The entity that controls the definitions, controls the outcome -
The more the decision making process is separated, the more control is possible. Let's look at how this practically functions:
Assume for a moment that we have ideologies A, B, C and D. By seizing control in the early stages of a revolution, the movement ensures that only ideology A and B are represented, thus eliminating the viewpoints of C and D. The leaders of A and B then issue guidelines and regulations (we need order don't we?) that ensure that the debate is framed only in the groundwork of these two contentious extremes which may be in fact, opposite sides of the same coin. A will then take the 'left' and B takes the 'right', thereby compelling all future actions and decisions to fall in that intentionally limited framework. Anyone from the C or D camp attempting to join the discussion is met with immediate derision (Sanotrum to Paul in the latest debate) as being too 'out of touch' to participate.
Working groups are then formed that issue further guidelines, we'll call them A1 and B1. These groups are generally made up of individuals of like mindset to the main group, if not the same people. These groups often take the name 'committee' or 'association' to remove the stench of bureaucratic contamination.
Of course, these groups need funding, so A steers funds towards A1 and B steers funds towards B1 to do 'the work of the people' which primarily consists of issuing documents and opinions that support the position of the main group and vice-versa. It is at this point that the primary discussion shifts to the differences between A1 and B1's opinions expressed in their statistics and papers. Of course this continues to filter down into the next strata, A1a which also issues reports supporting A1 and so on.
The net result of all this labor becomes an exhausting, continual discussion on the minutia of the most precise myopic point that the lowest group, say A1a4e6, has to offer. In the end, the correct answer is not to participate in this discussion at all, but to bring in a differing point of view, say C.
It is this process that we see creating the article referenced above. The Southern Poverty Law Center is nothing more then a bureaucratic arm of the elite, rubber stamping their agendas and providing degrees of denial when questioned. (i.e. - Obama's not saying that these people are terrorists, the SPLC is. Obama is just doing his duty by following the 'experts' opinions.) We see this continually especially in the areas of budgets when a majority legislative or executive branch will form a committee who, upon completing research, comes back with the same opinion of the majority! Now this is not to say this always the case, just the vast majority of the time.
In this specific case, the SPLC identifies those that disagree with the dominant groups A and B as being 'extreme' and 'dangerous' because they might take some sort of action that results in the collapse of the AB paradigm. To this extent, they are absolutely correct as the American populace does present a current and dangerous threat to the paradigm precisely because AB want to systematically slaughter the CD paradigm and its adherents!
An L.A. Times report which characterizes the Sovereign Citizen movement as “a major threat” on a par with Islamic extremism infers that “more than 100,00 Americans” are domestic terrorists as a result of their affiliation with the group.
The article, entitled ‘Sovereign citizen’ movement now on FBI’s radar, frames the belief that “the U.S. is essentially under martial law,” along with support for reintroducing the gold standard, as political views indicative of violent extremism.The report quotes Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who in one fell swoop demonizes “more than 100,00 Americans” as domestic terrorists.
The Real Effect“This is a movement that has absolutely exploded,” said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization based in Montgomery, Ala., that tracks domestic terrorists and hate groups. More than 100,000 Americans have aligned themselves with the sovereign citizens, the center said.
The more the decision making process is separated, the more control is possible. Let's look at how this practically functions:
Assume for a moment that we have ideologies A, B, C and D. By seizing control in the early stages of a revolution, the movement ensures that only ideology A and B are represented, thus eliminating the viewpoints of C and D. The leaders of A and B then issue guidelines and regulations (we need order don't we?) that ensure that the debate is framed only in the groundwork of these two contentious extremes which may be in fact, opposite sides of the same coin. A will then take the 'left' and B takes the 'right', thereby compelling all future actions and decisions to fall in that intentionally limited framework. Anyone from the C or D camp attempting to join the discussion is met with immediate derision (Sanotrum to Paul in the latest debate) as being too 'out of touch' to participate.
Working groups are then formed that issue further guidelines, we'll call them A1 and B1. These groups are generally made up of individuals of like mindset to the main group, if not the same people. These groups often take the name 'committee' or 'association' to remove the stench of bureaucratic contamination.
Of course, these groups need funding, so A steers funds towards A1 and B steers funds towards B1 to do 'the work of the people' which primarily consists of issuing documents and opinions that support the position of the main group and vice-versa. It is at this point that the primary discussion shifts to the differences between A1 and B1's opinions expressed in their statistics and papers. Of course this continues to filter down into the next strata, A1a which also issues reports supporting A1 and so on.
The net result of all this labor becomes an exhausting, continual discussion on the minutia of the most precise myopic point that the lowest group, say A1a4e6, has to offer. In the end, the correct answer is not to participate in this discussion at all, but to bring in a differing point of view, say C.
It is this process that we see creating the article referenced above. The Southern Poverty Law Center is nothing more then a bureaucratic arm of the elite, rubber stamping their agendas and providing degrees of denial when questioned. (i.e. - Obama's not saying that these people are terrorists, the SPLC is. Obama is just doing his duty by following the 'experts' opinions.) We see this continually especially in the areas of budgets when a majority legislative or executive branch will form a committee who, upon completing research, comes back with the same opinion of the majority! Now this is not to say this always the case, just the vast majority of the time.
In this specific case, the SPLC identifies those that disagree with the dominant groups A and B as being 'extreme' and 'dangerous' because they might take some sort of action that results in the collapse of the AB paradigm. To this extent, they are absolutely correct as the American populace does present a current and dangerous threat to the paradigm precisely because AB want to systematically slaughter the CD paradigm and its adherents!
No comments:
Post a Comment