Jimmy Carter: America No Longer A Democracy

Jimmy Carter Is Correct. The U.S. Is No Longer a Democracy

Posted: 08/03/2015 11:48 am EDT Updated: 08/03/2015 1:59 pm EDT

On July 28th, Thom Hartmann interviewed former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and, at the very end of his show (as if this massive question were merely an after thought), asked him his opinion of the 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon decision, both decisions by the five Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. These two historic decisions enable unlimited secret money (including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and judicial campaigns. Carter answered: "It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it's just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we've just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. ... At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell."

He was then cut off by the program, though that statement by Carter should have been the start of the program, not its end. (And the program didn't end with an invitation for him to return to discuss this crucial matter in depth -- something for which he's qualified.)

So: was this former president's provocative allegation merely his opinion? Or was it actually lots more than that? It was lots more than that.

Only a single empirical study has actually been done in the social sciences regarding whether the historical record shows that the United States has been, during the survey's period, which in that case was between 1981 and 2002, a democracy (a nation whose leaders represent the public-at-large), or instead an aristocracy (or 'oligarchy') -- a nation in which only the desires of the richest citizens end up being reflected in governmental actions. This study was titled "Testing Theories of American Politics,"and it was published by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page in the journalPerspectives on Politics, issued by the American Political Science Association in September 2014. I had summarized it earlier, on 14 April 2014, while the article was still awaiting its publication.

Is the US an oligarchy?

What do you think?

Do you think the wealthy have too much political power?

7,050 votes

94%

Click chart for answers

2 save share 4

The headline of my summary-article was "U.S. Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy Says Scientific Study." I reported: "The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's 'news' media)." I then quoted the authors' own summary: "The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

The scientific study closed by saying: "In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule--at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes." A few other tolerably clear sentences managed to make their ways into this well-researched, but, sadly, atrociously written, paper, such as: "The preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of 'affluent' citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do." In other words, they found: The rich rule the U.S.

Their study investigated specifically "1,779 instances between 1981 and 2002 in which a national survey of the general public asked a favor/oppose question about a proposed policy change," and then the policy-follow-ups, of whether or not the polled public preferences had been turned into polices, or, alternatively, whether the relevant corporate-lobbied positions had instead become public policy on the given matter, irrespective of what the public had wanted concerning it.

The study period, 1981-2002, covered the wake of the landmark 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Valeo, which had started the aristocratic assault on American democracy, and which seminal (and bipartisan) pro-aristocratic court decision is described as follows by wikipedia: It "struck down on First Amendment grounds several provisions in the 1974 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The most prominent portions of the case struck down limits on spending in campaigns, but upheld the provision limiting the size of individual contributions to campaigns. The Court also narrowed, and then upheld, the Act's disclosure provisions, and struck down (on separation of powers grounds) the make-up of the Federal Election Commission, which as written allowed Congress to directly appoint members of the Commission, an executive agency."

Basically, the Buckley decision, and subsequent (increasingly partisan Republican) Supreme Court decisions, have allowed aristocrats to buy and control politicians.

Already, the major 'news' media were owned and controlled by the aristocracy, and 'freedom of the press' was really just freedom of aristocrats to control the 'news' -- to frame public issues in the ways the owners want. The media managers who are appointed by those owners select, in turn, the editors who, in their turn, hire only reporters who produce the propaganda that's within the acceptable range for the owners, to be 'the news' as the public comes to know it.

But, now, in the post-Buckley-v.-Valeo world, from Reagan on (and the resulting study-period of 1981-2002), aristocrats became almost totally free to buy also the political candidates they wanted. The 'right' candidates, plus the 'right' 'news'-reporting about them, has thus bought the 'right' people to 'represent' the public, in the new American 'democracy,' which Jimmy Carter now aptly calls "subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors."

Carter -- who had entered office in 1977, at the very start of that entire era of transition into an aristocratically controlled United States (and he left office in 1981, just as the study-period was starting) -- expressed his opinion that, in the wake now of the two most extreme pro-aristocratic U.S. Supreme Court decisions ever (which areCitizens United in 2010, and McCutcheon in 2014), American democracy is really only past tense, not present tense at all -- no longer a reality.

He is saying, in effect, that, no matter how much the U.S. was a dictatorship by the rich during 1981-2002 (the Gilens-Page study era), it's far worse now.

