Princeton Study Finds That The US Is An Oligarchy

haidut · Apr 16, 2014

The study was one of the most extensive political science researches ever conducted, and concluded that for all intents and purposes the common citizen does NOT matter (politically). The legislative body serves primarily the rich and powerful.

http://www.businessinsider.com/major-st ... chy-2014-4

In the article's own language:
"...The US government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern Universities has concluded."

It is not a big step from that conclusion to authoritarianism and oppression - things that Peat says have been the norm in the US since WWII.

narouz · Apr 16, 2014

[BBvideo 560,340:g738sv10]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/BBvideo]

Such_Saturation · Apr 16, 2014

I aknowledge that pointing out the obvious (but peer reviewed) is better than nothing, in a world of useless academic institutions.

j. · Apr 16, 2014

Such_Saturation said:
I aknowledge that pointing out the obvious (but peer reviewed) is better than nothing, in a world of useless academic institutions.

I'd be surprised if this isn't a waste of taxpayers money, i.e., that it isn't publicly funded.

mas · Apr 17, 2014

From J
I'd be surprised if this isn't a waste of taxpayers money, i.e., that it isn't publicly funded.

The oligarchy controllers must be spending a jolly time as they ROTFL as the general public sheep foot the bill for EVERYTHING to maintain the trillionaires in their corporate welfare state of zero taxes, and bailouts in financial institutions full of hedging and derivative betting based on a phony fiat "money" system based on Debt that can never be paid back and when the ponzi scheme fails (and it will) the general public will suffer because the corporate criminals have obtained real property, gems, real gold (not phony internet gold scams) and precious art.

Some slimy sold out Congress critters who are on the take then say we must tighten our belts because the public really isn't entitled to anything anyway. They could justify taking money from the elderly while these corporate criminals and their congressional playmates rip us all off, decade by decade, day by day.

Spending taxpayer money for a study like this and flaunting it at the public must be quite entertaining for them, not just for the large majority who never read this, but especially for a the people who do read this and just don't care.

The ones who do care are faced with huge dilemma of seeing in this huge megalith corporate-military industrial complex matrix and wonder if it is even possible to wake up the public to the danger surrounding us everywhere. Then what?

gretchen · Apr 17, 2014

I read this yesterday.

Adnada · Apr 17, 2014

Time to move past violence as a tool for social change. Whoever is holding the reigns of government (monopoly power of said violence) can and will use it to their own advantage. The current economic and political environment is an obvious end to a bad means of social order.

pboy · Apr 17, 2014

take USA for example....300 million people, but 90% of the wealth is in the top 10% of the population. So the bottom 90% of people in US live at, actually, substandard levels. Its hard to notice or for anyone to acknowledge because we are always bombarded with propaganda showing stars and models and success stories, and America the land of dreams, ect ect. Our food is some of, if not the, worst available in the world, in terms of quality and local availablility, unless you have a lot of money and live in a big city near a health food store. Our health care and happiness ratings are near rank 50 in the world, yet we spend the most money and resources on studying health and psychology. What I'm getting at is that America has the potential to be great based on the infrastructure and land resources, but in its current state its one of the worst nations, surprisingly, despite what you see and read around you, to live unless you are in the top 25% or so of wealth. Just look at peoples faces, the things people say, the attitudes...no one but kids, or the few rare individual, even smiles or seems to have hope about their future and life. They have degraded to the point of not just wanting, but needing, instant quick fixes that cant require too much energy or time, something people don't have. Yet they think its their fault because they watch false Hollywood reality, super athletes, see the extravagant lives of the rich...and think that somehow its their own fault for not being able to achieve or think its possible for them to achieve such a state

Such_Saturation · Apr 17, 2014

Adnada said:
Time to move past violence as a tool for social change. Whoever is holding the reigns of government (monopoly power of said violence) can and will use it to their own advantage. The current economic and political environment is an obvious end to a bad means of social order.

