Dismantling The Roadblock To Prosperity

This page presents the roadblock that has historically prevented we the people from making headway in creating solutions to our economic problems.  The mysterious nature of the roadblock is realized.  Then the social issue reality of the roadblock that divides and conquers us from attaining government support to achieve prosperity is revealed.  We then dive down into understanding the social issues, their effect on us that unconsciously compels us to economically self-defeating behavior at the voting booth, and we take a detailed look at seven of the prominent social issues today and how politicians use them to so destructively manipulate and divide us.  Finally we present the way to dismantle this roadblock in our lives so that we can resume traveling the road to economic problem resolution and prosperity.

A Mystery Revealed

So here we are, clearly aware of the evidenced list of the 23 hardships facing scores of millions of Americans.  And we know the historic reasons for these adversities.  We also know the foundational causal problems that need to be directly addressed to eliminate the economic adversities, and, truth be known, we've been aware of these for some time.

Then why haven't we created the solutions and implemented them in our socioeconomic system to effect great improvements for Americans who are suffering?

To some, the answer is a mystery, a very frustrating one.

Our government's historic inability to effect necessary changes baffles and frustrates the great majority of Americans.  Some blame that inability on the inherent stalemate that occurs when a dominance of two essentially diametrically opposed political parties exists -- each blocks the other's efforts, and nothing gets done.  Some blame the deficiencies of specific politicians.  Others blame lobbyists that get politicians' attention at the expense of we the American people in general.  Fingers are also pointed at foreign influence.  Then again many say it's simply the nature of politics, the endemic money-power compulsion that overwhelms and seduces politicians, preventing them from doing the right ethical thing for their constituents.

Though all of these are secondary factors to some degree, none really answer the big question of why we the people, America's citizens, can't compel our elected officials to stop playing politics as usual and instead work for we the people to eliminate the terrible suffering of so many of us who've been plunged into the economic abyss created by these very politics as usual.

It is clear, though, that we historically have had no real organization of clout that was sufficient in size to cause elected officials to look away from the usual diversions and actually address the significant problems in America with a sincere desire to resolve them.  We hope that this website will make a difference in this regard.

The substantive reason, however, that we've heretofore been unable to so organize is because we've all been carved up into divisive numerically insufficient and thus powerless factions as a byproduct of the political vote-pandering process employed by candidates for office, all of whom eventually resort to utilizing the same basic tactic to ultimately compel our votes: manipulation via appeal to social issues.

Yes, the roadblock to prosperity is politicians pandering with social issues that compels us to divide into many small social-issue-based segments thereby depriving us of our united-whole power economically to compel elected officials to effect the economic changes we need.

The Social Issues: a Politician's "Divide and Conquer" Tool

The dire problems that need to be solved are of an economic nature.

But when candidates run for office, they spend comparatively little time talking about economics and diving into the essential philosophical and strategic details when they make their push to secure votes.

Many candidates don't think that the vast majority of Americans can begin to grasp the economics and associated meaning as it pertains to the candidate's political party philosophy and why that economic philosophy is better than the other parties' economic philosophies, etc.  This would thus leave the voters' decision process to a personality contest between candidates, about which at that point, much to their anxiety regarding not being able to better control the outcome, it's too late for the candidates to do anything of consequence as it's been clearly revealed by then that they are who they are.

So instead they hire sharp political analysts to delve into the psychology of the constituents at the local, district, state, and national level to help candidates determine what to say in this speech to the rural town or that speech to the big city and the other speech to the suburbanites or whomever like-minded faction or group of people here and there the candidate is addressing at the moment.

The deciding factor in this vote pandering process based on a given constituent group's psychological profiling is the formation of the candidate's situational position and presentation on the social issues, issues about selected groups of people in America, their personalities, health, ethics, morals, conditions and the like, that have little to no effect on the priority economic issues that really need to be addressed, the priority economic issues that affect all people, no matter how they break down into social-issue groupings.

Issues in American politics essentially break down categorically between economic and social issues.  Many social issues also have an economic component to them.  But when an issue is considered a social issue it's because the social aspect of the issue clearly dominates over the economic aspect in that issue.  The same is true for economic issues -- they may have social components, but the economic aspect truly dominates over the social aspect in that issue.

Social issues, however, affect us quite differently from how economic issues affect us.  Social issues involve the types of topics and topical aspects that connect to entry points in our psyche linking us way back to archetypal foundational situations from our childhood, situations like the role of our parents, other family members, close friends, peers, and other prominent people played in the formation of our attitudes, attitudes such as right, wrong, fair, unfair, good, bad, and our foundational morals and ethics.  These attitudes formed when we were young and they usually stay with us, playing a fundamental role today in determining the people, groups and belief systems about which we polemically may idealize on one hand or experience contempt on the other.  Our degree of idealization and contempt is based upon how powerful were the associated attitude-forming events in our childhood.  If these powerful events in our memory also contain associated unreleased psychological-emotional pain, our resultant contempt and compensated idealization can be strong, and it can compel our behavior when these topics are broached, even against our will and too often with a self-defeating result pattern.  Such oblivious compulsion to unconsciously compelled self-defeating behavior can linger for decades, even for the rest of our lives, if not therapeutically addressed and corrected.

