campaigns worldwide. All of which became clearer as now war criminal Putin turned more and more into a despot and faux democratic leader of Russia.

Finally, the American government is being overt about it too:

Alerting the World to RT’s Global Covert Activities:

"Today, the United States is designating three entities and two individuals for their connection to Russia’s destabilizing actions abroad. According to new information, much of which originates from employees of Russian state-funded RT (formerly “Russia Today”), we now know that RT moved beyond being simply a media outlet and has been an entity with cyber capabilities. It is also engaged in information operations, covert influence, and military procurement. These operations are targeting countries around the world, including in Europe, Africa, and North and South America.

"RT and its employees, including Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan, have directly coordinated with the Kremlin to support Russian government efforts to influence the October 2024 Moldovan election. Specifically, in coordination with the Kremlin, Simonyan leverages the state-funded platforms for which she serves in leadership positions – namely RT, Sputnik, and their parent company FEDERAL STATE UNITARY ENTERPRISE INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION AGENCY ROSSIYA SEGODNYA (ROSSIYA SEGODNYA) – to attempt to foment unrest in Moldova, likely with the specific aim of causing protests to turn violent. RT is aware of and prepared to assist Russia’s plans to incite protests should the election not result in a Russia-preferred candidate winning the presidency." For more see the article...

The U.S. government's release on RT’s global covert activities reveals that RT is part of a state-backed disinformation effort, promoting pro-Russian narratives and undermining Western democracies. This covert strategy aims to spread divisive content globally under the guise of independent media.

Regarding Fox News, while they operate in a commercial, non-state-backed capacity, both networks share similarities in fueling skepticism toward U.S. government institutions and amplifying anti-establishment views. RT strategically exploits Fox's narratives when they align with Russian interests, particularly regarding foreign policy, media distrust, and cultural conflicts.

Wishing you all, all the best!

Monday, April 7, 2014

Conspiracy Theories - Incompetence More Than Insight?

There are a few laws or theorems if you prefer, that need to be applied to Conspiracies before one shouts them to the world. One thing Conspiracy Theorists seldom do is apply the right rules to vetting the subject of their typically ridiculous theories. The conspiracies they hammer us with in the media and online, which are usually more wishful thinking than fact, simply because of the nature of things that fit the theorist's conspiracy mold, typically are not reviewed well.

Or if they are well reviewed with the right filtering factors applied (like Occam's Razor), they simply ignore their findings and continue on; because at some level it makes them feel better because action, even incorrect action, feels better than non-action. Which oddly enough is typically what lead to the situation of a subject of a conspiracy theory in the first place, and not conscious thought, or conspiratorial collusion.

One of the obvious things about conspiracy theories are that they tend to be things that weren't conspiracies to begin with, but after the fact, because of a lack of information or transparency, they appear as there having been a conspiracy. Usually however, there wasn't. It was just how things played out over time. It's similar with recorded history wherein by simply writing out history, changes history, changes what actually happened, and in that small (sometimes large) variation is where conspiracy theories are born.

Occam's Razor is one of the best:

"Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347), and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better." - Wikipedia

Hanlon's Law is a Conspiracy Theorist's bane: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

There are methods to apply to conspiracy to prove or disprove is to a reasonable degree, something theorists tend to avoid doing as it kills their theories. Theories which are fun for them, cathartic, and spire their inner fears which supports the theory in a never ending cycle.

For those addicted to conspiracies, a form of belief system that is fueled by lack of information and distrust of authority, and underlain by a sense of having little control in life, it is much the same mind type as are those addicted to religious beliefs, what is referred to as a "monological belief system".

My desire (and more importantly, pleasure) to believe in aliens and UFOs as a child in the 60s, became initially inflamed with I started to hear of other conspiracies. I thought those once in charge, in their sharing hidden knowledge, with information once allegedly disallowed to the masses, was a great and exciting thing. My first conspiracy was one by General William Westmoreland who ran the Viet Nam war. After Viet Nam he wrote a book which I read, which spawned many other conspiracies.

It was an interesting theory I cannot now remember and I cannot find that book any longer, which says something in itself. But my first thought after reading his book was not to merely believe or disbelieve, but to study just what conspiracy theories are, how they work, who were attracted to them, and why they happened. This is an important and key point in those who grab on to conspiracy theories and those who don't. Many of those who simply do not pay any attention to conspiracy theories, are not relevant in this consideration, as to ignore them from the start with little or no thought, indicates another type of individual altogether.