If only everyone ate a little less starch and a little more sugar and salt in their lives (this is not the middle ages anymore), people would start becoming allergic to bull**** and we would reach a critical point after which things would move very quickly out of this post-modern swamp we are entrenched in. What we consider personal gain is what must change, basically.

charlie · Apr 17, 2014

pboy said:
What I'm getting at is that America has the potential to be great based on the infrastructure and land resources, but in its current state its one of the worst nations, surprisingly, despite what you see and read around you, to live unless you are in the top 25% or so of wealth.

Things are about to change, actually its already started. :)

j. · Apr 17, 2014

Charlie said:
Things are about to change, actually its already started. :)

Yeah, hyperinflation and then to start all over.

Adnada · Apr 17, 2014

Such_Saturation said:
If only everyone ate a little less starch and a little more sugar and salt in their lives (this is not the middle ages anymore), people would start becoming allergic to bull**** and we would reach a critical point after which things would move very quickly out of this post-modern swamp we are entrenched in. What we consider personal gain is what must change, basically.

bull**** allergies are the worst; there is no treatment! :lol:

I believe the desire for personal gain is a natural and good trait of all living things. The desire for personal gain (which may include money, knowledge, love, really anything as the definition of a personal gain is subjective) is what drives people to work harder, to innovate, and ultimately results in progress for the entire human species. When some people are able to use force to gain an unfair advantage in this quest for personal gain, the problem arises.

If we lived on an even playing field, with equality under the law for all, a destructive attempt made by someone in the quest for personal gain would fail. Resources would not be forcefully diverted from individuals to fund endeavors that they don't agree with or don't believe would be fruitful for them. If someone harms another's person or property in their endeavors, they would be made to stop such endeavor and pay restitution for their destruction. It's not what we consider personal gain that necessarily needs to change, but how we are able to go about pursuing our goals.

Adnada · Apr 17, 2014

Charlie said:
Things are about to change, actually its already started. :)

We're on the march, and the empire's on the run!

pboy · Apr 17, 2014

I agree such saturation, the idea of 'success' being nothing more than a suit, car, wallet, position in a company...rather than how many people would want to be around you, who you are, what you know, without possessing those things...is what should really be success. The state of your health and what you can contribute without side effects to the society would be a more appropriate view of success. I think people only adopt the other attitude because they are desperate to survive and find a spouse so they buy into the philosophy it takes to achieve those things in the current environment and society around them. But yea, for sure, people need to derive more metabolic energy so they can become more immune to BS...lol

Indeed Charlie, especially for those of us with an open mind on the constant pursuit of bettering ourselves and everyone else around us

Such_Saturation · Apr 18, 2014

Adnada said:
Such_Saturation said:

If only everyone ate a little less starch and a little more sugar and salt in their lives (this is not the middle ages anymore), people would start becoming allergic to bull**** and we would reach a critical point after which things would move very quickly out of this post-modern swamp we are entrenched in. What we consider personal gain is what must change, basically.

Click to expand...

bull**** allergies are the worst; there is no treatment!

I believe the desire for personal gain is a natural and good trait of all living things. The desire for personal gain (which may include money, knowledge, love, really anything as the definition of a personal gain is subjective) is what drives people to work harder, to innovate, and ultimately results in progress for the entire human species. When some people are able to use force to gain an unfair advantage in this quest for personal gain, the problem arises.

If we lived on an even playing field, with equality under the law for all, a destructive attempt made by someone in the quest for personal gain would fail. Resources would not be forcefully diverted from individuals to fund endeavors that they don't agree with or don't believe would be fruitful for them. If someone harms another's person or property in their endeavors, they would be made to stop such endeavor and pay restitution for their destruction. It's not what we consider personal gain that necessarily needs to change, but how we are able to go about pursuing our goals.