Thus if there are five candidates from five different parties running for the same office, each one will pander to the voters of the demographic relevant to the particular office in the election, presenting a small to large differing perspective on each of the germane social issues, thereby drilling down deep into each voter's psyche to activate idiosyncratic attitudes and thus carve the electorate into five divided segments.  The economic perspective of the candidate who wins then joins the assembled body (City Council, State Assembly/Senate, federal Presidency/House of Representatives/Senate) and the economic perspectives in that given body are just as varied as the social issues perspectives that got them elected, somewhat aligned only by factions within each candidate's political party.  This means that in all likelihood, as history attests, the governing body lacks a focused alliance about what the economic problems are and how best to solve them, and, thus divided, they lack a unified governing direction as well.  Each official of the body then usually falls victim to money-power politics as usual, succumbing to this lobby of the moment or that backroom legislative deal, and dire problems remain unaddressed and unresolved.

We the people are also left with a social issues focus after the election, and, without an organizing force to get us refocused onto the major economic matters needing attention and empowering us to bind elected officials to focusing on creating solutions to these matters, the American governing process falls into a substandard ineffectual state in which we the average American endure the brunt of the economic suffering that lingers.  Such is where we are today.

This is not to say that aspects of social issues aren't important.  The value of liberty's freedom and justice's security underpin many key aspects of social issues, and when human rights are at play in these matters they are of profound importance.

It's just that there are three presentations politicians and social activists make during election time that are most often patently false: 1) a human rights violation is occurring with regard to a given social issue aspect, 2) there are no laws in place to protect against said alleged violation, and 3) these premises, even though false, are more important than your ability to earn a prosperous living and/or they're connected to your inability to earn a prosperous living.  These false statements are the pandering mechanism that seduces and divides us all, preventing us from getting our priority economic issues solved. Thus, when so directed by clever politicians, the social issues, which are essentially secondary in priority to the economic issues today, get placed at the top of our mental list of decision factors, thereby functioning as a roadblock to solving the primary problems that are creating economic hardship and misery for scores of millions of Americans, when the actual misery created by the social issues was comparatively very minimal.  We were simply predisposed by our specific social issue related unresolved family-of-origin issues to falsely imagine the social issue was more important to us here and now than earning a prosperous living.

One of the reasons this social issues pandering tactic is so effective is because it employs fear, albeit with erroneous premises presented with exaggerated emotion.  Our brain's limbic system is designed to respond strongly to fear at the overriding expense of our cognitive thinking ability.  We're wired that way to protect ourselves, which has kept our species alive for so long.  Indeed, a false assessment that we are in danger when we aren't usually won't harm us, but a false assessment that we, or someone we care about, isn't in danger when we and they are in danger can get us and them killed.  Thus when fear hits, we survive by paying attention and not thinking our way out of paying attention.  But, if there's really in truth nothing to be afraid about, then politicians and activists pandering via the social issues with their contrived fears can divert us from paying attention to our economic needs and thus harm our ability to intelligently take care of ourselves and meet our economic goals.  Politicians and activists play into the nature of our inclination to pay attention to fear at the expense of our thinking abilities which they do via appeal to the social issues with what is tantamount to fear mongering.  Thereby they can more easily compel our vote via fear but at the cost of directing attention toward presenting solutions to economic problems to meet our economic needs, economic problems they thus likely haven't a clue how to solve, so they resort to diverting attention away from economics via fear mongering with social issues.  This fear mongering via the social issues can be very effective to manipulate us by our brain's limbic system and its link to unresolved emotionally painful issues from childhood if we're not aware that's precisely what they're doing.

This social issue roadblock to prosperity must be removed if we are to have any hope of ever solving our dire economic problems.

Removing this roadblock can be very challenging, as it requires that we take a deep truthful look at ourselves that many are reluctant to do.  But, do it we must if we're ever to prevent the pandering politicians from unethically manipulating us by our unresolved family-of-origin issues into creating economically self-defeating behavior in the voting booth.

If we do so, we will come to realize that we can still be passionate about real human rights and true social issue freedom-liberty and security-justice, subsequently working toward those ends, not because we're manipulated to falsely think it's needed, but because we accurately recognize the entire fact-based truth of the matter truly validates that effort.  Then we can actively pursue these matters without sacrificing essential priority economic prosperity for scores of millions of Americans, economic prosperity that includes putting food on the table and a roof over our and our children's heads, a very real problem for far too many of us.  And, we can address social issues as they truly are in the here and now, without acting out in a self-defeating manner our issue-irrelevant unresolved family-of-origin dramas of the past in the public political arena of today.