Apparently, Carter is correct: The New York Times front page on Sunday 2 August 2015 bannered, "Small Pool of Rich Donors Dominates Election Giving," and reported that: "A New York Times analysis of Federal Election Commission reports and Internal Revenue Service records shows that the fund-raising arms race has made most of the presidential hopefuls deeply dependent on a small pool of the richest Americans. The concentration of donors is greatest on the Republican side, according to the Times analysis, where consultants and lawyers have pushed more aggressively to exploit the looser fund-raising rules that have fueled the rise of super PACs. Just 130 or so families and their businesses provided more than half the money raised through June by Republican candidates and their super PACs."

The Times study shows that the Republican Party is overwhelmingly advantaged by the recent unleashing of big-corporate money power. All of the evidence suggests that though different aristocrats compete against each other for the biggest chunks of whatever the given nation has to offer, they all compete on the same side against the public, in order to lower the wages of their workers, and to lower the standards for consumers' safety and welfare so as to increase their own profits (transfer their costs and investment-losses onto others); and, so, now, the U.S. is soaring again toward Gilded Age economic inequality, perhaps to surpass the earlier era of unrestrained robber barons. And, the Times study shows: even in the Democratic Party, the mega-donations are going to only the most conservative (pro-corporate, anti-public) Democrats. Grass-roots politics could be vestigial, or even dead, in the new America.

The question has become whether the unrestrained power of the aristocracy is locked in this time even more permanently than it was in that earlier era. Or: will there be yet another FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) to restore a democracy that once was? Or: is a president like that any longer even possible in America?

As for today's political incumbents: they now have their careers for as long as they want and are willing to do the biddings of their masters. And, then, they retire to become, themselves, new members of the aristocracy, such as the Clintons have done, and such as the Obamas will do. (Of course, the Bushes have been aristocrats since early in the last century.)

Furthermore, the new age of aristocratic control is not merely national but international in scope; so, the global aristocracy have probably found the formula that will keep them in control until they destroy the entire world. What's especially interesting is that, with all of the many tax-exempt, 'non-profit' 'charities,' which aristocrats have established, none of them is warring to defeat the aristocracy itself -- to defeat the aristocrats' system of exploitation of the public. It's the one thing they won't create a 'charity' for; none of them will go to war against the expoitative interests of themselves and of their own exploitative peers. They're all in this together, even though they do compete amongst themselves for dominance, as to which ones of them will lead against the public. And the public seem to accept this modern form of debt-bondage, perhaps because of the 'news' they see, and because of the news they don't see (such as this).

----------

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

In the news




Jimmy Carter Is Correct That the U.S. Is No Longer a Democracy

Huffington Post‎ - 1 day ago
American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run ...
We Are No Longer A Democracy
Canada Free Press‎ - 10 hours ago
More news for america no longer a democracy

---

US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study ...

www.commondreams.org/.../us-oligarchy-...





Common Dreams NewsCenter

Apr 14, 2014 - In America, money talks... and democracy dies under its crushing weight. ... American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the .... that will no longer "enrich the haves at the expense of the have nots,” so ...

America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic ...

www.washingtontimes.com/.../americas-oligarchy...





The Washington Times

Apr 21, 2014 - America is no longer a democracy — never mind the democratic-republic envision by Founding Fathers. Rather, it's taken a turn down elitist ...

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - BBC News

www.bbc.com/.../blogs-echochambers-2...





British Broadcasting Corporation

Apr 17, 2014 - "American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" ...

U.S. more oligarchy than democracy, study suggests | MSNBC

www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-us-no-longer-democracy





Apr 19, 2014 - Americans may like to think they live in a Democracy, but a new ... It also found that the preferences of the middle class made essentially no difference to a bill's fate. ... titled “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, .... It seems MSNBC takes awhile longer than the rest of us to figure out ...

[PDF]Testing Theories of American Politics - Scholars at Princeton

scholar.princeton.edu/.../gilens_and_page_2014_-te...





Princeton University

by EE Domination - ‎2014 - ‎Cited by 157 - ‎Related articles

groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence. Our results ...American democracy and by identifying some of the directions for future ...

America No Longer a Democracy President Jimmy Carter ...



https://plus.google.com/.../posts/96KzqnktCE7





Fat Bastardo

Apr 16, 2015 - America No Longer a Democracy President Jimmy Carter said it and believes and the same is true for Ron Paul. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont believes that ...

Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy

www.mintpressnews.com/princeton...u...no-longer...democracy/198678/





Nov 10, 2014 - A new study shows that America may no longer be the democracy it's celebrated as.

Is America an Oligarchy? - The New Yorker

www.newyorker.com/news/john.../is-america-an-oligarc...





The New Yorker

Apr 18, 2014 - “Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have ... such as “STUDY: US IS AN OLIGARCHY, NOT A DEMOCRACY,” from, of all ... There can be no doubt that economic élites have a disproportionate ...

US No Longer A Democracy. 94% of Americans Believe ...



https://plus.google.com/.../posts/NBaUUBHMHo6





Fat Bastardo

Aug 9, 2014 - US No Longer A Democracy. 94% of Americans Believe That. This it not just me saying this and it is not just the tea party. It's most Americans of every political ...

Hottest Years On Record: The Facts On Global Warming

Whether you call it climate change or global warming 97% of climate scientists agree that it is happening and human activity is the cause. The 3% of scientist who disagree are corporate whores, liars and traitors and need to be facing a firing squad.

Republican corporate fuck wads will tell their low IQ Republican base that human activity is not the cause but the FACTS (Republicans HATE facts.) Humans have created the rise is CO2 but the climate deniers/liars like that brutal whore Sarah Palin will tell you that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Palin actually believes that humans lived with dinosaurs. I guess any mother who would raise a whore for a daughter believes that the Flintstones were real.

RELATED: 

American Lung Association lauds Clean Power Plan for protecting vulnerable citizens CLICK HERE

Scientists point to often overlooked health benefits of limiting carbon emissions

Another Republican Headed To Prison

Texas Sized Republican Turd Ken Paxton

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A grand jury has indicted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on felony securities fraud charges that accuse the Republican of misleading investors before he took over as the state's top law enforcement officer, a special prosecutor said Saturday.

Kent Schaffer, a Houston defense attorney appointed by a judge to the case, told The New York Times that a Texas grand jury indicted Paxton on two counts of first-degree securities fraud and a lesser charge of not registering.

The most serious allegation is that he encouraged investment in McKinney-based tech startup company Servergy Inc., which is now under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Associated Press reported Paxton's involvement with the company — and that a federal investigation was under way — last month.

Paxton also was fined last year for not disclosing to Texas securities regulators that he was getting commissions for soliciting investors.

The grand jury returned an indictment and the criminal prosecution is now pending, the first such criminal prosecution of a Texas Attorney General in 32 years since Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox was indicted for bribery in 1983.

Read more about this Texas Republican Scumbag by Clicking here.

Fat Women and the Low Self Esteem Excuse

The following article was written by CG Brady. I met him on a bariatric surgery site right after a fall on an airport escalator caused by a diabetic coma diabetic. He told the truth about gastric bypass surgery, gluttony and weight loss. We had a spirited debate and I was throwing a lot of fattitude and fatty denial at him. He gave as good as he took it and finally his inescapable logic penetrated my thick skull. I decided that living without, diabetes, heart attacks, chronic pain and immobility meant more to me than food. I had never denied that I was a glutton and to this day I Fat Bastardo do not judge gluttons or hedonists. Gluttony is a choice and unlike those pathetic fat girls I never denied that fact. Thanks to CG, I have tempered my hedonistic gluttony with a more epicurean lifestyle and some temperance. I am alive and well today thanks to CG Brady and his incremental weight loss method and fattitude adjustments. 

I have always been fat neutral and never weight loss anti diet. I have never been a gluttony denier but more of a promoter of gluttony. True fat acceptance is gluttony acceptance. It is also diabetes acceptance, heart disease acceptance, hip and knee replacement acceptance and early grave acceptance. I got to the point where I was almost talked into weight loss surgery until CG showed me a better way. My heart disease is reversed and my other ailments have vanished. 

I remain the leader of the new man friendly fat/gluttony acceptance movement because fat men are the silent victims and I remain their voice.
 

The Self-Esteem Myth and Fat Women

by CG Brady

As part of my research I went on to a diet forum that was primarily Atkins. The administrator was an angry fat girl -- talk about the blind leading the blind.

I posted a study by Temple University that showed who "high self esteem" makes and keeps adult females fat. I explored that premise and I dug a bit deeper in the chaotic psyche of the fat woman. Their nastiness and delusion speaks for itself.

Proof That High Self-Esteem Keeps You Fat

How High Self-Esteem Keeps You Fat


A new study sheds light on why some women find it difficult to lose weight. When obese women have positive self-image, 1 in 5 will choose a silhouette of an obese woman as being at her “ideal” body weight.


This study also supports other research that has shown that fat people tend to have fat friends. Alcoholics or drug addicts who are overcoming addiction are taught to get rid of the friends that enable their dangerous behaviors.

Maybe a person on a diet needs to do the same?


In research published in the May issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Temple researchers studied the body image perceptions of 81 underweight, normal weight, overweight or obese women in the North Philadelphia area and found that as their body mass index (BMI) increased, two-thirds of the women still felt they were at an ideal body size.

Research published in the May issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Temple researchers studied the body image perceptions of 81 underweight, normal weight, overweight or obese women in the North Philadelphia area and found that as their body mass index (BMI) increased, two-thirds of the women still felt they were at an ideal body size.


"So the question for doctors then becomes, 'How can we effectively treat our overweight and obese patients, when they don't feel they're in harm's way?'" said study researcher Marisa Rose, M.D., assistant professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences in the Temple University School of Medicine. "It stresses a need for culturally sensitive education for this population."


All participants were measured for height and weight and completed an anonymous survey to determine their self-perceived, current and ideal body sizes. Each woman was then shown an illustration of different-sized women that correlated with increasing BMIs, and were asked which size they felt they were at currently, and what their ideal would be.


While most of the participants selected illustrations of women in the normal to overweight range, about 20 percent of the obese women selected an overweight or obese silhouette as their ideal body shape. Further, 68 percent (15 out 22) of overweight participants and 84 percent (26 of 31) of obese women underestimated their current BMI. African-American and Hispanic women had significantly underestimated their current body size, while the white women overestimated.
Rose and her fellow researchers say this is the first study to evaluate body image discrepancy specifically in the inner-city population of women seeking gynecologic care.


"For this group, gynecologists often serve as the primary care provider as well," said Rose. "As more women become obese and overweight, it becomes critical for gynecologists to know how to talk to their patients about the adverse effects of obesity."
The researchers say that their next course of action is to determine from a more diverse population whether the trend of women incorrectly perceiving their body size extends to most underweight, overweight and obese women or whether the trend is specific to the inner-city population.
"Informing our patients about the dangers of obesity, even when they feel they're not at risk, can help empower them to change their lifestyles and lead healthier lives," said Rose.

Other authors on the study were: Sushma Potti, M.D.; Marina Milli, M.D.; Stacey Jeronis, M.D.; and John P. Gaughan, Ph.D of Temple University School of medicine.

The first response came from a paranoid bitch Michael B:

So the article appears to be indicating that the problem stems from not high self esteem, but lack of recognition that one is obese or at an unhealthy weight.

I don't see crushing a patent's self esteem as the solution they offer. Instead, they indicate that "it becomes critical for gynecologists to know how to talk to their patients about the adverse effects of obesity." 

Moreover, you might take note of another point made in the article, "It stresses a need for culturally sensitive education for this population." Basically, the audience will heed your advice and be more receptive you your message, if you approach them from a non-judgmental position.  

 My Response:

Here are my comments on the above article.

It is scientifically valid.

It was done by some very bright people at a very good university

There are other studies and research than backs up Temple's findings findings including an exhaustive survey of several thousand completed and graded MMPI indices and other psychometric tests.

Casual observation of the obese reveals much of what this experiment revealed. Other researchers have found that if fat people did not have higher self esteem than the general population then they would lack the psychological fortitude to be seen in public.

In a private message I told the forum admin here that it is my belief that fat people have what is commonly referred to as high self-esteem. I told him if he wanted to see "low self esteem" all he need do is observe an anorexic. The idea that fat people have low self-esteem is a logical fallacy. Now the "fat people have low self-esteem" myth has been busted.

At this point I will bid you all a fond adieu. If you would like me to explain why the obese develop higher self esteem than the general population then simply respond to this thread.

Another fat girl liar responds:

I'm not sure your game. If it's trolling then you're doing a good job because you're getting a lot of responses. If you're trying to sell people on your method or your intelligence then misinterpreting a study might not be the best way to go about it. First of all proof is almost impossible, second of all the proof that you find is different than what the researchers appear to be studying.

Self Esteem /= to body image. There is no evidence that the people in the study are fatter because of their body image. Although I'd agree it's possible. And there's no evidence that being happy with your weight keeps you fatter than someone who is unhappy with their weight. Considering studies that show dieting results in higher overall weight on average it might have the opposite outcome. Basically the problem is you're taking a study and simplifying it way too much for it to remain useful. 

I'd tend to agree with Michael that this study is probably most helpful in providing a different way to try and tackle the obesity problem. Not for making absolute truths. 

EDIT: I find it a bit hard to believe that a research scientist would have such difficulty understanding the research process. So I'd have to assume you're either trolling or making up false titles. 


Followed by another sneaky liar:

Interesting article, and I think I get what they are saying. But a sample size of 81 hardly “proves” anything… depending on the variables the were using the data in such a small sample is prone to being skewed by a few outliers. My inner nerd is curious to see their raw data.

Anecdotally (which doesn’t prove anything either). I don’t know any obese women that feel good about their bodies. I knew a few that have accepted their bodies, but I wouldn’t say they have a very positive body image. I do know some obese men that like their bodies. Even though they have high self esteem, they still talk about needing to lose weight for health reasons. It would be interesting to see a similar study with male participants. 

The main point of the article makes sense, though, that if you are happy with your physique you are less likely to want to change it. I don’t think you are necessarily getting the same conclusions as the authors stated. You seem to have an agenda, which I am still not understanding… 

Posting this article, though, still makes me think that maybe you are coming for the perspective of anti-fat acceptance. I mentioned in a previous thread that was locked that this website doesn’t promote fat acceptance. We are all striving to lose weight and be healthy. So, again, we may not be the audience you think we are. (I hate to generalize with a “we” like that… I don’t speak for everyone of course. That is just my assessment of this website based on my first month of being a member here.) 

Are you really here for purely altruistic purposes? Or are you selling your services? A book? Are you just bored and you like to post on forums? What up? 

Of course… since you bid us “a fond adieu”, I assume you are done doing whatever it you wanted to do here. Good luck being a “research scientist”.

My response:

Dr Albert Ellis, father of Rational Emotive Therapy pretty much proved that this thing we call self esteem is a very dangerous thing. Ellis contended that it was because self-esteem is conditional. I agree with that but I take it a few steps further. The idea of self esteem is a nebulous concept at best. It is not really measurable. For instance an Amish person may be perfectly well adjusted but the Amish are a humble people who are taught humility. Someone may see that as "low self-esteem". I see it as humility. Humility is one of the heavenly virtues. 

As to culture; if you were to look at the obesity maps you will see that the Bible belt leads the country in obesity. If you examine what these people believe you will find that they believe that grace or being born again assure them a place in heaven. In a sense they think they are better than everyone else. They lack humility. They are also the fattest people on earth. They ignore the Biblical warnings about excess as they drive their SUVs and gobble down everything in sight at there church picnics.

As to culture; Americans are the fattest people on earth. We are a culture of excess and pride. The humble and frugal Japanese have an obesity rate of 3.2% whereas the prideful and wasteful Americans have an obesity rate of over 30% according to this site Obesity statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

I don't see how being "sensitive" to a destructive cultural behavior is going to make people do the right thing. Take your average over weight Southerner. He needs to stop behaving like a Southerner and Americans as a whole need to stop behaving like the greedy professional consumers they have become. We like to blame fast food and large portions but they fact is the companies who offer fast food and obscenely large portions are merely giving the consumer what he wants. Think about it. If McDonald when back to its 1970's portion sizes they would be out of business in a few months.

Americans did not get fat by being frugal, humble, or responsible. Americans got fat by being prideful, irresponsible and gluttonous about everything. That is why by 2020 America will become disabled by obesity. You don't want to hear it but is is the entire truth.

I spit in their soup. 

Liar MichaelB Responds again: Here is how this piggy lies:

My main thought was just that it's a pretty rough generalization to say that all obese people "suffer" from high self-esteem. Some may have a positive body image, but that's not necessarily the situation with everyone.

Nobody has said ALL fat people suffer from high self esteem/egoism. See how they lie?

Just as everyone's body loses weight a little differently, everyone's situation in life is a little different. Our experiences, our history, our past has shaped us. And even though we may all be obese as a group, we may have gotten here via very different paths and for very different reasons. 

Sorry liar, you all got fat the same way. You ALL ate irresponsibly!
My response in general: 

A couple of points I need to correct. There are other studies that back the Temple study. Several years ago a survey of the MMPI showed the same thing. ie fat people have high self-esteem

I am anti-fat acceptance. What is fat acceptance? When a spouse goes from a size 6 to an 8 and does nothing about it, that is a form of fat acceptance. When that spouse reaches 250 pound and her hubby complains and her response is, "If you loved me you would accept me for what I am" that is fat acceptance. If a parent allows their kids to eat unhealthy food that to is fat acceptance. The organized fat acceptance movement promotes obesity, misinformation, myths, bad health, and gluttony and the call it HAES Health At Every Size. 

If you are losing weight in a sense you are a recovering fat acceptor. I am lean because I find for myself being fat is completely unacceptable. Is it unacceptable to me that people are fat? I suppose it is when they lie and say they barely eat or otherwise don't admit their gluttony. 

Ahhhh Altruism. I am here for insight and to help. I have nothing to sell and I even offered to help one member here free of charge. I will not accept paying clients from this site unless the admin wants me to. 

More Altruism: One thing that helps my clients turn the corner is when I ask them for noble or unselfish reasons for why hey want to regain good health. I start out asking them why the want to regain good health and so far none of them have given and altruistic reason. When I gently force the issue they really have to give it some thought and they struggle to come up with some. When I ask them why they want to lose weight the answers are right on the tip of their tongue and they always start with I and end with me. I don't think selfish reasons should be on the tips of their tongues or in the forefront of their motivation to take the steps required to get healthy.

What I do is lead clients to the right information and help them apply it. It is actually quite easy. I have had a lot of success and I continue to hone my skills. I hope someday that my protocols are used everywhere. I think you will agree that everything tried so far has not worked. People who continue my program usually get results in 6 to 12 sessions. If they don't get results I will not accept payment. If they do get results I will not accept payment until they are close to or at their goal. They pay me what they think my services are worth. That may not be altruism but it's pretty damn close.

Again, do not PM me for contact info. I will not post any contact info so don't ask. Your admin has the info. If you wish to contact me ask him for it. I am not here to drum up business. I am here to discuss obesity its cause and it cure.

My more specific response: 

It is not a generalization but it is a fact that most obese people have higher slef esteem people at low or healthy weights. Michael Jackson before doctors killed him, suffered from horribly low self esteem and he starved himself to death while the people around him bled him dry. What is also interesting about Michael Jackson's situation is that no fat girls who hate skinny women called him anorexic or feigned concern for his health and well being. Fat girls are quite dishonest, delusional and hateful.

For most people, junk food pleasures are a greater payoff than good health and an attractive body. People get fat for most of the same reasons. There is no mystery as to why they chronically eat too many calories. Believe me, you guys are not that special. Food and its pleasures mean more to most people than good health, attractiveness, personal and social responsibility. That is a tough pill to swallow but it is the case.  

MamaPig chimes in with a lie fest. 

Your post made it sound like I've pm'ed you for contact information. I've never done that, nor am I interested in doing that. Perhaps that was directed at another member?

I am trying to assume that you are coming from a good place and that you aren't simply here to get some twisted jollies. I want you to be this guy  and not this guy  ... but right now you are this guy . Oh, I love emoticons.
 

I don't think people here disagree with the basics of what you are saying (well... most of the basics). We all know that we got fat eating too much and exercising too little. As far as I can see, most of us are remedying the problem by eating a reduced calorie diet and exercising.

I think the advice you have given regarding weight loss (at least that which I can tease out from your posts) is really pretty much in line with what everyone here seems to already know and already be acting on. I think you are just losing people on your tough love (?) delivery. 

And... I just have to ask. You don't have to answer, because it isn't any of my business. But... in a couple of posts now you have stated that you dislike fat people. Why have you gone into a business where fat people are your clients? Same reason someone who hates teenagers becomes a juvenile corrections officer?

My response: 

You seem to be reading things that are not there. First please show me where I said or even implied that you PM'd me. You are welcome to PM me even though you called me an asshole.

Second show me where I said or even implied that I dislike fat people.

You speak of tough love. I would not characterize what I do as being tough love. It may be an act love or just a little bit of human decency ie showing people how not to commit suicide with food. My approach challenges irrational thinking, statements and behaviors. Regarding their obesity, fat people often engage in irrational thinking. Fat people often make irrational statements and for sure their behaviors regarding how they feed and care for themselves are irrational. A rational person would not chronically indulge in caloric poisoning but that is what they do. 

Part of the reason I am effective is because of the language I choose. I don't mince words because for something as important as this you can't mince words. Do you think I want to see you fail and get sick and die before your time? Some people really would like to see fat people die off because they find fat people so offensive. I would not judge those people either. 

Are you going to reject the truth of what I am saying because you don't like my style? I am not going to salve you or anyone else. I tell it like it is. People today are not used to that. If you had cancer and there was a good 40% chance that treatment would save your life would you want your doctor to keep that information from you for fear of upsetting you? 

I have a pretty good idea as to why you are an over eater and how you can stop. If you would like to discuss it let me know. We can do it in this thread if you like.

More deception from Monique:

There are so many problems with the posts made by this asshole I don't think it's worth my time to address them all. But as MichaelB and MamaPig have pointed out: "proof" is FAR too strong a word for a group of 81 women in which ONLY 20% of the ONLY 31 obese women -- which makes 6 women -- identified EITHER the overweight OR the obese silhouette as ideal. Actually it makes 6.2 women, which means the percentages were rounded up! You are saying that if SIX WOMEN who are obese don't recognize the current, medically-preferred body type you can generalize about all obese people? Not to mention that body-image and self-esteem are completely different issues!

So the solution in your mind is to assume that all obese people must have overly high self esteem, even though the vast majority -- 80 percent! -- did NOT think they had the ideal body. And you feel the best way to counteract that is to be insensitive? I do not think you have a "style." I think what you are calling honesty is oversimplification and a lack of empathy or humanity. And your "language" would be more effective if you bothered to do some basic copy editing on your posts. I wish your "adieu" had been genuine! 


My response:

You may want to read a bit more carefully.

Where did I say fat people have OVERLY high self esteem? If you had read what I had written you would see that I never said that. If you had read with a normal amount of reading comprehension you would know by now that I think self esteem is pretty much a myth. What fat people have IMO is called egoism. True self esteem is conditional. Egoism isn't. 

What that study really proves is that fat and obese are now the new normal. 

As to the adieu you need to go back and read what I wrote and you need to stop lying.

The article that admin posted that I wrote was ALTERED and posted on this site Bigger Fatter Blog The owner of this site is a member of what they call the new fat acceptance. These people are militantly anti diet. There are about 400+ fat acceptance websites in something they call the fatosphere. They come to diet forums and use a sophisticated disinformation technique. Most of the FA blogs are highly censored but Bigger Fatter Blog isn't. 

Here is the BFB mission statement. There are about 6 sites similar to BFB that I know of.

Bigger Fatter Blog 

This is the next phase in fat acceptance. The days of justifying our fatness by saying we have a mysterious genetic or metabolic disorder are over. We now freely admit and embrace what the fat haters would call gluttony. We fatlings are no longer apologists for our size nor for our greedy gluttony. We are fat because we eat huge amounts of food and we like it. If you don't like it get used to it because fat people are now the overwhelming majority.


BFB is a male run FA site. 99% of the FA sites are female run and most FA members are female. The FA culture is very very sick. They indulge in strange sexual fetishes such as feederism and crushing. They are not particularly fond of fat men but they encourage men called fat admirers to have sex with them. Fat Bastard and Proud FA are the owners of the site and regulars at fat conventions that are pretty much orgies of food and sex. They started their site because they think men are treated badly by fat women and they think the current fat acceptance is dishonest. I agree with them on that. They are one of many sites who promote gormandizing and excess. They see fat people as the new royalty. They really dislike me and they try to prank and monkey wrench people like me MeMe Roth.  

Liar Monique lies:

So what's your point, and how is that relevant to our site? The version of your article you provided had no differences I could determine besides the addition of comments in italics, which the Admin explained he had left out. And you already explained the context in another thread, which I still don't think excuses your description of a client as a hooked fish or the use of insulting terms like "gluttony" and "laziness" in regards to the people this forum is intended to help.

I don't care about the Fat Acceptance movement particularly and I CERTAINLY don't care about your feelings about it. Why do you feel the need to research and then share the sexual fetishes of a group you hate? I don't care what consenting adults do in their bedrooms. Why would you care if other people like to have sex with women you find unattractive? It sounds like sour grapes to me! Anyway that's not what this site is about. This site is about how to get healthier when you're obese. 
"They really dislike me and they try to prank and monkey wrench people like me and MeMe Roth."

From this comment I suspect you are just here to vent about how this other forum doesn't like you. I also suspect you might be a 12-year-old. Frankly I can see why they don't like you if you continually post obnoxious and inaccurate information and then ignore requests for clarification. Why don't you take your own advice and stop feeling sorry for yourself about people not liking you? Now you know how you make fat people feel!

My response: 

It is relevant because the statements they, you and others attributed to me came from that site. I explained the context and you still tried to say they were my words. You are pissed because I busted you on your I barely eat BS using the laws of physics as undeniable proof. You got owned and you got busted and now you are lying. And BTW it is not my article. The article was written be obesity experts and psychologist at the prestigious Temple University. 

Obnoxious is in the eye of the beholder but inaccurate is not. You cannot find one thing I said that is inaccurate. Again, stop lying. Do you even have the self control to do that? I doubt it.

I don't know how all fat people feel but I do know how they often behave. 

I love it when scumbags don't like me. It validates me. Do you like me. 

As to the sick and dangerous practices of the fat acceptors goes, of course you don't care about it. I on the other hand have a strong sense of personal and social responsibility so the idea of feeding someone to purposely make them gain weight and reach morbidly obese proportions is a concern of mine as many of these people have children. Then again I am not so self absorbed that I don't consider the fate of others. Unlike YOU I don't turn a blind eye to such atrocities.

Hooked fish? I never said that. STOP LYING! 

Here is a definition of gluttony :Excess in eating or drinking. How is that insulting? You are really really obese. Are you saying that an excess in eating and drinking didn't make you fat and doesn't keep you fat?

If someone were to say accuse you of gluttony what could you say to prove them wrong? You do eat to excess. So why are you not a glutton? Do you prefer the term over eater? Gormandizer? 

Lazy? Tell me why this doesn't apply to you. You are what the fat acceptors would call super sized. You have been that way for quite sometime. RIGHT? You were not born weighing nearly 350 pounds. You know what to to to not be fat but obviously you didn't do it. Would you call that ambitious? 

If someone were to say that behavior was that of a lazy person and that in fact you were lazy why would they be wrong? When it comes to your weight tell me why your behavior has not been that of a lazy person. 

Tell me why other obese people are not lazy and gluttonous. You accused me of calling fat people lazy gluttons. I did not even call them lazy gluttons. Would you prefer languid over-indulgers? How about shiftless gormands? Perhaps slothful over eaters? Do any of these descriptions fit? If not what does fit people who knowingly eat too much and do nothing about it?

You ask why I am concerned about men having sex with obese women. As long as they don't get them pregnant. That would be a disaster. Fat women should NOT get pregnant. That is child abuse plain and simple!!  

Monique the angry glutton lies again: 

I don't want to address your presumptions about me because I don't want to get into personal attacks and name calling. I did that once before in frustration and I regret it because I now see you like that reaction. You want to be able to claim you're being bullied and censored and all that. But my problem with your posts is really what you are saying, not who you are.

Your assertion that having children while overweight is in and of itself child abuse is so completely unfounded I don't know how to respond. I would ask you to explain how excess weight on the part of the parents even affects parenting at all but I know you'll only ask more stupid rhetorical questions to try and distract us from your inability to clarify what you haven't fully considered. You would then have to defend the ridiculous position that people with known health risks should not have families because it is abusive to create children unless you are in perfect health. Wow, that would have a lot of civil rights implications! How do we determine who is healthy enough by your standards to reproduce? Maybe those unfit in your eyes should be sterilized? Or possibly you just think it is abusive to have children when not attractive to you personally? Does your sexual preference alone determine who may and may not reproduce? Why aren't men allowed to be attracted to obese women in your mind? Are women allowed to be attracted to obese men? Can obese men get non-obese women pregnant? 


NOTE: Obesity more than doubles the risk of many major birth defects and autism. 

Monique continues: Your moral issues with sex and reproduction are pretty complicated. I don't know if you have ever been in love or had sex yourself, but I suspect not. If you had you would know that in general orgies nowadays involve birth control.  

Note: I suspect that this liar has kids that are disabled up due to her obesity/gluttony and the poor parenting skills so many fat girls demonstrate.

All these people are obese. They are all looking for a way to not be fat yet still maintain their current gluttonous lifestyles.  They choose low carb because with the Atkins diet you can eat as much as you want as long as it is fat and protein. They fail miserably not only because they lack self-control but also because low carb is a recipe for failure.