What is important is, for all of those who do pay attention at least initially and do look into them, what is the key deciding factor between those who keep going and those who see a conspiracy theory as simply white noise that appears to be something, but in the end logically just isn't. For me, when I read the General's book, I fell into a part mid book that just seemed questionable to me. So I researched it and his theory, for me, began to fall apart. I was stunned. How could such a high level official seriously believe in such nonsense? Was he just trying to make a buck on a book he saw was fictional, but sell-able? Or did he really believe what he was trying go convince others about.

I think he really believed it, at least at the time. But in my finding it was very likely his theory was not true, it brought up the question of how was that possible? That was my break, with conspiracy theories. Rather than try to swallow what he was selling, I instead looked into how it was possible he could believe what he was saying, and how others could believe something that to me appeared to be easily debunked. As it turned out, there was a certain type of personality (which I learned more about a few years later when I got my university degree in psychology) and certain elements needed that support a conspiracy theory as rational to that group of individuals. There are also those who know absolutely that it is an incorrect theory and yet, continue to push that theory for political and financial ends to better their position in some way.

It is important however, to consider the difference between my path and that of those who believe in these conspiracies, the point at which I branched off to learn about the theory of "conspiracy theory", and those who simply eat up the perceived conspiracy and ran with it. They like to use various techniques to quelch dissent in their beliefs, such as by being demeaning, calling those who don't believe in what they believe in as "sheeple" (for people who are sheep following the flock of the ignorant masses), something which elevates them in their beliefs and objectifies those who disagree with them. Objectifies others as is done by soldiers in war so they can more easily kill the perceived enemy. Except that in this case, the "enemies" are fellow citizens.

What I found in researching what a conspiracy theory is, rather than simply focusing on a specific theory in particular, saved me a lot of time over my lifetime in realizing that the majority of popular conspiracies are simply bunk, and those attracted to them have a certain type of personalty and view of the world, based in a general distrust and perceived lack of control in their lives which affects them deeply and personally. The belief that our government is a super secret, super capable institution, says more about conspiracy theorists than it does about our government, or their abilities or desires.

I find there seem to be far more people believing in conspiracies in the extreme movements, in the "right" or "left" political arenas, but more so for some reason on the right, in the conservative and Republican movements.

We should indeed pay attention to our world, to find out what's going on out of our view, but we should also realize when it's time to move on, to take other action then complaining and making noise, like removing people from office in a general sense, or protecting ourselves in a more personal sense. It is just important to be on guard that you are not simply of a certain mindset that makes you susceptible to silly conspiracies and focus on what is provable and reasonable and not something that will inevitably turn out to be simply a mass delusion, of which now a days there are so many.

If you are going to shout about conspiracies to the world, before you add to the dissonance in the mainstream, study what conspiracies are, and apply that judiciously to your beliefs. You may think that simply by making noise right OR wrong, it will help regardless as others will also look into it and eventually the truth will come out. Many times, there simply is no "truth" to be found out, just more incompetence and stupidity.

Don't attribute more capability of secrecy and institutional skill where there is none and therefore become one of those on the stupidity side of the argument. Because then you are just doing yourself and the rest of us a disservice, adding to the groundswell of chatter and nonsense, and that helps no one.

For more on this, I highly suggest you research more about conspiracies themselves rather than any one conspiracy. Then apply what you have learned to a particular conspiracy, pick your favorite conspiracy and see if it doesn't begin to fall apart on you. Here are three articles from Scientific American to begin with, but don't stop there, until you have as solid a handle on what conspiracies are as you do believing in them. These are three interesting and useful articles.

From Nov 17, 2010 |by Michael Shermer - The Conspiracy Theory Detector:

The more that it manifests the following characteristics, the less probable that the theory is grounded in reality:

Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.
The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.
The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.
Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.
The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.
The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.
The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.
The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.
The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.
The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

Monday, June 24, 2013

Dead men walking

I've been conflicted about this for a while. But I think I found a way that works for me.

Should we have the death penalty or not? Sure, why not. Why? Because some people should be destroyed off the face of the earth. But, I bet within the United States, there may only be one or two of those, if that, every year.

I've confused people most of my life. I don't believe in killing people for much of any reason. I do think you have the right to kill someone trying to kill you, however. I mean, it's one for one, right? And they are trying to kill you, you have the right to stop them. You should try not to kill them but stop them, but hey, sometimes passion just gets the better of you. But then if they started it they asked for it.

Okay, but for the most part we shouldn't be killing people. (War is bad says Subliminal Man).