When we so wake up to the fact that we've been acting out our past dramas on the social issues, we often come to realize that the human rights violations we thought were at play really weren't there at all as we imagined them.

We recognize this presentation will be difficult for many to hear.  But if "courageous" is an apt description of our alliance, then it demands that we listen, and it demands that we heed the warning of how too much inappropriate attention to social issues can cost us priority essential resolution of foundational economic issues, thereby defeating our priority economic purpose.

Understanding Each Social Issue's Affect

The social issues by their very nature have a strong psychological-emotional pull on most people that can compel us to do so many things, much against our will, including put our high-priority economic needs on the back burner to thwart this social faction or raise that one.

Though it's very difficult to detach ourselves from that strong pull, we can discipline ourselves to distract our attention from it and remain focused on the economic priorities that would be lost if we failed to so distract ourselves.

This website's membership unifying economic problem-solving alliance, by its very nature, performs a fundamental role in distracting us from succumbing to a comparatively irrelevant focus on social issues, a role it performs by compelling candidates to agree with our desired changes to the socioeconomic system in America or suffer election defeat.  Thus, in theory, this causes all actually elected officials to be completely allied in support of making these changes while they're in office, regardless of their position on the social issues.

Understanding how the major social issues affect us helps to demystify and thus lessen the pull they have on us to commit economically self-defeating behavior in the voting booth.  Such an understanding can significantly aid in this distraction process, thus aiding us in getting focused back on the priority economic issues.

Once we're all focusing on the priority economic issues, we then relegate social issues to their secondary place for subsequent addressing and resolution intelligently.

There are seven major societal topics that calibrate social issues today: abortion, drugs, gender, guns, race, religion, and sexual orientation.  We'll examine each of these to get an understanding of what they are and how they affect us and condition us to be compelled by the rhetoric of politicians against our own best economic interest.

1.  Abortion.

The issues regarding abortion are a major divider of people today, functioning to divide couples, families, friends, and political parties and factions.

As utilized today, and with respect to science, abortion is most accurately defined as the willful termination by any means of the life of a human from conception and prior to birth.

Many reasons can be employed to justify the specific instance of abortion, with one instance of justification affecting us one way and another instance of justification affecting us a different way.

What makes abortion an issue at all is the nearly 40-year-old alliance of the hard sciences of anthropology, taxonomy, phylogeny, biology, embryology, DNA-genetics, life science, etc. that states without rational conjecture that a human begins to live at conception and from that moment on is alive as alive can be.  This alliance has only grown stronger with time.  We also pretty much get the truth of this intuitively.

So the contention that makes abortion an issue is regarding the question of when is it ethically, morally acceptable to kill a prenatal human and when is it not, a contention that derives from the similarly related question of when is it acceptable to kill a postnatal human and when isn't it acceptable.

What's relevant here is how and why we're so strongly affected by this issue that we can set aside a candidate for office who embraces our sensible focus on solving our major economic problems merely because we're opposed to that candidate's position on abortion and thereby elect a candidate who does not support our desired socioeconomic changes.

At this point let's pause a moment about abortion itself and realize a fundamental truth of political vote-pandering: a politician may say he or she supports or opposes a particular position on a social issue, implying that's their personal position, when in reality it's not their personal position at all, but it's merely the position their brain trust handlers told them to tell this or that particular demographic to garner the most votes.  So the problem with listening to a candidate's position on the social issues is that the candidate's presentation is tailored, not to reflect the truth, but to simply get votes, and we really do ourselves a disservice by rejecting a candidate who is telling the truth about their support of our economic changes because we likely erroneously think the candidate personally opposes our position on the social issues!

As with all social issues, the answer to the how and why of abortion's pull on us relates to our childhood.  Check your personal history with these pertinent questions.  Did your mother have an abortion? Did your mother or someone you knew about die during an abortion procedure? Were there too many mouths to feed in your family?  Did you suffer from poverty as a child that handicapped you economically as an adult?  Do you see women as oppressed and abortion as either an element in that oppression or a liberation of that oppression?  Do you see men as these oppressors? Did your father abuse our mother?  Was your family-of-origin religious and what became your attitude toward abortion as a result?  Did you participate in a pregnancy as a teen, and what was the result, abortion or birth?  Did you or your parents give up a child for adoption?  Did your mom have a miscarriage, or did you as a teen or someone you knew have a miscarriage?  These are basic situations from our childhood that form our powerfully compelled attitude on abortion.

Ask yourself these questions and see for yourself.  Whom in your family-of-origin do you idealize?  For whom in your family-of-origin do you hold contempt? How does that affect your idealization and contempt based attitudes towards related people, concepts or institutions today?  How does that affect your attitude toward abortion and thus your perspective on this issue?

Most of us have at least a somewhat strong emotional reaction to abortion.  What we often don't realize is how the strength of our reaction is related to our family-of-origin and other childhood experiences, and we often don't realize that it's that strong compulsion on the abortion issue that can cause us to shoot ourselves in the economic foot.

Every one of us grows up with some unresolved issues of painful conflict with those in our childhood, be it our parents, siblings, playmates, teachers, boyfriends, girlfriends, whomever.  If we're still hung up on those unresolved issues, meaning they still exert some degree of unconscious control over our attitudes and behaviors, we are not completely in conscious charge of our own life, and we can thereby be seduced, manipulated, and compelled to decisions, decisions that can be self-defeating, without ever really knowing that's what's happening to us, compelled on us by politicians and activists uttering persuasive rhetoric, skillfully utilizing the results of their experts' psychological analysis.

This predisposition to be so manipulated is unique to the social issues; it simply doesn't happen like this with the economic issues.

We would all do well, economically, to get therapeutic resolution and relief from these unresolved issues from childhood, so as to truly be in charge of our own life and decisions in the here and now.

Until then, we need just be aware that when a politician turns their attention toward any aspect of a social issue, it's best if we, who realize that we have major economic priorities that must take precedent, simply close our ears and ignore that politician, especially if that politician hasn't completely endorsed the Powerful American Political Alliance, lest we allow ourselves to be placed in danger of self-sabotaging our own economic wellbeing.

2.  Drugs.

Drug usage and legalization is another primarily social issue that politicians utilize in an attempt to persuade us toward their candidacy and at the disregard for concern about their greater priority economic position.

An estimated 44% of Americans of all ages have tried pot, with about 11% of Americans being current users.  The percentages for other drugs (cocaine, crystal meth, heroin, acid, etc.) are significantly less.

Drugs wouldn't be an issue were it not for the fact that drug usage, whether "recreational" or addictive, can damage the brain, debilitate the user, lead to disease, injury and death of the user, inflict injury and death on bystanders from accidents caused by incapacitated users, and these street-form drugs have no social redeeming value.

Thus drugs are an issue, especially with respect to our children.

So the issue is about pain, pain relief, debilitated people, most prominently our loved ones, and their lives placed at risk.  Thus it's easy to see why this issue carries the emotional weight that it does.

But how and why this issue so strongly affects those of us that it does again lies in relation to our childhood experiences.  Did your parent(s) do drugs?  Were they often physically or emotionally unavailable to you?  Did your parent or sibling overdose on drugs or get injured/killed related to their drug use or the drug use of another?  Was material and money more important than people in your home or did people and their feelings matter more?  Did your parents fight?  Was there strife in the home or was it peaceful?  Was school difficult for you or not?  Did you have problems relating to friends and schoolmates or did you get along well? Did you turn to drugs to relieve the pain of your home, social, or school life?  Were your best bonds the comradery you had with fellow drug users?  Did someone's drug usage let you down?  Did you feel controlled by authorities as a child or teenager?  Did you feel important as a child?  Did you feel scared about wars?  These situations and others from life when we were young form our powerfully compelled attitude on drugs.

Again, as you answer these questions, think about what or whom you idealize or find contemptuous.

Our attitude toward drugs and legalization can be strong depending on our childhood experience.  If, as an adult, we suffered the drug-related death of someone close to us or drugs continue to give us relief from the painful dog-eat-dog world, we can be powerfully affected.

The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we want to allow a candidate's position on this single issue to which we are essentially opposed, but a candidate who supports our economic position, to cause us to vote for a different candidate who doesn't support our economic position just because that different candidate is a better match for our position on the social issue of drugs.  Doing so is not an intelligent idea, as social issue decisions in law can always be reversed later and comparatively easily, whereas once an economic structure is established it can be very difficult to alleviate the problems it may create, as our heretofore lack of ability for so many decades to address the foundational problems and their adversity-causing hardships attests.

The social issue of drugs can be powerfully compelling, especially to addicts and those who've lost loved ones to drugs, dividing to ineffectiveness those of both groups who support our economic changes to create prosperity simply so this or that politician can win an election based mostly on their position on the single issue of drugs.

We can't, however, allow our unreleased, unresolved emotional pain from the past to cause us to harm ourselves economically today if we ever want to help ourselves and scores of millions of us get relief from significant economic pain.

There is too much at stake to allow the drug issue to compel us to economic self-sabotage.  We must be aware that politicians will pander to their experts' determination of a winning strategy to utilize regarding drugs when addressing our particular demographic, and we can't let that sway us from being true to our economic priorities.

Let's not let this ploy cause us to abandon our priority economic problem-solving goals.  

3.  Gender.

Gender issues are, by nature, divisive with respect to our own gender and/or the gender we idealize or find contemptuous.

The words patriarchy, matriarchy, "glass ceilings", chauvinism, "political correctness", feminism, equal pay, special treatment, emasculation, traditional roles, even liberty and justice and the freedom and security from which they're respectively derived, all affect us differently depending on our gender attitude.

