Comment by jolincost | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jolincost | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's called democracy.

Moreover my analysis and reflection of the last 4 years where in I awakened and gained a sort of political consciousness after previously in my life having zero care for politics in any way is

This is a particular evolution of democracy which I call Democratic theater and it relies on deceptive control of the population by the media and the intelligence and security apparatus to provide the illusion of freedom to prevent the need for delivering real results by keeping the population in a constant state of confusion and conflict by supporting both sides of an artificial divide to prolong the state of conflict

I guess some of the beneficiaries of this are upwards who can benefit from the enhanced media appeal of this division but I think the primary beneficiary is the status quo and it's done to preserve power in a system where people expect to be free but are basically constrained but given this outlet which is a sort of cathartic entertainment, the purpose of which is to channel genuine to satisfaction into controlled avenues so that it never actually emerges as revolution or organized political action that has any chance of disrupting the status quo in a meaningful way

I believe it's a form of controlled opposition where a cabal of intelligence security and media interests control both sides of the conflict and I believe these sort of mass phenomena are driven by masters of narrative control psychology sociology.

I started off believing that Trump would do what he said and kind of save America and root out these shackles and the cabal of interest that keeps them in place but it seems he was just a charlatan who couldn't deliver and perhaps never intended to. I now believe it's likely that Trump was probably compromised by the very same cabal of interests who got him to dance to the tune they wanted as a puppet for 4 years as part of his great charade

In essence all of this Democratic theater is more window dressing for business as usual.

I'm happy to hear different opinions and to update my own perspective but I'm not going to debate this it simply the belief that I've arrived at at this time after many years of reflection and thought.

I am very interested to hear about this cabal that controls both Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell - how does that work? How did the ACA get passed in such an environment? How did the Trump Tax Cut get passed? NAFTA? The failure of the TPP? What about the provisions in the recent omnibus that contained all sorts of support for green energy? What are the mechanics of this system?

Unfortunately he already said he is not going to debate this probably because it falls apart under any informed scrutiny.

You can probably believe that if it makes it easier for you. I do not want things to be hard for you.

It’s not a matter of belief. I’m reading the words you wrote, specifically your last paragraph. If your ideas hold up surely you’d be able to answer his fairly basic questions. But they don’t which is why you resort to asking for peoples email addresses and identities, as if that has any bearing on the merit of what you’re saying

It's all belief. Nothing said contradicts my points. You're pretending it doesn't hold up, because that's easier than facing them.

You have my statement. Rather than pretending it doesn't hold up, why not specifically address my statement and demonstrate to yourself how you believe it to be false.

You are the one stating there is a real cabal, why don't you provide proof of who is in it, what they do, and how it works. Until you have that I'm not going to pretend that what you propose is the case. That which can be easily asserted without proof can be just as easily dismissed.

You have the idea, it's not my job to give you proof, you can think for yourself and see it. Sounds like you blame someone else instead of owning your choice to believe or not. Trying to dismiss the idea as false without criticizing it, or giving evidence that counters it, is self-deception. You can simply choose to disbelieve without pretending it's unbelievable. That's what I suggest you do, because it seems like a hard idea for you to consider, and I don't want it to be hard for you. Have a good day!

Both parties are beholden to mega-corporations.

The public disagreements are over things that the corporations absolutely don't care about one way or the other, or that they are divided over. The one thing neither side will ever even hint at doing is make corporations and their officers responsible for the consequences of their actions and choices.

Right, so how does that work? What is the mechanism of being beholden that allows the ACA to pass with an expansion of Medicaid? What is the mechanism that allows for the expansion in most states but not all? Who pulled these specific strings in these specific places in those specific instances?

I just want and concrete example.

ACA is a case where megacorporations were and are not in agreement.

To pretend to be unaware of dependence of most US politicians on corporate campaign donations is not a way to participate in an honest discussion.

Right, so how did it work?

How did what work? ACA was a thing that various corporate backers did not all agree about.

For the phenomenon I am talking about, both sides agree, and you never hear a peep about what they agreed on. For example, was any corporate officer of any large bank prosecuted for millions of counts of fraud, after 2008? For even one count? Did any single one go to prison? Tim Geithner got made SecTreas, instead.

The DoD every year utterly fails to account for how most of the money they are handed was spent. Do you imagine that is because it can't be done? That they can't follow orders? The major corporations account for more than that amount, every year, every dime.

