Molecular Politics -- Part One

1999-2-18 13:44:00

Some have suggested that talking about business or politics may be a turn off for the group and we should perhaps only talk about metaphysical principles, but we must come to the realization that many of the new Aquarian energies deal with business and politics and to resist the energies of reform is to retrogress back to the Age of Pisces just as much as the born again religions seek to do.

We must consider that business and politics influences our lives perhaps more than any other two items. We work 40 to 100 hours a week directly involved in business and then as a consumer we stay involved to some degree in our non working hours. Then political decisions have an effect upon our lives 24 hours a day. If we do not do our part to influence the political systems so our freedoms are preserved the day could come when those who wish to discuss dreamy spiritual ideals will be burned at the stake.

The Age of Aquarius is upon us and the opportunity is here to strike a death blow to the enemies of freedom so we can once and for all see the kingdom of God established on the earth. It is therefore my duty to present you the needed changes that the world is crying out for whether my message is popular or not.

We have asked some questions revealing political problems. Now is the time for solutions.

One point we all agree on is this. The legislators in the United States and all other free countries do not represent the will of the people to the satisfaction of the people. The common people everywhere seem to feel somewhat betrayed by those who are expected to represent their interests. We find that instead of representing the interests of the people they either represent their own interests, the interests of party leaders or some other entity.

This seems to be a problem that we have all accepted as a necessary evil, but the true spiritual teachers and dreamers of the race do not accept flaws such as this as a permanent thing. Such people will say along with the late Robert Kennedy: "Some people see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask, why not?"

Instead of just accepting the necessary evils of our society and wondering why they have to be, let us elevate our minds to a higher level and dream of things better and ask: Why not?

Why not have a political system where the people are truly represented to the extent that they are satisfied that one voice is as important as another? Just because this is not the case now does not mean that the lights of the world cannot make creative change and make the dreams of the ages come true.

Even though many feel in their hearts and minds that a true democracy would be a wonderful thing there are many intelligent people who oppose it on an intellectual and philosophical basis, but I wish here to show that this basis is founded in illusion.

In the United States (and many other nations) pure democracy is opposed for two main reasons:

  1. It is not constitutional. We have a Republic that calls for a representative government where a one person is elected to cast a vote for the many.
  2. The polls that are continuously taken now illustrate that average "John Q. Public" is ill informed and that the majority will often support silly, immoral or dangerous notions. Even Hitler ran around 70% in the polls in his age and in this one about 70% of the populace do not seem to want Clinton punished even if he committed a crime.

Objection One: A true Democracy can function within the framework of our existing Constitution. Nothing has to be altered in the original document as we will illustrate in this treatise. We will clarify this as we proceed in this treatise.

Objection Two: As we read about the various polls taken past and present it does seem at times that John Q. Average is misinformed, sometimes even a little unbalanced and certainly not one to whom we wish to trust the destiny of the nation. If the polls are any indication of how a true democracy would vote then it does seem wise to be against it.

Let us dispel this illusion by one statement of fact: A true democracy is not a poll and the results of the will of the people expressed in it will be much more logical and beneficial for the whole than a rule-by-poll would be.

Why is this?

Because the method of obtaining the vote is very different between the two.

Here are the differences:

In a democracy all who desire to vote are represented whereas in a poll only a very small percentage voice their opinion.

In a true democracy a person votes out of his own initiative because he knows and feels something about the issue, but in a poll he uses no initiative, but is contacted by a pollster. Many of those contacted through a poll would not be informed enough to even have a desire to vote in a democracy.

Let us point out that in a true democracy the citizen is not forced to vote, but all who desire have the privilege of voting. This means that those who are ill informed and do not care about government will usually not vote. Thus in a democracy you will have a much more intelligent voting populace than you have in a poll.

This truth is illustrated by comparing polls taken on the Internet verses polls taken by telephone. Internet polls are much more representative of how the results of a democratic vote would be than a telephone poll because those who respond are using their initiative to make the contact and are involved enough to be concerned about the issue.

As you compare similar issues responded to by regular polls and Internet polls you will notice a huge difference in the direction of common sense for the Internet polls. For instance in the OJ trial regular polls had the public fairly evenly divided on his guilt or innocence, but in the Internet polls people overwhelmingly thought he was guilty from the beginning.

During the Clinton trial around 70% of the people were supposed to be supporting his acquittal but among Internet voters the percentage was more like 45%, a huge difference.

It is interesting to note that polls have gotten less reliable over the years rather than more. I remember way back to the campaign of Nixon and Kennedy that the polls had then both in a dead heat. It was so close that few dared guess who the winner would be. The interesting thing here is that is just what happened. It was one of the closest elections in history just as the polls predicted.

