Tweet
And a mix of tribalism as well.
While many highly-politicized people believe that ideology and political philosophy are guideposts for the voters the truth of the matter is that sexuality and tribalism are far more important in determining how the people will vote. And while the Republican Party is dominated by old, white, sexually repressed males who are in denial about the power of psychology it will go the way of the Whigs or worse the Shakers.
Some men were surprised that when Bill Clinton was caught with the intern, and finally the media paid attention to the rumors of other affairs, that polls indicated his support with women went up! They wondered why their wives, who would smack them silly if they found out they were cheating, came to Bill’s defense. Well, it would not have surprised Sigmund Freud or Wilhelm Reich in the least (although Freud would have condemned Clinton’s lack of sexual repression while Reich would have seen it as a sign of virility). Women saw Clinton as an archetypical alpha male…heck, he became a rock star in their minds, even if only at the sub conscious level. Just as if they were in a primitive tribal society they saw Clinton as more of a powerful chief who, since he was certainly not limited by monogamy, they could fantasize the possibility they too could be one of his women.
Doubt this? Look to Putin who often has photo-ops without his shirt horseback riding (a powerful double sexual image) or who uses sexually suggestive political ads (which Obama actually copied – the “political virgin” ad that implied an actress had lost her “political virginity” to Barack Obama). His camp understood the power of sexuality. This is why he twisted Romney’s stance on not forcing Catholic hospitals to provide birth control services to their employees to make it look as if he wanted to restrict access to birth control. He was remarkably successful in getting young white women (including LDS girls) to freak out that a Romney election could restrict their ability to have sex with whoever they wished without the consequences of pregnancy. On top of this…well, here is an article with Michael Savage; he gets the power of sex and politics:
To me, it’s got everything to do with the so-called “sexual liberation movement.” You’ll notice that in all of these constrictions — or restrictions — on our freedoms, the tightening noose of Big Brother or Big Sis, there’s no suggestion that there’s any control upon our ability to engage in any type of sexual activity whatsoever whether it be with multiple partners, with animals, even with children. Yes, there are laws but they seem to be looking the other way. What’s happening here is quite obvious to me and has been for many, many decades now — which is that some of our most intelligent citizens, who would otherwise be the strongest civil libertarians, happen to be gay and are obsessed with gay “marriage” and so-called gay rights. As a result, some of these most activist, intelligent people are not there for us and therefore our society is being turned into a sort of prison camp.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-with-decker/
Now in reference to this what could Romney have done? I mentioned tribalism, right? We see images and those are interpreted in the sub conscious mind…often incorrectly but who cares in a political race? Notice the new practice of the candidate giving a speech with a throng of supporters behind him as a backdrop. The reason? It conveys a sense of power in numbers…the chief standing in front of his warriors. Obama knew he was weak with white males so he made a point of loading his images with white males. And Romney? I don’t think he recognized the power of imagery. What he should have done was make sure he was surrounded by young white and Hispanic women. This would have appealed to tribalism and conveyed the powerful, though subtle, message of the alpha male with his throngs of adoring young women (play up on the polygamy thing…it’s a taboo that could have been worked to his advantage). Of course he could also have done the Putin thing just as Obama did a few years back – release some pics of him working out or chopping wood with his shirt off. The Freudian implications would have been obvious and greatly increased his popularity with young women since young women often yearn for the fit, viral older male. You know, Hollywood gets it.
Of course there are those who think this is horrible and that elections should not be based on playing to the emotions as our advertising industry, fashion industry, and entertainment industry do with remarkable success. Look, more Mormon women are probably reading “50 Shades of Gray” than “The Miracle of Forgiveness” okay? You will know more about how the political mind works by reading Freud’s “Civilization and its Discontents” and any of the works of Wilhelm Reich or the man who influenced him, Otto Gross, than “The Federalist Papers.” To win elections Republicans have to become aware of what really motivates 99% of the public. You know, Stephanie Meyer gets it, Obama’s people get it…and who, as Charlie Sheen would say is “Winning” and finding success with the public? Well?