You make no destructive attempts when you understand that what seven billion minds can achieve is so much more awesome than what one guy can achieve

(id est digging the ground under everyone around him so he looks taller)

so what is personal gain? Just eating your share of starchy polyunsaturated fat and win a nobel prize so you can trick your admirers into tricking you to think you are better than what you are, and create for yourself a cotton candy environment that lifts you from the duty of determining your spot in the universe.

Nah. If we concentrate on being more connected we will work as one. Then we can realize there is no "one", Because there is no "two". Take it easy :mrgreen:

pboy · Apr 18, 2014

its funny how our lives work...we have to 'gain' so that we don't need...in other words, if you have accumulated a huge retirement or something, you no longer need to bs, wear certain clothes, be around certain people, do certain things...you can lay naked in your backyard if you want and not care about the fools on TV with fake hair and makeup,...but in reality, in the the first place, you never had (or should have had) to do any of those things to achieve such a state. We have to do a whole lot of crap just to return to how we were born...rather than always have that as a baseline then any effort beyond produces more joy, such as how every other animal lives. Once you elevate your awareness in life and have a lot of experience in a vast difference of places and situations...you realize, I don't mean this in a harsh or accusing way, but how dumb and really nasty the core of a lot of people are, most people, and how obvious simple day to day admissions to 'yes man ness' and manipulative or harsh preaching attempts nearly every interaction between people has become

many would do well returning to the state of mind, which is still themselves, that they had as a really small child...the type of mindset that asks 'who am I?", "why am I alive", "why does that person look weird", "why do they all just sit around and tell bad jokes or never do anything fun" , because most people are living the majority of life without ever even questioning the original purpose, who or what they are even doing here, and what state of mind they want to end in...and therefore conduct their lives accordingly

Adnada · Apr 18, 2014

Such_Saturation said:
Adnada said:

Such_Saturation said:

If only everyone ate a little less starch and a little more sugar and salt in their lives (this is not the middle ages anymore), people would start becoming allergic to bull**** and we would reach a critical point after which things would move very quickly out of this post-modern swamp we are entrenched in. What we consider personal gain is what must change, basically.

Click to expand...

bull**** allergies are the worst; there is no treatment!

I believe the desire for personal gain is a natural and good trait of all living things. The desire for personal gain (which may include money, knowledge, love, really anything as the definition of a personal gain is subjective) is what drives people to work harder, to innovate, and ultimately results in progress for the entire human species. When some people are able to use force to gain an unfair advantage in this quest for personal gain, the problem arises.

If we lived on an even playing field, with equality under the law for all, a destructive attempt made by someone in the quest for personal gain would fail. Resources would not be forcefully diverted from individuals to fund endeavors that they don't agree with or don't believe would be fruitful for them. If someone harms another's person or property in their endeavors, they would be made to stop such endeavor and pay restitution for their destruction. It's not what we consider personal gain that necessarily needs to change, but how we are able to go about pursuing our goals.

Click to expand...

You make no destructive attempts when you understand that what seven billion minds can achieve is so much more awesome than what one guy can achieve

(id est digging the ground under everyone around him so he looks taller)

so what is personal gain? Just eating your share of starchy polyunsaturated fat and win a nobel prize so you can trick your admirers into tricking you to think you are better than what you are, and create for yourself a cotton candy environment that lifts you from the duty of determining your spot in the universe.

Nah. If we concentrate on being more connected we will work as one. Then we can realize there is no "one", Because there is no "two". Take it easy

But who is this "we" that decides what work everyone undertakes together? Who dictates the goal of the collective we? Currently, it is wealthy multinational corporations and their puppet politicians who force the rest of us to slave away towards their vision. But what if some magical altruistic government made a new vision of equality, etc. Would it then be okay for them to use force (police enforced taxation and legislation) against those who perhaps do not want to share their money (which is essentially a representation of labor) with things they don't agree with, or plans they don't think will work, however morally upright? I hate to see people in poverty, and want to help when I can, for example. However, I do not want my money going to implement a policy of raising minimum wage to $100/hr. I don't hate poor people, but I do not believe that policy will improve anything, and I think it would be wrong, morally and ethically, to force me to participate. If people can be forced to fund something "good", the structure is also in place to force them to fund something "bad".