Now let us look at the last national election. Most pollsters were off about 10%. That's an error level about twenty times as high as the polls were back in 1960 when technology was nowhere near what it is today. Then when the Republicans took the majority the results were contrary to any prediction from polls.

Why the big difference?

The answer is that in its infancy the polls were used in a fairly logical and sincere effect to find the truth whatever that may be. Then one day it occurred to the powers that be that people were influenced by the polls. No one likes to look stupid and if it appears that everyone thinks XYZ is true then one may as well go along with the idea, especially if he is not sure his opinion is right to begin with.

Thus began the "everybody-thinks-this-way-and-so-should-you" polling concept. This new direction in polling does not reveal the true minds of the thinking public, but instead is a tool for influencing public opinion.

The power of influence on the non thinking public of the "everybody-thinks-this-way-and-so-should-you" concept is very powerful and very much full of illusion. Remember the Milgram experiment? The subjects were willing to fry a man's brains out because of the demand of an authority and also the implanting of the idea that other subjects were doing the same thing. These poor dupes were willing to risk the electric chair just to fit in. This illustrates how powerful the "fitting in" principle is and why the polls can become a dangerous weapon against real democracy or any representative system.

In the Sixties the polls were generally worded to find the truth, whatever that may be. Now at the turn of the century the polls are carefully worded so predetermined results will be obtained. In addition to this many polls use a carefully selected group of people whose opinion is already established.

Let us create an example of how a poll may be used to promote illusion.

Let us pick the topic of education. This is a vulnerable one for the masses, as everyone wants to do all they can to insure that our kids get the best in education, even if it calls for a sacrifice.

Imagine that a group of Congress-people want to pass a big spending bill for Boondoggle project #473 and they fear the public would be enraged at such a waste. Therefore, they decide to attach the spending for this project as a rider attached to an education bill because everyone loves and supports education. They therefore whip up a billion dollar education bill that sounds good, but is, in reality, a complete waste of money. It turns out that almost all the money goes toward the creation of more administrators and more cushy benefits to current leaders. Maybe one percent of the funds goes to benefit the teachers and the kids. The administrators are looking forward to using the extra money for educational "seminars" in Hawaii and the Bahamas.

Now begins the presentation and promotion. Congressional members who favor the bill present it as an education bill, money for "our kids," "our future," money that will help us catch up to other enlightened nations. Immediately all educational leaders join in support of the bill because they (the administrators, not the teachers) will greatly benefit. They immediately start repeating the mantra that this bill is "for the children," and do their best to make anyone who opposes it as appearing to "hate kids."

A handful of honest legislators actually read through the bill, see through the illusion and realize that it is a complete waste of money. As soon as their views are announced they are pounced on by supporters of the bill as being "against education." They are also accused of "hating the kids."

Shortly after these mantras are circulated a poll is commissioned by the supporters of the bill. Typically, the folowing questions are asked:

  1. Do you support the XYZ education bill which will give more money to our schools so they can raise the educational level of our kids?
  2. Do you approve Congressmen Smith and Jones who are against the bill?

Now when the uninformed are called and hear these questions they think within themselves, "sure I'm for education. Let's spend the money."

Then in response to the second question they automatically think that Smith and Jones must be about as low as you can get for being "against the kids."

Next the results of the poll (which is overwhelmingly for the bill and against Smith and Jones) is given to the media. Then the media without questioning or research announces the results and pretty soon the majority of the people are overwhelmingly in favor of the bill and see Smith and Jones and public enemy number one.

Now Smith and Jones who are the only ones in public favor of the truth are totally on the defensive and every time they are interviewed by the media they are approached in an attack dog method and find that they spend all their time in defense rather than explaining their position. Finally Smith and Jones withdraw into the woodwork thinking that if they keep quiet they can at least preserve what little image they have left.

Finally the actual vote takes place and the two pork spending bills pass the house and goes to a Senate and President that does not dare reject it. Then when the next election comes around those who voted against the bill are attacked as being anti education.

Now this is a fictional account, but it represents a political process that is repeated over and over again and supported by an uninformed public. It illustrates to us the great present day problem with the polls, but such problem will not be perpetuated by a true democracy. Instead the problem will be cured.

In the democracy proposed here the voters will be more informed and the illusion caused by the polls will be dispelled.

Question: Why would a true democracy create more intelligent government than elected representatives. Isn't an elected representative more intelligent and informed than John Q. Average?

  

-- End Of Part One --

  

Go to:

Molecular Politics -- Part Two

  

Recommended Reading:

The Molecular Relationship   (Article Index)

Molecular Business -- Part One