Political analysts know that pandering to gender is a quick way to elicit a favorable response from a given demographic that can completely distract from the economic situation, details, or the candidate's position on the economic issues.

The power of appeal to gender can be strong in compelling us to follow the herd and against our economic best interest.

So ask yourself a set of relevant questions about your childhood experiences.  Are you male or female?  Would you consider yourself a transsexual?  Which of your parents, your mom or your dad, was dominant?  Which one suffered more?  Was your mom restricted by traditional gender roles?  Was your dad liberated by traditional gender roles? Were you abandoned by one of your parents? Did you participate in gender-normal recreation activities when you were young?  Did you have any trouble getting dates or was getting dates easy for you?  Did you have gender-normal career-aspiration goals as a teenager or not?  Did you tend to side with the underdog or the champion?  And so forth.

Are you in idealization of or contempt for your own or the other gender today?  Do you wish today you would have been born the opposite gender or are you very happy with your current gender?  Why?

This is not to say that there aren't fundamental preferences that have statistically been shown to have a gender association.  Indeed, the challenges to achieve peaceful coexistence between men and women are legendary.  It's just that we can place effort into addressing all of these challenges while continuing to place priority emphasis on meeting the economic freedom and security needs of both genders.

Politicians play the gender card a lot, often subtly in their careful choice of words.  All too often a candidate can say they're opposed to the exploitation of one gender or the other in a topically irrelevant quick and easy diversion away from the economics or the candidate's personality and merely to swing the vote in their favor.

This can be powerfully compelling.  But we simply can't let us fear that we're betraying our own kind if the politician who so panders to us doesn't support our economic agenda.  Any candidate who completely supports our economic position will be far superior to the one who doesn't but manipulatively pandered to our unresolved family-of-origin issues via gender to seduce our vote.

4.  Guns.

Guns, their use, their type, associated rights, the psychology of the gun user, all factor into making derived social issues a major concern in today's "civilized" world.

The gun debate is relevant because of the lethal nature of guns, that they're relatively easy to use, that they're lethal from considerable distance, and that they're used in so many tragedies like mass murder suicides as well as the accidental death of children.

This is an issue that often plays out in a right-wing male vs. left-wing female polemic, the former wanting less controls on who can obtain a gun and the latter wanting tight strict controls, thereby creating a compound social issue.

Again, the power of politicians to unconsciously compel you to, in effect, support their economic position simply by presenting their position on the social issue of guns, is very strong.

Why that power is strong again goes back to your childhood: Did your father own guns?  Was your father overpowering emotionally and physically at times?  Same two questions of your mother?  Did anyone in your home threaten to use a gun on another family member?  Did you feel powerless as a child because there were guns in the house?  Did you feel safe because there were guns in the house?  Did you play with toy guns as a child?  Did a news tragedy involving guns have a powerful affect on you?  Did you lose a loved-one to a gun tragedy?  Were you protected from harm by someone who wielded a gun?  Did you feel powerful because you held a gun?  How did you view police officers?  How did you view soldiers?  These and similar questions will help you realize why the social issue of guns affects you today as it does.

Your idealization or contempt for a specific person(s), concept or institution associated with guns orients from your childhood experience.  The strength of your idealization or contempt will greatly determine how much power the politicians have in compelling you to vote for them, even if their position on the economic issues is substandard or self-defeating.

Psychotherapy, as always, can help to address unresolved and painful childhood issues and thus have a positive effect in releasing you from the potential to be unconsciously controlled by politicians wielding social issue rhetoric no matter what the specific social issue might me.

In the meantime, being aware that you can be so controlled, and that economics must come first now that you are no longer a child living in your parents' home, will help you to focus on the candidates' economic positions and thus aid in removing the social issues relevant to guns from the roadblock components that prevent us from solving the very painful and far more frequently deadly economic adversities suffered in media silence by Americans today.

5.  Race.

Race is a major social issue calibrator utilized by politicians today to persuade you to elect them so that they can enact their economic policies on their constituency.

Race is a very powerful tool in political rhetoric because it can penetrate deep into the very foundation of who we are.

Here in America, the melting pot of the world, we have always striven against bias to open the door to people regardless of their race, and essentially all our country's laws designed today by their very nature are explicitly blind to race so as to mete out justice fairly to all.

But our history was not always so.  Slavery, bigotry, economic privilege, clannish behavior, etc. were all once allowed by law in America, and though we've made huge strides to eliminate nearly all of such legally sanctioned behaviors, our culture's sociology still contains remnants of these once-legal behaviors, the effects of which still make it possible for politicians to divide and conquer us economically today by appeal to race.

Many rich suburbs reflect a preponderance of one race, as do our poor ghettos, white-collar offices, blue-collar factories, illegal alien enclaves, etc.  Even though these situations are not created by anyone's desire or intent today, these sociological phenomena are very visible to us, making it easier to fall prey to race-baiting politicians and their sometimes subtle manipulation therewith.

Again, however, the power that an appeal to race holds over us depends on our childhood experience of our own race and the race of others.

So ask yourself relevant questions about your childhood.  Were you a child from a mixed race marriage or not?  Was your race dominant in your neighborhood and school or not?  Was your race favored or treated poorly in your school?  Did you or your parent(s) fear people of other races, perhaps to the point of bigotry?  If so, how did that affect you?  Did you favor the champion or the underdog as a child?  Did you favor one parent as a child over the other parent?  Did your perspective on race become the opposite of the parent you liked the least?  Were you or a family member harmed by someone of another race?  Were you or a family member harmed by someone of your own race and a person(s) of another race stepped in to protect or support you?  Do you come from a rich neighborhood?  Were you harmed by a parent of the same race as yours?  Do you find people of a different race attractive?  Do you come from a poor neighborhood?  Did one of your parents of a different race as you harm you in some way?  How did you feel about authority figures such as police officers?  And, this list goes on.

Our idealization and contempt that can result for people and groups of a given race is obviously related in both strength and nature to our childhood experiences, especially those experiences where hurt was involved that we've yet to process and release.

Today, that unconsciously compelled idealization and contempt can overwhelm us, making us easily manipulated by false-statement-wielding politicians with a lazy or Americans-defeating economic policy.

Media reports of police officers of one race behaving with deadly violence toward dominantly differing-race citizens of a given community have been much in the news of late, stoking the flames of political race-baiting by opportunistic politicians on both sides who want to do a whole lot unethically more than create justice.  Illegal aliens of a predominant race are pitted against our blue-collar workers of another race by the rhetoric of politicians beholding to this or that political lobby.  Animosity is carelessly and callously stoked by unscrupulous politicians and activists who don't care that they thereby make relevant matters worse and have no intention of solving the economic problems that plague people of all races.

It's important that we root out specific individuals from power who hold and exemplify racial bias.

It's also important not to judge all the people of one race because of the bias of some. 

Only we the people can thus do something about this social issue, calibrated upon race, to negate the egregious panders of politicians.  We must be constantly aware of how easy it may be to have our psyches controlled and manipulated by this social issue into backing a politician who ironically is opposed to the very socioeconomic changes that would benefit those they are purporting to favor in their race-bait, their race-bait that by its very employment thereby indicates that their attitude itself is racially unethical.

This particular social issue is a tough one, for sure.  We must be on guard against politicians and activists who so and often subtly favor or oppose this race or that in their dangerously polarizing rhetoric.  Not only is such rhetoric un-American in spirit, it's divide-and-conquer divisive and can function to prevent us from ever beginning to obtain sufficient power to compel elected officials to agree on how to solve the major economic hardships suffered by American citizens of all races.  Indeed, some politicians purposely stoke the racial flames so we'll be distracted from seeing how economically ineffectual and self-defeating to all us average Americans their economic policies truly are, and they don't care that makes race relations in America worse.  

6.  Religion.

Religion is a social issue calibrator that has divisive power when carelessly wielded by politicians.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees both that the government can't establish an official church in America and that each citizen may partake of any religion or no religion as they wish without the government interfering.

There are indeed many religions and various denominations of these religions practiced in America.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of the 2.5 million people who formed the original population of our country in 1776 were Christians.  And our society and culture, even the concepts that form the basis of our laws, are Judeo-Christian in nature.  Though we allow the practice of all religions by law, that doesn't prevent socio-cultural inter-religion conflict from occurring, and politicians have been known to use this social issue to compel votes from population segments as needed to win elections.

Whether or not a politician can successfully divide to their benefit a voting demographic via appeal to religion again depends on each voter's childhood experience with religion, as the experiences we have in childhood when our brains are still forming can carry the most muscle to move us in a given social issue-compelled direction as adults.

So ask yourself some religion questions relevant to your childhood.  Were you raised in a religious household?  If so, which religion?  Was your religion a majority religion or comparatively less or little practiced?  Did your parents agree religiously?  Did your parents disagree and maybe even argue about religious matters?  Did you like going to your place of religious practice?  Did you dislike taking time for religious practice?  Were you ever harmed by someone in their religious role?  Did your religious practice make you a better person?  Were you raised in a home where religion was not practiced?  If religion was not practiced in your home then were you okay with that or not?  Did some religions make you uneasy as a child or frighten you?  If so, which ones, and why?  Were you rescued in some way by someone practicing a religion and you then adopted their religion for yourself?  Did you leave a religion with which you became disenchanted?  Did you rebel a bit against your religion when you were a teen, and, if so, did you find another religion or stop practicing religion altogether?  Did your parent(s) practice or lack of practice of a religion affect you? If so, how?  Did you fear going to Hell?  Did you long to go to Heaven?  Did you adopt a specific religion as a teen to appease a romantic partner?  Ask yourself these and other topically relevant questions to get you to thinking about the topic so that you can bring into consciousness an awareness of how this social issue affected you prior to becoming an adult, which will thus help you grasp your experience of religion today.