While many highly-politicized people believe that ideology and political philosophy are guideposts for the voters the truth of the matter is that sexuality and tribalism are far more important in determining how the people will vote. And while the Republican Party is dominated by old, white, sexually repressed males who are in denial about the power of psychology it will go the way of the Whigs or worse the Shakers.
Some men were surprised that when Bill Clinton was caught with the intern, and finally the media paid attention to the rumors of other affairs, that polls indicated his support with women went up! They wondered why their wives, who would smack them silly if they found out they were cheating, came to Bill’s defense. Well, it would not have surprised Sigmund Freud or Wilhelm Reich in the least (although Freud would have condemned Clinton’s lack of sexual repression while Reich would have seen it as a sign of virility). Women saw Clinton as an archetypical alpha male…heck, he became a rock star in their minds, even if only at the sub conscious level. Just as if they were in a primitive tribal society they saw Clinton as more of a powerful chief who, since he was certainly not limited by monogamy, they could fantasize the possibility they too could be one of his women.
Doubt this? Look to Putin who often has photo-ops without his shirt horseback riding (a powerful double sexual image) or who uses sexually suggestive political ads (which Obama actually copied – the “political virgin” ad that implied an actress had lost her “political virginity” to Barack Obama). His camp understood the power of sexuality. This is why he twisted Romney’s stance on not forcing Catholic hospitals to provide birth control services to their employees to make it look as if he wanted to restrict access to birth control. He was remarkably successful in getting young white women (including LDS girls) to freak out that a Romney election could restrict their ability to have sex with whoever they wished without the consequences of pregnancy. On top of this…well, here is an article with Michael Savage; he gets the power of sex and politics:
To me, it’s got everything to do with the so-called “sexual liberation movement.” You’ll notice that in all of these constrictions — or restrictions — on our freedoms, the tightening noose of Big Brother or Big Sis, there’s no suggestion that there’s any control upon our ability to engage in any type of sexual activity whatsoever whether it be with multiple partners, with animals, even with children. Yes, there are laws but they seem to be looking the other way. What’s happening here is quite obvious to me and has been for many, many decades now — which is that some of our most intelligent citizens, who would otherwise be the strongest civil libertarians, happen to be gay and are obsessed with gay “marriage” and so-called gay rights. As a result, some of these most activist, intelligent people are not there for us and therefore our society is being turned into a sort of prison camp.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-with-decker/
Now in reference to this what could Romney have done? I mentioned tribalism, right? We see images and those are interpreted in the sub conscious mind…often incorrectly but who cares in a political race? Notice the new practice of the candidate giving a speech with a throng of supporters behind him as a backdrop. The reason? It conveys a sense of power in numbers…the chief standing in front of his warriors. Obama knew he was weak with white males so he made a point of loading his images with white males. And Romney? I don’t think he recognized the power of imagery. What he should have done was make sure he was surrounded by young white and Hispanic women. This would have appealed to tribalism and conveyed the powerful, though subtle, message of the alpha male with his throngs of adoring young women (play up on the polygamy thing…it’s a taboo that could have been worked to his advantage). Of course he could also have done the Putin thing just as Obama did a few years back – release some pics of him working out or chopping wood with his shirt off. The Freudian implications would have been obvious and greatly increased his popularity with young women since young women often yearn for the fit, viral older male. You know, Hollywood gets it.
Of course there are those who think this is horrible and that elections should not be based on playing to the emotions as our advertising industry, fashion industry, and entertainment industry do with remarkable success. Look, more Mormon women are probably reading “50 Shades of Gray” than “The Miracle of Forgiveness” okay? You will know more about how the political mind works by reading Freud’s “Civilization and its Discontents” and any of the works of Wilhelm Reich or the man who influenced him, Otto Gross, than “The Federalist Papers.” To win elections Republicans have to become aware of what really motivates 99% of the public. You know, Stephanie Meyer gets it, Obama’s people get it…and who, as Charlie Sheen would say is “Winning” and finding success with the public? Well?
Comment