If you or your majority can force your will on others, then when the tables turn their will will be forced on you. Working together is indeed important, but I only support voluntary cooperation.

The great inequality of wealth today is not due to the straight up evil greed of Blackwater or Monsanto. These corporations are given unfair privileges by the government which enable them to grow in ways contrary to natural supply and demand. The businesses, and their owners' desire for personal gain, are not the problem. Without the government, their desire for personal gain would result in striving to win over customers, which means trying to offer the products people want to buy the best price, which is what consumers search for. And any attempts of taking advantage of others would result of a loss of customers, loss of income, and subsequent inability to do harm.

pboy · Apr 18, 2014

the golden rule is all that need apply. Treat others like you would want to be treated. Expect to get back what you give out. And not only directly, but you shouldn't set up a corporation or some kind of operation where you would have others serve a position that you yourself would not do...which is basically every company in America and the army and all kinds of stuff. The boss should have to perform all the roles of the people under them, rotating by week or something...maybe one day a week, just so they can keep perspective and know whats really going on, and can actually feel the pain of the employees if there is any, and also have incentive to improve every position available. Its really like that...like people might be able to act nice o behave well in a short term setting, but they are ok letting people basically slave away for them and would never themselves do any of those jobs that are supporting them, and would encourage their kids not to do them, and even talk down or form a philosophy about people who end up working such jobs

narouz · Apr 20, 2014

“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” Francis wrote in the papal statement. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”-Pope Francis

narouz · Apr 20, 2014

Pundit Mark Shields on the recent decision of the Supreme Court striking down limits on campaign contributions :

"...Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders."

And because, as we have learned previously from this same Court,
money is speech,
freedom of speech includes the right to contribute to a candidate's campaign.

"Are these men in the Court majority so hermetically sealed off from the rest of Washington that they don't know — or don't care — that, in American politics, sadly, big money buys access, and access translates to influence?
Thanks to Roberts' Court,
the 1 percent is free at last to try and
buy the kind of government it prefers....

"Listen to the words of former Republican House member Joe Scarborough of Florida, a card-carrying conservative who, shortly after leaving Congress, told 'Speaking Freely,' a book on money and politics that 'the lobbying over China MFN (most-favored nation trading status) was disgusting.' Scarborough, now the host of the popular Morning Joe TV show, was blunt about what he saw firsthand:
'There's no way in hell that MFN would have passed in '95, '96, '97, '98, '99 and 2000 if all those companies hadn't come flooding in and making contributions and asking for people's support ... what drove the debate every year was the allure of corporate dollars flooding into members' bank accounts. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that money changed votes' ...

-----

from the Washington Post's Robert Barnes:

"The Supreme Court’s divisive decision Wednesday striking down a Watergate-era limit on campaign contributions was the latest milestone for conservative justices who are disassembling a campaign finance regime they feel violates free-speech rights.

"The 5 to 4 decision — striking down the limit on the total amount of money wealthy donors can contribute to candidates and political committees — was the fifth since Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the court that agreed with constitutional arguments challenging laws designed to blunt the influence of money in politics.

"It again reveals a court deeply divided between liberals trying to preserve campaign finance restrictions they say are essential to ensuring democracy is not distorted by the wealth of the powerful, and conservatives who think the First Amendment trumps efforts by the government to control who pays for elections and how much they spend."

By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.

Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter

Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...

Rest the rest of this post by clicking here

Princeton Study Finds That The US Is An Oligarchy

Member

Member

Member

j.

Guest

Member

Member

Adnada

Guest

Member

Member

Admin

j.

Guest

Adnada

Guest

Adnada

Guest

Member

Member

Member

Adnada

Guest

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads