Political Theory

Re: Changing demographics and libertarianism

Groucho — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 01:10:51 GMT

Walden:

This is my final reply in this thread. I appreciate the dialogue.

One of many ways to say "LA LA LA - Can't hear you!"

Refer to what I previously said on "cognitive dissonance."

Re: Changing demographics and libertarianism

Aristophanes — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:57:01 GMT

What's with the belligerent tone?

You ask others while taking it on your own...

Right away your theory that the media is controlling everyone's minds is bunk.

I don't remember laying all the blame on the media. Social engineers in all parts of society put things together that amount to controlling people's minds. Look at the War on Poverty itself.

I also clarified that the tabula rasa concept was if you weren't born into a culture. If you were born in a vaccuum anything can be programmed into people.

Moreover, if you've actually read Sowell, you'll also know welfare had the most disastarous effect on the black social fabric. Black ghetto pop-culture began to be marketed in the 90s, well after the war on poverty had done it's damage.

I am aware of what Sowell says on the issue. I think it is prescient. But your comment overlooks the idiocy of pretending that blacks haven't been manipulated by the white people in charge, in vairous ways, for centuries. And you do not think that their lower IQ (if that is proveable outside of your white metric) has anything to do with that manipulation. Thomas Jefferson says that negroes hadn't been given a chance to develop due to their situation. Look at Blues and Jazz....where are white people in that mix...?

Are you familiar with Henry David Thoreau? He wrote some interesting commentary on the people's pointless preoccupation with the latest fashions arriving from Europe. Take a look at any historical painting of some well-to-do merchant surrounded by rugs, vases and dressed up in some ludicrous outift, long before Madison Avenue and television were invented.

Who cares about this? This is entirely off topic and you know it isn't why I would bring up HDT... I want to know if you think he overvlaued the IQ of colored people or at least put to much stock on their perspective. Based on your metric from before I'd think that you would resent his appreciation of the Indian philosophies. The Indians have avoided the corrupting influence of corporate advertising and western social engineering in a way that the prissy white people in America could not fathom.

Again, answer the question of why psychological profiles can be made based on political affiliation? If humans are all essentially the same, you would not expect to find libertarians as having "a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional intellectual style..."

I don't think this is true. Psychological profiles based on political affiliations fall apart when you introduce economics...it is all emotional ignorance for everyone. You cannot judge two different facts as having value over one another without introducing some concept of emotion. People are predictable and that is why you can build psycholoigcal profiles at all; politics need not even be involved (you can predict people's political beliefs based on their emotions to situations).

This is my final reply in this thread. I appreciate the dialogue.

What an arrogant and douchey thing to do and say. This last comment that I made I'd like a response to (it is underlined above).

"I HAVE SPOKEN!!!!"

Re: Changing demographics and libertarianism

Walden — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:16:03 GMT

@Aristophanes

You didn't answer the question I asked a while ago. What of the Latino or African countries where their lives basically fit the same patterns? You will owe that to trashy pop culture in America too?

This point casts serious doubt on your tabula rasa theory. Moreover, if you've actually read Sowell, you'll also know welfare had the most disastarous effect on the black social fabric. Black ghetto pop-culture began to be marketed in the 90s, well after the war on poverty had done it's damage. Right away your theory that the media is controlling everyone's minds is bunk.

Your name is "Walden," are you familiar with Henry David Thoureau?

Are you familiar with Henry David Thoreau? He wrote some interesting commentary on the people's pointless preoccupation with the latest fashions arriving from Europe. Take a look at any historical painting of some well-to-do merchant surrounded by rugs, vases and dressed up in some ludicrous outift, long before Madison Avenue and television were invented.

@Michelangelo

Institutions are important. But there is HK, Indonesia and Singapore which were not designed to be white colonies but do relatively well for themselves. This seems to coincide with the fact that latinos and blacks in market economies like the U.S. do not do nearly as well as Asian immigrants.

With regards to it being a racial impulse, this is just an interesting theoretical aside I wanted to make and not my main point. The main point is to ask from a practical POV, with the statistics of IQ in mind of the races as they are today, who would you rather have voting in political elections? What does it mean for the libertarian movement? That is all.

@Groucho

What's with the belligerent tone?

Maybe it was a cult-thing with you

I was thinking like the cult of America which teaches a relativist and a tabula rasa view of humanity.

I remain insistent on my analysis on your thought process. The idea that "just anyone" can be given into herd behavior grows out of this initial presumption as well.

No, not just anyone can as evidenced by the many who don't.

Again, answer the question of why psychological profiles can be made based on political affiliation? If humans are all essentially the same, you would not expect to find libertarians as having "a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional intellectual style..."

I do not subscribe to the solipsistic fantasy, which you apparently held at one time, that anyone and everyone will jump on the libertarian bandwagon as soon as they hear the "good news".

This would seem to contradict:

Start with the basic premise of the NAP and work your way up through levels of abstraction to see where your disagreement arises. See if you can disagree without resorting to fallacious logic, internal projection, or groupthink.

In that where the disagreement lies is a matter of raw data, rather than emotional thinking and mere cognitive capacity. How do you logically tell an emotional thinker to think logically? It can't be done. You say I am "projecting/solipistic" but I at least acknowledge the limitations and variation among humanity to realize that all humans are not made equally.

This is my final reply in this thread. I appreciate the dialogue.

Re: Changing demographics and libertarianism

Groucho — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 03:37:45 GMT

Walden:

But isn't the only thing that separates you from the masses is that you've heard the gospel of Ron Paul?

You think I wasn't an anti-statist until I heard Ron Paul? Hahahahahaha! Buster, you make so many assumptions in your arguments it's unbelievable.

Walden:

Ron Paul's message sounds good because it makes sense and fits into a comprehensive system. When the right person hears the message, it clicks because they can process reaching implications. Some messages sound good because it makes them feel special or something. So answer this: why is it some of us aren't fooled?

There's a loaded question if I ever heard one. "Fooled"? How about "why is it some us don't agree?" Have you ever heard of the "Monty Hall Problem"? Explain it to "most people" and they think it's a paradox. But can you figure out why it is (and indeed has to be) true - and how it would be an impossible paradox if it was not true? If you can't (or, more appropriately, "won't"), does that mean you are "not fooled"?

Where do YOU disagree with libertarianism? Start with the basic premise of the NAP and work your way up through levels of abstraction to see where your disagreement arises. See if you can disagree without resorting to fallacious logic, internal projection, or groupthink.

Walden:

You seem to be the one trying to maintain two different beliefs. On the one hand cocksure of your own ability to see through lies and on the other, the belief that the people are stupid *as a result of* propoganda, rather than the propoganda a reflection of the state of the people.

Anyone, including me, can be fooled. But by exercising the skill of critical thinking (which can be learned, btw) there are many traps that you can avoid falling into. You are doing an amazing amount of projection here. I have not said (nor do I believe) that "people are stupid as a result of propaganda." Propaganda is merely a way of influencing people and "herding" them around. Herd behavior is extremely common in people. Watch an audience sometime and observe how standing applause or a wave (like at baseball games) evolves, it might be enlightening

And let me say this one last time - I do not subscribe to the solipsistic fantasy, which you apparently held at one time, that anyone and everyone will jump on the libertarian bandwagon as soon as they hear the "good news". Maybe it was a cult-thing with you, and if it was I'm sorry for you. Don't assume it was that way for the rest of us or that we all arrived here by similar paths.

Walden:

There has been analysis on the reading level of presidential speeches and it has steadily decreased. Why is that? I suspect it is because originally only white men voted.

Let's assume for the time being that that analysis of presidential speeches is accurate. Your opinion is that it's due to the darkies being allowed to vote along with the ubermensch. A short-sighted thesis that reveals the shallowness of your thinking in this matter.

Re: Changing demographics and libertarianism

Michelangelo — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 02:02:32 GMT

@Walden

This "colonization" destroyed Africa myth is plain garbage. The African nations which were most heavily colonized are today the most modern. South Africa, Ivory Coast...If you just account for IQ, it's easy to see why some former colonies failed and others prospered. Hong Kong was obviously a success. Australia certainly became a developed country but it was rife with tall-poppy syndrome, not a likely candidate for a libertarian movement.

Allow me to rephrase. There is a difference between colonial nations in so far as their institutions go. There are those founded with the explicit purpose of redistributing their wealth to the colonizing nation and the domestic elites.

Take for example the case of Mexico, whose main purpose was the enrichment of Spain. Upon independence the institutions were not changed. In fact the only real difference was that the Criollo (American-born Spaniards) now got the full share of the loot, as opposed to sharing it with their European counterparts. With exception, a good deal of Mexican head of states have been noticably more European looking than the population as a whole. It is true that Mexico is a rich nation, but it suffers a severe imbalance in the share of wealth between the common person, and those under the patronship of the state.

Then there is the case of nations colonized for the purpose of settlement by the colonizing people, and whose institutions were not created for the purpose of redistributing wealth to the colonizing nation, but for allowing the new colonials to create wealth for themselves. The United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. etc. fit here.

I live in the southwest and can easily see the major difference in wealth between our end of the border and the Mexican end. The border states have significant hispanic populations, yet are very different in material wealth from their southern counterparts. Why is it that a hispanic on one end of the border is better capable of saving, building up capital, and ultimately having higher productivity than their counterpart on the other end?

Is it a genetic disposition that makes one smarter, or more libertarian inclined? I would argue not. It seems to be institutions that make these changes.

And so my initial proposal that we have an experiment where we throw in children of different races together and see who develops a libertarian framework first. I suspect it'll show that race has little relevance in one's political leanings versus the institutions they grow up in.

Re: Changing demographics and libertarianism

Aristophanes — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 23:26:07 GMT

Why go through the extra effort of programming when you could appeal to innate desires?

Why must they choose between the two?

You didn't answer the question I asked a while ago. What of the Latino or African countries where their lives basically fit the same patterns? You will owe that to trashy pop culture in America too?

I'm doing other things, what exactly was it?

You say you're not PC, but what you are saying is lifted straight ouf of the politically correct sociology textbook.

haha

Completely misunderstood what I wrote.

No, it wasn't.

Politicians lowered their standards in order to appeal to a different group because they could. They would much rather answer to constiuents who are easier to manipulate and who lack the foresight to oppose massive deficit spending.

Thiank about what you wrote there.

(1) "Politicians lowered their standards in order to appeal to a different group because they could."

(1a) There is not much of a reason given for this sentiment. If there was a reason you could have simply stated it. But, instead they did it because they could.

(2) "They would much rather answer to constiuents who are easier to manipulate and who lack the foresight to oppose massive deficit spending."

(2a) Because of (1a), (2) still doesn't necessarily follow. And given (2), it would seem that they did it on puropose, no? So what is the problem? The white people in charge wanted to manipulate the people who didn't have IQs high enough to figure out the syntax of English. "White people, in dumbing down others, have dumbed down themselves..." How is that a misinterpretation of what you said?

Further, what temporal interim do you have in mind, the last 50 years? I'm trying to picture your sentiment from evidence of the last two centuries or so. Black's and Women's sufferage came a significant amount of time before deficits blew up into the realm that they are today.

Oh, I have Sowell's Ethnic America right here on my shelf. Does this boost my PC street cred?!

You being so worried about PC is kind of funny. You don't know wat race I am. You also must not have seen my perspective of the Arab/Israel thing. Which, if you did, would assuage your PC disposition towards myself.

I was referring to Sowell's Race and Culture. And it never hurts to find white apoligists for the racialism you are pushing.

Have you read Rousseau's first discourse? Or the second one? They talk about this in them.

Your name is "Walden," are you familiar with Henry David Thoureau? He was pretty well read in Indian philosophy. What make you of their IQs?

Again, you should flip tropugh Tocqueville's Democracy in America. Liberty, democracy, and equality are all discussed critically. And it makes more sense than the idiotic "white people are a metric for IQ, 'oh, no the numbers are the mean' nonsense.

Seriously, those numbers cannot be means without a metric. 100 is that metric. Your earlier judgements were using white people's average IQ as the mean (the metric) to judge everyone else. You can deny this all you want, but it is a basic tenet of statistics that metrics are required. Or else you are comparing nothing. Where do you provide an objective metric for measuring IQ?

Re: Changing demographics and libertarianism

Walden — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:53:38 GMT

Why go through the extra effort of programming when you could appeal to innate desires?

Research by Baron-Cohen who shows from birth, boys and girls have differerent preferences in toys. Boys skew toward abstract objects, girls toward faces (dolls, fluffy objects). http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KQ2xrnyH2wQ#t=1283s

It has nothing to do with corporate advertising. Nothing at all. It is the IQ variation of the races...

You didn't answer the question I asked a while ago. What of the Latino or African countries where their lives basically fit the same patterns? You will owe that to trashy pop culture in America too?

You say you're not PC, but what you are saying is lifted straight ouf of the politically correct sociology textbook.

how colored people's lower IQs have brought down the linguistic prowess of the other white men that have run the country

Completely misunderstood what I wrote.

Politicians lowered their standards in order to appeal to a different group because they could. They would much rather answer to constiuents who are easier to manipulate and who lack the foresight to oppose massive deficit spending.

As such, it disenfranchised mostly white men who made up the old right which has been splitting into the libertarian party. When the immigration act of 1965 was passed, the U.S. was 85% white. As the parties massively accelerated toward big government, the librtarian party broke off, particularly with the left which became the party of welfare.

Oh, I have Sowell's Ethnic America right here on my shelf. Does this boost my PC street cred?!

Re: Changing demographics and libertarianism

Aristophanes — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:05:18 GMT

No, I am not PC.

Markerters are keenly in tune with demographics. This only reinforces my point. Nobody is knocking on my door trying to sell me makeup or rap music. I guess I haven't been "programmed" yet?

You were programmed when you were a toddler.

I've already stated that you are programmed to your demographic. It makes no sense to market to people outside of things that will be effective. The point i was making is that people can be made to believe anything. You are programmed to what the marketers want within your demographic.

RE: Tabula rasa: In a vaccuum you could be made to like rap music and dress like a woman. If you were born and raised with the intention of propagandizing certain ideas in you, it could be done. Most people aren't in that situation, though. Lippmann and Bernays simply say that the cultural norms provide the slate for programming. It has to do with income, race, suffrage, culture, etc. But anything can be programmed into anyone.

Who'd think that money extraction would necessitate propaganda that could convince Hispanics and Blacks to follow the same patterns of consumption that whites have followed.

Are you familiar with Plato's Cave?

And again, Tocqueville talks about these things...it didn't have to do with race to him...

Look at the Blacks that were freed and sent to Liberia. What was the first thing they did? Enslave the native blacks. After all of the oppression they saw...they went back and imitated the structure of money and power that the whites had for themselves...

I was contiuing with his metaphor. While we're on the topic of reading comprehension, I'm not particularly imperssed by yours.

You are the one who brought Nietzsche into it...I thought he was framing the metaphor around your intiation.

You on the other hand are very 'with it,' that you've almost managed to exchange ~5 posts of dispassionate discussion without slinging any obscenities or sharing with us a host of conspiracy theories. I'm quite impressed.

Like you theory of how colored people have fucked up your country? And how colored people's lower IQs have brought down the linguistic prowess of the other white men that have run the country?

Where did I say that? Are you unable to infer that I'd be more than able to come to terms with differentiation among individuals given I've been talking about IQ distributions?

Right. You already said so much that indicates this statement's truth...and even with it as a given you still implicitly say that you will continue your prejudice until "another one" proves itself to you...

I'm also curious what a Hispanic or African would need to say to you for you to think that they have an "enlightened" worldview?

Spare me your white guilt

ha, yeah. I'm white...

Jesus was white too wasn't he?

I'm primarily concerned with the truth, not patting myself on the back.

This I don't buy. You are actively looking for reasons to blame colored people (even through eugenic arguments) for the ills of society. White people are just incidentally there not causing problems themselves, but giving the colored people opportunity to cause poroblems through their freedom to do lower minded activities.

It has nothing to do with corporate advertising. Nothing at all. Not the ages of people involved. All of those youthful white kids that listen to ghetto rap like it because they relate so much to it not because corporations and ad-men tell them that it is popular and those same ad-men help to create that popular image. It is the IQ variation of the races...

I do not think in black and white terms as you do, so please do not project your own ignorant outlook into what I am saying.

I'm sure you don't. You've said nothing that indicates that you are a white supremecist.

What I'm saying isn't particularly controversial outside the PC hysteria zone. There are already many smart people, many libertarian, who've already tackled this issue

And Thomas Sowell!

Re: Changing demographics and libertarianism

Walden — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:04:58 GMT

What I'm saying isn't particularly controversial outside the PC hysteria zone. There are already many smart people, many libertarian, who've already tackled this issue like Charles Murray. Here is Hans Hoppe sitting on a panel with Richard Lynn discussing race:

http://vimeo.com/12598475

Re: Changing demographics and libertarianism

Walden — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:38:19 GMT

Are you going to get all SPLC on my ass for not staying PC?

>There is so much wrong with thinking that IQ has anything to (well, first those IQ numbers I'm guessing are bunk) with libertarianism.

He said libertarianism was associated with technological advancement. Those are technologically advanced countries, are they not?

>We are all fooled in one way or another, vdare.

Getting to the bottom of things does not have anything to do with intelligence? That is my point.

>If you read Bernays or Lippmann it is pretty obvious that people are virtually tabula rasa. Any belief can be programmed into people with the right methods.

Markerters are keenly in tune with demographics. This only reinforces my point. Nobody is knocking on my door trying to sell me makeup or rap music. I guess I haven't been "programmed" yet?

>You sound like a fucking nut.

You on the other hand are very 'with it,' that you've almost managed to exchange ~5 posts of dispassionate discussion without slinging any obscenities or sharing with us a host of conspiracy theories. I'm quite impressed.

>"magician" your word for "a manipulating white man."

I was contiuing with his metaphor. While we're on the topic of reading comprehension, I'm not particularly imperssed by yours.

>White people are the smartest intellectually and philosophically, right?

Where did I say that? Are you unable to infer that I'd be more than able to come to terms with differentiation among individuals given I've been talking about IQ distributions?

As I already said, whites have a lower mean IQ than Asians and Jews. But where you draw the line is pointing out that whites might, on average, be superior to other races. Spare me your white guilt. I'm primarily concerned with the truth, not patting myself on the back.

I do not think in black and white terms as you do, so please do not project your own ignorant outlook into what I am saying.

Re: Changing demographics and libertarianism

Aristophanes — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:16:31 GMT

Wouldn't you expect to see S. Korea and Japan experiencing strong libertarian impulses?

There is so much wrong with thinking that IQ has anything to (well, first those IQ numbers I'm guessing are bunk) with libertarianism. Or "seeing the problems." There is no tradition in America....maybe that is why there is more of a mindset for it. The Asians have a "respect your elders" mantra that is deeply engrained in their culture. America has none of that. We have a "knowledge encyclopedia" of our past and none of it means that much to us. Have you ever read Tocqueville? Democracy in America? It's pretty good. And he was white.

This is the problem with supremecy groups. They are always looking for genetic and mental differences that set them apart. Truly libertarian...

What about Jews? Do you attribute Rothbard and Mises and Friedman to the same line of IQ reasoning argument that you'd put Marx and Rothschild in? Why wasn't Rothbard successful in the investing market?

why is it some of us aren't fooled?

We are all fooled in one way or another, vdare.

On the one hand cocksure of your own ability to see through lies and on the other, the belief that the people are stupid *as a result of* propoganda, rather than the propoganda a reflection of the state of the people.

If you read Bernays or Lippmann it is pretty obvious that people are virtually tabula rasa. Any belief can be programmed into people with the right methods.

There has been analysis on the reading level of presidential speeches and it has steadily decreased. Why is that? I suspect it is because originally only white men voted.

This is very shallow way of thinking. The decline in language has to do with more than your whiteness, bro. You sound like a fucking nut.

As the net widened, the tricksters no longer had to appeal to their intellects. The stage magician's tricks became more and more flagrant. There was less emphasis on the philsophical, more and more on the hopey, changey and sexy saxophone playing

hahahaha, is "magician" your word for "a manipulating white man." All of what you said still holds and from your point of view it would make sense. White people are the smartest intellectually and philosophically, right? And they know this and use their intellects and philosophy to control the dumber people. And now that white people, ahem, I'm sorry, the "magician" has dumbed down others, he has dumbed down himself.

Here's a story..

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Changing demographics and libertarianism

Walden — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:50:44 GMT

What if the libertarian impulse has always existed as a heritable tendency? The growth of a new identifiable group called 'libertarians' is actually a result of the conservative party moving away from its roots while the constituent itself remained static.

It isn't as if Ron Paul is the first incarnation of these ideas. He's saying things that have been around a long time and had a comfortable place in the old right. Consider also that the state until relatively recently had been keeping a safe distance from the people and the parties were not so completely polarized in outlook, making a more radical platform less urgent.

Libertarians became irrelevant because there is more of them than us. The parties moved away from the principles of limited government because they no longer had to listen. They simply invented new groups who could vote: government dependents, minorities, special interests, etc.

Re: Changing demographics and libertarianism

Walden — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:33:28 GMT

@ Marko

Wouldn't you expect to see S. Korea and Japan experiencing strong libertarian impulses?