If several people are trying to kill you, really you shouldn't be trying to kill a bunch of people to save yourself. Yet then again, if they are choosing to try to kill you and you are better at it than they are, who's to say that you shouldn't, as some would say, use your God given talents at their utmost to save your skin?

Right?

So fine. What about State sponsored killing, like Capital Punishment, the Death Penalty? When I was first in college in my first Philosophy class, our Prof. brought this up one day as a learning experience. I said I thought it was okay for the State to have the death penalty. But he pointed out (many things I won't go into here) that it is basically State sponsored murdered and a Government should never kill it's people to whom it serves. It's just ethically wrong.

Okay then, maybe he had a point. And so I passed that class, I graduated, years passed and here we are.

Now we have Florida who has been letting go like one in three prisoners on death row because they have found that in all the time since their trial and verdict, they were actually innocent as proven by various things like DNA and confessions. Or Texas who are about to celebrate their 500th execution as of mid June 2013, next week.

The Colorado Governor just interceded to keep the death penalty live in their state, while signing an order so as not to be responsible for any executions during the rest of his term as Governor. He upholds the death penalty but doesn't want anything to do with it, himself.

So, where does that leave us? Well, I know where it leaves me, because I have an idea.

Go ahead, keep the death penalty. But let's do this, make it possible only if and when the Governor him (or her) self actually goes to the room execution chamber, and personally executes the prisoner.

Why? Because what we seem to have here is too many people not caring or thinking deeply enough about the situation and so they just let it continue on. Much like with Right Wing Conservatives who are staunchly against the LGBT community or Gay marriage, they are all against it until it turns out to be their son, or daughter, or someone close to them. Then it is fully and finally brought home to them, it becomes personal and so they tend to turn away from their beliefs and change their mind, altering their original position to one of agreeing with say, Gay marriage.

The death penalty is a very similar and strange animal. The problem is that people seem to be too divorced from it to make a fully qualified decision. So let's make it personal. If someone is really so bad that they have to be executed by the state, then let the highest authority in that state carry out the execution, personally. I think it might only take one execution for one to come to realize that this is a bad thing. It is cruel and unusual punishment to hold someone for years, and then on a day set very much previously, to take that individual knowingly and murder them.

But what about their victims, you say? So we should become like them, and kill them? Besides, isn't life in jail far worse than death?

Here's the thing. If you have someone that is a seriously deranged serial murderer, someone truly and wholly evil, then I do think that they should be destroyed. But even they could possibly be saved, make a turn around at some point. Still, I'll grant you it's very possible or even likely, that there are people like that who do need to be not only removed from society and imprisoned, but removed from life itself. I'm also willing to recognize that these types of people are very few and far between.

Even so, we really need to stop killing people as a nation, both internally and more so yet, externally. War is bad, necessary on occasion, but far too many times we have been illegitimately pulled into it. And too many times we have killed too many innocents in the strife and fog of war. But so too have we killed innocent people through the death penalty. If Florida is accurate in releasing people who are innocent at so high a rate as reported, a third, then how many other states have killed how many innocent people over the years?

I would argue that if we kill even one innocent person it is one too many and we need to stop. One innocent life is more important than all of the guilty lives we could execute. After all, one thing that Time does really well is release information, it loosen lips, allows knowledge to rise to the surface of the social conscience.

For those who are truly dangerous and evil, I really wouldn't have trouble executing them. And I don't think many who hold a position of power would. But if it were someone who had a moment of anger, who had grown up with a chip on their shoulder and just need to be locked up, then they might just have a problem. If for no other reason than that, we have to consider that old adage, "There but for the grace of God, go I."

Yes some of those on death row are real bastards I'm sure, and have caused a lot of people a lot of grief. But when you also take into consideration those who have to handle these people on a daily basis, those who have to deal with them leading up to their death and those who have to actually execute them on their day of atonement, we have to consider, why would we want to do THAT to our own citizens, either?

I once heard that considering how expensive it is through trials and appeals and so on it is really cheaper to keep a prisoner for life in prison, than execute him. Which surprised me because I would think, you flip a switch, inject to fluid, bingo, money saved. But not really and certainly not assured. And so too there are non-monetary costs we should take into account.

I'll say it clearly, if someone is trying to kill me (especially if I don't deserve it, which is another matter entirely), I will have no problem killing them instead. Once I know there is nothing left for me to do but kill them, I'm 100% behind the idea. Of course, getting to that realization is what typically gets good people killed and gives the bad guys the edge in being able to more easily kill some unsuspecting victim. They don't have to consider, they just act. They kill. They have the element of surprise. They are murderers and cowards.