There are people and concepts and institutions related to religion about which you may to some degree idealize or hold in contempt.  Examine them, your idealization and contempt, and how these attitudes were derived from your childhood experiences.  This will help you realize just how powerfully you can be manipulated by a politician wielding a perspective on this social issue.

Today, there are relative handfuls of people in the news who excuse heinous acts by appeal to religion, appeal that is inaccurate or erroneous.  That doesn't mean there is a religious issue here, it only means that really psychologically damaged people sometimes make excuses for the damage they in turn inflict, and occasionally they'll situationally espouse idiosyncratic religious references in their excuses.  We must know this is the case, and be on guard against politicians and activists attempting to falsely manipulate us via fear mongering that it's all about religion when it isn't.  We then come to realize perhaps a harsher reality: that there are more people out there suffering unresolved hurt and damage than we had previously realized, people who thus inflict hurt and damage on others no matter how they excuse doing so, and they simply need psychological help to address their damage and relieve its pain.

It is important, if we are to be allied in getting our economic modifications implemented into the socioeconomic system in America, that we not allow ourselves to be primarily divided and conquered via this or any other social issue to otherwise place our urgently needed economic changes on the secondary back burner where they will never get addressed.

Essentially all of your unresolved childhood issues, egregiously pandered to by the social-issue rhetoric of politicians seeking to manipulate your vote, are truly secondary in nature today to your adult primary economic need to reasonably earn a respectable living in support of yourself and your family.

Understanding how and why the social issues rhetoric calibrated by religion can manipulate you into economic self-defeating behavior is step one in wresting control of your life in this regard away from pandering politicians.

7.  Sexual Orientation.

Probably the most prominent social issue calibrator in American politics today is that of sexual orientation.

Politicians are pandering both left and right to their constituency demographic with sexual orientation rhetoric in the hope of securing election or reelection for themselves and power for their political party.  Sadly, their pandering is frequently quite effective, and often to our economic detriment.

Sexual orientation is considered psychological in nature, and is about both one's own sexual identity and the sex to which we're attracted.  The word "gender" is sometimes used replacing the word "sexual" to essentially refer to the same thing.  Those people who experience their own sex/gender to be different from their physical body's sexual characteristics are known as "transsexual/transgender".  Those people who experience their attracted-to sex/gender to be the same as they experience their own sex/gender are known as "homosexual".  Those people who experience their attracted-to sex/gender to be the opposite from their experience of their own sex/gender are known as "heterosexual".  A male homosexual is referred to as a "gay" and a female homosexual is referred to as a "lesbian", though both male and female homosexuals, especially where they gather culturally, are referred to as "gay" or belonging to the "gay community".  Heterosexuals are sometimes referred to as "straight".  Thus comparisons are sometimes made in reference between heterosexuals and homosexuals as straight vs. gay respectively.

Transsexuals are rare, some studies say less than 0.3% of the population.  A little less than 2.0% of the population is homosexual, with a little less than 3.0% being some percentage mix of heterosexual and homosexual, often referred to as "bisexual".  Heterosexuals thus comprise more than 95% of the population.  These are recent figures, though the percentages vary seemingly depending on who the statisticians are, though not too much from these.

The origin of sexual orientation is debated.  Some say it's a learned and thus conscious experience and that related behaviors are a "choice".  Others say that our idiosyncratic experience with care-givers and others during the first four years of life when our brain's structure is still significantly forming can unconsciously shape our psychological sense of self and thus our two sexual orientation aspects (self and attracted-to) as well, which compels us to behave in attendant ways.  Then there are those who are now saying that sexual orientation is determined epigenetically during gestation, that postnatally we are predetermined to develop our sexuality accordingly and that our related behavior is simply endemic to how our brain is thus formed prior to birth.  Indeed, postmortem examinations have shown that certain areas of the heterosexual brain are consistently structured different from those of the homosexual brain, lending some credence to the epigenetic gestation perspective, though it's still hotly debated.

What makes this social issue so controversial and thus so divisive in the hands of a vote-pandering politician is that many people in America's Judeo-Christian culture have a religious doctrinal opposition to homosexuality that calls it a sin and opposes societal/legal support of it. In addition, many people of the straight community find the thought of gay sex repugnant, as do many people of the gay community turn up their nose at the thought of straight sex.  The so-called "gay marriage" conflict arises from these two elements, about which there appears to be no permanent resolution that satisfies everyone.

Again, the degree of compulsion about this social issue you experience can be traced back to your childhood.

Ask yourself relevant questions from your childhood: What was the sexual orientation of your parents?  When were you first aware of your psychological sex/gender?  When were you first aware of what sex/gender attracted you?  If you are straight, did you know any people who were gay and how did you react to them?  If you are transgender or gay, how did you feel about that as a child or teen?  Did you and your friends deride homosexuality?  Did you feel for someone who was mistreated because of their sexual orientation?  Were you ever harmed by someone of the opposite sexual orientation?  Did your religion have a perspective about sexual orientation?  If so, how strong was that perspective and how did it affect you?  What when you were young was your idea of what marriage is and who the participants in a marriage should be?  Ask yourself these and any other questions that come to mind on the subject.

This particular social issue can create strong idealization and contempt directed at related people, concepts, and institutions.  But that strength is mitigated by defusing the emotion inherent and held in the yet unprocessed and unresolved conflict of your relevant childhood experiences.  Facing your own history with this social issue topic, especially with the help of a psychotherapist, can greatly help you bring those related underlying experiences into consciousness where they are thereby shorn of their lingering pain and power to overwhelm you unconsciously.  You are thus much less likely to be compelled by them into doing whatever the mesmerizing politician commands of you and against your personal economic best interest.

It is especially important with this particular social issue, that reaches very deep into the fabric of our psyche's fundamental reproductive drive, that we as an electorate exercise conscious effort to prevent ourselves from being seduced into being divided up into powerless segments by politicians who have no real desire to solve the dire economic problems we face but who merely want to obtain money-power for themselves and recognize that manipulation via social issues is the easiest quick and dirty way of doing so.

Dismantling the Roadblock

Our Pledge of Allegiance states that we are a nation that is indivisible.  Indeed, in order for our country to be strong enough to meet our economic needs to earn a living we have to stand united, or we have no chance at even remaining a nation itself for long.  We learned that lesson during World War II and at the onset of the Cold War, and we were a patriotic force to be reckoned with, as no politician was able to wield social issue rhetoric and divide us from attaining economic prosperity, as the 1950s evidenced.

Today, politicians pander to logistical demographics of the voting population via this social issue and that, carving us up like a roast, dispersing any united power we might otherwise possess as a whole to command our governing bodies to address the major economic hardships of our time.

We've historically lamented that there's not much we can do about the behavior of politicians, especially those politicians who care more about getting into office than whether they are going to help us economically once they get there.  Indeed it is so very sad how the websites of prominent candidates are laced with subtle to blatant pandering manipulation of the reader via social issue contrivances and how next to nothing is presented that could effectively solve our major priority economic problems.

But, there are two things we can do as a united citizenry to effectively negate this pandering and to, in effect, dismantle the social issue roadblock that stands in the way of getting the politicians we elect to serve us to do precisely that: serve us.

First, we must become aware, as presented in this page, just how we can be so completely seduced and compelled by a politician with a social issue speech to unjustifiably betray our own best economic interest.  Hopefully this webpage itself has gone a long way toward beginning that process, maybe even sufficient enough to protect yourself psychologically from making a mountain out of a molehill when so subtly commanded by a politician wielding social issue rhetoric.  Dealing with the unresolved pain of your remaining psychologically-emotionally powerful issues from childhood will greatly help in liberating you from ever putting you and your family's paramount economic needs behind the comparatively here-and-now unimportant unresolved childhood issues triggered by politicians' pandering via appeal to social issues.

And second, we must require each and every serious candidate for office to heed the purpose of this, the Powerful American Political Alliance website, by stating their full support for solving the problem as we've presented it and enacting our recommended changes to the socioeconomic system to effect those solutions.  Thus if just one of many candidates for an office is smart enough to support us, we know that's the candidate we're going to support and we don't have to listen to any candidate's rhetoric.  If all of the candidates for a given office completely support us, then again we don't care what the candidates say about social issues, as any one of them will still be committed to our goal regardless of their presentation on social issues.  And, if just some of the candidates completely support us, then we just have to determine which of those candidates' character, temperament, and experience best lends itself to the given office, consider their position on social issues, and that's our candidate.

To those of you in the considerable minority, who have established your economic prosperity and are now focusing your attention on the social issues in a typical Maslow's hierarchy of needs sequence, we ask that you consider the great majority of Americans who haven't come even close to attaining their foundational economic prosperity and join us in being considerate of their priority economic needs.  Indeed, just because you've attained some degree of economic prosperity, maybe even economic security, that doesn't mean you're immune to being manipulated via your unresolved childhood issues by politicians wielding social-issue rhetoric.

Yes, this particular page of our website presents a hard message to hear.  But, it is a truthful message, and it is a required message to be heard and admonished if we are to succeed in compelling politicians to solve our dire economic problems.

It takes courage -- lots of courage -- to face our own personal history and realize how it predisposes us to be manipulated against our best interest.  But it's vitally important that you are aware of this potential roadblock to getting the dire economic problems solved that plague scores of millions of our fellow Americans, that you know how to dismantle this roadblock in your life, and that we can all then continue powerfully together on the road toward economic prosperity for us all.

The next page will present the solution to the problem that we, the Powerful American Political Alliance website, recommend that will create that economic prosperity once again.

Contact Us | About the Founder

Facebook SSL Certificate
SSL Certificate