Who are the corporate backers that supported expanding medicaid in the ACA? They didn't agree so who was on which side?

If you want to talk about the 2008 financial crisis, ok. Why did Dodd-Frank pass? Why did the corporate backers allow for the creation of the CFPB? How is it that only once Trump came into office did it stop doing its job?

You are asserting that there is a cabal of corporations controlling politics in the USA, what do they actually agree on specifically? Why have things in many instances actually changed when administrations change?

I have already said, twice, what they all agree on. You may go back and read what I said.

Things change because things change. Look to the things that don't change, instead. Spook whistleblowers are hounded into solitary confinement right through Bush, Obama, and Trump presidencies. Random innocent people are vaporized from the sky in countries we are not at war with, right through Bush, Obama, and Trump presidencies. Massive fraud campaigns ordered by officers of major corporations are prosecuted with exactly zero of such officers ever imprisoned or even inconvenienced, right through Bush, Obama, and Trump presidencies.

Oh, no submissions, what a surprise. No one knows who you are.

I'll tell you more when you give me your email address to discuss. And a public profile with your real name. I'll share mine, if you have the cojones to share yours, friend.

This is ridiculous, people shouldn’t have to give up their anonymity to debate their ideas.

I'm comfortable with those terms, and just as i said, I'm not going to debate it but I'm happy to hear different perspectives. None have been proposed, and just as i expected, the commenter is pretending, and does not have the courage of conviction.

Nothing in the comment faults my words. And what I'm saying is too important to tarnish with a dishonest discussion with someone being dishonest.

I know you hope you can dismiss this view with some metacommentary, but nothing raised has challenged what i said, and i think you're wasting your time by continuing to comment because you're not succeeding in dismantling the ideas i presented.

I have a solution for you, that i proposed initially. You don't want to believe this idea, so simply don't. Just refuse to believe it. That will be easiest for you and i really do not want anything to be hard for you.

He asked for specific evidence for your beliefs, that is absolutely a challenge. You couldn't rise to the occasion and give proof. You don't have to condescendingly tell me to not believe in your ideas, you already made it extremely easy to do so by providing no proof. There's nothing to dismantle if there isn't anything concrete in your hypothesis. You stand for and believe in nothing that matters, it is you who is playing pretend and lacks the courage or conviction.

You are right about one thing, this is a waste of time. Reply with whatever nonsense you want or don't, I'm done here.

This funny. You expend a lot of words on something which you say has no proof. If you didn't fear these ideas to be true, why spend so so much effort defending they can't be?

That comment asked for how, that's not a challenge, nor a refutation.

You don't want to face this idea, so to try to avoid engaging with it, you pretend you need to see more to merely consider it. But you can consider it immediately, and relate it to the world you see.

I understand that's not something you want, and it's hard for you, and I don't want it to be hard for you, so you could try just not believing it. And you can do that, without pretending you've disproved it. Why are you unwilling to disbelieve without pretending you've also disproved it, yet at the same time refusing try to disprove it by addressing and criticizing it? No wonder you seem upset, it must be very hard to be stuck in such a bind. But it's no one else's responsibility to get you out of that except yourself. It's your responsibility what you choose to believe or not and it's your responsibility to convince yourself or not of ideas, no one else's.

You work it out. You can think and use your mind.

You say it's condescending to note you own your own beliefs but it seems more condescending or arrogant or immature or irresponsible to try to incorrectly put the responsibility on other people, for what you choose to believe and how you choose to believe it.

If you are open and curious I'm sure you'd be willing to engage with an idea and criticize it but it seems from your comment that you've already decided that whatever other people write here will be nonsense, which is similar to how you decided that other ideas are nonsense without engaging and criticizing them, you don't seem open and curious at all. it seems much more like denial and psychological avoidance. which makes sense because these ideas are challenging and they threaten the worldview and the associated sense of security and stability with that.

So this problem where you shut your mind off and refuse to consider and critique the ideas and instead of this project onto others to demand that they solve the problem for you, is a common pathological projection pattern, but you can fix it, accepting you got yourself into this place and owning your own beliefs and the responsibility to convince yourself or not of ideas that you encounter.

Best of luck, hope this helps!

jamisonmasse@gmail.com

Email me

Thanks

Edit restriction, s/upwards/corporates/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com