However, once you start talking about my Government killing American citizens, I have a serious issue with it. I have a problem with them killing non-Americans too, but on a list, Americans are definitely on top for who NOT to kill. Consider for a moment that ultimate rule of empathy, "what if one day I'M in that situation, and worse, what if I'm INNOCENT?"

This country needs to start advancing again. We need to pick ourselves up by the bootstraps (we've done it before) and get our act together. We need to get smarter, deeper, funnier, happier, more benevolent and stronger. And Strong, does not mean you kill people. It is after all, harder not to.

I've always said that I always try never to lie, because it makes you smarter as you have to think your way around things. Any idiot can lie, just say the opposite of truth. But try finding a way, any way but lying and it's not so easy. Is it. Probably why so many people lie so much. Telling the truth also sets up a kind of Karma for you as people start to realize you are an honest and loyal type, dependable at least in your word.

America needs to find the high ground again and live it. Inflate our mind, body and spirits and not just inflate our egos and pride as we have done for far too long and far too much in recent decades. We are a great nation and a great people. And we can be more so. If we just have a mind to.

We just need to start looking more closely at the things we do, to be more honest with ourselves, more open, more rational.

Killing our own citizens, just isn't one of those things that will put us on that road upward and into the future with grand prospects. Because if we don't make some changes like these, we can only have more to look forward to of the same. More and more right wing nutzo propaganda, more ridiculous religious fervor, more partisan patronizing, more stopping intellectual progress, more, more, more...but not of the things we need more of.

For one, we don't need more dead men walking....

Monday, May 27, 2013

Playing telephone in Life with the world and one another

I wish you all a very pleasant and reflective Memorial Day holiday. It's good and well on this day to solemnly consider for a time the sacrifices made by those who stood against those powers who sought to put an end to our country and as well for the mistakes we as a country have made and therefore lost our forces to battles that perhaps we should never have been involved in. That latter is the more solemn consideration, for sure.

We all make mistakes from time to time. But on a National level, the mistakes need to be as few and far between as can be made possible. Because it affects so many and so much through time and perception. Perception of others toward the United States. Perception of ourselves toward who we have become. And the perception of who we have become at this time in History by those who shall follow us and reflect back on our deeds and actions. And motivations. And Humanity. How we are perceived by others is far more important than we tend to give it weight. The weight of importance, of reactions, and of delayed reactions.

Perception is a difficult thing at times to deal with. It can be overwhelming at both a national, world stage level, as well as in a more intimate, interpersonal level.

Have you ever played, "Telephone" at a party? Basically, it's where you tell someone a secret and it's passed down the line, everyone trying to remain as true and accurate as possible to the original statement. Then, from the last person in line, you hear what they say they were told and compare it to what was originally said and sent down the line.

Typically in comparing the two ends, you get two very different statements.

Well, consider this. When you're in a romantic relationship, you are actually playing "telephone", with your mate. There are far less involved, it is only the two of you. But some of the communications you receive from one another are not just from words, but actions, looks, and other people's comments. Indirect actions, even. But the concept is the same. You start with your thought, and by the time it reaches your partner's conception of what you are communicating, something about it has almost always changed in the process.

Last year I was watching Kofi Annan, once head of the United Nations, on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. He was talking about how hard it was when he was head of the UN, to try and explain between the leaders of the US and Iran how, what one Iranian leader had said to its farmers in the countryside of Iran, shouldn't be incorrectly interpreted by the American leaders in Washington DC, from considering directly what was said. Sometimes, what was said in the countryside was merely an attempt for the leader of Iran to explain to an uneducated farmer, topics such as Nuclear power.

For that explanation to then be understood by the leaders in America well, it simply doesn't translate well; or in fact, at all. Kofi Annan said that he had so much trouble in pointing out that, that what was said to an Iranian farmer shouldn't be listened to or reacted to by the leaders of the US.

It was like playing "telephone" between two world leaders. That is one side of it.

The other side is considering communication simply from one entity to another. That's talking at the country sized level. Now drop it down to individual sized level. Every person on earth has a different understanding or filter of the world, from every other individual.

Certainly, we all have a somewhat general understanding or we could never communicate at all. Still, that being said, we really don't all FULLY understand exactly what any other person is saying. On an international stage, this is very disconcerting.

Now, apply that concept into the tiny confines of a romantic relationship. Tiny confines from an outsider's perspective perhaps, but from an insider's perspective it can become an overburdened, intolerably huge affair. How do we ever truly communicate? How can we truly know the other person? Or, other nation for that matter.

Kind of scary when you think about it. Right?