@Groucho

>If you don't recognize at least a dozen instances of propagandized stories on the evening news your're not paying attention.

But isn't the only thing that separates you from the masses is that you've heard the gospel of Ron Paul? It's just that you've heard the *right* propoganda and they have not? You are implicity making a claim of homogenity between people, that they are tabula rasa to be filled with the right ideas. It is quite like the egalitarian notion that there can be equal outcomes from equal inputs which any libertarian would agere is stupid when applied to other spheres of life.

Ron Paul's message sounds good because it makes sense and fits into a comprehensive system. When the right person hears the message, it clicks because they can process reaching implications. Some messages sound good because it makes them feel special or something. So answer this: why is it some of us aren't fooled?

You seem to be the one trying to maintain two different beliefs. On the one hand cocksure of your own ability to see through lies and on the other, the belief that the people are stupid *as a result of* propoganda, rather than the propoganda a reflection of the state of the people. Your belief that their stupidity is the result of mere data is a variation of the utopian view of humanity that I pointed to which is that humans are all interchangeable vessels of information.

There has been analysis on the reading level of presidential speeches and it has steadily decreased. Why is that? I suspect it is because originally only white men voted. As the net widened, the tricksters no longer had to appeal to their intellects. The stage magician's tricks became more and more flagrant. There was less emphasis on the philsophical, more and more on the hopey, changey and sexy saxophone playing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTkUeb6zQFA. The stage magician is limited with what he can get away with by the composition of its audience.

"We found that, compared to liberals and conservatives, libertarians show...a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional intellectual style..."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1665934

Hearing Ron Paul speak was what made us cerebral, or are the cerebral more able to decipher the truth? If it were a matter of propoganda you would not expect to find any correlation between ideology and biological tendencies because "their tricks can fool almost everyone, and some nobody can figure out."

Re: Changing demographics and libertarianism

Minarchist — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:36:33 GMT

you think the OWS people are supportive of central banking? Or, rather, that they would be if they knew that cental banks create all of that money for their welfare programs?

In my experience, the social democrats only object to the central bank insofar as it's "private" and serves the banking interests. Take Kucinich as an example. He wants to abolish the Fed and hand its power to Congress. As with all things, they have the naive belief that State power can somehow be wielded by disinterested technocrats working in the common interest. They've been saying this for over a century...I don't see them changing their tune. We might be able to ally with them against the Fed, but if we ever got rid of the Fed, we had better hope to God that we (and not the social democrats) get to determine the next step.

I think the best basis for cooperation with the social democrats is foreign policy.

Re: Changing demographics and libertarianism

Groucho — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:12:29 GMT

Where I was mistaken (and you seem to be too) is believing that because I saw the light, so would (or could) everyone else.

Do not involve me in a strawman of your own making - that we all think libertarianism is enchanting enough to make "converts" of anyone it is explained to. I can't speak for others here, but I sure don't think that and thought I had been clear about it:

"nothing is guaranteed to triumph over individual stubbornness and willfull ignorance."

"I'm not familiar with that utopian picture of the voting public. Vast blocks of them "vote the line" and do not bother to scrutinize what they're told by politicians and the media."

And don't be deceived into thinking it is only the stupid who can be fooled or that hearing the truth makes a lie go away. Liars prey on people's trust, ignorance, and uncritical thinking. They also prey on people's emotions - the fearful, the desperate, the angry, the disappointed... And what about a good stage magician, or better yet close-up magician? Most of their tricks can fool almost everyone, and some nobody can figure out. And those are all presumeably normal healthy people (the audience...).

But magicians are honest liars for the most part. Consider the game of gaining and maintaining political power. Imagine what manipulative skills have been developed and honed through thousands of years of the business of politics. They cast their nets a lot wider than to just get the stupid.

If you don't recognize at least a dozen instances of propagandized stories on the evening news your're not paying attention. Don't have any illusions about it - it's a long uphill battle. Look at how many times Ron Paul was the ONLY one to vote a certain way in Congress.

"IQ is does not measure such things, it measures cognitive ability."

Completely wrong. "IQ" is nothing more than an ordinal scale of various "g" factors (derived from test scores) that have been normalized with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Results are not useful outside of the population demographics the test was normed for. Intelligence testing owes much more to the magic of statistics than to any inherent measurement precision. It certainly correlates, to a degree, with cognitive ability. But it is a huge leap to say it measures it.